Tennesee joins a growing number of "forced blood draw checkpoint" states.

Because, you know, nothing says freedom like ten cops manhandling you onto a stretcher and taking your blood.

I hate to say I told you so yet again, but I told you this would happen, ten years ago, I can remember debating this subject with people on WOL and being shouted down as a "conspiracy theorist" when I said that it will only be short matter of time before mandatory blood drawing checkpoints are introduced.

Well...



Tennessee to roll out “No Refusal” blood-draw DUI checkpoints for Labor Day

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/tennessee-roll-refusal-blood-draw-dui-checkpoints-labor-day/

TENNESSEE — Labor Day: another holiday, another excuse to push the limits of the police power over citizens.  All across the state, Tennessee police will be performing another round of highly-publicized “no refusal” blood-draw DUI checkpoints this weekend.  With police armed with a 2012 law that allows them to forcibly extract blood from drivers, its a bad time to be a citizen who does not consent to searches.

Forcible blood draws began in Tennessee in 2009, being used only for cases of vehicular assault.  In all other circumstances, the blood draws were not forcible.  They could be declined, with the understanding the DUI suspect’s driver’s license would be suspended.  Tennessee calls it the Implied Consent Statute.

That changed January 1, 2012, with the enactment of a new law that took away that choice for suspects to decline with a license suspension.  Ever since the law took effect, police can obtain rubber-stamped warrants to forcibly extract blood from any driver they decide is a DUI suspect.

Additionally, the new law now mandates blood be drawn from citizens in a variety of circumstances.  No longer limited to vehicular assault cases, police are not required to take the blood of any DUI suspect who has ever had a DUI conviction in their life, according to WBIR.   The other requirement is that blood be drawn from any suspect who has a person under the age of 16 in the car.  The rest of the blood-draw cases are done upon seeking a readily available warrant.



(Looks like freedom, North Korea Style. - AF)

In light of these new powers, the latest fad in Tennessee law enforcement is setting up “no refusal” checkpoints, having  a judge or a judicial commissioner on call to churn out blood warrants on demand.  Rather than spread out across a town, looking for probable cause to stop vehicles, police set stop everyone, lacking any tangible reason to initiate each stop.

These so-called “no refusal” checkpoints involve police blocking a public road, sometimes forcing drivers into a parking lot, where they will be forced to prove their innocence to police officers.  The lucky ones will be allowed to continue their journey down the public street after brief questioning and harassment.  Drivers who draw police interest — say, for being less than thrilled about being subjected to police checkpoints on American streets — may be put through field sobriety tests and may ultimately told that they will either voluntarily submit to a search, or they will be forcibly be subjected to a search.  I am referring to breath and blood searches.

This Labor Day weekend, at least a dozen counties in Tennessee will be launching the “no refusal” checkpoints, according to NewsChannel5.com.  The state has been rolling out the checkpoints en masse on holiday weekends, getting the public acclimated to the idea of mandatory blood draws in the land of the free.  

“Any time government is allowed to commit a seizure of your body and withdraw evidence prior to being arrested for a crime opens the door for a lot of issues,” said defense attorney Gregory P. Isaacs, referring to the law change in 2012. “This law really opens Pandora’s box on virtually every DUI stop and weakens all of our fundamental freedoms.”

The blood draws, if they are anything like the ones performed in Georgia, involve hustling suspects back to the police station where they are strapped to a table, put in a headlock, and have their blood forcibly removed with a syringe.  One man felt so violated by the procedure that hey asked, “What country is this?” saying that the practice reminded him of something that would go on inside a prison camp like Guantanamo Bay.  

Invariably, apologists will say, “If you don’t like dealing with police, don’t break the law.”  Yeah, if only.  That doesn’t work in a society where police go around performing random “stop & frisk” searches and conducting “no refusal” checkpoints.  Encounters with police are no longer limited to being initiated based on suspicion of a crime being committed.  “Don’t break the law” is a nonsense excuse, ignoring the modern state of law enforcement.  Its becoming harder and harder to live without government agents interjecting themselves into your life.  And if you think that innocent people don’t get harassed and charged with DUIs, tell that to Jessie Thornton.

I’m not disputing that drinking and driving is bad behavior.  But it is simply wrong to treat people like they are guilty until proven innocent.  Checkpoints are offensive tactics that would never be found in a truly free society.  Police should spread themselves out and actually look for reasons to justifiably stop vehicles for breaking traffic laws, rather than shutting down traffic and harassing loads of innocent people.  Furthermore, tying people down like animals and confiscating their blood for any DUI suspicion is horrifying policy.   The choice of refusal should remain for those who have objection to needles and moral objections to biometric samples being taken by the state.  Tennessee’s old policy of driver’s license suspension upon refusal was superior to this new prison-style “no refusal” procedure.  The scales have tipped way too far toward police power, in Tennessee and other states with these policies.

Ruling class is ruling.

But does it really make any difference if it's a blue boot or a red boot on your face?

News Hawk wrote:Obama will pack the Supreme Court with those who want power over us "Servants of The Government".

Anti Federalist wrote:Ruling class is ruling.

But does it really make any difference if it's a blue boot or a red boot on your face?

Only one boot has killed 100 million people.

News Hawk wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:Ruling class is ruling.

But does it really make any difference if it's a blue boot or a red boot on your face?

Only one boot has killed 100 million people.

Fair point I guess, when you consider that Nazis were socialists.

Meh, call them all what they are: Authoritarians.

Anti, the problem is the Republicans were not supposed to be like they are today-half Democrat. We all know the good ones, too bad we didn't have more of the good ones in office. And too bad the press always attacks them. So I still think Republicans are the better of two evils.

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Hawk wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:Ruling class is ruling.

But does it really make any difference if it's a blue boot or a red boot on your face?

Only one boot has killed 100 million people.

Fair point I guess, when you consider that Nazis were socialists.

What is the difference between "National-Democrat Party" and "National-Socialists Party"?



BTW: Try not to use the phrase "fair point"—it's a sore subject with me.

 

Anti Federalist wrote:Meh, call them all what they are: Authoritarians.

As the "News Crows" desire control (NSA/IRS/stalking, etc.) are now to be called Authoritarians?

I like that.

OL52, if you want to know where your problem is, look no further than the post above!
Authoritarians, Nazi's. Socialists, Crows, Stalkers etc
Do you really think anyone wants to debate that nonsense? And we won't even mention the pictures he posts... 
A sane person won't try to reason with a mental case who just wants to provoke...fsh is another one who only posts provocative nonsense then won't even defend it!
That's why your forum has become boring and petulant...

Progressive = oppressive. You must think the way the left thinks or suffer the wrath of the PC! Do you want anybody to think you are boring and petulant? Follow us ... follow us ... we know what is best for you ... follow us ... follow us ...

fshnski wrote: Do you want anybody to think you are boring and petulant? Follow us ... follow us ... we know what is best for you ... follow us ... follow us ...

See, that's how ignorant this goofball is, he doesn't even know that you OL52, are the one who used the words "boring & petulant"... 
How can you seriously debate that level of "dumb"?

...maybe some insight will be gained by going to fsh's house and describing it for Internet consumption...

 

Oh, wait, not now—there is thunder and lightning everywhere in the region of Lake Winnipesaukee...

Fsh, are you our little goofball???   

News Pigeon wrote:OL52, if you want to know where your problem is, look no further than the post above!
Authoritarians, Nazi's. Socialists, Crows, Stalkers etc
Do you really think anyone wants to debate that nonsense? And we won't even mention the pictures he posts... 
A sane person won't try to reason with a mental case who just wants to provoke...fsh is another one who only posts provocative nonsense then won't even defend it!
That's why your forum has become boring and petulant...

Well, since I am the OP, what do you have to say about the news article posted?

Does this represent any semblance of freedom?

Is this a society you want to live in?

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:OL52, if you want to know where your problem is, look no further than the post above!
Authoritarians, Nazi's. Socialists, Crows, Stalkers etc
Do you really think anyone wants to debate that nonsense? And we won't even mention the pictures he posts... 
A sane person won't try to reason with a mental case who just wants to provoke...fsh is another one who only posts provocative nonsense then won't even defend it!
That's why your forum has become boring and petulant...

Well, since I am the OP, what do you have to say about the news article posted?

Does this represent any semblance of freedom?

Is this a society you want to live in?

In New Hampshire, we're already living in it: our latest BWI /homicide had blood drawn at a hospital. 'Can't recall if a warrant was needed (under NH law).

But at first, I thought your question above was directed at me—but since our most strident Authoritarians, Nazi's. Socialists, Crows, Stalkers etc seem to have opted-out of answering—perhaps permanently—I'll take a shot at it.

 

"Forcible blood draws began in Tennessee in 2009, being used only for cases of vehicular assault.  In all other circumstances, the blood draws were not forcible.  They could be declined, with the understanding the DUI suspect’s driver’s license would be suspended.  Tennessee calls it the Implied Consent Statute."

Since "Vehicular Assault" often results in fatalities, the blood they'd draw could come from someone who requires medical intervention—anyway. What is the value of fingerprints—or any physical evidence—in a case where the perp remains in his car?

(Perhaps "shot-up" by the intended victim).

Witness (eyeball) testimony is readily refuted by the same lawyers who make "the rules". (The Just-Us System).

With serial DWI offenses being the "norm", New Hampshire is notably "soft" on DWI —IMO. Our last BWI /homicide resulted in "Nights in Jail" for one year.



Twenty-five years ago in Florida, a similar BWI case resulted in an 80-year sentence—and he's still in jail!

New Hampshire has only reluctantly used the Death Penalty—for homicides—still, it's been decades.

For a state that desires little in the way of new taxes, New Hampshire's judges are not being very effective with their costly "Life in Prison" sentences.  

(While Texas IS being very effective with the Death Penalty).

I saw a family member have blood drawn by police after an accident while he was in such pain there is no way he even realized what was going on. I don't think that is much different.

WHL wrote:I saw a family member have blood drawn by police after an accident while he was in such pain there is no way he even realized what was going on.  I don't think that is much different.  

It isn't, and is just as abusive.

News Hawk wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:OL52, if you want to know where your problem is, look no further than the post above!
Authoritarians, Nazi's. Socialists, Crows, Stalkers etc
Do you really think anyone wants to debate that nonsense? And we won't even mention the pictures he posts... 
A sane person won't try to reason with a mental case who just wants to provoke...fsh is another one who only posts provocative nonsense then won't even defend it!
That's why your forum has become boring and petulant...

Well, since I am the OP, what do you have to say about the news article posted?

Does this represent any semblance of freedom?

Is this a society you want to live in?

In New Hampshire, we're already living in it: our latest BWI /homicide had blood drawn at a hospital. 'Can't recall if a warrant was needed (under NH law).

But at first, I thought your question above was directed at me—but since our most strident Authoritarians, Nazi's. Socialists, Crows, Stalkers etc seem to have opted-out of answering—perhaps permanently—I'll take a shot at it.

 

"Forcible blood draws began in Tennessee in 2009, being used only for cases of vehicular assault.  In all other circumstances, the blood draws were not forcible.  They could be declined, with the understanding the DUI suspect’s driver’s license would be suspended.  Tennessee calls it the Implied Consent Statute."

Since "Vehicular Assault" often results in fatalities, the blood they'd draw could come from someone who requires medical intervention—anyway. What is the value of fingerprints—or any physical evidence—in a case where the perp remains in his car?

(Perhaps "shot-up" by the intended victim).

Witness (eyeball) testimony is readily refuted by the same lawyers who make "the rules". (The Just-Us System).

With serial DWI offenses being the "norm", New Hampshire is notably "soft" on DWI —IMO. Our last BWI /homicide resulted in "Nights in Jail" for one year.



Twenty-five years ago in Florida, a similar BWI case resulted in an 80-year sentence—and he's still in jail!

New Hampshire has only reluctantly used the Death Penalty—for homicides—still, it's been decades.

For a state that desires little in the way of new taxes, New Hampshire's judges are not being very effective with their costly "Life in Prison" sentences.  

(While Texas IS being very effective with the Death Penalty).

I'm not talking about a post incident blood test, I'm talking about random road blocks set up to draw blood from presumptively innocent people who have committed no crime.

I am opposed to capital punishment.

Why are you opposed to capital punishment? George Washington is your hero. (...and mine...).

Where did George Washington stand on capital punishment? Surely, he commanded capital punishment frequently!
__________________________________

I didn't get as far as the following paragraphs—sorry!

 

"...That changed January 1, 2012, with the enactment of a new law that took away that choice for suspects to decline with a license suspension.  Ever since the law took effect, police can obtain rubber-stamped warrants to forcibly extract blood from any driver they decide is a DUI suspect.

"Additionally, the new law now mandates blood be drawn from citizens in a variety of circumstances.  No longer limited to vehicular assault cases, police are not required to take the blood of any DUI suspect who has ever had a DUI conviction in their life, according to WBIR.   The other requirement is that blood be drawn from any suspect who has a person under the age of 16 in the car.  The rest of the blood-draw cases are done upon seeking a readily available warrant..."

This appears to fix the problem with New Hampshire's many REPEATING drunk drivers: once they've learned the lawyer's tricks to escape punishment—the first time—they're more likely to become DUI drivers, again.

In states with a high percentage of politically-related abuse (NJ/NY) one could expect to be frightened at the "blood-draw" prospect.

I see a fix to the "Just-Us" system—at least in New Hampshire.

News Hawk wrote:Why are you opposed to capital punishment? George Washington is your hero. (...and mine...).

Where did George Washington stand on capital punishment? Surely, he commanded capital punishment frequently!
__________________________________

I didn't get as far as the following paragraphs—sorry!

 

"...That changed January 1, 2012, with the enactment of a new law that took away that choice for suspects to decline with a license suspension.  Ever since the law took effect, police can obtain rubber-stamped warrants to forcibly extract blood from any driver they decide is a DUI suspect.

"Additionally, the new law now mandates blood be drawn from citizens in a variety of circumstances.  No longer limited to vehicular assault cases, police are not required to take the blood of any DUI suspect who has ever had a DUI conviction in their life, according to WBIR.   The other requirement is that blood be drawn from any suspect who has a person under the age of 16 in the car.  The rest of the blood-draw cases are done upon seeking a readily available warrant..."

This appears to fix the problem with New Hampshire's many REPEATING drunk drivers: once they've learned the lawyer's tricks to escape punishment—the first time—they're more likely to become DUI drivers, again.

In states with a high percentage of politically-related abuse (NJ/NY) one could expect to be frightened at the "blood-draw" prospect.

I see a fix to the "Just-Us" system—at least in New Hampshire.

Why?

Because I do not trust the state to fix a pothole, I certainly will not trust them with a man's life.

The numbers of exonerated death row inmates over the years indicates my concern is well founded.

Anti Federalist wrote:Why?

Because I do not trust the state to fix a pothole, I certainly will not trust them with a man's life.

The numbers of exonerated death row inmates over the years indicates my concern is well founded.

Surely, you know that "Exoneration is not Innocence".

Just as George Washington would be astounded, the state's "politics of exonerations" should scare Americans. What are your views on freeing Mumia Abu Jamal from jail?

http://www.freemumia.com/who-is-mumia-abu-jamal/

News Hawk wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:Why?

Because I do not trust the state to fix a pothole, I certainly will not trust them with a man's life.

The numbers of exonerated death row inmates over the years indicates my concern is well founded.

Surely, you know that "Exoneration is not Innocence".

Just as George Washington would be astounded, the state's "politics of exonerations" should scare Americans. What are your views on freeing Mumia Abu Jamal from jail?

http://www.freemumia.com/who-is-mumia-abu-jamal/

Have not looked into it too deeply.

I have looked into death row innocence, and found numerous cases of release, where it was later proved the convicted could not have done it.

They were roped into false confessions or testimony by crooked cops and prosecutors.

Would you trust Eric Holder's justice department with your life?

Anti Federalist wrote:

Would you trust Eric Holder's justice department with your life?

Our Authoritarians would!

 

"Would you trust Eric Holder's justice department with your life?"

Yes. If I were black.