political and social commentary about the flat earthers and other ridiculous subjects



July 4, 2017

Many of you have requested explain or at least attempt to explain why police are allowed to draw blood samples, saliva samples or breath samples without search warrant contrary to the constitution. I suppose I could give her rather simplistic answer, saying the legislation wanted to give this power to the police. Or that the police lobbyists convince legislators that it was necessary. Or that our educational system is so shoddy that we don’t teach the Constitution anymore and it is a result of ignorance although I’d like to say this, it is in the case.
Reflecting over the last half century of law practice, I see a lot of changes, in the development of law and political relationships. It would be best to explain what changed, how it was changed, and then talk about some possible causes and effects. What the reader should know is that these are solely my conclusions and opinions and not that of many other lawyers. I will try not to be revisionist, resist the tendency toward cynicism and try to avoid the post-modern bullshit that I lecture about. What I will say is it was illegal for the police to take blood or other evidence against a citizen’s will when I first started practicing law.

When I started practicing law, the Vietnam War was going on. There were protests in the streets and there were riots. vValues of the post-World War II generation of duty,loyalty and patriotism were in question, the reach for the American dream, and unbridled patriotism were treated with apparently disrespect by younger people. I can remember knowing many policemen then and being invited to their birthday parties and retirement parties. No more; those invitations stopped about 1980. Since then the law players has been partitioned between pro-police and anti-police. This polarization was gradual and constant, tied into and caused by the war on drugs. The Nixon administration convinced the American public that many of the things that they were afraid of were caused by drugs. The threat of drugs caused young people to be unpatriotic, irresponsible and unruly, ignoring the wishes of their parents.
I can remember during those confusing days when prosecutors and defense attorneys cooperated, and there was much cooperation between police and defense attorneys. But as the drug war carried on, there became a dichotomy and defense attorneys started to be thought of as enemies of the system and of the people. We were attacked professionally, socially and by the press. For the first time, I was asked how I could in good conscience be a defense attorney, displaying a total lack of understanding of the system or how it worked. Prosecutor propagandist constructed a false reality that when the police made an arrest, the case should stop. Anything else was superfluous and an obstruction to justice. Trials were mere technicalities. The cop was always right.

I can remember losing many DUI cases to well-trained prosecutors and honest policeman. At that time, the law of search and seizure was being developed protected the citizenry. However, crime and race became a theme or narrative in our society. Anomalies were highly publicized and the public was conditioned to react to them as though they were the norm. Instances were highly publicized and calculated to bring fear as some sort of action.
Prosecutors have always been against search and seizure in their out of insurance or totalitarian belief structure, ever since rights guaranteed by the Constitution started to be applied to the states as a fundamental part of due process. Police, with tunnel vision viewed suppression of evidence as a personal affront rather than being a part of the system you could hear them pitching about how they worked their asses off only to have the court turn them out back on the streets the police Association had lobbyists lobby groups as did the district attorney’s. The people had no such institutions behind them their interests, had no public relations specialists, or propagandists no writings of the laws or honor. Most lawyers were so afraid that they would agree with the bullshit spread about lawyers. Fear trumped that.
The change was gradual. Many of the judges of the World War II era had a respect for the law and the Constitution and its limitation on powers. Congress was ignoring its duty to declare war; there was a fictitious attack American ship, and other events that older people were afraid of. Not only was there war in Vietnam, there was an ideological war going on in the United States. It came to the forefront in the Chicago Democratic convention of 1968 with a police riot, beating the shit out of protesters.

When Richard Nixon’s kitchen cabinet invented the war on drugs to circumvent the local control of police policy, bringing it under the federal domain, the press and fearful public cheered them on. The war on drugs was the excuse. Ignorance was a methodology and fear was a marketing device. Even though the Nixon officials admitted lying to the public and creating a false impression of danger, people were still unwilling to accept that as a fact that the government smuggled and sold drugs for revenue to mount operations against the people is something that most people don’t believe. In fact, people were in such denial that wrecked the careers of many reporters. Ample evidence and statements by government officials indicate that the intelligence community has been selling heroin since the Vietnam War, followed by cocaine and marijuana to fund the Contras and circumvent the Boland amendment.
With all that going on it was quite easy to ignore what was going on in the local law enforcement arena. the focus on local law enforcement was to generate revenue, since most sources of revenue were needed to carry on various wars. There was also a campaign to privatize government functions. To do so, it was necessary to make it easier to convict.
The prosecutors through their associations lobbied the legislatures to arm officers and police departments with cameras. So, when the officer testified according to the script that was written for him by his superiors, it could be reinforced by a video they took of the defendant at the police station and filmed him. When it became really problematic, the rule was changed. The police couldn’t change their script and, they couldn’t help but exaggerate. Therefore, many drivers were acquitted, which created shortfalls in revenue. One municipality publicly stated that they would have to close programs because of lack of subjects. Police and prosecutors by now oriented to be pro totalitarians decided to have different degrees of driving under the influence, which would make it virtually impossible when any case outright. So, juries, even though they viewed videos showing a driver wasn’t intoxicated, they could be convinced into finding that the driver was impaired.

Simultaneously, in order to placate the liberals and disguise the fact that they were turning the court system into a profit generation center various rehabilitation centers and other services were set up by private industry. Additionally, they built private prisons. The taxpayers didn’t pay much attention because the cost was added to court expenses for the poor bustards that were charged with alcohol related offenses.

Still, the convictions were coming quickly enough or in the requisite number to support all of the programs that were set up to deal with the manufactured problem. Also, the district attorney’s propaganda machine increased the fear among through a group set up through a government front called mothers against drunk drivers or MADD. They publicized several stories and pictures about motor vehicle accidents in which drunk drivers were involved to garner support. Also, to obtain more convictions, they lobby for mandatory fluid tests. After a few courts threw that procedure out, they invented a way to circumvent the Constitution and the search and seizure rules by claiming it was necessary to agree to such a procedure as a prerequisite to obtain a driver’s license that was referred to as either implied consent or express consent. The theory was, that if drove a car on a state road and applied for state driver’s license them by doing so you expressly gave the state permission to take bodily fluid evidence from you. Otherwise a could revoke your driver’s license.

Unfortunately, by then most defense attorneys had given up the fight or came from less idealistic and more greedy backgrounds. Civil rights days were gone. Enterprise and profit ruled. Government redefined the practice of law as a business conducted by merchants and allowed lawyers to advertise. This had never been done before. Additionally, to keep lawyers in line, the public defender’s office was support were most public defenders visited any person who was arrested and lodged in jail first.

Thus, driving under the influence legislation became the progenitor of a whole industry of testing, counseling, supervising, etc. Once the idea of a body fluid test was accepted by the public, the use expanded geometrically. All one has to do is visit courtrooms to see what has happened to our constitutional system. What you see is no trial going on involving juries in the most part. Some occur occasionally but most cases are disposed of without trial or in a proceeding. Decisions on how to proceed are made by a young prosecutor right out of law school who is school by the police. Most of them have been subjected to a curriculum developed by intelligence agencies and the school for American. All one has to do is look at the police murder rates to see the results of that.
So, what is changed is the perception of crime, the first section of police and lawyers, the perception of the police and courts by all the players, which as you all into an assembly line procedure to process cases, set fines, refer them to private entities so the entities to make a profit and to go on to the next case.
Therefore, answer the question why are police allowed to draw blood or breath tests or mouth swabs is because most citizens don’t give a shit and they are afraid and care more about their personal safety than about an abstract theory of government and constitutional law. I dictated this on 4 July. I decided I should probably proof read and edit it. I apologize is not is timely as a good event will be enjoyed in any event,

Recently, at least one state declared this practice unconstitutional. I hope this starts a trend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: