TENNESSEE—We hate to even post this, because we don’t want to give the state of Illinois any ideas.
But it’s not like they probably haven’t already thought it. They’re probably just trying to come to the terms on how to best implement it.
As it turns out, the state of Tennessee has managed to implement “no refusal” blood draw DUI traffic checkpoints, as were held over this past Labor Day holiday weekend.
In this blogspot, Police State USA, the writer gives details:
Forcible blood draws began in Tennessee in 2009, being used only for cases of vehicular assault. In all other circumstances, the blood draws were not forcible. They could be declined, with the understanding the DUI suspect’s driver’s license would be suspended. Tennessee calls it the Implied Consent Statute.
That changed January 1, 2012, with the enactment of a new law that took away that choice for suspects to decline with a license suspension. Ever since the law took effect, police can obtain rubber-stamped warrants to forcibly extract blood from any driver they decide is a DUI suspect.
Additionally, the new law now mandates blood be drawn from citizens in a variety of circumstances. No longer limited to vehicular assault cases, police are not required to take the blood of any DUI suspect who has ever had a DUI conviction in their life, according to WBIR. The other requirement is that blood be drawn from any suspect who has a person under the age of 16 in the car. The rest of the blood-draw cases are done upon seeking a readily available warrant.
So like the writer says, with the “latest fad in Tennessee law enforcement (being the) setting up of ‘no refusal’ checkpoints, having a judge or a judicial commissioner on call to churn out blood warrants on demand,” we’re in the pit with our Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in our persons and possession from warrantless search and seizure. Because even though a warrant might be signed on the spot at the stop, what’s the probable cause for the stop? A CHECKPOINT IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE. That’s a searching of every person who has a 14th Amendment right to travel freely, a Fourth Amendment right to be secure in person and possessions as previously listed, even a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself…because an argument can be made that blood—the life source of a person being strapped to a table and having it taken by force—IS the “person” who is incriminating himself if that blood is used against him, drawn without his consent.
Dude who was crying “What country IS this???”
We’re with the writer at Police State USA, who later in the article opines:
Invariably, apologists will say, “If you don’t like dealing with police, don’t break the law.” Yeah, if only. That doesn’t work in a society where police go around performing random “stop & frisk” searches and conducting “no refusal” checkpoints. Encounters with police are no longer limited to being initiated based on suspicion of a crime being committed. “Don’t break the law” is a nonsense excuse, ignoring the modern state of law enforcement. It’s becoming harder and harder to live without government agents interjecting themselves into your life.
We’ve been writing about this for years, and warned it was coming. If you are outraged by it, contact those who are in charge of your state’s policing authorities across the board (from village/city, to county, to state) and tell them this is NOT acceptable and we DON’T want to see it happening, and you’d appreciate their assistance in preventing it from ever happening in your jurisdiction. If you don’t know how to reach those in charge, educate yourself. It’s the people who are being blindly lead by lamestream media glossing over atrocities like these who are the biggest part of the problem; if the shoe fits and you don’t like it, CHANGE it.