Goodbye, Fifth Amendment
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
Next time you get pulled over by a cop – or stopped at random in a “sobriety checkpoint” — you might want to remember the following laugh line: It’s called the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which reads, in part, that “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Ho ho ho!
It’s a laugh line, because, like, so many of the other amendments to the Bill of Rights, pleading the Fifth — that is, declining to assist the authorities in your own prosecution — is a sick joke.
Or like them, is about to become one.
Because cops may soon have the legal authority to forcibly extract blood from you in order to use that blood as evidence against you in DWI cases — which are criminal proceedings.
Refuse to take a Breathalyzer (for whatever reason) or perform the trained monkey act by the side of the road (perhaps because you’re not coordinated even if completely sober and probably a lot less so under pressure and in the glow of a policeman’s flashlight) and you could find yourself thrown down across the hood of a squad car while some cop jams your body with needles in order to get the blood that will then be used as evidence against you at your trail.
Oh, but they will be Trained!
Well, sort of, kinda. A “compressed” version of the same program taken by blood techs — phlebotomists, in medical jargon — will be the curriculum vitae of these state-sanctioned thugs.
Feel better now?
It’s all part of a new federal program — yes, another one — the stated purpose of which will be to determine how effective a “tool” such tactics would be in the ongoing (and endless) crusade against drunk driving. If it is deemed “effective” (do you doubt it will be?) then it will become as commonly practiced across this formerly free land as all the other outrages against civility and basic legal due process we have already assented to.
After all, if you’re not driving drunk, what have you got to be worried about? Those nice cops would never use force against an innocent person! They will be trained! The lab people don’t make mistakes, not even every now and then.
And, of course — drunk driving is a bad thing!
It makes me shiver with dread to see just how close to the abyss we really are. The Masses — or a great part of them — have become sickeningly compliant authority worshippers who submit to anything demanded of them by the state. And who often bristle with righteous indignation when the occasional semi-sentient citizen dares to raise an objection.
No one sees — or would give a damn about it, if they did — the point. Which is that empowering cops to physically hold you down and draw blood from your body against your will — to be used as evidence against you in a criminal proceeding — is to rape the Fifth Amendment and thus, another basic and ancient tenet of the late great tradition we used to call the rule of law.
All in a good cause?
Only if you’re a fool — or the government, which knows what the real payoff here is.
“Getting dangerous drunks off the road” is no more the issue than the random stop and frisks we’re now routinely subjected to when traveling (and even when not) or the indefinite detentions of anyone the government wishes — with or without waterboardings — are about “fighting terror.”
The issue is teaching the people to Obey and Submit. To condition them to accept the idea that anything the government does, at any time and for whatever reason (or no reason at all) is acceptable — including the use of physical force against people even suspected of having committed some offense.
And if you’re not guilty of “drunk driving?”
Sorry about that, John Q. Be sure to hold that bandage against your elbow for at least the next 10 minutes to staunch the flow of blood.
Have a nice day.
As for due process: The Masses do not grasp the concept; they are too busy watching football — or keeping track of John and Kate plus Eight.
It’s what really matters these days.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Welcome to Amerika! Here is another thought. What happens to the blood sample? Suppose Jhonny Law wants to run DNA tests on it? The Govt. would LOVE a data base with everyons DNA. Think what that could do for law enforcement!
You are right Mark. That could put dozens of rapists and killers away. Great idea!
I forgot to say that they would not have my DNA Mark. Only the ones that are arrested do they take blood from.
It seems to me that this is not a new thing that Eric is trying to make it out to be. There has already been a supreme court ruling on this.
The nation’s highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.
I’m curious, which case?
James:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/384/757/case.html
4. In view of the substantial interests in privacy involved, petitioner’s right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the withdrawal of his blood, but, under the facts in this case, there was no violation of that right. Pp. 384 U. S. 766-772.
The case says that unreasonable searches and seizures does apply to blood – it was only because he was being arrested for the car accident that this was not an unreasonable search / siezure
(b) The test chosen to measure petitioner’s blood alcohol level was a reasonable one, since it was an effective means of determining intoxication, imposed virtually no risk, trauma or pain, and was performed in a reasonable manner by a physician in a hospital. P. 384 U. S. 771.
This upheld the evidence because it was done minimizing risk, in a hospital, by a physician. That is much different than a cop stabbing needles in an uncooperative driver on the side of the road. I would not object to this law were it require the extractions to be done in a medical center by fully trained personnel. By which I mean fully trained in all possible complications and scenarios, not trained on how to fully push a needle into a vein.
Thanks for the link though, it was a good read.
James the subject was arrested not just for the car accident because normally someone that gets in a car accident are not arrested. He was in this case because he was intoxicated and could have been arrested even without the accident. What you stated means that you can not just take blood from 100s of drivers without having already arrested them for suspicion of intoxication. The intoxication was what caused the accident even though most on this site would not believe that could happen or even worse do not even care that it would.
As far as training, from what I have read there a specialists in larger cities that would do this from large vehicles set up just for this purpose and probably would get more experience than many in hospitals particularly handling drunks.
To be specific James this is why he was arrested and what was in the liink for the case:
A police officer smelled liquor on petitioner’s breath and noticed other symptoms of drunkenness at the accident scene and at the hospital, placed him under arrest
I know you and others here do not like to see facts though.
1) The article doesn’t say arrested, it says suspected.
2) The law makes no requirement for such a safety van, and if it’s not in the law, and it’s going to cost them $$$, why would they do it?
3) Specialists? Did you read the article? It said regular, run of the mill cops were being trained to do this.
James
1) You are referring to what the article says. The article was not written by any police or lawyers or judges. The article was written to create a headline just like other articles referred to on this site. It was not written for factual content.
2) The court ruling said that getting the blood must be done in a medically approved manner. The police are smart enough to know that does not mean to go into someones car and start stabbing them with a needle. You ask why they would spend the money to do it in a professional manner? The reason is so that it would hold up in court for one and to avoid law suits and to get drunks off the road which costs us Billions of dollars each year.
3) You pointed out that the article said “regular, run of the mill cops were being trained to do this.” and that may be true. It does not say though that every cop would not be doing it and only a select few fully trained policemen would do it. The article like all that are on this site leaves out important information. Go do a search on the internet and find out what is really hapening.
They aren’t “fully trained” though…. they are certified after 75 sticks. Nurses need 100 successful sticks in a row, and learn how to use butterfly catheters and other devices for veins that roll, collapse, or rupture.
And they are “typically” brought into a specially fitted van / the precinct. But “typically” means “not always”…
Ok idiot James. You and others here read the facts and throw out the ones that does not make it sound good to you. Yes they do not get full training. They firgure if a bably is going to get drunk they can get them for driving under age. They do not bother with all of the other extreme methods of getting blood either because they take them to the hospital but of course you read that and purposfully leave that out. You are what I call an idiot.
If they kill you getting your blood make sure you leave instructions to your relatives to sue them. That is all for me on this. Read the facts and quit making things up.
So its ok for cops to risk my death as long as I can sue them. Thank you for ruining your argument.
It is ok to kill you James because you are a drunk driver threatening others. Maybe they should use their gun on you instead of a needle.
The suing part was sarcasm but the gun part wasn’t.
We as Americans have come to a point where we believe we can solve every problem by simply making a law…and then declaring war. War on Drugs. War on Terror. War on Poverty.
Then when the war on whatever doesn’t fix the problem, the obvious solution is more war, usually in the form of stepped-up enforcement and stiffer penalties. I have to wonder how long it will be before the homeless face jail time for not buying houses.
We also have a really bad habit of blaming a thing instead of the individual. We just can’t accept the idea that maybe; just maybe there could be a few people who have some serious mental health issues and we as a society need to build a healthcare system which can deal with that before they shoot up the school or workplace. No; that would take work, sacrifice and money. So we blame video games, guns, movies, drugs and high fructose corn syrup.
It’s the same with alcohol. Case in point: Here in San Diego we had an issue with a few people getting a little too drunk and a lot too rowdy at the beach. Did the city address this issue by adding police to patrol the beach areas and arrest those individuals causing problems? Of course not; they simply banned alcohol at the beach.
Clearly our drunk driving laws are not working; while the guy who has a couple beers with dinner gets sent to jail, the serious alcoholic with four DUI convictions is at .25 sliding the wagon through the playground at recess. (They’ll fix that problem by banning recess.)
Unfortunately it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion because as soon as you question the “more war” meme, there’s a Randy who asserts that anyone who questions the enforcement techniques is a drunk driving advocate or the ubiquitous politicizer shows up to charge it all to Obama and the Liberals.
Hubcap you are like George. You only read the articles that back up your ideas like the newspaper.com or any that are on this site. The facts have shown that accidents and deaths are down with more enforcement of DUI laws. The fact is that with increase speed limits where they were enforced before the limit was changed caused increased deaths. I have personally seen where the speed limit was enforced and the traffic flow was great and many here say it would be the opposite. People that drive into intersections above the speed limit a couple of seconds after they have the red light cause very serious accidents and after red light cameras are installed the number of tickets drops a lot thus saying that people are not running red lights as much. lRead the facts Hubcap.
One thing I left off Hubcap, no one that has two regular beers at dinner will ever be convicted of DUI unless they are super large. Your facts are off like most of the other people at this site and the editors.
Hubcap in response to your negativity about removing alcohol from your beach I can only ask are you willing to pay for police to patrol the beach all year? I would guess that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to man the beaches if they are having problems with alcohol there. You say there was only one instance of the problem but how do you know that?
Aww randy I gave you a new favourite site!
Anyways, your facts are all wrong. As far as your “oh no speed limits” see montana, where lowering the speed limit doubled deaths.
As far as your “total enforcement = perfect flow” see every town ever, where traffic crawls to 10 under for every cop and traffic camera.
And tickets dropping is an indication of people stopping before right on red, and hesitating before taking a yellow, neither of these things cause accidents – check the DOT’s accident statistics.
I think we should require you to cite your facts (and, yes, the editors of this blog too), but really, my new theory is that you don’t own a car, let alone drive one.
James it does not take any reference for me to site about enforcment. I have seen it first hand. No way to get false statistics that are always presented here when you see things personally. I have seen before when there was little to no enforcement on a 65 mph roadway and then again where there was. Dozens of times more safer. When no one is pasing except when passing a slow truck and everyone going the same speed (65) it is about impossible to have an accident or to be slowed down while waiting to get in the fast lane waiting for an idiot doing a lot over the limit. Every statistic ever shown either here or anywhere else show that traveling close to the same speed is the safest.
they can have my blood but im taking the officers as a trade
Good man.
Also, this makes the metaphor of the government as a leech that much more literal, doesn’t it?
I am sending this to you fyi. I have deleted the responders address also.
That is a good response Dave. I will forward it to NMA. Above all though, the fifth amendment is being eroded or at least ignored in favor of more government intrusion. I feel there may be a need for the bal. but at what cost? I feel as in most instances that the government is oversteping it’s bounds. Mostly for another reason to gather some funds via enforcement actions. Some examples are helmet enforcements, seat belt enforcements, and the next is abortion. I don’t believe in abortion, but neither do I believe the government has the right to decide for me. Thanks for your input Dave.
——————————————————————————–
Problem is, when you sign the licensing documents
you agree to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test
upon demand by a police officer. If you don’t sign,
you don’t get your license. If you don’t submit, your
license is revoked (for a year in most states).
Driving isn’t considered a constitutional right.
That said, I’ve known people who didn’t submit to
the test because they A, didn’t want the conviction
on their record, and B, didn’t want to have to come
up with the $12,000 to $15,000 a DUI costs. One
guy I knew drove his car anyway, but extreeemely
carefully . . and didn’t get caught. For another guy,
it was his fourth offense and would have meant jail
for a year.
The thing that scares me, though, is the line that
says “forcibly extract blood.”
Evidently 1984 has come and gone
and it’s an Obama New World.
Welcome to Liberal Control
David as I said before, if you like drunk drivers on the road I hope they hit your car and not mine.
How would my refusal effect me? I don’t have a US Driving License.
Doug your refusal could probably put you in jail for expected drunk driving without a llicense.
It is legal for me to drive in the US with an Out-Of-Country license.
Doug I do not know what the law is in the US or individual states but I read that Canada can deport you out of the country and not let you in if you have a conviction.
Me thinks Randy is either a cop, a cop wannabe or just a “law and order”
wing nut.
If you’re not worried about this 1984 scenario then you’re not paying attention. Just buy all the ammo you can afford.
In half of all vehicle deaths, alcohol was involved. On any given day in one out of fify cars around you, the driver is drunk. Every time I come to a stop on my bike, I hope that the car coming in behind me has not been drinking. If you cannot make it through the night without a drink…….buy a bottle and bring it home, or buy a bicycle. Drink and drive……Lose your license.
Instead of worrying wether or not the car behind you is drunk why not wonder wether or not they are paying attention? I was following a highway patrolman yesterday and saw him cross the solid yellow line and drive on the rumble strip twice in ten miles. He was paying to much attention to his radar gun and the oncoming cars on the other side of the interstate.
As for buying a bicycle, most states will give out the same DUI to someone on a bicycle that they give to someone driving drunk in a car with the same fine, sentence, and other repercussions.
OK George aka (not randy). Buy a bike if you are going to drink and drive. Your chances of killing someone drops a lot if you are driving a bicyle. We know it is still possible but not as likely. John was right. You are the paranoid person that the police will get you no matter what.
Not me. I do not engage in such juvenile activities.
and you have the temerity to call me ‘paranoid’
Ask motorists.org for the IP, if you’d like
This will not end well for police dumb enough to attempt to forcibly steal blood from a sober person.
I don’t care if they have a ‘warrant’, warrants do not apply inside one’s body.
Ha, George you are so ignorant. Sober people? You are so ignorant. What is the percent of sober people that you think they will take blood from? I say it is almost 0. I would guess that a blood test would be the last test they would take. They would already have all of their other tests they would go through first probably including a breathalyzer test.
You are saying that if someone takes drugs or has an operation to carry something deadly inside them to thousands of people that they are free to do it? You are ignorant and stupid and a conspiracy theorist and also do not know the laws.
I have to say again George, you are an idiot.
George, Randy is the idiot here. He so stupid as to believe that cops never abuse their positions to extract personal revenge. He’s the kind of statist that that ignores the fact that anytime the government can abuse power it will eventually do so.
Yes George, you are a major conspiracy theorist that has a major paronoia problem.
Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself.
Go see if you can get help for it. I thought you were just stupid and ignorant but you have mental problems that go beyond that.
‘Conspiracy theory’ is like saying, look at the human. Well is that a female or male.
So is it conspiracy conjecture or conspiracy fact. I do not deal with conjecture.
Look at blood alcohol concentration from fifty years ago. 0.05 was sober. 0.05-0.15 was intoxicated, (depending on tolerance, that is why 0.10 was the line for drunk or not) and 0.15 was ‘gone’
The police think they have the right to take your blood, under the pretense of ‘preserving evidence’.
If they have the ‘right’ to take my blood [their reasoning is probably an extension of the bs 'implied consent' "law"] , then I also have the right to defend myself (take their blood if need be)
I most certainly am not paranoid. I know history, and I am cognizant of the tyranny around us.
George you are paranoid. Why is it that hundreds of millions of people do not have any probems with police but you say they are out to get us. That comes from a paranoid person. You do not have to give blood. If you do not I am sure that they can just take the breathalyzer test if you accept that and field test and convict you. They can say that you had the opertunity to prove your innocence with a blood test but refused so you would be convicted I am sure.
If you say it is fine to slam down 3 drinks and be fine but ok to call you drunk with 4 drinks you are wrong. If .05 affects many people negatively driving then .08 sounds like a more than fair level to declare you as a drunk driver.
Let us see your evidence that at .08 no one is negatively affected and drive normally.
Your conspiracy theories are not based on any facts the the scientific community can back up. You are paranoid to think that they would plant bombs in the world trade center and then wait to set them off when planes hit them. That comes from a pure paranoid person and the people that originally make things like that up are just trying to make a name for themselves with lies.
I do not have problems with the police.
I have a problem with the people who direct police to violate their oath of office (police ‘chiefs’ and mayors). I have a problem with those that turn the public servant peace officers into revenue collection agents.
I never said they are ‘out to get us’. Too many good people have been ran out of the police force, and too many mindless simpletons who blindly obey orders have taken their place.
‘opertunity [sic] to prove your innocence’ nice Napoleonic code you live under. I am innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, via a trial by jury of my peers.
The reasoning for setting 0.10 as the threshold for impaired driving is that it is the median point. A 0.12 for a ‘heavyweight’ might be the same as 0.08 for a lightweight. It is up to one’s self to know what level of tolerance you have.
Please provide some evidence of OBL involvement in 9/11. The FBI would like to hear it, and maybe then can he be indicted for 9/11. The Taliban, in a press conference-on CNN, asked for proof and said they would hand deliver OBL to the Americans for trial. The US never substantiated its argument.
6:00-6:45
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&ei=LRu0So6wEIW0qwL4nc2RAg&q=loose+change+final+cut#
I never said that ‘they would plant bombs in the world trade center and then wait to set them off when planes hit them’
Many first responders said that bombs, in the lobby level and lower, were detonated before the planes hit. For further info, you can use a search engine, for 9/11 controlled demolition.
Turn off the TV Randy, and don’t watch ’24′
I’m done
George the reason they set .08 is because way too many people were causing accidents when they were at .1. You like to have drunks on the road though.
Since drinking impairs judgment do you want to allow drunks to decide for themselves if they are capable of driving safely?
George read this idiot and paranoid person:
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm
You remind me of another person that believed a lot of untrue events that he read. He also believed things like Bush was going to stay in office for many extra years because of legal loopholes. He hated Bush. He also like you had severe paranoia.
WTF. I was going to post as randy, and then come post as randy again and call the other randy2. This is awesome.
Someone’s gonna get AIDS.
No, I’m Sparticus!
This is Randy1, Eric Peters is an idiot here. This is the part of the 5th amendment he is referring to “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”
Where does taking blood have anything to do with requiring an idividual to be a witness against himself in a trial or criminal case? No where. It is no different than checking your body for injuries caused in a crime or gun powder on the person or finger prints. None of those things have anything to do with the 5th amendment and that is why they are done. Because they are legal and helps to prove guilt. Blood can be taken because the police already have a lot of proof that the person is impaired and this helps them to prove it in court.
The whole reason there is an “implied consent” rule, i.e. as a condition of having a driver’s license you agree to a field sobriety test and to provide a breathalyzer or blood sample upon demand is because it IS unconstitutional. You are being forced to provide–without a warrant–evidence that will be used against you. The only way to circumvent the constitutional violation is to make you agree to it beforehand.
It’s very similar to the way you waive your Fourth Amendment rights by the act of walking into the airport.
But what makes this particularly egregious is that police officers, not medical professionals will be allowed to stick needles in people.
Hubcap it is pretty simple. Do go out and get hammered and then drive.
I certaninly hope that Eric Peters or a family member are the ones that are killed by a drunk driver rather than someone who knows that drinking and driving is too often deadly. I would like to see his statistics that say drinking and driving causes no extra accidents or the thousands of deaths that we know it adds to each year.
Randy I hope it is you that die in a nonalcohol related traffic accident. Just to prove to you that it is not what the drive has ingested that day but his overall competence that matters.
I second what “not randy” says.