Shigeru Mizuki, a
historian and manga artist, has described a World War II muster call in
which pilots were invited to volunteer for a kamikaze operation. Each was
handed two ballots; one of them read “willing,” the other, “very willing.” Those
who didn’t “volunteer” would be killed.
Imperial Japan, of course, was neither the first nor the last despotism to impose this eccentric vision of volunteerism. During the mid-1980s, a state radio broadcast in East Germany proudly announced a record-breaking national blood drive. In the audio equivalent of fine print could be found the critical, defining detail: “Most of the donors were volunteers.”
To celebrate what
used to be called Independence Day, police
in Oregon have announced a “no refusal” initiative for the Fourth of July
weekend. Motorists who refuse to “volunteer” for a Breathalyzer test will
be subjected to an immediate involuntary blood test, which will take place either
at the side of the road, a nearby medical facility, or in a jail. Prosecutors
and judges will be on call to rubber-stamp police requests for a blood draw
warrant.
By treating the right to
travel as if it were a state-granted privilege, the Regime and its affiliates
created a concept called “Implied Consent.” This amounts to a plenary waiver of
individual rights for anybody who receives a state-issued driver’s license.
Under “Implied Consent,” police throughout the soyuz – like their East German antecedents – can detain any driver
at their discretion, conduct a warrantless search of the driver's vehicle, and
compel the driver to undergo a “chemical test” for alcohol, by way of either a Breathalyzer or the more invasive method of a bodily
fluid test – blood or urine.
Refusal to submit to this
procedure will generally lead to summary arrest for “per se intoxication”;
furthermore, as one legal advice website warns, “Under implied
consent laws, in most states a driver's license is automatically suspended for
up to one year, even if the motorist is not found guilty of DUI.”
So, in the East German sense of the expression, those of us who have driver's licenses have "volunteered" to be stopped, interrogated, searched, and surrender bodily samples at the whim of a DUI enforcement officer.
Under this
totalitarian approach, “due process” consists of immediate judicial ratification
of a police demand for self-incriminating evidence. The Breathalyzer is a
notoriously unreliable technology, and police will readily admit
as much – but only when that otherwise infallible device produces test results that
exonerate a driver. The threat of an involuntary blood draw is being used
to extort compliance with a scientifically invalid testing protocol – which in
some cases simply serves as a prelude to even greater violations, including “rape
by instrumentality” and torture.
In October 2011, a
federal district court for southern Indiana dismissed a lawsuit filed by Jamie
Lockard. Mr. Lockard passed a Breathalyzer test but was kidnapped, caged,
and subjected to object rape by Officer Brian Miller, who was shielded from
accountability by invoking the mystical concept of “qualified immunity.”
Lockard was ambushed by
Miller after supposedly running a stop sign. At the direction of his armed
captor, who claimed to smell alcohol on Lockard’s breath, the motorist
performed a Breathalyzer
test, which returned a BAC of 0.07 – well below the legal limit. Rather than
releasing the victim – perhaps after handing him a ransom note (also called a “citation”)
– Miller shackled him and faxed a search warrant application to a local judge,
who approved the request within a few minutes. Since this happened at about
midnight, it’s safe to assume that careful scrutiny of the application wasn’t a
priority for the judge.
The driver was taken to Dearborn County Hospital
and ordered to pee into a cup. When performance anxiety made this impossible, Lockard
was charged with “obstruction” – a class D felony -- because “he refused to
voluntarily give a urine sample.” That charge reflects the East German
understanding of the term “voluntarily.” Rather than waiting for nature to take
its course, Miller and another officer name Michael Lanning pinned him down
while a nurse prepared a catheter.
Initially, this act of state-mandated object
rape was to involve a straight size 16 Foley catheter. Helpless to resist, Lockard
pointed out that he suffers from an enlarged prostate. The nurse opted for a
smaller gauge – but this didn’t help: Lockard described the pain he experienced
as “just as if somebody would take a burning hot coal and stick it up your penis.”
After being raped, Lockard was caged for several
days in order to extract a guilty plea for reckless driving. Rather than being compensated
for the injuries inflicted on him, the victim received 180 days’ probation, a
$100 fine, and was assessed $165 to pay for the privilege of having the court
inflict sentence on him.
In dismissing Lockard’s lawsuit, the appellate
court made mention of more than a half-dozen previous cases in which police
were allowed to commit forced catheterization in search of ambiguous evidence
supposedly lurking in the suspect’s bloodstream. Two of the relevant precedents
– Sparks v. Stutler and Levine v. Roebuck – involved forced catheterization
of inmates by prison officials. In both of those cases, a district court judge
ruled that the procedure was an unwarranted outrage on the victim – only to be
reversed by a federal judge who ruled that object rape of an inmate is covered
by the ever-expanding cloak of “qualified immunity.”
Lockard’s case was among the first to extend the
practice of forced catheterization and similar procedures beyond prison walls into
our larger prison society. Violations of the kind he endured are now routinely
employed not only for DUI enforcement but also
by forfeiture-hungry narcotics task forces.
Innocent drivers
who submit to a blood or urine test and are fully exonerated by it will still
be punished for their cooperation.
In April 2006,
19-year-old Lakeland, Florida resident Robbie Stout was stopped by a deputy
named Dennis Mosser, who spotted a bad brake light. Stout was the designated
driver for a group of friends who had been shooting pool at a nearby bar.
Mosser ordered Stout from the car and demanded that he perform a sobriety test.
Unlike the
officer who detained him, Mosser had worked a full shift at a productive job
before spending a late night with his friends. He was very tired, and disclosed
as much to Mosser, because “I wanted to be honest with him. I didn’t want to
lie to a police officer.”
Mosser, a trained
liar who is rewarded for dishonesty, didn’t reciprocate, claiming that he had
been up for 24 hours.
“Yes, he lied,” admitted
department spokesman Jack Gillen, dismissing this crime as “an investigative
technique” used to “gain rapport with the kid.” A more honest person would have
described this as an effort to deceive and disarm the victim. Mosser’s
deception extended to his choice of an uneven, sloping section of the road on
which to perform the walking sobriety test.
After achieving
his desired result, Mosser abducted Stout. Despite the fact that he scored a
0.00 on his Breathalyzer test and a blood panel showing that he had no drugs in
his system, Stout was caged for the better part of a day, his family was forced
to pay $2,500 in legal fees, and the spurious arrest remains on his record.
Another of Deputy Mosser’s
victims, Polk
County Commissioner Randy Wilkinson, requested
a blood alcohol test after being arrested. Despite the fact that the test
showed that there wasn’t so much as a picogram
of alcohol in Wilkinson’s bloodstream, he, like Stout, was handcuffed, fingerprinted,
forced to pose for mug-shots, and briefly jailed. The charges against Wilkinson
weren’t dismissed until several weeks later.
A few months later, the
television program Inside Edition was able to document that DUI officers
in Lakeland, Florida were under a strict quota (clothed in the euphemism “Performance
Standard”) to make 10 arrests a month. To the surprise of no informed person, the
program's investigative team was able to verify that similar quotas have been assigned
to police departments nation-wide.
While officers who inflict lasting injury on
victims such as Jaime Lockard are beyond accountability, drivers who decide to
revoke their “Implied Consent” by resisting blood draws can be tortured into compliance
and then punished for their resistance.
In 2007 a New Jersey appeals court ruled that
officers who inflicted permanent damage on Russell Johnson while he was
undergoing a compelled blood draw were protected by “qualified immunity.”
Johnson suffered severe damage to a wrist after one officer placed the full
burden of his tax-subsidized suet on one of the victim’s hands, while his
comrade used a handcuff to restrain the other. Significantly, the injuries
suffered by Johnson met the Bybee
Memorandum’s definition of torture, since they resulted in “permanent impairment of a significant body function.”
About ten years ago, Arizona became the first
state to train police officers to collect their own blood samples. This procedure is now
used in Texas, Utah, Idaho, and other states. Police do receive training in
emergency first aid, but they are not health care professionals – something Arizona
resident James Green can confirm from first-hand experience.
Although he was arrested on
suspicion of DUI within walking distance of a hospital, his abductor, a Pinal
County Sheriff’s Deputy, insisted on performing the blood draw all by himself.
Two ineptly executed and thoroughly unhygienic needle-sticks later, the officer
had extracted a blood sample – and in exchange had given Green an aggressive
infection that cost him months of work and thousands of dollars.
When Brian
Sewell was arrested by Pima County deputies, he understandably put
up a fight rather than being siphoned by an armed stranger. Summary “street
justice” was inflicted on Sewell through three Taser shocks that left him
permanently disfigured. Charges against the victim were eventually dropped, but
the scars inflicted while he was being “protected and served” are his for life.
“No refusal” initiatives
have no measurable positive impact on the problem of drunken driving, if only because
none of the testing protocols offers a reliable way to identify drivers who are
dangerously impaired.
The blood alcohol limit of 0.08 is a political artifact
intended to create a revenue stream for the political class by policing the
bloodstream of the driving public. But Breathalyzers
and related devices measure residual alcohol in the breath, not in the bloodstream
– and, as noted above, even a clear breath, blood, or urine test isn’t treated
as exculpatory.
If America were,
to any extent, a country worthy of the heritage we celebrate on Independence
Day, a proposed “No Refusal” traffic enforcement campaign would provoke an armed mass uprising. Our colonial patriot forebears drew blood over
impositions much less offensive than this.
Dum spiro, pugno!