Skip to comments.Motorists criticize federal study of drunk driving
Posted on 02/19/2014 11:45:15 PM PST by Olog-hai
Orange cones and flashing police lights confronted Ricardo Nieves as he rounded a bend on the way to his mothers house. Before he knew what was going on, Nieves said a man working for a government contractor stepped in front of his car and forced him to turn into a parking lot. There, a woman repeatedly tried to question him about his driving habits and asked for a mouth swab that would detect the presence of illegal or prescription drugs in his system. Nieves refused. Then he sued, contending his rights were violated.
His Dec. 13 experience has been repeated thousands of times in cities around the country as the federal government tries to figure out how many of the nations motorists are driving drunk or high. [ ]
In the southeastern Pennsylvania city of Reading, Nieves is angered over what he views as an abuse of power.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
OK, so no problem then. Since Mr. Lund feels it's well worth the minimal civil rights violation, then let's just stop doing it to people who do object and follow Mr. Lund around 24/7/365 and swab and survey him 20 times a day. That should provide the same volume of survey data and everyone's happy. Problem solved!
Money money money. Lots of money. Careers are built on this industry.
So I'm confused. Was the guy blocking traffic or not? Was he dressed in some kind of official uniform that implied to the drivers that they were legally required to stop or not? If no and no, then I think the lawsuit is mostly without merit, but if that's the case I can't figure out why Nieves stopped. Unless they're just lying.
Nieves was directed off a roadway by a cop car, flashing lights and a heavy presence of uniforms, that was there to provide “Security” into a lot where the civilian took over the questioning. This is clearly using the Gov. for intimidation. He was then questioned for five or more minutes about the necessity of giving up part of his body via a mouth swab which is clearly a search and seizure violation. This “study” costs taxpayers money for negligible results. They already know DD figures have dropped over 40 years. It is pure intimidation and collection of DNA evidence and storage.
I read about a study decades ago on the Long Islant Expressway or some highway in that area. They stopped every 10th driver on a Friday night and tested for alcohol. The concusion of the study was that many men were driving home with some alcohol in their system, but that it was wild driving teenagers who were the cause of most deaths, not middle aged office workers driving home at moderate speeds after happy hour.
‘This is a very minimal intrusion on privacy,” Lund said.’
Virtually the very same words spoken by the Brown Shirts when they instituted stops to check identity cards in 1930s Germany.
As a civilian (absent a dire life-threatening situation), you can’t legally just trot out on the road and direct traffic.
Want a sobering picture of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving lobby? Go here:
He’s a retired lawyer (and big time pro-gun advocate) who says that the current low BAC numbers ensnare far too many unimpaired drivers.
Where’s the pic?
Pictures are often painted with words.
Where’s the article about MADD?
So, he’s suing because he was asked to provide a swab, he refused, and there was no penalty for refusal? A survey is a violation of civil rights? Back in my civil engineering days, we did traffic studies that involved pulling random motorists at entrances/exits to different types of properties to ask about their route, I guess we violated their civil rights.
Here are several involving MADD.
I guess we violated their civil rights....Did you do it under color of law? Did you require stealing bodily fluids under color of law? If, so, Yes. You violated civil rights.
The “stepped in front of his car” part puts the lie to the matter of “was in no way compelled to stop”.
we did traffic studies that involved pulling random motorists at entrances/exits to different types of properties to ask about their route, I guess we violated their civil rights.
You damned sure did.
You 'pulled' random motorists, and you don't see that as compelling people? Even if you released them immediately if they refused to participate, you did compel them to stop.