pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Every driver who refuses to blow is strapped to a table, put in a headlock
#1
Quote:GEORGIA -- In some Georgia counties, as well as all over the USA, drivers are getting their blood forcibly stolen from them. As shown in this video, every driver who refuses to give the police a blow, even for misdemeanor offenses, is strapped to a table, put into a headlock by a police officer, and their blood forcibly taken.

"We all are American citizens and you guys strapped me to a table like I'm in Guantanamo ****ing Bay!" said one victim of the vampiric policy.

It's the "BILL OF RIGHTS" not the bill of "needs"
Reply
#2
middlefinger;107705 Wrote:
Quote:GEORGIA -- In some Georgia counties, as well as all over the USA, drivers are getting their blood forcibly stolen from them. As shown in this video, every driver who refuses to give the police a blow, even for misdemeanor offenses, is strapped to a table, put into a headlock by a police officer, and their blood forcibly taken.

"We all are American citizens and you guys strapped me to a table like I'm in Guantanamo ****ing Bay!" said one victim of the vampiric policy.


I have seen a lot of disgusting and disturbing videos over the years in relation to governmental abuse stripping away the rights of citizens. That is near the top and that video needs to be shared everywhere.
Everytime we look the other way when someone else loses rights we disagree with, we make it easier to lose the rights we support.

Reply
#3
And to be clear about my thoughts on what is taking place in the video. FUCK THAT.
Everytime we look the other way when someone else loses rights we disagree with, we make it easier to lose the rights we support.

Reply
#4
Well... I wouldn't feel bad if more blood starts being drawn.
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply
#5
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/sup....html?_r=0

[Image: Well_that_escalated_quickly.jpg]

I'm thinking that maybe the police down there didn't really read the recent ruling.
Reply
#6
Probably operating under the assumption that the American Peopke are the enemy... I wonder where they got that idea?
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply
#7
streaker69;107714 Wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/sup....html?_r=0

[Image: Well_that_escalated_quickly.jpg]

I'm thinking that maybe the police down there didn't really read the recent ruling.

That article referenced another Supreme Court Case which said that blood can not be drawn from a suspect without a warrant which appears to be saying this is perfectly legal if a warrant is obtained. In the case of the video they are drawing blood after getting a warrant. Like I said, this is one of those videos that need to be shared everywhere and hopefully people will protest enough that shit like this will stop.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
MISSOURI v. MCNEELY
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
No. 11–1425. Argued January 9, 2013—Decided April 17, 2013 Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speed- ing and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer never at- tempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sam- ple. McNeely’s BAC tested well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He moved to suppress the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court agreed, con- cluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely’s blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might rea- sonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circum- stances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’ ” id., at 770. This case, the state court found, involved a routine DWI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensu- al warrantless test violated McNeely’s right to be free from unrea- sonable searches of his person. Held: The judgment is affirmed. 358 S. W. 3d 65, affirmed. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV, concluding that in drunk-driving inves- tigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does





2 MISSOURI v. MCNEELY
Syllabus not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conduct- ing a blood test without a warrant. Pp. 4–13, 20–23. (a) The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reason- able only if it falls within a recognized exception, see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224, applies here, where the search involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely’s skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a crimi- nal investigation. One recognized exception “applies when ‘ “the exi- gencies of the situation” make the needs of law enforcement so com- pelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable.’ ” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. This Court looks to the totality of circumstances in determining whether an exigency exits. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 406. Applying this approach in Schmerber, the Court found a warrantless blood test reasonable af- ter considering all of the facts and circumstances of that case and carefully basing its holding on those specific facts, including that al- cohol levels decline after drinking stops and that testing was delayed while officers transported the injured suspect to the hospital and in- vestigated the accident scene. Pp. 4–8. (b) The State nonetheless seeks a per se rule, contending that exi- gent circumstances necessarily exist when an officer has probable cause to believe a person has been driving under the influence of al- cohol because BAC evidence is inherently evanescent. Though a per- son’s blood alcohol level declines until the alcohol is eliminated, it does not follow that the Court should depart from careful case-by- case assessment of exigency. When officers in drunk-driving investi- gations can reasonably obtain a warrant before having a blood sam- ple drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. See McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456. Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol’s dissipa- tion will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts, as in Schmerber, not to accept the “considerable overgen- eralization” that a per se rule would reflect, Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 393. Blood testing is different in critical respects from other destruction-of-evidence cases. Unlike a situation where, e.g., a suspect has control over easily disposable evidence, see Cupp v. Mur- phy, 412 U. S. 291, 296, BAC evidence naturally dissipates in a grad- ual and relatively predictable manner. Moreover, because an officer must typically take a DWI suspect to a medical facility and obtain a trained medical professional’s assistance before having a blood test conducted, some delay between the time of the arrest or accident and time of the test is inevitable regardless of whether a warrant is ob- tained. The State’s rule also fails to account for advances in the 47
Everytime we look the other way when someone else loses rights we disagree with, we make it easier to lose the rights we support.

Reply
#8
And just to make clear..... in Pennsylvania, the police MUST have a search warrant to draw your blood if you refuse to give it.
steelcityk9cop, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#9
I don't understand why they'd even go that far.... isn't a refusal to submit to testing an automatic DUI anyway?
When they come for my guns; It is not my right, at that point,
but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty.
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
I got pulled over by one of those bullshit "roving" DUI checkpoints a few days ago. They just pull people over at random. It went sorta like this:

Cop asked where I was headed.
"Work."
At this hour?
"Ever heard of third shift?"
Where?
"Fastenal."
Where's that?
"Right up the road there."
Explains what's happening and if I mind getting out for a field sobriety test.
"Yes, I mind."
Why?
"Because I'm going to work. Just give me a breathalyzer."
*pause* Anything in your car I should know about?
"Why, you gonna search it?"
Can we?
"No."
Why not? "Because I don't consent to any searches of my person or property."
*pause* Wait here. Comes back with breathalyzer. Explains how it works. Result: big fat zero.
"Am I free to go?"
Proceeds to lecture me about cooperating with cops as I text this. What are doing?
"Facebooking this exchange."
You're free to go.
Unbanned since September 2012.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Clinton Foundation Put On Charity ‘Watch List’ Along With Al Sharpton’s Shady Nonprof das 3 1,187 04-27-2015, 01:48 PM
Last Post: Coops
  Police: Drexel Hill Driver Killed After Trying To Run Over Officers soberbyker 6 1,173 01-09-2015, 11:27 AM
Last Post: RugerGirl
  Firing squad executions back on the table in Utah Legislature soberbyker 11 1,455 11-22-2014, 10:47 PM
Last Post: Emoticon
  D-Day Veteran Refuses Obama’s Invitation For Private White House Meeting… middlefinger 8 1,050 06-08-2014, 07:20 AM
Last Post: schr8er2000
  16 Year Old Charged In Scranton Cab Driver’s Murder middlefinger 14 5,123 05-26-2014, 12:48 PM
Last Post: Normanvin



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.