Police stop drivers at roadblock, ask for hair, saliva and blood

Gerhardt said:
You have to obey all lawful orders. If he's asking, you can decline. If he's telling, you can't.
Click to expand...

Please define "lawful orders".........

Since this thread is about a apparant illegal traffic stop, at what stage does lawful merge with unlawful...:dunno::dunno::confused:
 
SCCutler said:
He is a practicing attorney...
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, which makes it worse. In my experience that is not automatically conclusive of expertise surrounding Constitutional Law even with prosecutors and defense attorneys. I've read many hair burners in his posts on this subject over recent years.

Certainly law school is nothing other than a primer on ConLaw, unless you choose a concentration in it - or in criminal law perhaps.
 
N801BH said:
Please define "lawful orders".........

Since this thread is about a apparant illegal traffic stop, at what stage does lawful merge with unlawful...:dunno::dunno::confused:
Click to expand...

Please define "traffic stop" and tell us how this situation was a "traffic stop."
 
EppyGA said:
They will say it wasn't a law enforcement operation, just a government contractor doing a survey and even paying them for going along with parts of it.

Still doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

If instead of LEO's blocking the highway there were barricades, with no exit other than to the parking lot where the "survey" was taking place, how would that change the legalities surrounding this? Or would it? Interesting question.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
Alaskaflyer is NPS? NPS is one of americas worst behaving craptocracies. Plus fish cops have all sorts of Constituitional exceptions written into their laws(yeah I know you aren't supposed to do that) anyone know if fish cop search and seizure laws has been to the higher courts? If it saves one baby rabbit it is worth the loss of liberty.
Click to expand...

So they were doing a hunting checkpoint in this story, or are you simply wandering out in left field here trying to find your keys?

By the way the answer to your question is, generally speaking, "yes."
 
Last edited:
No Joy said:
I think it is illegal search and seizure. I think it might be even a violation of law to ask under certain conditions. I think it might be considered a violation/abuse of "color of law". Even if there are signs and waivers claiming it was voluntary, a roadblock with officials could be considered less than voluntary.

According to the Nazis, many Jews "voluntarily" went to concentration camps. People are often afraid not to comply with "requests" by authorities, especially tyrannical authorities.
Click to expand...

"Voluntarily went to concentration camps" ?

What choice did they have ?

"No Sir, I do not wish to be gased in a concentration camp"...

"Oh, no problem Mister Cohen, in that case we'll just shoot you in the head right now"...

Come on...
 
No Joy said:
From what I understand it wasn't always that dramatic. Sometimes individuals and families were told to report to the train station the following day. Sometimes flyers were distributed. Sometimes written or verbal orders were given. Most people were like sheep, did what they were told whether it be out of fear and or blind obedience to authority. Some seemed to know what was in store, but often cooperated anyway
Click to expand...

You did NOT understand well...

People were stripped of their citizenship, most basic human rights, money and belongings...they were locked up in ghettos, starved and humiliated...many were dying of malnutrition and typhus...

There was NOWHERE to run to...anyone found "guilty" of hiding a Jew was sentenced to death...

Perhaps you should watch Schindler's list...it provides a pretty accurate description of the situation at the time...
 
Yup, it's all voluntary, no need to feel intimidated by lit up squad cars along with armed and uniformed cops. The future is here.

Vote incumbent.

-John
 
Palmpilot said:
According to a docudrama that was produced in the 1970s, people were also simply lied to about how things would be when they got where they were going.
Click to expand...

True...

Jews were told they were being relocated to work camps..."you will work hard but will receive decent food"....

Even when your situation is terrible, you cannot believe that an entire death industry was put in place to eradicate you and your people in the most efficient way...who would be crazy enough to do such a thing on such a scale...?
 
alaskaflyer said:
Please define "traffic stop" and tell us how this situation was a "traffic stop."
Click to expand...

Just stick with the facts there ol Ranger Bob....:rolleyes:..

The post said " Fort Worth PD cruisers (with "off duty" officers hired by the contracting firm) had the road entirely blocked, you HAD TO enter the parking lot. "
__________________
Troy W. - "Tango Whiskey"
Fort Worth TX



What part of forced into a parking lot by PD officers in marked cars not constitute a traffic stop...?:dunno::dunno:..

As a LEO, you, more then anyone should be appalled by that tactic..
 
N801BH said:
Just stick with the facts there ol Ranger Bob....:rolleyes:..

The post said " Fort Worth PD cruisers (with "off duty" officers hired by the contracting firm) had the road entirely blocked, you HAD TO enter the parking lot. "
__________________
Troy W. - "Tango Whiskey"
Fort Worth TX



What part of forced into a parking lot by PD officers in marked cars not constitute a traffic stop...?:dunno::dunno:..

As a LEO, you, more then anyone should be appalled by that tactic..
Click to expand...

Unlawful detention under colour of authority?
 
JeffDG said:
Unlawful detention under colour of authority?
Click to expand...
That's what I would go with.

To answer another's question, does an officer have to arrest you to give you a lawful order? No. You can be detained.

There is a definitive legal difference between 'detention' and 'arrest'.
Detention is based on reasonable suspicion that you are, have, or are about to commit a crime (or a very short list of non-suspicion based detentions, like DUI checkpoints), and allows the officer to hold you against your will while determining if a crime has actually occurred and you are the person that did it.
Arrest is what we all think of, you are taking into custody and charged with a crime. That requires a much higher standard of proof, that officer must know that a crime has been committed, and there is specific evidence that you are probably the person who committed the crime.

Detention and Reasonable Suspicion: A bank has been robbed and a Blue Cavalier just fled the scene with two men in it. The officer sees your blue Cavalier coming from the direction of the bank, and there's two people in your car.
He has a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts (not a hunch), that you may the robbers. He can stop you and detain you while determining if you are the robbers.
After stopping you, you don't match the descriptions of the suspects, your passenger is a female, you're the wrong age, etc etc. You are released without charges.

Arrest and Probable Cause: Same hypothetical. After stopping you, he asks for a description of your suspects and what was taken. He finds your physical descriptions match, you both have guns, there's a bank bag in the back seat from the bank, and it's full on money and an exploded dye pack from the bank.
Now there's specific evidence that you committed the crime, and you are under arrest.

The problem with the Ft Worth thing is that it is certainly a detention. You are forced off the road, there's no option to leave without contact. It's under color of authority due to the cops being present. It's bad.

EDIT: One important thing... Any officer can ask you anything, and it's not a detention. The key to detention is that you are not free to leave, and your free will is being violated. The moment the officer orders you to do something, that's a detention (in almost all cases, other than ordering you stay out of the crime scene, or preventing you from entering a closed or restricted area, etc. If he's ordering you NOT to do something, it's different than if he's ordering you TO do something, like stand here, don't move, step out of the car, etc).
 
Last edited:
So, where are the other 29 cities? An ******* like me could have some fun with a rental car...
 
Skylane81E said:
So, where are the other 29 cities? An ******* like me could have some fun with a rental car...
Click to expand...

Be careful man, don't **** them off too much, they'll just sprinkle some crack on you and lock you up!
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
True...

Jews were told they were being relocated to work camps..."you will work hard but will receive decent food"....
Click to expand...

And of course, there were the callously deceitful "Arbeit macht frei" signs over the entrances. :(

Even when your situation is terrible, you cannot believe that an entire death industry was put in place to eradicate you and your people in the most efficient way...who would be crazy enough to do such a thing on such a scale...?
Click to expand...

It turns out that the docudrama I referred to was produced in the 1980s, not the 1970s. It was composed of the two miniseries' The Winds of War, and War and Remembrance, and did a masterful job of showing how the situation racheted up bit by bit, starting with "surely things will be all right," until it finally became hell on earth.

Fortunately, we're still a long way from hell on earth in the U.S., but it seems that the "eternal vigilance" that is the price of liberty becomes more and more necessary as time goes on.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Just stick with the facts there ol Ranger Bob....:rolleyes:..

The post said " Fort Worth PD cruisers (with "off duty" officers hired by the contracting firm) had the road entirely blocked, you HAD TO enter the parking lot. "
__________________
Troy W. - "Tango Whiskey"
Fort Worth TX



What part of forced into a parking lot by PD officers in marked cars not constitute a traffic stop...?:dunno::dunno:..

As a LEO, you, more then anyone should be appalled by that tactic..
Click to expand...

So when off duty patrol officers are present to help enforce highway maintenance closures and you are forced to redirect your travel due to the intimidating presence of blue lights and uniforms, are you likewise "traffic stop[ed]"?

What you are talking about is a political consideration not a legal one. A traffic stop implies a temporary seizure to investigate a crime or traffic infraction not some other function.
 
alaskaflyer said:
.......What you are talking about is a political consideration not a legal one. A traffic stop implies a temporary seizure to investigate a crime or traffic infraction not some other function.
Click to expand...


HUH...:dunno::dunno:..

You apparantly have been brainwashed by being a Federal LEO...:yes::rolleyes:
 
PilotAlan said:
That's what I would go with.

To answer another's question, does an officer have to arrest you to give you a lawful order? No. You can be detained.

There is a definitive legal difference between 'detention' and 'arrest'.
Detention is based on reasonable suspicion that you are, have, or are about to commit a crime (or a very short list of non-suspicion based detentions, like DUI checkpoints), and allows the officer to hold you against your will while determining if a crime has actually occurred and you are the person that did it.
Arrest is what we all think of, you are taking into custody and charged with a crime. That requires a much higher standard of proof, that officer must know that a crime has been committed, and there is specific evidence that you are probably the person who committed the crime.

Detention and Reasonable Suspicion: A bank has been robbed and a Blue Cavalier just fled the scene with two men in it. The officer sees your blue Cavalier coming from the direction of the bank, and there's two people in your car.
He has a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts (not a hunch), that you may the robbers. He can stop you and detain you while determining if you are the robbers.
After stopping you, you don't match the descriptions of the suspects, your passenger is a female, you're the wrong age, etc etc. You are released without charges.

Arrest and Probable Cause: Same hypothetical. After stopping you, he asks for a description of your suspects and what was taken. He finds your physical descriptions match, you both have guns, there's a bank bag in the back seat from the bank, and it's full on money and an exploded dye pack from the bank.
Now there's specific evidence that you committed the crime, and you are under arrest.

The problem with the Ft Worth thing is that it is certainly a detention. You are forced off the road, there's no option to leave without contact. It's under color of authority due to the cops being present. It's bad.

EDIT: One important thing... Any officer can ask you anything, and it's not a detention. The key to detention is that you are not free to leave, and your free will is being violated. The moment the officer orders you to do something, that's a detention (in almost all cases, other than ordering you stay out of the crime scene, or preventing you from entering a closed or restricted area, etc. If he's ordering you NOT to do something, it's different than if he's ordering you TO do something, like stand here, don't move, step out of the car, etc).
Click to expand...

And IMO all of that though accurate has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation under discussion, though anyone in charge should have paused and considered the sheer number of people who would erroneously believe that it does and the resulting noise.
 
Hey I'm irritated as hell every time I'm stopped by a sheriffs deputy while traffic empties out of the local First Ginormous Church after Sunday services, but I'm sure a 1983 claim wouldn't go anywhere there either.
 
alaskaflyer said:
So when off duty patrol officers are present to help enforce highway maintenance closures and you are forced to redirect your travel due to the intimidating presence of blue lights and uniforms, are you likewise "traffic stop[ed]"?

What you are talking about is a political consideration not a legal one. A traffic stop implies a temporary seizure to investigate a crime or traffic infraction not some other function.
Click to expand...

OK, so now that you've established that the wrong term was used to describe an event where motorists were forced to divert for "voluntary" data gathering, what would be the correct terminology?
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
So when off duty patrol officers are present to help enforce highway maintenance closures and you are forced to redirect your travel due to the intimidating presence of blue lights and uniforms, are you likewise "traffic stop[ed]"?

What you are talking about is a political consideration not a legal one. A traffic stop implies a temporary seizure to investigate a crime or traffic infraction not some other function.
Click to expand...

All fine and dandy if it is for road work
 
Palmpilot said:
OK, so now that you've established that the wrong term was used to describe an event where motorists were forced to divert for "voluntary" data gathering, what would be the correct terminology?
Click to expand...

Wrong term, wrong legal theory, ridiculous controversy, ref signals 'play on.'
 
John Baker said:
If there is money involved for the state or city, you can bet California and San Diego are jumping up and down yelling me me me me me.

-John
Click to expand...

I'm rather surprised that local cops cooperated with this in Texas, which is supposedly some kind of haven for freedom-loving people.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Wrong term, wrong legal theory, ridiculous controversy, ref signals 'play on.'
Click to expand...

OK, but aside from what it should be called, is what the police and the contractor were doing legal, constitutional, and/or a good idea?
 
alaskaflyer said:
So when off duty patrol officers are present to help enforce highway maintenance closures and you are forced to redirect your travel due to the intimidating presence of blue lights and uniforms, are you likewise "traffic stop[ed]"?

What you are talking about is a political consideration not a legal one. A traffic stop implies a temporary seizure to investigate a crime or traffic infraction not some other function.
Click to expand...
No. A detention means stopping someone involuntarily under color of law.

This wasn't a detour, it was forcing people off the road, into a queue, where they then were made to interact with the government contractors, whether they wanted to or not.
This is exactly identical to a DUI checkpoint, but without any criminal justice purpose, and without any authority under law.

Citizens have the right to freedom of movement, without interference, unless there is a lawful reason for the interference. Point to the US Supreme Court ruling that allows citizens on roadways to be stopped for non-criminal justice reasons.
Better yet, try this and find evidence of a crime. Do you really think that would survive a suppression hearing?

I spent 5 years on the command staff of a police department, discussing detention, acts under color of authority, and making disciplinary recommendations for officers' behavior and actions. I would recommend significant discipline for this action.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Hey I'm irritated as hell every time I'm stopped by a sheriffs deputy while traffic empties out of the local First Ginormous Church after Sunday services, but I'm sure a 1983 claim wouldn't go anywhere there either.
Click to expand...

Good Point....:yes:..


Which begs the next question.....

1- If the officer is on duty and holding up a few cars so the 100's of the congregation can leave the church parking lot and one of the cars held up decide to drive past the officer.. Can he ticket them ?

2- If the Officer doing the same task but is OFF DUTY... Can he still write up the offender ?? Seems to me he / she in acting like any other private citizen helping out his fellow church buddies... :dunno:

Thanks in advance for your answer sir..
 
Last edited:
PilotAlan said:
No. A detention means stopping someone involuntarily under color of law.

This wasn't a detour, it was forcing people off the road, into a queue, where they then were made to interact with the government contractors, whether they wanted to or not.
This is exactly identical to a DUI checkpoint, but without any criminal justice purpose, and without any authority under law.

Citizens have the right to freedom of movement, without interference, unless there is a lawful reason for the interference. Point to the US Supreme Court ruling that allows citizens on roadways to be stopped for non-criminal justice reasons.
Better yet, try this and find evidence of a crime. Do you really think that would survive a suppression hearing?

I spent 5 years on the command staff of a police department, discussing detention, acts under color of authority, and making disciplinary recommendations for officers' behavior and actions. I would recommend significant discipline for this action.
Click to expand...

The fact that it wasn't for criminal justice purposes is the point in this set of facts, and the keystone of the whole issue - most likely for the agency counsel who reviewed the program before it was ever implemented, as well as in any future hearing if someone ever wasted the time and money to litigate it.

I reject your implications of lack of authority, there is no explicit authority for law enforcement conducting traffic control in most jurisdictions either and I'm sure you have spent as much time out in the rain doing it as I have.
 
PilotAlan said:
No. A detention means stopping someone involuntarily under color of law.

This wasn't a detour, it was forcing people off the road, into a queue, where they then were made to interact with the government contractors, whether they wanted to or not.
This is exactly identical to a DUI checkpoint, but without any criminal justice purpose, and without any authority under law.

Citizens have the right to freedom of movement, without interference, unless there is a lawful reason for the interference. Point to the US Supreme Court ruling that allows citizens on roadways to be stopped for non-criminal justice reasons.
Better yet, try this and find evidence of a crime. Do you really think that would survive a suppression hearing?

I spent 5 years on the command staff of a police department, discussing detention, acts under color of authority, and making disciplinary recommendations for officers' behavior and actions. I would recommend significant discipline for this action.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see you back on the job:yes:

Our local chief is like you. He actually teaches at one of the academies specializing in constitutional rights. He has been known to ask students to find the civil rights violations on cop shows.
 
N801BH said:
Good Point....:yes:..


Which begs the next question.....

1- If the officer is on duty and holding up a few cars so the 100's of the congregation can leave the church parking lot and one of the cars held up decide to drive past the officer.. Can he ticket them ?

2- If the Officer doing the same task but is OFF DUTY... Can he still write up the offender ?? Seems to me he / she in acting like any other private citizen helping out his fellow church buddies... :dunno:

Thanks in advance for your answer sir..
Click to expand...

1. depends on the law where he is, but I imagine in most places, yes.

2. There is no such thing as off duty, really ;)
 
N801BH said:
Good Point....:yes:..


Which begs the next question.....

1- If the officer is on duty and holding up a few cars so the 100's of the congregation can leave the church parking lot and one of the cars held up decide to drive past the officer.. Can he ticket them ?

2- If the Officer doing the same task but is OFF DUTY... Can he still write up the offender ?? Seems to me he / she in acting like any other private citizen helping out his fellow church buddies... :dunno:

Thanks in advance for your answer sir..
Click to expand...


On or off duty LEOs still have jurisdiction
 
Skylane81E said:
On or off duty LEOs still have jurisdiction
Click to expand...


Interesting.......:rolleyes:..


I wonder how the case is coming against the NYPD officer who was involved in the attack on the family while driving their SUV through the motorcycle pack..:dunno:....

I have 5 bucks it gets dismissed...:mad2::mad:
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Interesting.......:rolleyes:..


I wonder how the case in coming against the NYPD officer who was involved in the attack on the family while driving their SUV through the motorcycle pack..:dunno:....

I have 5 bucks it gets dismissed...:mad2::mad:
Click to expand...

No bet
 
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic Injury Control/Articles/Associated Files/811175.pdf

"Over the last four decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and/or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have conducted four national surveys to estimate the prevalence of drinking and driving in the U.S. (Wolfe, 1974; Lund and Wolfe, 1991; Voas, et al, 1998). These surveys utilized a strati- fied random sample of weekend nighttime drivers in the contiguous 48 States. The first National Roadside Survey (NRS) was conducted in 1973, followed by national surveys of alcohol use by drivers in 1986, 1996, and 2007."

"The survey procedure involved a brief explanation of the purpose of the survey, a passive alcohol reading, a breath alcohol test, a brief set of demographic ques- tions, drinking and driving behavior, oral fluid collec- tion, Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) questions, drug use questions, and blood sample collection. An impaired driver protocol was implemented whenever a suspected impaired driver was encountered to insure that poten- tially impaired drivers did not drive away from the sur- vey site. "

I wonder if this was ever once litigated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top