Author Topic: How Oregon Wants to Celebrate Independence Day: “No Refusal Weekend”  (Read 617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,955
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them


How Oregon Wants to Celebrate Independence Day: “No Refusal Weekend”


Posted 8 hours ago by Mark Horne filed under Law Enforcement, Police State


It will be just like Mom and apple pie! Red blood, white paperwork and blue surgical gloves will combine their patriotic colors this Fourth of July weekend in Oregon. The Free Thought Project tells us,
 



During Independence Day weekend, a time to celebrate US freedom and unalienable rights, Americans in Oregon will be subjected to a “blitz” of ‘no-refusal’ blood-draw checkpoints, as part of a disturbing trend that now extends nationwide.

Local news station KVAL reports that State police are re-naming Fourth of July weekend “No Refusal Weekend”, as part of a crack down on drunk driving.

Any driver who is stopped by police and refuses to take an alcohol breath test will be subjected to a mandatory blood test either at the scene, at a medical facility, or at the nearest jail.

Anyone who merely questions the breath test could also automatically lose their license for a year.

The police say they will liaise closely with prosecutors and judges to immediately obtain “blood draw warrants” in an effort to paint the process up as legal and Constitutional.
 



“No Refusal enforcement efforts aim to prevent people from avoiding full accountability,” said Officer Ryan Stone. The process is designed to force drivers into relenting to breath tests in order to avoid a potentially harsher penalty if they refuse to cooperate.

Right. Because the Founding Fathers stood and risked their lives for the right of the states to set up check points to demand that people incriminate themselves or else face a warrant on that basis for a more invasive personal search.

If we have a right not to incriminate ourselves then how can exercising that right be the basis for a lawful warrant?

It would be one thing if cops actually patrolled roads and pulled over bad drivers to see if they were inebriated. But setting up check points that require everyone to take a “breathalyzer” is simply an unlawful search.  Even using those lawful methods gives police horrific powers over others. The use of checkpoints is over the top.

And doing so while renaming the holiday weekend adds insult to injury.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/06/oregon-wants-celebrate-independence-day-refusal-weekend/#KrdLEFh5tZJ5gfd0.99
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Right......I am so much more concerned with protecting the rights of drunk drivers, than I am about protecting my family from them.....

NOT!

 :smokin:

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,476
  • #NeverTrumpForever
The Constitution clearly incorporates so-called "exceptions" to the warrant requirement.  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures but does not condition the reasonableness of any search/seizure on the existence of a valid warrant.  Rather, a warrant is essentially a safe-harbor that makes a search/seizure presumptively reasonable.

The question then becomes whether a "no refusal" checkpoint search, without a warrant, is reasonable under the particular facts and circumstances.  Allied to that question is whether a "no refusal" checkpoint search infringes on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy (one of the touchstones of reasonableness for warrantless searches/seizures).

In the case of an individual operating a motor vehicle the answer is not at all clear-cut.  To start with, a drivers license - and hence the ability to legally operate a motor vehicle on public roads - is a privilege, not a right, which means that the State in which an individual drives may condition that privilege in ways that the exercise of a right could not be conditioned.  Requiring drivers to submit to a "no refusal" checkpoint for the purpose of ensuring that all drivers are not, at the time of the check, a danger to the public and themselves due to intoxication/inebriation.

With respect to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if a State has well-publicized the existence of, and its intent to use, "no refusal" checkpoints, then it's unlikely that a driver would have a reasonable expectation of privacy that he or she not be subjected to the search that such a checkpoint entails for the simple reason that he knows, or should know, that the checkpoints are being used and therefore cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from such a checkpoint.

The bottom line is this:  "no refusal" checkpoints are no doubt offensive and intrusive, but they are most likely constitutional and the only remedy is political:  for the people of Oregon to persuade their elected officials to not use such checkpoints.

Failing that, the only real alternative to not being searched at all is to simply not drive in Oregon.  That in and of itself might add some persuasive weight to the demand that elected officials stop using such checkpoints if the number of people who choose to not drive in Oregon causes significant economic pain to the state.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 09:04:11 AM by Oceander »

Offline wolfcreek

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,163
 It's been that way in Austin TX for several years...no refusal on nearly every holiday (including the Super Bowl and the R.O.T bike rally). Curiously, not on the weeks of SXSW, ACL fest or F1. [wouldn't want to upset the international visitors]

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,476
  • #NeverTrumpForever
It's been that way in Austin TX for several years...no refusal on nearly every holiday (including the Super Bowl and the R.O.T bike rally). Curiously, not on the weeks of SXSW, ACL fest or F1. [wouldn't want to upset the international visitors]

Which simply demonstrates the importance of my point about the economic effects of such checkpoints "persuading" state elected officials to hold off on using them:  checkpoints on those weeks would almost certainly drive away (pun intended) so much tourism revenue (including the additional tax revenues that would result therefrom) that Texas' elected officials have decided not to use them for those events.

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,553
The Constitution clearly incorporates so-called "exceptions" to the warrant requirement.  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures but does not condition the reasonableness of any search/seizure on the existence of a valid warrant.  Rather, a warrant is essentially a safe-harbor that makes a search/seizure presumptively reasonable.

The question then becomes whether a "no refusal" checkpoint search, without a warrant, is reasonable under the particular facts and circumstances.  Allied to that question is whether a "no refusal" checkpoint search infringes on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy (one of the touchstones of reasonableness for warrantless searches/seizures).

In the case of an individual operating a motor vehicle the answer is not at all clear-cut.  To start with, a drivers license - and hence the ability to legally operate a motor vehicle on public roads - is a privilege, not a right, which means that the State in which an individual drives may condition that privilege in ways that the exercise of a right could not be conditioned.  Requiring drivers to submit to a "no refusal" checkpoint for the purpose of ensuring that all drivers are not, at the time of the check, a danger to the public and themselves due to intoxication/inebriation.

With respect to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if a State has well-publicized the existence of, and its intent to use, "no refusal" checkpoints, then it's unlikely that a driver would have a reasonable expectation of privacy that he or she not be subjected to the search that such a checkpoint entails for the simple reason that he knows, or should know, that the checkpoints are being used and therefore cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from such a checkpoint.

The bottom line is this:  "no refusal" checkpoints are no doubt offensive and intrusive, but they are most likely constitutional and the only remedy is political:  for the people of Oregon to persuade their elected officials to not use such checkpoints.

Failing that, the only real alternative to not being searched at all is to simply not drive in Oregon.  That in and of itself might add some persuasive weight to the demand that elected officials stop using such checkpoints if the number of people who choose to not drive in Oregon causes significant economic pain to the state.

It is not merely our Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures at stake here. The right against self-incrimination also applies, and it is s slippery slope indeed when a state government may legally employ an arbitrary standard (blood alcohol level) to determine who is "inebriated" and thus presumably a public danger while driving.

I understand your argument about public safety exceptions to the 4th Amendment, but I believe that practices such as Oregon's stretch that exception beyond the breaking point.

If the police power were employed to test all drivers at a given highway checkpoint, and notice of such testing were provided in advance to all who might be so affected, one might make the argument that the use of BAL testing in that instance would be neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that no reasonable expectation of privacy existed for the class of drivers so informed in advance.

But the fact is that not all drivers are subject to testing, and the decision on who to detain and test is not based upon police observation of behavior (e.g. - swerving, open containers, bloodshot eyes) leading to reasonable suspicion. Further, the use of an arbitrary blood level standard (0.08%) is problematic, in that such a standard does not in and of itself prove impairment, and in fact has been scientifically demonstrated to be insufficient to actually result in impairment for many (although not all) adults. 

Many people can achieve a BAL of 0.08% after having drunk just a single pint of beer or a large glass of wine. Many of the same people will not demonstrate any visible impairment in driving performance or judgment. A few, will. Under previous standards, police needed to observe evidence of such impairment and then make a determination based upon their observations and physical testing (e.g. -the ability to walk a straight line) as to whether a person was or was not intoxicated. Now, all they need is a number on a meter; such a standard creates the illusion of scientific analysis by employing a convenient, uniform standard that disregards human physiological reality.

Lost in all of this, along with the critical presumption of innocence, is common sense. And that is no accident. Because as with so much else today, the primary purpose of government is no longer held to be the protection of rights (including the right of people to be safe on the highways), but rather to impose control over all.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,476
  • #NeverTrumpForever
If a search/seizure is valid, then self-incrimination is necessarily implied - the materials seized will necessarily be used to incriminate the individual to whom they relate.  If the right against self-incrimination trumped in this case, then no alchohol testing would be valid unless the individual concerned consented to it.

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,553
If a search/seizure is valid, then self-incrimination is necessarily implied - the materials seized will necessarily be used to incriminate the individual to whom they relate. If the right against self-incrimination trumped in this case, then no alcohol testing would be valid unless the individual concerned consented to it.

Yes, exactly. Under our Constitution, no person may be compelled to act as a witness against himself.  And illegally-obtained evidence (the fruit of the poison tree) must not be used to convict a person in the absence of any other evidence.

This does not mean that the refusal to take a breathalyzer test (or to answer questions posed by a police officer) may not be introduced as evidence at trial. It means that such refusal may not be held in and of itself and in the absence of any other evidence, as proof of guilt. I believe that state laws to the contrary, those that essentially mandate self-incrimination, are unconstitutional.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,476
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Yes, exactly. Under our Constitution, no person may be compelled to act as a witness against himself.  And illegally-obtained evidence (the fruit of the poison tree) must not be used to convict a person in the absence of any other evidence.

This does not mean that the refusal to take a breathalyzer test (or to answer questions posed by a police officer) may not be introduced as evidence at trial. It means that such refusal may not be held in and of itself and in the absence of any other evidence, as proof of guilt. I believe that state laws to the contrary, those that essentially mandate self-incrimination, are unconstitutional.


It all depends on what it means to be a witness against yourself.  Under the Fifth Amendment that means only compelled testimony or production of evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the accused.  See, e.g. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).  It doesn't apply to the compelled production of physical evidence itself, such as a blood sample used to determine the accused's blood alcohol content.  Id.

This applies to a whole range of things, such as field sobriety tests.  Since the "no refusal" checkpoints do nothing more than that which is allowed under the Fifth Amendment, that is no block to the use of "no refusal" checkpoints.

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,110
It's been that way in Austin TX for several years...no refusal on nearly every holiday (including the Super Bowl and the R.O.T bike rally). Curiously, not on the weeks of SXSW, ACL fest or F1. [wouldn't want to upset the international visitors]

Texas does not allow 'checkpoints'. These checkpoints are normally set up intentionally in an area of road that does not allow an exit or a u-turn. In that sense, a checkpoint amount to legal detention. That is, the police are legally detaining a random, unidentified, unknown number of private citizens, faimilies, and people using public transport, against their will for the purpose of questioning them, searching them, and possibly conducting a medical procedure on them by drawing blood, based on absolutely nothing but random chance.
 
I fail to see how any person could consider this to be legal, in any sense or interpretation of the fourth amendment.
 
Just a quick word about refusal. If you are going to refuse, you have to be very careful to do it right. It is tricky to pull off successfully. If you are going to refuse you have to keep your mouth shut. It is a serious thing. Do not say a word. You can't do a Lois Lerner and spout off about how you haven't done anything and then decide to clam up.
 
Don't do anything. Don't say anything. And refuse all offers for medical attention. (they will come up with anything to try to send you to the hospital, because they want your blood) Just be cool, be quiet, and keep your mouth shut at all times. The only thing you should ever say is, "I need to talk to my attorney." The cops are not your friends. They are not your buddies. They are not there to 'understand' what you are going through. They are there to put you in a hole.
 
The bottom line is, when the court case comes up, they can say you refused and charge you with that, but they will have no evidence to support a DUI. That will take you down from over $10,000 in expenses with probation for a DUI, to some lesser charge or possibly no charges at all.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline wolfcreek

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,163
I'm going to step outside this conversation on the legality of no-refusals or check points and say, "Driving is a privilege, not a right" "Simply don't drink and drive" and you won't need to worry about any of these laws or the consequences of breaking them.

As a matter of fact, don't do anything else while driving except drive.

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,553
I'm going to step outside this conversation on the legality of no-refusals or check points and say, "Driving is a privilege, not a right" "Simply don't drink and drive" and you won't need to worry about any of these laws or the consequences of breaking them.

As a matter of fact, don't do anything else while driving except drive.

It's both a right and a privilege; you have a right to buy and operate a motor vehicle subject to state licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. You have a right to operate the vehicle on public roadways subject to state and federal safety laws. And you have a right to expect that you will not be presumed guilty of any law without sufficient, uncoerced evidence, as observed.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline wolfcreek

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,163

It's both a right and a privilege; you have a right to buy and operate a motor vehicle subject to state licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. You have a right to operate the vehicle on public roadways subject to state and federal safety laws. And you have a right to expect that you will not be presumed guilty of any law without sufficient, uncoerced evidence, as observed.

Right, subject to laws and restrictions. They can take away some or all of those supposed rights.

My advice prevents most of that.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,476
  • #NeverTrumpForever

It's both a right and a privilege; you have a right to buy and operate a motor vehicle subject to state licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. You have a right to operate the vehicle on public roadways subject to state and federal safety laws. And you have a right to expect that you will not be presumed guilty of any law without sufficient, uncoerced evidence, as observed.

I don't think it's much of a right.  Without doing any research I am quite confident that, in general, a state could prohibit individuals from buying and operating motor vehicles period.  It would be a stupid thing to do, but so long as it wasn't a pretext for unconstitutional discrimination, I don't see why a state couldn't do that.

Offline Ford289HiPo

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Don't take life seriously; No one gets out alive


Just a quick word about refusal. If you are going to refuse, you have to be very careful to do it right. It is tricky to pull off successfully. If you are going to refuse you have to keep your mouth shut. It is a serious thing. Do not say a word. You can't do a Lois Lerner and spout off about how you haven't done anything and then decide to clam up.
 
Don't do anything. Don't say anything. And refuse all offers for medical attention. (they will come up with anything to try to send you to the hospital, because they want your blood) Just be cool, be quiet, and keep your mouth shut at all times. The only thing you should ever say is, "I need to talk to my attorney." The cops are not your friends. They are not your buddies. They are not there to 'understand' what you are going through. They are there to put you in a hole.
 
The bottom line is, when the court case comes up, they can say you refused and charge you with that, but they will have no evidence to support a DUI. That will take you down from over $10,000 in expenses with probation for a DUI, to some lesser charge or possibly no charges at all.

Heh. I'm one of those up-in-your-face type of guys when it comes to this, especially since I'm always nominated to be the designated driver. I don't drink and drive.
That having been noted, I would absolutely refuse to a breathalyzer and dare them to take my blood. Once they do and find me alcohol free, I would demand to see a lawyer so we could talk about litigating against the fools. I would also go to the local news services, just for good measure.
Somewhere, someone needs to take a stand against the encroachment of the police state on our civil rights.
Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that I can be arrested or intimidated to prove my innocence. 
I wonder when the lies will stop and truth begin, even as grim as the truth may be. And then I remember that for 70 years, the reign of terror in Russia called itself "the people's government." We have so far to fall, yet we are falling fast and Hell yawns to receive us.

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
Here they do one of these a year, during this big event in April that is pretty much a big country music fest where everyone gets drunk.

If you get pulled over and refuse, they will simply get a warrant from a county judge who is on standby.  They don't just take a blood sample without a court order.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,495
Oceander wrote above (in response to a post or two from Andy):
[[ This applies to a whole range of things, such as field sobriety tests.  Since the "no refusal" checkpoints do nothing more than that which is allowed under the Fifth Amendment, that is no block to the use of "no refusal" checkpoints. ]]

Your explanation belies your training (which seems to be that of a lawyer or politician), but it also demonstrates that if we are to accept what you state at face value, there remains very little that stands between American citizens and the emerging techo-police state.

And your interpretation suggests the SUPPORT such an emergence....

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,476
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Oceander wrote above (in response to a post or two from Andy):
[[ This applies to a whole range of things, such as field sobriety tests.  Since the "no refusal" checkpoints do nothing more than that which is allowed under the Fifth Amendment, that is no block to the use of "no refusal" checkpoints. ]]

Your explanation belies your training (which seems to be that of a lawyer or politician), but it also demonstrates that if we are to accept what you state at face value, there remains very little that stands between American citizens and the emerging techo-police state.

And your interpretation suggests the SUPPORT such an emergence....

I won't disagree that the rules are in somewhat of a disarray; however, the Fifth (and other amendments) cannot be interpreted in absolute terms and without reference to other interests.  For example, if pushed to the extreme some argue for, a cop who observed someone driving drunk could not testify that he saw the accused driving drunk - unless the accused consented - because to do otherwise would mean that the accused's actions were being used to incriminate him without his consent.  A little less extreme, under the view expressed it would be unconstitutional to subject a driver to a field sobriety test - the old touch-your-nose variety - because that would be forcing him into doing things that would reveal his drunken state, which would be used to incriminate him.

Also, this makes it clear that at bottom everything is a political question:  it is up to every single citizen to fully participate in the political process and to vigilantly guard against those who would do them ill.

Offline wolfcreek

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,163
Here they do one of these a year, during this big event in April that is pretty much a big country music fest where everyone gets drunk.

If you get pulled over and refuse, they will simply get a warrant from a county judge who is on standby.  They don't just take a blood sample without a court order.

Austin has a mobile judge/blood truck for special occasions.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf