Posted on 01/06/2014 3:00:20 PM PST by lowbridge
Police presence is often all it takes to make voluntary experiences seem mandatory. Ricardo Nieves, one of those flagged down by Reading police officers, felt the experience was anything but voluntary, and that attempting to leave would have been greeted by a possible arrest.
The Reading city council and the mayor himself also expressed concern about the use of police officers to acquire "voluntary" blood and saliva samples. For his part, Chief Heim appears to be ready to just ride out this outrage without offering any concession towards the offended public.
But if that's what Heim had planned, Nieves just threw a legal wrench into the works. Nieves has sued the city of Reading, Chief Heim, Mayor Vaughn Spencer, two unnamed employees of the private contractor (Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation [PIRE]) performing the fluid collections, as well as PIRE itself
Nieves claims his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the supposedly voluntary collection, which felt much more mandatory thanks to the police presence. Here's his description of the incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at techdirt.com ...
Thank you, Mothers Against Drunk Driving aka "MADD", which has very few actual or potential mothers in its ranks.
It is way past time to dial all this back.
Can a driver be cited for refusing to obey the directive of a police officer?
PA guy sues over illegal roadblock sample-taking.
“Thank you, Mothers Against Drunk Driving aka “MADD”, which has very few actual or potential mothers in its ranks.”
Do they have any drunks?
The reason this private company uses police is to intimidate the public into volunteering. It’s clear that the police are intentionally violating people’s constitutional rights and should be liable.
Unconstitutional if refusal has negative consequences. If not, ???
At this point it is likely composed of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and democrat hacks looking for a stepping stone into local public office. I know the original founder wants nothing to do with them.
“Am I free to go?”
If they don’t answer, ask again
“Yes” answer, leave
“No” answer, sue their balls off for false arrest.
/johnny
Yup and define "drunk" while you're at it.
So why use cops to induce people to participate? The local cheer-leading squad in my town does car washes in the summers to raise money. Bunch of hotties in bikinis offering to wash your car....that line goes around the block!
Exactly:
“Am I free to go”
if yes, leave
if ‘no’ call your lawyer and don’t say a word.
Drunk: a person thats not sober :-)
Pardon my tin foil, but I don’t think they were
looking for prescription drugs or alcohol or whatever.
I believe the the real reason for these events is to
record innocent person’s responses to being pulled
over for no reason and asked to comply with a
completely abusive and invasive request.
Further, to see if the innocents CAN be bribed with cash/reward
to allow or to participate something unexpected and unusual,
distasteful and plain wrong.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
That’s been my take since they started this crap.
Okay, then define "sober".
Do you know anybody that has not had any caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, antidepressant, antihistamine or any other over-the-counter or prescription medication today?
What’s going on? Are you pushing for a repeal of prohibition?
Don’t give them 5hit and embarrass them as much as possible. They can do dna tests on the swabs and enter it into the National Date bank whoever that is. It is better then fingerprints and they can tell if you have a chronic disease which might be used under under our new Death Panels to deny you care. DO NOT COOPERATE in any fashion. This is the Feds behind these things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.