Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott
Forums › General Discussion › Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Simply being another driver involved in an accident does not automatically open you up to intrusive searches simply for the sake of the authorities completing their investigation. In fact the opposite is true. By performing searches without probable cause they are jeopardizing the investigation. I don't get this attitude that it's a-okay for the government to automatically invade presumably innocent people's privacy as a matter of course, all in the name of justice being served. It runs completely antithetical to to the basic concept of due process and equal protection.In the case of a death or serious injury. An investigation into the cause of the accident, without determining if one or more of the drivers were under the influence would be an incomplete investigation.
-
Read the link again.
Has been involved in a motor vehicle accident involving property damage, personal injury or death. Is probable cause. It says nothing about who is at fault, the officer on scene may not be qualified to determine who is at fault. That is why all drivers are subject to testing
-
And all this is relevant to drug testing welfare recipeants and employees how???
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Your link says otherwise. The officer must have probable cause that an individual is intoxicated, first and foremost. No probable cause, no lawful blood test. Period. Nowhere does that MN statute state, as you've said, that an accident involving injury or death automatically establishes probable cause of intoxication for all the drivers involved. Only an officer observing suspicious behavior indicating intoxication can establish such probable cause, and his testimony in court would have to prove so. The law is clear.So if the driver of a vehicle is involved in an accident involving injury or death, the officer has probable cause to the test the driver.
I never said otherwise.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Oh my god. Read your own link. Read the original statute. Read it very carefully. At the top it states that the officer may administer a blood test if he has probable cause that a driver is DWI. Full stop.Read the link again.
Has been involved in a motor vehicle accident involving property damage, personal injury or death. Is probable cause. It says nothing about who is at fault, the officer on scene may not be qualified to determine who is at fault. That is why all drivers are subject to testing
Directly after that is the word "AND", not "OR". You understand the difference, right? Then it lists other conditions that can trigger a blood or urine test, BUT ONLY (indicated by the word "AND") if the offIcer observes behavior that gives him probable cause of DWI in the first place. I'm telling you, nowhere in that statue does it state that the MV accident ALONE establishes probable cause.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's relevant because it establishes the legal precedent that probable cause must be established in order for someone to be drug tested by the government, even in cases of driving privilege where implied consent is established. There is no implied consent or probable cause among welfare recipients, making blanket drug testing of them an even greater violation of due process.And all this is relevant to drug testing welfare recipeants and employees how???
-
You are clearly wrong, Ragnar. The accident, itself, does not establish probable cause.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's relevant because it establishes the legal precedent that probable cause must be established in order for someone to be drug tested by the government, even in cases of driving privilege where implied consent is established. There is no implied consent or probable cause among welfare recipients, making blanket drug testing of them an even greater violation of due process.And all this is relevant to drug testing welfare recipeants and employees how???
Would a clause at the bottom of the welfare app saying that by signing you consent to future random testing be enough?
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Would a clause at the bottom of the welfare app saying that by signing you consent to future random testing be enough?
I suppose that would be fine, considering it's a voluntary arrangement. I guess I'm just not comfortable with the precedent it sets, that benefitting from taxpayer subsidies opens one up to violations of their privacy, voluntary or not. Should we have people who file a 1040A (itemized deductions) on their taxes also consent to random drug testing? That's essentially taxpayer money going in their pockets. How about students on grants or government subsidized loans? Or people who have government subsidized mortgages? Fail a drug test and lose your house. The FDIC? Fail a drug test and surrender your bank accounts? This is a bad road to go down. Punish people for bad behavior, sure. Punish them simply for consuming something? That doesn't feel like freedom to me.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Why? This conversation is clearly already settled, not only by Florida tried and failed statistics but by the Supreme Court as well.★fnord★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's relevant because it establishes the legal precedent that probable cause must be established in order for someone to be drug tested by the government, even in cases of driving privilege where implied consent is established. There is no implied consent or probable cause among welfare recipients, making blanket drug testing of them an even greater violation of due process.And all this is relevant to drug testing welfare recipeants and employees how???
Would a clause at the bottom of the welfare app saying that by signing you consent to future random testing be enough?
-
You know if the majority ultra right conservative Supreme Court throws it out then it shouldn't be done. Lol
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
You know if the majority ultra right conservative Supreme Court throws it out then it shouldn't be done. Lol
Geez, Addi. Bringing up fact? You must be on welfare, too. Want to come over and share some government cheese?
-
Fnord - no you would not in that situation. However, if you run off the road, hit something, and injure yourself - yes. How does the officer know about this phantom vehicle other than the word of a driver who seemingly ran off the road by himself?
-
How about the Walton's signing a waiver for corporate subsidization? Maybe they should be drug tested since the tax payers pay out an average 1 mil per walmart in welfare to their working poor.
-
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
I fucking love cheese. I don't care where it comes from. 😜★Λddi★ wrote:
You know if the majority ultra right conservative Supreme Court throws it out then it shouldn't be done. Lol
Geez, Addi. Bringing up fact? You must be on welfare, too. Want to come over and share some government cheese?
-
If we're really that concerned that people can't be trusted to not spend welfare money on drugs, perhaps we should just take the money out of the equation. Have the federal government set up facilities where qualified individuals can go to collect their daily ration of government-supplied commodities. Government cheese, government shoes, government petro. There they can also receive government health care and dental work, government continuing education, government job training. We can dictate and micro manage every aspect of their lives until they become 100% self sufficient, One stop shopping for the needy and a guarantee that no illegal drugs will be supplied with tax dollars. Easy, right?
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Dammit man! You had to bring up communism.If we're really that concerned that people can't be trusted to not spend welfare money on drugs, perhaps we should just take the money out of the equation. Have the federal government set up facilities where qualified individuals can go to collect their daily ration of government-supplied commodities. Government cheese, government shoes, government petro. There they can also receive government health care and dental work, government continuing education, government job training. We can dictate and micro manage every aspect of their lives until they become 100% self sufficient, One stop shopping for the needy and a guarantee that no illegal drugs will be supplied with tax dollars. Easy, right?
-
I got called in to work, sorry for the delay. I was clearly wrong. I read the actual statute and walked across the parking lot to the state patrol offices and spoke with the trooper who does all the vehicle accident investigations involving fatalities. He said, it is their policy to seek consent for a blood draw from all drivers involved in fatal accidents. Of course if one does not grant consent, in the absence of probable cause no test will be administered.
It is not about tricking people into tests, it is about attempting to have the most complete set of facts.
I don't work traffic and should just stick to my wheelhouse I guess.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Much respect. Sorry if I was short with you...I got called in to work, sorry for the delay. I was clearly wrong. I read the actual statute and walked across the parking lot to the state patrol offices and spoke with the trooper who does all the vehicle accident investigations involving fatalities. He said, it is their policy to seek consent for a blood draw from all drivers involved in fatal accidents. Of course if one does not grant consent, in the absence of probable cause no test will be administered.
It is not about tricking people into tests, it is about attempting to have the most complete set of facts.
I don't work traffic and should just stick to my wheelhouse I guess.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
I got called in to work, sorry for the delay. I was clearly wrong. I read the actual statute and walked across the parking lot to the state patrol offices and spoke with the trooper who does all the vehicle accident investigations involving fatalities. He said, it is their policy to seek consent for a blood draw from all drivers involved in fatal accidents. Of course if one does not grant consent, in the absence of probable cause no test will be administered.
It is not about tricking people into tests, it is about attempting to have the most complete set of facts.
I don't work traffic and should just stick to my wheelhouse I guess.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong if you are willing to fact check yourself when challenged. Nicely done. 👍
-
No. That's cool.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
My deepest darkest embarrassing secret is when I was 8 I used to shit in my pants and smere it on the walls up until the age of 12. I don't have secrets because I have nothing to hide.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
You were tested for drugs after being in a wreck that someone else caused? Were you detained? Did you voluntarily submit to it? Sounds suspect to me, either that or you got duped. Everyone's got something to hide, even you. Imagine an agent of the government holding your deepest, darkest, most embarrassing secret against you. Perhaps something from your past that could jeopardize your job, or your relationships, or your reputation. Now tell me again how you've got nothing to hide. The 4th amendment is there for a reason. Individual privacy is essential to a free society. Willingly surrender it at your own peril.✂️
-
Fnord any serious wrecks in Louisiana that I've ever heard of every driver involved was drug tested. I assumed it was commonplace honestly, it happens here all the time and I have no problem with it. In Louisiana if I rear end someone I'm immediately at fault under any circumstances. However, if the driver was impaired or on drugs then the fault is taken away from me. I know people who shoot shit up so often you can't tell when they're loaded or sober. Drug testing is very beneficial in situations like that.
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
Is someone coming in my home or shoving a hand up my ass the same as being asked to piss in a cup? You must've had a rough childhood because I don't see those as equals xD we all have rights to privacy but I'm situations where you're in charge of other people's money, lives, or overall well being I think we should know what these people put in their bodies that could cloud their judgement.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
If that's the way you see it, then perhaps you wouldn't mind a routine cavity search, since you have nothing to hide. And a biweekly bunk toss, just to make sure you don't have any contraband. Since you don't have anything to hide.I see it as one of those "if you have nothing to hide then a simple drug test shouldn't be a problem" type of guys.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Why? This conversation is clearly already settled, not only by Florida tried and failed statistics but by the Supreme Court as well.★fnord★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's relevant because it establishes the legal precedent that probable onsent or probable cause among welfare recipients, making blanket drug testing of them an even greater violation of due process.And all this is relevant to drug testing welfare recipeants and employees how???
Would a clause at the bottom of the welfare app saying that by signing you consent to future random testing be enough?
If you boot people off welfare that fail a drug test, eventually you will recoup the cost of the test....
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
Using LSD as an example was my point. I know it wouldn't benefit them in anyway but that doesn't mean people don't do it. Is smoking cigarettes beneficial in any way? Fighting withdrawals doesn't count since it's self inflicted lol. People still do it though.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Drivers don't take LSD. That wouldn't help them. They take speed. As long as they don't run out, they'd probably be fine.✂️
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Nicotine is a stimulant. Beneficial drug for sleepy truck drivers, just like coffee and white crosses.λΙΙuviøη wrote:
Using LSD as an example was my point. I know it wouldn't benefit them in anyway but that doesn't mean people don't do it. Is smoking cigarettes beneficial in any way? Fighting withdrawals doesn't count since it's self inflicted lol. People still do it though.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Drivers don't take LSD. That wouldn't help them. They take speed. As long as they don't run out, they'd probably be fine.✂️
-
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
I know right lol☠ðůﾅ⌖ʟḁẘ☠ wrote:
Then there wouldn't be anyone to keep the servers running 😂They should drug test people to play this app. ;-)
-
Boner Jams '03 wrote:
My example was to show people do things that aren't healthy or beneficial all of the time. A stimulant would possibly help someone who has to drive a lot. Most people don't drive trucks for a living.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Nicotine is a stimulant. Beneficial drug for sleepy truck drivers, just like coffee and white crosses.λΙΙuviøη wrote:
Using LSD as an example was my point. I know it wouldn't benefit them in anyway but that doesn't mean people don't do it. Is smoking cigarettes beneficial in any way? Fighting withdrawals doesn't count since it's self inflicted lol. People still do it though.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Drivers don't take LSD. That wouldn't help them. They take speed. As long as they don't run out, they'd probably be fine.✂️
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
You guys as in what? I'm all for safety and I'm all for privacy. The two can absolutely co exist. If you want to do illegal shit all day then by all means do it. Sit in your home and keep to yourself and do all the illegal shit you want. If you're going to interact with other human beings or sit on your ass and collect benefits then I'd rather have you not be strung out on drugs and I don't think a hair follicle and some piss is too much to ask for. I piss 6 times a day easily and I have more hairs than I care to count. Where is the problem? The only reason to oppose that would be either because you have something to hide or they might have their foil hat on too tight.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
✂️✂️
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC