[PAA-Discuss] Denver Sheriff's Office Helps Private Companies Take Blood And Saliva At Checkpo

[Rick _lux]

Denver Sheriff's Office Helps Private Companies Take Blood And Saliva At 
Checkpoints

http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/200907checkpoints.htm

A Sheriff's office in Denver has been blasted by drivers after it engaged in 
the operation of what appeared to be DUI checkpoints but were in fact stops 
being carried out by a private non-profit research group.


The Gilpin County Sheriff's Office was hit with complaints earlier this week 
from motorists who say they were not properly informed of the nature of the 
stops and felt that they were non-voluntary. One Undersheriff even described 
the procedure as "like a telemarketer that you couldn't hang up on,".


The Denver post reported on the incident earlier this week:
Sgt. Bob Enney said deputies assisted the Pacific Institute for Research and 
Evaluation in stopping motorists at five sites along Colorado 119 for 
surveys on any drug and alcohol use. Surveyors then asked the motorists to 
voluntarily submit to tests of their breath, blood and saliva. At least 200 
drivers were tested, Enney said. About five motorists later complained, he 
said.
The research is reportedly part of a nationwide study partly financed by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


Some motorists told the Post that they repeatedly asked if the questioners 
were law enforcement officials and after stating that they were not 
interested in participating in the study, were still not given clearance to 
leave.


Describing the surveyors as being dressed in blue jumpsuits, others stated 
that they were "too persistent" and even offered $100 incentives to 
motorists in an attempt to get them to change their minds after they had 
declined to take part in the survey. Some even said that the surveyors then 
ridiculed the motorists for not taking the money.



In recent years police have moved towards taking blood samples as they 
cannot be challenged where as breath tests can. As this report from the Wall 
Street journal explains:
"In the past, police routinely asked suspected drunk drivers to blow into 
devices that extrapolated their blood's alcohol content from their breath. 
Now, authorities in most states are taking blood, by force if necessary.


Laws in at least seven states allow police to take blood without the 
driver's consent, without explicitly authorizing force. In most other 
states, court rulings have authorized reasonable force to obtain blood. Many 
such rulings cite a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All 
motorists are considered to have consented to a search of their blood, 
breath or urine. Such "implied consent" laws were introduced in New York in 
1953, and today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them."


Regular DUI checkpoints have increasingly come under scrutiny across the 
country with some judges ruling them unconstitutional and illegal. Lawmakers 
have also challenged checkpoints and introduced bills to outlaw them. Rep. 
Charlene Lima, of Cranston, who sponsored a 2005 bill, said the checkpoints 
violate people's civil rights, and "smack of a police state." The American 
Civil Liberties Union also opposes checkpoints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get 
Terror Storm!
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support 
the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more 
info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Constitution of the United States states that police cannot stop someone 
and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts". Within 
the language of the 4th Amendment DUI checkpoints constitute a "seizure".

Despite these facts the MADD maintains the following on its website:

MYTH: Sobriety checkpoints constitute illegal search and seizure and are, 
therefore, unconstitutional.

MYTH: People don't like the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter 
impaired drivers. They consider them a form of police harassment and an 
invasion of their privacy.

While the blatant violation of the constitution continues with regular 
checkpoints however, it cannot be argued that it is legal for local 
officials to allow private companies to stop motorists in seemingly enforced 
situations.

In other instances police have been caught putting signs up warning drivers 
of upcoming DUI checkpoints where in fact there are none and then detaining 
and searching drivers who make illegal u-turns or desperately fling 
contraband from their vehicles.

It is now the norm to consider everybody equally likely to be guilty of 
something than innocent. This is proactive policing, not preventative or 
reactive policing. And the worrying thing is that this kind of policing is 
more widely indicative of a society that is NOT free.

If you encounter a checkpoint you should ask the personnel there if they are 
officers of the law, whether you are being detained or not and if they have 
probable cause. If the answer to one of these questions is no then there is 
no lawful right to stop you.