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

alaskaflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you have. I'm a graveyard patrol cop at heart.

The problem is you have the act and the motive backward.
The act taken determines if it's a detention (was the person told, or would they reasonably have believed, that they were not free to leave?), the follow on is to determine if the detention was for a proper criminal justice purpose.
A detention can be legal or illegal. By your analysis, there would effectively be no illegal detention, if a detention was defined by having a criminal justice purpose.

The larger problem is that there are only two remedies for a civil rights violation.
1 - The person detained has to prove actual damages to prevail in a 1983 action, or
2 - Suppression of evidence illegally obtained, but they have to have been charged with a crime.

The courts have ruled that a rights violation alone, in the absence of actual damages, have no standing to sue.
Effectively, someone whose rights are violated, and who are not injured, do not suffer demonstrable monetary damages, and who have not been charged with a crime, have no standing to take legal action.
 
Skylane81E said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
Figure out how to make my knee, hip, and back work right again, and I would take you up on it.
 
You know what...

The local high school should just get some off-duty cops to block the main road through town and direct them through their next carwash. Completely legit, right?
 
So I got a chance to discuss this with a LEO freind of mine. His response?

"Illegal as ****"
 
Funny............. I find it hard to believe this story has not hit ANY TV news programs...:dunno::dunno::dunno::confused:
 
JeffDG said:
You know what...

The local high school should just get some off-duty cops to block the main road through town and direct them through their next carwash. Completely legit, right?
Click to expand...

Maybe not legit but good marketing plan :D
 
N801BH said:
Funny............. I find it hard to believe this story has not hit ANY TV news programs...:dunno::dunno::dunno::confused:
Click to expand...

With today's lame-stream media? Not a chance of it becoming a story. They wan you to be well behaved sheep.
 
PilotAlan said:
I'm sure you have. I'm a graveyard patrol cop at heart.

The problem is you have the act and the motive backward.
The act taken determines if it's a detention (was the person told, or would they reasonably have believed, that they were not free to leave?), the follow on is to determine if the detention was for a proper criminal justice purpose.
A detention can be legal or illegal. By your analysis, there would effectively be no illegal detention, if a detention was defined by having a criminal justice purpose.
Click to expand...

I maintain among other things that the very fact that it was not for a criminal justice purpose would lead a reasonable person to answer no to both questions.

I also refuse to stipulate that the participants in this limited sample here are a fair representation of the reasonable person :D:wink2:

Some other things to play around with:

1. If there were barricades with no exit instead of officers, would it be different?
2. How about if officers were simply standing behind barricades not contacting drivers at all?
3. What if the city passed an ordinance explicitly authorizing the activity on city streets?
4. What if it were a nonprofit instead of NHTSA contractors?

Though at the end of the day I think the answer for those theoretical scenarios are the same as my answer for the actual one.

In my mind I can see Scalia expounding on the lack of any right not to be inconvenienced.
 
Last edited:
I'll be doing a full-shift (10 hours) police ride-along as part of the Code Blue Citizens on Patrol training next Friday the 29th, in the very precinct in which this occurred. You better believe I'll be asking the officer about his opinion on what happened.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I maintain among other things that the very fact that it was not for a criminal justice purpose would lead a reasonable person to answer no to both questions.
Click to expand...
I could argue that the presence of a lawful criminal justice purpose is what differentiates a detention from false imprisonment. :D
No one has the right to stop or hold another against their will, except as permitted by law. If this wasn't a criminal justice purpose, then the authority to stop and hold evaporates.
1. If there were barricades with no exit instead of officers, would it be different?
Click to expand...
Yes. The presence of officers makes it "under color of authority" for purpose of prior Court rulings and sec. 1983 civil rights law. Although you then may have a violation of state or local laws about blocking the roadway or impeding traffic.
If they got a permit from city or state, it would then become a political issue.
2. How about if officers were simply standing behind barricades not contacting drivers at all?
Click to expand...
Same as #1.
3. What if the city passed an ordinance explicitly authorizing the activity on city streets?
4. What if it were a nonprofit instead of NHTSA contractors?
Click to expand...
No change. If the cops are diverting the traffic and thereby detaining the drivers, then it's still a detention (or false imprisonment, if you wish).
[quote[Though at the end of the day I think the answer for those theoretical scenarios are the same as my answer for the actual one.
In my mind I can see Scalia expounding on the lack of any right not to be inconvenienced.[/QUOTE]
Scalia is pretty tough on overreaches of government authority. I think he would have a pretty tough time with this.
No matter the degree of invasiveness, suspicionless searches are never allowed ... [except for] search incident to arrest {Scalia, Maryland vs. King}
Click to expand...
 
alaskaflyer said:
Wrong term, wrong legal theory, ridiculous controversy, ref signals 'play on.'
Click to expand...

So the drivers are free to keep driving, hold up their hand that they're not interested (like when a homeless person tries to shove a pamphlet in your face on a city street) and drive on?
 
PilotAlan said:
I'm sure you have. I'm a graveyard patrol cop at heart.

The problem is you have the act and the motive backward.
The act taken determines if it's a detention (was the person told, or would they reasonably have believed, that they were not free to leave?), the follow on is to determine if the detention was for a proper criminal justice purpose.
A detention can be legal or illegal. By your analysis, there would effectively be no illegal detention, if a detention was defined by having a criminal justice purpose.

The larger problem is that there are only two remedies for a civil rights violation.
1 - The person detained has to prove actual damages to prevail in a 1983 action, or
2 - Suppression of evidence illegally obtained, but they have to have been charged with a crime.

The courts have ruled that a rights violation alone, in the absence of actual damages, have no standing to sue.
Effectively, someone whose rights are violated, and who are not injured, do not suffer demonstrable monetary damages, and who have not been charged with a crime, have no standing to take legal action.
Click to expand...

This is interesting to know. Thanks.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm rather surprised that local cops cooperated with this in Texas, which is supposedly some kind of haven for freedom-loving people.
Click to expand...

Off duty gigs are where most cops make their profit. On duty just pays the bills.

Follow the money.
 
dell30rb said:
Be careful man, don't **** them off too much, they'll just sprinkle some crack on you and lock you up!
Click to expand...

Or just shoot you and "claim" you posed in a defensive position, scaring the little whiners.
 
It was covered briefly on one of the local news outlets. The gist of the story was the same as we all think(except UPer of course), completely without merit. They got a statement from the chief of the Fort Worth PD, and he was walking it back as fast as he could. He's an idiot, and would have no problem doing it again if it got him a few sheckles from the feds.
 
Fort Worth has always felt in the shadow of the big neighbor to the east. Everything Dallas/Houston does, eventually Fort Worth has to do. Red light cameras, drone tests, and all the other goofball ideas from the smartest people in the room.
 
I'm reading through the California drivers handbook, I have to take my written over again since I'm now legally a senior citizen. It clearly states that you must obey all orders from a police officer, even if it conflicts with posted signs or signals.

Of course people would be intimidated by lit up squad cars and armed police. In California the U.S. Constitution is null and void if it conflicts with any California laws or policies.

-John
 
John Baker said:
I'm reading through the California drivers handbook, I have to take my written over again since I'm now legally a senior citizen. It clearly states that you must obey all orders from a police officer, even if it conflicts with posted signs or signals.

Of course people would be intimidated by lit up squad cars and armed police. In California the U.S. Constitution is null and void if it conflicts with any California laws or policies.

-John
Click to expand...

And this is the fly in the oitment........

If you get a rogue LEO wanting to force his/her opinion of the law, 99% of the population will give in hook,line and sinker.. Only after the illegal act is forced on the innocent motorist will some people challange the action...By that time the establishment will have cooked up an excuse and the LEO will skate free........... To do something even more drastic the next time..IMHO...
 
John Baker;1318699 It clearly states that you [B said:
must obey all orders[/B] from a police officer, even if it conflicts with posted signs or signals.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't excpect that to be a surprise. It's routine for police to direct traffic - you obey the guy with the gun when he holds up his hand for you to stop so he can let cross traffic through, regardless of the traffic light.
 
John Baker said:
I'm reading through the California drivers handbook, I have to take my written over again since I'm now legally a senior citizen.
Click to expand...

At what age does that requirement take effect?
 
I think it's covered on page 1576 of affordable Care Act, or there abouts(g)

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
We have a requirement in Texas for drivers age 79 or older. I don't see an exception for pilots with a current physical; so, I guess I might be able to fly but be turned down for a driver's license renewal. One would think if they pass a flight physical and have a BFR or attend recurrent training, that would suffice.

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top