Saliva Swab May Determine If Drivers Are Drug Impaired

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?)

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.

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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.