L.A. DUI Checkpoints: Now With More Saliva in Your Questionable Fourth Amendment Practices

Bad news from the open-air prison we call America today out of L.A., where cops are going to start demanding saliva samples from citizens it stops at DUI checkpoints who it finds suspiciously suspicious. 

Details from SoCal public radio station KPCC website:

Starting this weekend, law enforcement in Los Angeles will begin expanded use of saliva swab test kits on drivers suspected of driving under the influence of drugs.....

Susan Melkisethian / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDSusan Melkisethian / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

The testing is already used at some LAPD DUI checkpoints and at three stations that have jails. A $520,000 grant awarded to the L.A. City Attorney’s Office will expand the regular use of the test next year...

Do you gotta give them your spit? No. Legally, just your blood. God bless America!

State law requires drivers suspected of driving under the influence to submit to a blood test but they have the right to refuse the swab. The oral test is voluntary, said deputy city attorney Michelle DeCasas...

Feuer said the rise of medical marijuana dispensaries has led more drivers, including lawful card-carrying users, to get behind the wheel under the influence of the drug.

The oral swab tests can detect tetrahydrocannabinol or THC – the active impairing ingredient in marijuana – that is in a person’s system up to three hours after ingestion.

As the LA Times reports, it isn't just pot these tests allege they can detect:

The test screens for cocaine, benzodiazepine (Xanax), methamphetamine, amphetamines, narcotic analgesics, methadone and THC representative of marijuana usage within the past few hours. City prosecutors have yet to use results from the test as evidence in a case.

That's because, as prosecutors always hope, citizens tend to plead out under the pressure.

Does any of these test results amount to actual, real, reckless driving? Who knows, and the law apparently doesn't care.

Scott Shackford blogged last month about a National Highway Traffic Administration study doing the same sort of highly invasive bodily fluid sampling merely in the name of "research."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I, for one, am happy to provide any cop I see with a saliva sample. Right in the face if I aim it right.

  • pan fried wylie||

    State law requires drivers suspected of driving under the influence to submit to a blood test

    "getting stopped randomly at a checkpoint" != "suspicious driving"

    but hey, FYTW.

  • GILMORE||

    I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    I do not avoid Checkpoints, but I do deny them My Essence.

  • Brett L||

    This is obviously the correct movie quotation for this situation.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I came here with a variant of his last line in mind.

  • Irish||

    Melissa Harris-Perry mocks Mitt Romney's black grandson, calls him a 'token.'

    As Harris-Perry made the introduction, panelist Pia Glenn sang “One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same,” a tune whose original lyrics read “one of these things doesn’t belong.”

    Comedian Dean Obeidallah chimed in by reducing the baby to a token. “I think this picture is great,” he said. “It really sums up the diversity of the Republican party, the RNC. At the convention, they find the one black person.”

    The fact that Tommy Christopher realizes how horrible this is tells you that they may have crossed a line.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Stay classy, MSDNC. Stay classy.

  • GILMORE||

    Wow.

    So, let's see = if you're half-white, but a progressive, you're an achievement in diversity and racial reconciliation.

    If you're half-black and even related to a republican - you're an ABOMINATION.

    Glad to see these people have gone all 'post-race'

  • Irish||

    The kid isn't even half black. He's an adopted black child.

    You see, even when Republicans adopt black children, they're only doing so to cover the racism that secretly lurks within their hearts.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You see, even when Republicans adopt black children, they're only doing so to cover the racism that secretly lurks within their hearts.

    Yes. Unlike Hollywood Progressives, who do it just to complete their collection.

  • ||

    When Ron and Rand Paul provided free medical services to impoverished black people they only did it so that years later they could revel in taking away their food stamps!

  • Agammamon||

    Well, *obviously* they only had the child adopted because it looks good politically.

  • prolefeed||

    Because * nothing * says "obviously adopting someone to further your political prospects" like doing so almost a year AFTER one loses the election (adopted Sept. 2013).

  • Irish||

    The kid isn't even half black. He's an adopted black child.

    You see, even when Republicans adopt black children, they're only doing so to cover the racism that secretly lurks within their hearts.

  • SugarFree||

    Adopted? More like bought.

  • John||

    I see what you did there. RACIST!!

  • SugarFree||

    No... ANTI-RACIST! Creepy Mormon cult buys a black child to brainwash.

    Only someone like you would think this is acceptable.

  • John||

    No you are just a big racist meanie. You saw a black baby and said "he was bought". See you used the term buy and sell in reference to a black person and that is the RACIST.

  • OO=======D||

    So what's a black baby go for these days?

  • ||

    Mac: (to the tan clerk about the baby) We just wanna put him in there for a couple of minutes.

    Dee: Just to get a base.

    Mac: Just to get a base.

  • Irish||

    They probably only adopted the kid so that they could baptize his entire lineage without their consent.

  • prolefeed||

    Mormons don't ask for permission to baptize the dead, they just do it.

    Except for Jews -- apparently this raised such a ruckus, the Church decided to not do any more such baptisms without consent.

  • John||

    The Jews raised a ruckus not because of the baptism but because the Mormons keep a big list of everyone they have baptized. Jews understandably are a bit paranoid about being on someone's list.

  • Irish||

    Jews understandably are a bit paranoid about being on someone's list.

    Well, except for Schindler's.

  • prolefeed||

    That wasn't the biggest problem, according to this article:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....29322.html

    The money quote: "Baptizing is a very dirty word to many Jews," said Gary Mokotoff, a prominent Jewish genealogist who contacted church elders soon after the Israeli genealogist's discovery. "It reminds us of the persecution Jews had in the past where churches told Jews they had a choice: either convert to Christianity or be murdered."

  • John||

    Didn't anyone explain to them that they are not really being "baptized"? I mean, anyone can make up a list and put you on it and that is really all it is.

  • Fluffy||

    Silly John, words are magical!

    Words control feelings, which are more important than truth or logic.

  • John||

    Here is the funniest part fluffy, if you object to the Mormons putting you on their "baptized list" you are admitting to validity of their beliefs. For all I know I may be on one of those lists. But since I am not a Mormon and think their beliefs are whacked, I don't care. The only way I would care is if I actually thought their beliefs were true and my getting "baptized" meant something.

  • Fluffy||

    Right.

    But on the one hand, you have logic.

    And on the other hand, you have magical words and feelings.

    Which will win, I wonder? Hmmmmmmmm....

  • Mickey Rat||

    Baptism is also based on old Jewish purification rituals. The only thing that's different is Jews submerged themselves in water for religious reasons all the time and what it is supposed to represent.

  • R C Dean||

    Typical Romney, half-assing it again.

    You don't have to adopt an orphan. You just have to pay the asking price.

    Geez.

  • John||

    That child would be better off dying in poverty than used as a token by the evil Republicans.

  • RBS||

    Is Dean Obeidallah one of those edgy new comics that somehow finds racism everywhere?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Dean Obeidallah

    Yes. And he is also an appallingly bad op-ed columnist at CNN.com. His schtick is that he's the half-Palestinian Muslim lawyer who makes jokes. See? He told a funny joke about his mother/brother/neighbor/his cat! And he practices Islam! Isn't that hilarious? He's people, just like us, so if you disagree with him, you're an Islamophobe, straight up.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sounds like it. From the blurb under his website: "Stand up comic deals with political and social issues. Biography, schedule, photos and details of the presentation, "Standup for Peace""

  • John||

    I don't care what he thinks. It is a free country. But what bothers me is his and others like him's conceit that they are somehow edgy and courageous for mouthing the party line.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Exactly.

    I checked out his wiki and he's compared to the likes of Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor, and Dick Gregory; I'm about to rage-vomit all over my new boots.

  • John||

    Richard Pryor did a whole routine about white people adopting Asian kids when there are so many black kids they have to advertise them on the evening news.

  • ||

    The transition into legal weed is going to be utterly rife with government attempts to cash in on DUI stops just like with alcohol. It gives them both revenue and CONTROL. This is just the opening salvo of their coming attempts to see how far they can go.

  • John||

    Yes. Marijuana, since it is harder to detect, is a gold mine for these idiots. Legal pot gives them an excuse to basically blood test anyone, never mind that driving stoned is no where near as dangerous as driving drunk and not even close to being as common.

  • Winston||

    Is this part of California's social tolerance Too-chili was going on about?

    Bad news from the open-air prison we call America today

    How can you say such things when more gay people are getting married and pot is legal is some states?

  • SugarFree||

    Yee-haw! You sure did show them faggot-lovin' cosmotararians! More like homotarians, right? Hyuk-yuk.

  • John||

    They are having a gay wedding on a float at the Rose Bowl Parade. So there is always that. Lets just hope neither of the happy couple toked up before driving the float.

  • Winston||

    Is the float up to safety and environmental regulations? I mean is it green?

  • SugarFree||

    Let's be honest, John... The Rose Bowl was always a bit swishy as is. A flower parade for a football game? Really?

  • John||

    I didn't say it was inappropriate. Yeah, when your audience is housewives and gay men, a gay wedding probably is a good idea.

  • SugarFree||

    At least Syracuse won their bowl.

    My wife is teaching a class at Syracuse in the spring. I have interpreted this to mean I have to watch Syracuse football and basketball games. GO ORANGE!

  • John||

    My wife works for a university that only has a D1 basketball team. I wish she would ever work somewhere with a good football team.

  • Winston||

    Well to be pedantic it originally was the other way around, a football game for a flower parade. Which makes it even more swishy I would imagine.

  • db||

    I am surprised there isn't more of an outcry in the scientific community about this (although whether or not it is even widely known of in that community is another question). There are serious ethical and scientific problems with compelling participation in "research." If anyone can point to a journal or science blog discussing this, I'd be very interested in reading it.

  • Brett L||

    And it will TOTALLY never be used against you while they are determining its efficacy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I am surprised there isn't more of an outcry in the scientific community about this

    Because Fed grant dollars are so so soooo YUMMY!!!!

  • R C Dean||

    I'm no expert on the current standards for research study participants, but I'm pretty sure voluntary consent is non-negotiable.

  • Winston||

    You Know Who Else used people investigated by police in research without their consent?

  • John||

    My wife is. And I can tell you, that yes it is. That is like on page one in big letters.

    But hey, at least they are not giving people syphilis. So there is that.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Be fair, the researchers at Tuskegee never gave anyone syphilis - they just sat around and watched them suffer and die of it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Are you one those yahoos that wants science corrupted by ethics who Bailey sometimes rants about?

  • db||

    It's totally voluntary when the people asking for your consent are backed up by men with guns and the ability to manufacture "probable cause" and the legal authority to act on it.

  • R C Dean||

    If this was really about impaired driving, rather than Total Control, they would be testing for impairment.

    Because you can, actually, test for impaired reflexes, etc.

    But for some reason Our Masters are uninterested in doing so. Its a mystery.

  • John||

    But doing that is hard. And big old meany defense attorneys make cops stand up and testify and answer questions and stuff. People might get off if we did that RC. Why do you hate children?

  • R C Dean||

    But doing that is hard.

    Not very. There are gizmos on the market right now that test for impairment. And, with a bunch of massive LEO contracts to fund R & D, they would get better.

    Some background (no idea of the quality of the source):

    http://workrights.us/?products.....es-it-work

  • John||

    Maybe not for you but it certainly is for the average cop. Moreover, they are always going to have a subject element and thus enable the defendant to dispute it in court. The last thing we need is defendants being able to put up a proper defense.

  • Batgirl||

    In his dissent to Maryland v. King, Justice Scalia saw this one coming:
    "The Court repeatedly says that DNA testing, and entry into a national DNA registry, will not befall thee and me, dear reader, but only those arrested for ‘serious offenses’. I cannot imagine what principle could possibly justify this limitation, and the Court does not attempt to suggest any. If one believes that DNA will ‘identify’ someone arrested for assault, he must believe that it will ‘identify’ someone arrested for a traffic offense. …When there comes before us the taking of DNA from an arrestee for a traffic violation, the Court will predictably (and quite rightly) say, ‘We can find no significant difference between this case and King.’ Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. … I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.” Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. __ (2013) Scalia, J., dissenting.

  • John||

    It wasn't hard. He had it exactly right. I wonder if the majority is just that stupid or just that mendacious not to see that, not that it makes any difference.

  • db||

    They are Sophists and Pharisees who care more about the cleverness of their artful words than the adherence of their rulings to governing principles.

  • John||

    And unsurprisingly, Justice Penaltax was in the majority on that case.

  • Jordan||

    Third party doctrine. By exhaling, you are consenting to give your DNA away.

  • OO=======D||

    THC – the active impairing ingredient in marijuana

    [citation needed]

  • Winston||

    Thomas Haden Church was impairing in Spider-Man 3 so there's your proof!

  • ImanAzol||

    Oh, Christ, next the stoner will tell us that it's "better medicine than anything the pharma-industrial-government complex endorses."

    I hope every fucking pothead out there tries to treat cancer and diabetes with pot and dies in an oozing heap.

    And I want it to be legal for them to do so. Think of it as evolution in action.

    Next up: Medical meth and vodka.

  • ||

    Does any of these test results amount to actual, real, reckless driving? Who knows, and the law apparently doesn't care.

    Well, does the law care, in this case? I mean to say, shouldn't someone have included info on Cali's DUI laws in this post? Are they a zero-tolerance state like IL, where having THC in your system months after smoking weed is a DUI? Is it illegal to drive on benzos? Not that any of that makes this okay...it just might make it worse. We need to know our nuts have been punched exactly as hard as is appropriate!

  • ||

    But...but you don't have nuts, nicole. Unless you finally got that sex change you were going on about.

  • ||

    Look, I thought we all knew there were no female libertarians.

  • ||

    So those pictures Warty secretly snapped by taking over the camera in your laptop and then shared with the rest of us aren't real? I knew the person in those pictures looked too much like Jessica Biel!

  • SugarFree||

    Warty shopped out her wedding tackle and you fell for it.

  • ||

    But I want to believe!!!

  • ||

    She never said she was going to become a MAN, Epi. Keep your bisexist bigotry out of this, ok? Stop microdiscriminating against 3rd, 4th, and etc. sexes.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Nicole is genderqueer? She really is the worst.

  • John||

    It is all the result of the death of mens rea and the strict liability crime. DUI is strict liability. it doesn't matter if you were driving perfectly safe. The fact that you were "drunk" by their standards makes you guilty.

    When you realize that, you see how short of a step it is to arrest someone for having THC metabolites in their system. Sure they were not "impaired". But since we no longer care about how the person is actually driving, what difference does that make? They could have been impaired and that is enough.

    Think about it. In most states you can get a DUI for sitting in your car drunk. Once we took the step of no longer caring about how the person was actually driving or whether they actually caused any harm, there was really no going back and all of this stuff was inevitable.

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, DUI based solely on BAC or the slobber test or whatever is pure "future crime".

  • John||

    So is child porn. No one cares about that right now because everyone hates child porn. But if the simple act of possessing a picture of a child can be a crime, I don't see how the act of possessing say the recipe for explosives or the design of a bomb can't also be a crime. And once you are there, possessing "extremist literature" whatever that is will also be a crime.

    Sure, you will argue the 1st Amendment. And I will makes the same arguments used to justify making child porn illegal; it is not artistic or political expression, possessing it serves the single purpose of causing harm, allowing people to possess such makes it more widely available and so forth.

  • Fluffy||

    In the case of child porn, I would say this:

    If I commissioned the making of child porn, it would be an open-and-shut case of conspiracy. I am a conspirator engaged in the acts depicted in the film or on the picture because I commissioned it for hire.

    That being the case, the question becomes whether participating in the market for child porn, whether by purchase or by trade or for any valuable consideration whatsoever, can reasonably be seen to be a continuation of the original conspiracy to make the film or picture.

  • John||

    Certainly commissioning the making or making it is an entirely different matter. But there, the crime is not possessing the picture, but making the picture. That, unlike possession, is a real crime that requires intent and actually causes harm.

    As far as the "creating the market" argument goes, most child porn is traded for free on the internet. And currently none of the laws require any proof that the picture was purchased. So, your argument while interesting, doesn't apply to our current strict liability laws.

    Beyond that, I fail to see how "creating a market" can be considered a crime. By that logic, you could prosecute people for buying drugs from drug gangs since buying drugs from such people creates a market for illegal drugs and funds incredibly harmful and murderous drug gangs. I don't think you would buy such an argument for making possession of drugs criminal and you shouldn't buy it with regard to child porn.

  • Fluffy||

    I wouldn't buy it with drugs, because I don't think the underlying act should be illegal.

    I do think subjecting children to sexual abuse should be illegal, though.

    If there was a group of guys who loved trading and buying the hair of women killed by serial killers, and serial killers started shipping those guys hair because they liked the attention and flattery, I might be persuaded that the guys trading the dead-hooker hair were in some sense engaged in a conspiracy with the serial killers.

  • John||

    I do think subjecting children to sexual abuse should be illegal, though.

    So do I. But I don't see how possessing a picture does that to such a degree to justify making it a felony on par with making it or really even a crime.

    As far as your dead hooker example, again, purchasing is not an element of the crime. I will admit that making engaging in commerce to obtain the picture an element of the offense would be a great improvement over what we have now. As it is, merely having the picture is a felony. And that strikes me as insane.

    But even granting your argument, you are arguing for the purchase of the porn to be the crime rather than the possession. Under your system, I could go to jail if you proved I purchased such crap even if you never found me in possession of it. And that to me is both a different and less objectionable criminalization of conduct than making possession alone a crime.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's right there in the Social Contract.

    Stop complaining.

  • John||

    Its the price of civilization you racist tea bagger.

  • Irish||

    Washington Post: Mayor Bloomberg ushered in best race relations in decades.

    The thinly veiled implicit message was that a Mayor Bloomberg wouldn’t go back to the days of disrespect and disregard visited upon communities of color during the Giuliani years. And I know this because, as a policy adviser to Bloomberg during that first mayoral campaign, I wrote “Don’t Go Back” with Kelly and other aides.

    Yeah, and all he had to do was illegaly search millions of black and Hispanic people.

    It also helped that large portions of New York are so expensive that no one other than rich white people can live there. Nothing stops black people and white people from fighting like de facto segregation!

    Just ask the Village Voice about that!

    NYC was the outlier--the sole top-10 city to see an increase in segregation. Its index score rose by 1.5 over the past 40 years. But the lion's share has been recent. Between 2000 and 2010, the the city's segregation rate grew by .9 percent, from 54.4 to 55.3. The divide is sharper when you isolate white-black segregation, at 85.3, and white-hispanic segregation, at 69.3.

    Yay! Bloomberg oversaw the largest increase in segregation of any major city!

  • John||

    You just don't understand Irish, nothing makes minorities happier than living with their own kind and having a policeman there to keep them in line.

    Signed,

    The white liberals at the Washington Post.

  • Irish||

    It was written by a black guy.

    A black guy who admits he was a policy adviser for the person he's writing about.

    No conflict of interest there.

  • John||

    See. Told you the Negros are happier living with their own kind.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    The "open-air prison we call America today"? Really? Very interesting words indeed. However, Americans have not yet tasted a real "open-air prison", which in reality is a dictatorship (right or left), that thank God Americans never will have to experience.

    Complaining about tests for sobriety is NO indicator that Americans have lost or are losing their so called privacy. Certainly Americans are not completely free to do whatever the hell they want. However, drug tests do not mean we live in some sort of "open-air prison".

    Not yet at least. Hopefully NEVER. Start reading up on real dictatorships and you will come upon an impressive list, but the U.S. in not quite there. We are a long way from places like North Korea and Cuba. If you don't want to get tested don't do pot or alcohol. Quit smoking too. Better all around for your health. And you won't have to take those privacy assaulting tests with.

  • tarran||

    If you don't want to get tested don't do pot or alcohol.

    BWA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

    This is hilarious! Because the cops are only going to swab the mouths of tokers! Normal people will get waved through the checkpoint; "They aren't the tokers we're looking for! Move along!"

  • ||

    That's why they have magic dogs who can tell them apart. Geez, you haven't been paying attention to the Truth of Our Benevolent Overlords at all, have you?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Don't like my comments darious404? Guess you will just to suck them up your rectum.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Dear tartan,

    Hi there A--Hole. Don't like my comments? Dial 1 800 EAT CRAP. Thank you.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Or try to learn and understand ideas like being unsober, should not be a question the state needs to answer unless another reason prompts them; such as an accident.

    IE - The potential for an accident should not be illegal.

    Additionally new laws specifically aimed at preventing specific behavior which wasn't prevented before by definition is a limit on others rights.

    And check carefully on your sobriety argument, because they are also checking for Xanax, a prescription drug and I didn't read any information that they would know how much someone might have taken.

    So anyone with a the medical need and a prescription will necessarily be arrested after failing the test, only to be forced into a blood test then forced to prove from their private medical records they had a prescription when the blood test proves the amounts were within "therapeutically amounts".

    Yeah - that's freedom for you - no lose of rights at all. Nothing to see here. Please move along sir.

  • RishJoMo||

    Well, until the sheeple decide to STAND UP and TAKE BACK what was once theirs, NOTHING will ever change. And I aint talking about wavin some silly protest signs!

    www.BeinAnon.tk

  • BambiB||

    They want your saliva… but object when you spit on them?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement