Police Train To Forcibly Draw Blood From Drunk Driving Suspects

[Lumi]

Police Train To Forcibly Draw Blood From Drunk Driving Suspects

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, September 14, 2009

The Associated Press reports today on a truly chilling and nightmarish police program that we have highlighted before ? cops forcibly jabbing a syringe into your arm and extracting blood if you are ?suspected? of drunk-driving.
The opening two paragraphs in the AP report alone sound like something straight out of a twilight zone episode where vampires have taken over America and turned it into a tyrannical police state in order to satisfy their blood lust. Sound overstated? Read it for yourself.
When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he?ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver?s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.
?I was looking at people?s arms and hands, thinking, ?I could draw from that,?? Dowell said.
The article then goes on to describe how officers in Texas and Idaho are training to withdraw blood from ?suspects? as a replacement for the standard breathalyzer test, primarily because police can?t make anyone breathe into a tube but apparently, in the ?land of the free,? they can forcibly hold someone down and jab a needle into their arm and take their blood, ?a practice that?s been upheld by Idaho?s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court,? according to the report.


http://www.efoodsdirect.com/ammo-food.html?aid=13&adid=5
The U.S. Supreme Court also once ruled that black people were slaves, property of their slaveowners with no inherent rights whatsoever, and that those designated to be ?feeble minded? by the government could be sterilized ? in neither case was either of these rulings in accordance with natural God given rights bestowed upon mankind, as history has shown.
Likewise, cops forcibly jabbing needles in people who are merely ?suspected? of being drunk drivers is a total abomination, a complete violation of basic human rights under the Nuremberg code, and one that will likely lead to many injuries and infections ? not to mention a cascade of lawsuits.
Despite being littered with internal checkpoints that are now starting to pop up all over America, not even the Nazis or the Soviets sank to the depth of having their goons forcibly stick needles into people?s arms to take their blood.
The practice of cops drawing blood at the side of the road has been in place in some areas since 1995 but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that the program is ultimately intended to be introduced nationwide.
Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers, described how the process would unfold.
Once they?re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They?ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.
Of course, once Americans are trained to accept authority figures jabbing them with needles against their will on a whim, programs for mandatory mass vaccination will be all the more easier to implement.
Cops across America are already armed with Tasers for the purpose of inflicting ?pain compliance,? otherwise known as torture, now they will also be wielding needles while eyeing up your ?plump, bouncy vein?.
Welcome to Amerika 2009 ? land of the vampires, home of the slave.

 

[Lumi]

Are you fucking kidding me ! Most cops pull people over in my area just for driving DWM ( Driving while Mexican ) so think about it in your neighborhood and whay minority group is going to be fucked with and going to get multiple puncture wounds by "John and Paunch"

 

[Hard Times]

illuminati on vacation ??

illuminati on vacation ??

:shrug: LAS VEGAS :nono: I hope you beat the crap out of the SOB'S ... good to see you back !!

 

[Lumi]

Good time HT,

Brought back 3K, went there with 500

TOO MUCH FUCKING ORANGE ! BEAVER FANS HAD TO PICK UP TRASH AFTER THE GAME :142smilie

 

[jer-z jock]

Join In CDL drivers have had this battle for years

Join In CDL drivers have had this battle for years

here's an example...its already happening!! Been going on, now they want to broaden the spectrum NO LONGER wana go strictly because you are a professional driver, but because YOU DRIVE PERIOD! NO WAY will any cop draw blood from me on roadside or in a hospital, he will have an easier time shooting me in the leg and collecting a swab. I would have NO PROBLEM with being TRANSPORTED (notice I didnt say arrested) to a hospital to have blood drawn and tested which is how it SHOULD work. Imagine the crooked cop with a syringe full of dope sticking someone? All the avenues that will open!!

http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=5414

Drivers sue states after roadside blood sampling results in infection, permanent injury

For years, truckers have fought random requests for roadside urine tests. As it turns out, the government doesn�t want your urine.

Big brother wants your blood.

Several state and local governments have enacted laws allowing police to forcibly draw blood from drivers on the side of the road. And in recent months, the issue has hit courtrooms, with motorist Russell Johnson challenging whether several policemen in Washington and Hamilton townships in New Jersey had the right to use excessive force to take his blood at a hospital.

Johnson claims that officers permanently damaged his wrist in the process.

In another case, James Green suffered an arm infection after an Arizona policeman repeatedly inserted a needle in his arm to draw blood.

According to the Wall Street Journal, several states approved laws to allow police to use �reasonable force� to obtain blood samples in DUI cases. Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada and Texas have approved such laws.

The Journal reported in 2004 that nearly all 50 states operate with the �implied consent� concept � the fundamental belief that by obtaining a driver�s license and operating on roadways, all drivers have given the implied OK to search their urine, breath or blood.

OOIDA has been monitoring the erosion of driver�s rights for years.

In 1992, driver Ruth Jones, an OOIDA Member who later became Senior Editor at Land Line, was pulled over and given a �Class 4 inspection� at North Platte, NE. A highway patrolman told her the inspection included submitting to a urine test for drugs and alcohol on the spot.

�My husband had been telling me for months this was coming and I knew it had been talked about,� Ruth recalled later, according to a 2001 Land Line story. �But I was sure that sooner or later, someone would put the brakes on, since it was so obviously unconstitutional.�

After refusing to submit to the roadside urine test, Jones, who died of cancer in 2001, made a beeline to OOIDA headquarters in Grain Valley, MO, became a member and sought legal advice.

�I got mad, and very, very determined,� Jones said, according to the story.

Jones became a plaintiff in OOIDA�s case against the U.S. government�s pilot program for random drug testing.

The random drug testing was a precursor to today�s mandatory drug tests required by DOT, but was it a precursor to allowing police officers to remove blood from drivers?

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of OOIDA, said courts shouldn�t allow any law enforcement officer to forcibly remove blood from a driver on the side of the road.

�That�s not a direction that we want to go � it�s outrageous because of the level of intrusiveness that we�ve reached. �Permissible� intrusiveness,� Spencer told Land Line this week. �It�s such a callous disregard of another human being.�

OOIDA�s lawsuit during the early 1990s, however, was different, Spencer said, because truckers were the only occupation singled out in the government�s random roadside testing program, and probable cause was not needed.

�It was specific to truckers for no other reason than their occupation, without the hint of them doing anything wrong whatsoever,� Spencer said. �They were picked out solely because of their occupation.�

Motorists may have a tougher time fighting the blood-drawn argument than truckers had during the 1990s, particularly due to police establishing suspicion of driving under the influence before taking blood, Spencer said.

�When it comes to civil rights and dignities, it is disturbing as heck, how far you can go when your purported mission is safety or some other noble purpose,� Spencer said.

Implied consent is based on the legal doctrine that drivers have the option to refuse to submit to sobriety tests � even if it means they�ll be convicted of violation of implied consent laws and lose their driver�s license.

Several DUI and DWI blogs on the Web blame organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others who wanted to stop drivers from taking the option of refusing implied consent.

The concept of implied consent may be the very legal argument many defense lawyers will use in states that allow police to remove blood from drivers suspected of driving under the influence.

Joe Rajkovacz, regulatory affairs specialist for OOIDA and himself a former police officer, said the implied consent argument doesn�t hold water.

�Cops have no business drawing blood under the guise of implied consent,� Rajkovacz told Land Line.

� By Charlie Morasch, staff writer Land Line Magazine

 

[Lumi]

What really sucks is that the Marines out of 29 Palms were helping the CHP conduct DUI checkpoints last winter. :nono: :nono: