Saliva Swab May Determine If Drivers Are Drug Impaired

salt lake city tribune ^ | 6.7.03 | Tasha Williams

[freepatriot32]

"Shy-bladder syndrome" won't spare impaired motorists from taking drug tests, if a Utah police sergeant has his way. Sgt. Dennis Simonson of the Logan Police Department requested a $5,800 grant from the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to launch the first pilot study in the country using roadside saliva detection devices. The new tool, RapiScan, which is manufactured by Cozart, detects drugs in a driver's system using a saliva swab. Saliva is an immediate sample of what is circulating in a person's bloodstream, said Michael Beaubien, Cozart vice president for North American operations. "The purpose is to allow people to understand that we have a new tool," Simonson said. "If you're going to smoke [drugs], stay home. Stay off the highway." If the one-year pilot project is approved, officers will start using the swabs July 1 to detect the presence of cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana and opiates in drivers suspected of using drugs, Simonson said. The ACLU doesn't follow each technological advance, said Dani Eyer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, but the organization supports tools by law enforcement where use is based on individual suspicion, provided the tools are technologically sound and are properly handled. The device will screen for drugs the way Breathalyzers are used now to screen for alcohol. If a driver fails the roadside saliva test, he or she will undergo a blood test, which is admissible in court, said Paul Boyden, director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Obtaining saliva is "more dignified" than collecting urine, which also is used for drug testing, Beaubien said. Because a female officer can collect a sample from a male and vice versa, the device eliminates uncomfortable situations and the shy-bladder problem (the inability to urinate while being watched). Simonson hopes that those who fail the test eventually will have to pay the $15 cost on the one-time use devices. Currently, the swab test is used only in juvenile probation and parole testing in New Mexico and California, Beaubien said. Utah is the only state to show significant interest in the pilot program, he said. RapiScan is used in the United Kingdom and in parts of Europe, but just received FDA approval in November.

[coloradan]

I not a JBT and won't argue for one on FR. But I can understand two arguments such people might raise, even if I don't agree with them. First, getting a license is "voluntary," not compulsory, and therefore you are free to decide you don't want to abide by the terms and conditions, for example including implied consent. (But, try to be a productive citizen lacking one.) There is no compulsion to get a license, hence no "compulsion" to bear witness against yourself, even if such things did require you to testify against yourself.

Second, these things are not "testimony," they are physical evidence. (Presently) you can't be compelled to take truth serum and respond to an interrogator's questions, but you can be compelled to give hair or blood or semen samples if there is a valid warrant, signed by a judge with probable cause, etc. And, they don't even need a warrant if you spit on the ground or discard a drinking glass covered by your fingerprints. Having an anal probe installed and monitored 24/7 by the government isn't "testimony," why, it's just a monitor of your rectal temperature (for the good of the children, etc). With or without a warrant, they aren't asking you to incriminate yourself, they just want to know your rectal temperature.

Going back to the first point, you don't have to get a license if you don't want the probe installed and monitored. (But, what sort of extremist could possibly object to this modest, reasonable, common-sense safety measure, which would only make things better for everyone?)

[coloradan]

Don't tell me you don't know about the Drug War exception to the Bill of Rights! First Amendment protection of free speech? Can't disseminate "drug technology" in any manner, internet or publication. Protection of right to assemble? Anti-gang, anti-loitering ordinances, and the RAVE act that is now being used to suppress/oppress unwanted political gatherings. Second Amendment protection of the RKBA? Being found with drugs and a gun is far worse than being found with either alone, even if you haven't shot anybody or held anyone at gunpoint, and, non-violent drug possessions result in felony convictions, revoking firearms rights for life (even though convicted felons still (theoretically) retain free speech, trial by jury, and other Constitutional rights). Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Surely you know of no-knock raids, approved on the flimsiest of evidence from known unreliable sources, in which people, including innocent people, have been killed? Fifth Amendment protection of property? Civil asset forfeiture. Cruel and unusual punishments? Life in prison on the uncorroborated testimony of a single person, or for possession of certian naturally-occuring plant material in ounce quantities. States rights and enumerated powers? Despite no federal mandate to create the DEA and enforce drug laws, nevertheless this entity and these laws exist. Seems they thought they needed a Constitutional Amendment to establish The Prohibition, but for some reason they decided it wasn't necessary to ban all sorts of other things, some of which have even less to do with interstate commerce than moonshining does.

[Sandy]

Why is this and other detection system not a violation of a citzens fifth amendment right to not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?

The Fifth Amendment "privilege" is a protection against forced communications or testimony. Forcing a suspect to give real or physical evidence does not violate that privilege.

Or so they say. Schmerber v. California

[agitator]

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm