18 votes

Police in Pennsylvania (along with Phlebotomists) to start taking blood at DUI checkpoints

State troopers to use blood, not breath, to determine if drivers are under influence

State troopers will use blood, not breath, to determine whether drivers are under the influence of alcohol, because the state Superior Court is scrutinizing a county judge's ruling that questions the accuracy of breath tests.

The change means state police will have to wait weeks for laboratory results, but the method is expected to spike the number of DUI-related drug charges because toxicology tests can determine whether blood samples contain illegal drugs in addition to alcohol.

“The breath test is for alcohol only,” said Trooper Adam Reed, a state police spokesman. “Blood tests can come back and say there is marijuana in that person's system, or bath salts, cocaine, prescription drugs and other things that are also impairing that person's ability to drive.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great way to get rid of

Great way to get rid of checkpoints. IF the results aren't available for a week or two, why have the checkpoints. It will certainly cost a lot more to track down someone after the fact tan it is to arrest them on the spot for dui/dwi. If they can't breath test, do they let a drunk person keep driving?

This is Sick!

Why can't the State just leave us alone!

--Joe in MD
Let me send you a free Ron Paul Bumper Sticker. Just email me at: jfleck2112@hotmail.com. It's one of the best ways to promote Liberty!

the new wave of

the new wave of TOTALITARIANISM equates to throwing crud at the wall and hoping something sticks. This isn't law enforcement. This is poaching.

Be Your Own Media!!!

Line up like good sheep.


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

This technically isn't wrong.

You're literally owned under contract by the state. You may not drive your own vehicle on the road. If you somehow bought a car and it is yours (paid in cash for a brand new car at a dealer and you get the MSO/MCO) you must surrender it by titling it. Then you must register it. Then you must insure it. Then you must be licensed. Signing whatever papers to get a license is your pre-plea of guilt. You have literally signed away your rights and you are also assumed to be driving for the purpose of commerce. Declaring sovereignty is a breach of the contract and it's why sovereigns just wind up in jail.

My statements are not in condonation of how things are, just information as to why things are how they are. The only way things are going to change is if we revert back to right after our founding documents were ratified, never amend them, and make a single petty law. This is not going to happen because it would require violence and the government can just keep weaseling its way forward non-violently little by little. They won't fire the first shot, so the US government will look like victims and they will have aid from foreign troops.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

as an anarchist i would have

as an anarchist i would have preferred the Articles of Confederation more than the Constitution.


I would prefer zero

I would prefer zero government. No system to use, no way for corruption to wield power.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Sounds like a convenient way to collect peoples' DNA...

...As other places have been itching to do.

They have been collecting DNA samples on all

newborns in most places for years, the mandatory PKU test that only the state processes.....and keeps the sample cards.

Questions for The South and Vinceableworld ...

... since both of you guys have strong legal theories about the rights of Americans:

(1) What would YOU do if you drove into a checkpoint where they asked you if you were drinking?

(2) What if they asked you to step out of the car?

(3) What if they asked you to do field sobriety tests?

(4) What if they asked you to take a breath test?

(5) What if they asked you to take a blood test?

(6) Assuming you refused, what would you do if they arrested you and took you to jail?

(7) How would you handle the court case?

Some of us would like to know the PRACTICAL APPLICATION -- and how to have success -- with theories such as yours.

Please explain what you would do, and if you or anyone else you know of has had success in these situations using your ideas.


Please explain what you would do

While I agree with the comments above regarding "claiming sovereignty" for the most part - the one thing that is missing is you do not sign over your rights in a commercial contract. You can only temporarily waive certain rights.

First off I wanna say this is just another "bluff" to get people to think they have to obey these rules.

(1) What would YOU do if you drove into a checkpoint where they asked you if you were drinking?

If you search youtube you can find a great vid where a guy is being asked questions at a DUI stop and the guy is just asking questions back - what is your badge number etc... eventually he was told he was "free to go" when the cops realized they were not going to get his consent to contract.

Next you can also hand over a card asserting your rights. Got that idea from another youtube. The MAIN thing you need to remember is it's about a CONTRACT BECAUSE it's about COMMERCE. If it's not commerce he's got no business pulling you over.

(2) What if they asked you to step out of the car?

After dealing with me for a few minutes I can't imagine this would happen. However the specific answer to your question is "No thank you I'm quite comfortable here."

The fact is if the man knew he had authority to give orders he would just bark them out. We need to start calling their bluff and quite simply just be asking "what document can you provide to me which says I have to do anything you say?"

At that point when they refuse to obey their oath of office a friend and I were joking (quite seriously however) about it being just a "court of thuggery." - If you're gonna get a beat down sometimes that's just what has to happen. It's the price of freedom.

If for some reason they've presented me with a document they claim proves their delegated authority to assault me without due process or a warrant... then I'm just basically bummin... right?

(6) Assuming you refused, what would you do if they arrested you and took you to jail?

Good assumption. I would keep my mouth shut... grab a public defender ONLY for the purposes of getting me the legal texts that I would need - a pen... and a legal pad.

(7) How would you handle the court case?

I really wish I could give you a cookie cutter for this. For now... while the criminals still act out in a criminal fashion on a daily basis - it's all going to depend on the circumstances. There are some basic things you need to be aware of and pretty knowledgeable about however to have the correct background information to stand on your own two feet:

1) A good understanding of TRUST law.
2) A good understanding of contract basics.
3) Latest "talent" in the court game I've been listening to is Karl Lenz - http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=3...

Check out #199 on that talkshoe - the common law info will blow your mind.

I'd like to argue that

I'd like to argue that cocaine would do the opposite of impair one's ability to drive. Marijuana also does not really impair the motor system or make a person see things or trip. Just because pot is in someone's blood doesn't mean they are even high. PA is such a shit hole.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.


Looks like I should give my wife a heads up. I'll apparently be getting arrested some time in the near future...

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.


I have seen IV sites and other needle stick infections and injuries. Are they going to protect us from the "unforeseen damage" they are willing to place upon people at checkpoints?! This is about as, blatantly, illegal as they come. They better not pull it on me! I have seventeen years of medical education and 25 years of experience in medicine. I suspect I could disrupt their questionable lack of morals, to inflict another form of oppression (tyranny) upon me, with a few simple questions! They probably would not be able to adequately or truthfully, answer them. But, we all know that all, of those in law enforcement, are smarter than doctors. Just ask any of them!

The price of free medical care is going up.

Oh the toil. Blood, sweat & tears.

Ask not what you can give your country. Ask what your country can give itself without costing you a silver dime.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

I don't drink

and drive, so this would not affect me...but that is not the point!! The point is I don't like needles; the point is I don't trust these control freaks and who is to say there's not a chip in said needle?!

I don't fly because I will not tolerate the 'grabfest' nor the 'cancer-causing radiation'; therefore, I'm certainly not going to put up with this type of intrusion just because I'm trying to travel from one destination to another, WHICH IS MY RIGHT!!

Long story short, I will give them warning that if they take my blood, I will be suing...and I will sue!

Cripes, I have to emotionally prepare myself just to get bloodwork twice a year--that is how much I hate needles!! I am so sick and tired of these idiots that cannot mind their own business! It's like each day they wrack their brains trying to think of new ways to impose their will upon others. Are their lives that empty?? How about they live their life and let the rest of us live ours!!

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

These evil vile thugs not act like

dictator vampires. They will extract your very blood upon their demand. How low can you go.


I would think they would need

I would think they would need a warrant to do that. I don't have a supreme court case right off hand and I'm about to go to bed so I'm not gonna look, but every state's law that I know requires a warrant for blood testing. Perhaps the supreme court has never ruled on it so I'm not sure. I'll look it up tomorrow. But regardless, it doesn't surprise me.

DUI checkpoints themselves,

DUI checkpoints themselves, are unconstitutional. Has the supreme court ruled on DUI checkpoints?


I can also tell you this. I'm

I can also tell you this. I'm not sure if THIS was decided in the supreme court either but I DO know that in Louisiana they must give warning of when and where their checkpoints will be. I get e-mail alerts at least once a week on them here in New Orleans, more now since Mardi Gras has been going on.

Yes they have. As long as

Yes they have. As long as they are not looking for general illegal activity they may have checkpoints.
In other words, if there is some sort of circumstance like a fugitive, they can make checkpoints, but only for identity purposes. They may also have sobriety checkpoints but they may not detain you to look for genreal illegal activity. In other words, they can't be asking you about what you have in your car or whatever, they can only stop you and take your ID and ask if you've been drinking and make a judgement on that. There are several cases on it and I don't remember the names at this time but there was a major case in Indiana where the police were just stopping people to nose in their business and not just looking for drunk drivers.
The reason they claim the police can look for drunk drivers is because the government pays for the roads and people must register to be on those roads so they have a right to make checkpoints to see if people are registered etc. It's a "government interest" type thing.

It's bullshit yes, but that's their logic.

Well, it depends on the case

Well, it depends on the case and the justices. Sometimes I'm really glad they are there and other times I am not. If you read a lot of their decisions you'd probably realize like me that most of the time it is the liberal judges who are defending the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.... except for Scalia, who is generally our savior in these circumstances. But when it comes to free markets it is the conservative judges who are on our side.... and in a big way. There is no wavering there.... except for the chief justice of course. Whose side is he on again?

Anyway, if you read enough cases and look at the votes and look at what they are talking about you will find that both the liberals and the conservatives are on our side when it comes to certain issues. I hope some day we get some libertarians on there and we fix this country for good.

All in all I think the supreme court is a good thing. The problem is they have no real power when it comes down to it. Of course they interpret the laws and the constitution but if the federal government decides not to listen to them then what can be done? Of course the courts will listen to the supreme court's decisions when someone is confined etc. etc. but really. If the supreme court says that the president can't do something and he does it anyway is there anyone to stop him? The only thing there to stop him is congress. Of course that power falls on us to elect our representatives but once the president does something, like assassinate an American citizen the deed is already done.

In the end, the courts only help us as individuals and they can only proclaim something is unconstitutional. If the rest of the government chooses to ignore that then there is not much to be done. Of course, congress will change laws to fit the decisions of the court, but in the end, congress and the president will do what they want and the court can't do dick about it. All they can really do is free people that have been wrongly charged or convicted. If those people are dead then it's obviously too late.

Now, congress SHOULD impeach a president that goes against a ruling of the Court but will they do that? Who knows? That's where we come in. We have to make sure those reps that fail to react are not reelected. These days it is hard to do because of the money and power that those people have. I don't think term limits will do the trick. The money will just go to some other tool who will work for the Oligarchy. We have to find someway to get the money out of politics and now that is going to be even harder than ever.

What does that mean? That means we need to get more liberty mined people in office. That means we need a liberty mined president. Our next president will likely be able to elect 2 Justices. Unless Ginsberg leaves this term. In any case, Kennedy might croak... he's not looking too good. Ginsberg we know is out pretty soon if she doesn't croak first. I'd just as soon keep Scalia there until he's 100. And the rest of them aren't too bad off. I wouldn't mind losing Thomas for a more libertarian person. All the others of course, are very young and liberal (for the liberals I mean). I have to say though, as far as the bill of rights goes, I do like Soto-mayer. She has written some pretty good opinions on the 4th amendment. She's obviously not what would want in a justice but so far her opinions on the bills of rights I have liked. We'll see what she says about the 2nd amendment.

What we really need is someone soon who will appoint some good federal judges. Some libertarian judges. Judges who believe in free markets and judges who believe in the bill of rights. Right now we have a mix mash of both.

The only conservative judge I respect right now as far as the bill of rights goes is Scalia and not even him all of the time. But he is by far the best judge we have when it comes to our individual rights, as far as conservatives go.

they have been

doing this in Austin for some while now.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

City of Austin

is doing this as part of Federal Grant (PA likely as well). Notice they always get the City Chiefs to do it. Call your Sheriff and ask him why he is allowing this in his County.


And Austin also is home to the "Fusion Center".

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

so much for TX being the 'free-est' state in the country

I know, I know - Austin is Texas' 'progressive problem child'!

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

there is always a large

there is always a large subsection in every town, you could probably even say it is a majority, where people have the modus operandi to convict anyone the State says is guilty.



What the legislated drinking and driving spot checks have spawned into.

IE the parents of the victims of drunks rushed to the State to impose their wishes. Of course there is good funding in it to.