• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Saliva Tests at Routine Traffic Stops

RevDeac06 said:
You want to stop drunk driving (or at least, come closer)? Put a breathalyzer on every car and make it mandatory for the ignition to start. Or, very likely, self-driving cars aren't that far off. This is a question of searches, and, to me, seems very clear that it's an intrusion and illegal under the Constitution. You want to stop me (check point or just randomly) without probable cause? Just make sure you first call Nicholas Cage, get him to steal the Bill of Rights, then put it in the shredder. ETA- And I'm generally a proponent of "big government."
Click to expand...

This is the ultimate solution and very doable, but it can't be implemented incrementally.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Should a game warden be able to go up to me on private land and ask to see my fishing license? Should the IRS be able to randomly audit me because my number "lost" the lottery? Should ABC officers be able to conduct no notice inspections of bars to see if they have the liquor stamps on their well drinks? Where's the outrage for the prevention of victimless crimes (where the government just happens to be the only actor with a financial interest in the transaction)? I say #JusticeforTickle.

Let's not save our outrage for the rare case of arbitrary government overreach that actually yields a useful benefit.
Click to expand...

I really do agree with you- but there seems to be a distinction between that and testing bodily output (breath, blood, hair, or saliva). Something very Brave New World/1984 about this. I guess my point is this- if we really want to eliminate driving under the influence, we can do a lot better than random screenings. I've been driving for 15 years and have run into exactly 1 roadside check. Maybe they're more prevalent than that and I'm just not seeing them. But I'm all for government intrusion if it's across the board and clearly makes a positive difference. But if we're going to invite Big Brother (again, a term I'd typically not use) into our lives, there better be a damn good payoff. And for me, catching a few people fishing without a license, cheating on taxes, or even drunk driving, isn't worth it. I'd rather find a cure for the disease instead of slapping a bandaid on the gash (that is, a systemic solution).
 
DUIs generate way to much revenue for local governments to end checkpoints and work on solving the problem through other means.
 
Let's play this out so I understand the concern.

You are driving erratically or are pulled over for some sort of violation. Upon questioning you, the officer feels like you may be under the influence of something so he administers a saliva test.

you refuse to take it because you are stoned out of your mind? you refuse to take it because you are not stoned and feel like he is harassing you so you would like to call your lawyer and park you car and wait for legal counsel? Or don't drive stoned or drunk take the test and be on your way?


Essentially minus the saliva test this is the way stops are handled today only the saliva test will be able to catch people that are high etc.

Please explain why this is so harassing
 
Deacs89 said:
Let's play this out so I understand the concern.

You are driving erratically or are pulled over for some sort of violation. Upon questioning you, the officer feels like you may be under the influence of something so he administers a saliva test.

you refuse to take it because you are stoned out of your mind? you refuse to take it because you are not stoned and feel like he is harassing you so you would like to call your lawyer and park you car and wait for legal counsel? Or don't drive stoned or drunk take the test and be on your way?


Essentially minus the saliva test this is the way stops are handled today only the saliva test will be able to catch people that are high etc.

Please explain why this is so harassing
Click to expand...

Call me after a cop sticks a q-tip in your mouth after you're pulled over for a broken license plate light.
 
Deacs89 said:
Let's play this out so I understand the concern.

You are driving erratically or are pulled over for some sort of violation. Upon questioning you, the officer feels like you may be under the influence of something so he administers a saliva test.

you refuse to take it because you are stoned out of your mind? you refuse to take it because you are not stoned and feel like he is harassing you so you would like to call your lawyer and park you car and wait for legal counsel? Or don't drive stoned or drunk take the test and be on your way?


Essentially minus the saliva test this is the way stops are handled today only the saliva test will be able to catch people that are high etc.

Please explain why this is so harassing
Click to expand...

That's obviously probable cause. And if blue lights are on (or always running, depending on the camera), they have video evidence of your erratic driving behavior. This isn't at all the sort of example being considered.
 
RevDeac06 said:
I really do agree with you- but there seems to be a distinction between that and testing bodily output (breath, blood, hair, or saliva). Something very Brave New World/1984 about this. I guess my point is this- if we really want to eliminate driving under the influence, we can do a lot better than random screenings. I've been driving for 15 years and have run into exactly 1 roadside check. Maybe they're more prevalent than that and I'm just not seeing them. But I'm all for government intrusion if it's across the board and clearly makes a positive difference. But if we're going to invite Big Brother (again, a term I'd typically not use) into our lives, there better be a damn good payoff. And for me, catching a few people fishing without a license, cheating on taxes, or even drunk driving, isn't worth it. I'd rather find a cure for the disease instead of slapping a bandaid on the gash (that is, a systemic solution).
Click to expand...

Question for the group: do they do breathalizers at roadside checkpoints I was under the impression that it was just a <not this>bloodshot eye, scent of alcohol in the vehicle</not this at all> license check only (which acts as a de facto fishing expedition for reasonable suspicion)?
 
The erratic driving justification would result in every woman and old person doubling their travel time.
 
Did students not read at Wake in the 80s?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Question for the group: do they do breathalizers at roadside checkpoints I was under the impression that it was just a <not this>bloodshot eye, scent of alcohol in the vehicle</not this at all> license check only (which acts as a de facto fishing expedition for reasonable suspicion)?
Click to expand...

I've only gone through one, but they did exactly as you say- I was 16 and on a date with a girlfriend at the time. I was a rule-follower, so of course the shit was scared out of me. Asked for license, saw that I need glasses on the license, but was wearing contacts. Shined a bright light in my eyes to see the contacts (or look for signs of drinking) and let me through.
 
When driving along Virginia roads, you might wonder if the driver next to you is impaired behind the wheel. “Just to have somebody under some type of substance, doing weed or cocaine behind the wheel, something that just adds to the frustration,” said one Virginia driver.

According to Del. Glenn Davis (R-Virginia Beach), right now police can’t do on-site testing of someone who may be driving under the influence of a controlled substance.

“This issue is just as big as driving under the influence of alcohol,” said Davis.

To change that, the lawmaker has filed a bill to allow officers to use a saliva test to see if a driver is on some type of controlled substance.

“There have been a number of deaths, one of which in Gloucester, Va.,” said Davis. “A lady and her unborn child were killed in a drugged driving accident and the gentleman that ran into them got a very small sentence.”
Click to expand...

Wait, so he's upset about a small sentence and the justification for this law is an incident that would not have been prevented if the law was in place? Brilliant.

Besides that, a cop sticks a swab in your mouth on a "routine" traffic stop. Who is watching that cop between the time he leaves your car and the time he returns to put cuffs on you? There's an infinite amount of room for corruption when you set cops loose with their own little science experiment kit. So he fakes your positive on the road, takes a few hours until he gets your processed, and suddenly all of the drugs are out of your system by the time they get around to a blood test. It's the cop and his little swab vs your word while you sit in jail and your belongings are held.

And let's not forget that VA is one of the worst when it comes to seizure of property, often during traffic stops:
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/05/law-enforcement-agencies-get-millions-seizures
 
Have not read thread.

I am of the belief that the whole DWI law should be scrapped and there should be one charge - reckless driving. It should carry a mandatory loss of license for 1 year the first time and 5 years the second time.

What is the difference if the driver is texting, putting on makeup, or drunk? The results are the same. Look at the resources spent on drunk driving enforcement and prosecution. Its a fucking racket and the problem is not any better. Now look at this shit. A saliva test for the cops to fuck up and the lawyers to love? meh

Get the reckless drivers off the fucking road, whether its weed or makeup or jerking off or booze or texting.

Flame away. Especially you lawyers.
 
So this is how they're going to make the national DNA database?

This is an unwarranted search.
 
WakeandBake said:
Have not read thread.

I am of the belief that the whole DWI law should be scrapped and there should be one charge - reckless driving. It should carry a mandatory loss of license for 1 year the first time and 5 years the second time.

What is the difference if the driver is texting, putting on makeup, or drunk? The results are the same. Look at the resources spent on drunk driving enforcement and prosecution. Its a fucking racket and the problem is not any better. Now look at this shit. A saliva test for the cops to fuck up and the lawyers to love? meh

Get the reckless drivers off the fucking road, whether its weed or makeup or jerking off or booze or texting.

Flame away. Especially you lawyers.
Click to expand...

My one counter to that is that in certain states, exceeding a particular speed is an automatic reckless driving charge, so you'd need to get rid of that link for your plan to work (though I think they should get rid of that link anyway). For example, if you are more than 20 over the speed limit in NC you get a reckless driving charge. There are plenty of people (myself included) who can do 90 or 100 on the interstate in a straight line all day long and it be much less reckless than some idiot who is swerving while texting or putting on makeup or getting road head at 45.
 
WakeandBake said:
Have not read thread.

I am of the belief that the whole DWI law should be scrapped and there should be one charge - reckless driving. It should carry a mandatory loss of license for 1 year the first time and 5 years the second time.

What is the difference if the driver is texting, putting on makeup, or drunk? The results are the same. Look at the resources spent on drunk driving enforcement and prosecution. Its a fucking racket and the problem is not any better. Now look at this shit. A saliva test for the cops to fuck up and the lawyers to love? meh

Get the reckless drivers off the fucking road, whether its weed or makeup or jerking off or booze or texting.

Flame away. Especially you lawyers.
Click to expand...

What about road dome?
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Call me after a cop sticks a q-tip in your mouth after you're pulled over for a broken license plate light.
Click to expand...

So cop pulls you me over for broken license plate - sticks swab in my mouth? and it comes back that I am high? Should I be upset at that? Do we want me on the road?

Now one poster mentioned they may be able to mess with the swab and that would concern me but wouldn't we be worried about that now with the breathalyzers? I think cops are much more inclined to harass by making you do a sobriety test and them as the sole judge than a salvia test. Regardless if your drunk or high gtf off the road. This isn't just a cash grab thousands of innocent people are dying because of it. More people die from this than any white cop shooting black man. #alllivesmatter
 
PhDeac said:
Did students not read at Wake in the 80s?
Click to expand...

ph did you graduate in 2000? or late 90's. Not sure why you think I went to Wake in the 80's apart from your ageist profiling. I thought you were against any form of profiling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top