Texas drivers get asked for saliva, blood at police roadblock

[tXfactor]

Am I being detained?

No.

Am I free to go?

Yes.

Good. Go **** yourself.

 

[Southpaw]

Wait,

So a LEO has to get a warrant if you refuse to blow? I'd guess that's not hard with PC and can probably be done on the spot, but I always thought there was no need for the warrant.

On No Refusal weekends, everyone who is visually impaired or is showing signs of drinking and refuses is brought to a central location where there is a judge waiting to sign a warrant.

 

[TX69]

On No Refusal weekends, everyone who is visually impaired or is showing signs of drinking and refuses is brought to a central location where there is a judge waiting to sign a warrant.

Its better to drink and drive on a Tuesday

 

[TX69]

We had an incident about 2 weeks ago here by the house where a drunk driver hit a car parked in the street. He moved his truck up the street and parked in front of his house and got out. I went outside as did many other neighbors and went up to him. He was obviously drunk out of his mind, to the point of trying to hug me (I've never met the guy before this), and yelling "I did it" down the street. He admitted being drunk blah blah blah. He eventually pulled the truck into the driveway and went inside just as the SO showed up. He refused to answer the door for about 2 hours as they cleared the scene.

Why couldn't they have gotten a warrant to get this guy out of his house? The LEOs could see him looking out the windows when they were knocking but he just ignored them. I'm guessing it's because his offense would have been a misdemeanor, but it seems that they should have been able to get a warrant to get a drunk driver / hit and run driver in custody.

Pretty smart for a drunk guy. When he was able to get into his home and put time between the accident and his being inside his home he then was able to deny that he was driving drunk. He could play it out that he drank AFTER the accident when they kick in his door and beat him bloody to forcibly break his arms to take his blood. If he has a good attorney that will be the defense.

 

[UncleSamsMisguidedChild]

Pretty smart for a drunk guy. When he was able to get into his home and put time between the accident and his being inside his home he then was able to deny that he was driving drunk. He could play it out that he drank AFTER the accident when they kick in his door and beat him bloody to forcibly break his arms to take his blood. If he has a good attorney that will be the defense.

Except where he admitted being drunk to the first responders and got back in his truck to pull it in the driveway in front of them.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 while dropping an Obama

 

[stdreb27]

I just watched the video, that's literally blocks from where my wife's parents live.

 

[M. Sage]

Except where he admitted being drunk to the first responders and got back in his truck to pull it in the driveway in front of them.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 while dropping an Obama

That's not the same as admitting you're drunk to a cop. And by the time he's inside, chain of evidence (or whatever) is all screwed up. Regular DUI, someone gets pulled over and goes straight from driving the car to being tested, always in police custody so that they can vouch for where that guy and his blood have been between the wheel and the needle.

 

[Shorts]

I head some interviews on the radio today from folks who were forced to "voluntarily" participate. The impression they had was it was anything but voluntary. I'm still shocked this happened in our own backyard. This is the kind of story I would expect out of Kalifornia or somewhere.

I did send an email to Greg Abbot and ask his position on this and if he planned to allow it to keep happening on Texas soil or was he going to stand against it. Him being the AG and current front runner for the Governors mansion, I thought it a good idea to pester him about these types of issues and see how he responds. For any others interested in doing the same, his office email is greg.abbott@texasattorneygeneral.gov

He should hear from many of us on this.

Thanks for the addy. I'm interested in his response to this.

I'll give 'em a stool sample.

Move along, Sir.

Lol

Refusing a search is not grounds for a search. Forcing someone to take a breathalizer because they A: are driving and B: declined the test would be illegal.

Not that this fact will necessarily stop them...

Yup.

I'm curious if anyone refused to roll down their windows? If so what was the result?

If they use the below method when the window is rolled down, must the window be rolled down?

Federal contractors set up roadblocks in 30 U.S. cities to harvest DNA samples -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

And as a Fort Worth attorney discovered in the fine print, some searches are blatantly performed without consent. Attorney Frank Colosi pointed out that the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by "passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed."

One such search can be performed with a breath sensor disguised as a flashlight. When a police officer sticks his flashlight in a driver's face, its not just for intimidation and humiliation. It may also be to perform a warrantless search of their breath.

"They're essentially lying to you when they say it's completely voluntary, because they're testing you at that moment," Colosi said.

 

[TX69]

That's not the same as admitting you're drunk to a cop. And by the time he's inside, chain of evidence (or whatever) is all screwed up. Regular DUI, someone gets pulled over and goes straight from driving the car to being tested, always in police custody so that they can vouch for where that guy and his blood have been between the wheel and the needle.

Precisely.