GA Police Forcibly Removing Blood From Citizens Without Legitimate Probable Cause (VIDEO)

strapped down forcibly

Georgia is blatantly and purposefully flouting a recent Supreme Court decision by turning an important part of the civil justice system into a mere technicality in several counties. In Gwinett County, if you are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and refuse to take a breath test, you will be strapped down, put in a headlock, and restrained while blood is forcibly removed from you — and it doesn’t matter if you are compliant with the blood test or not.

In the shocking and disturbing video below, you will see the front lines of the liberty vs. safety warfront. The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against things like this. However, back in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled it was not unconstitutional for law enforcement to forcibly remove blood from noncompliant suspects — and then, in 2013, ruled that except in cases of serious offenses or emergencies, a warrant must be obtained before the seizure takes place. In several Georgia counties, that warrant is just a technicality — in fact, that step may as well not exist, thus rendering the Supreme Court’s decision irrelevant.

Here’s a video, courtesy of local news:

The reporters in the video above are biased in favor of the seizures, but by pointing out the positives of the program and then talking about deaths from drunk drivers, they present a false dichotomy, dishonestly presenting the highly invasive searches as the only alternative to curbing the rates of drunk drivers.

Here’s the simple, logical way it should work: if they ask you for a breath test, you do not have to incriminate yourself; it is within your rights to refuse. Taking that refusal as probable cause is a violation of the spirit of the language of the Fifth Amendment: “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The following seizure of your blood is then illegitimate, as per the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, everything they are doing is legal — unless, of course, someone in the county sues or appeals on the argument that the Supreme Court intended to use the warrant requirement as a block for searches without proper probable cause.

Reposted from Addicting Info with permission.

About Justin Acuff

Justin Acuff is a political activist, writer and admitted news junkie. He has written hundreds of articles that have been read millions of times. Justin is a Senior Editor for Addicting Info, the owner and managing editor of Young Progressive Voices, and contributes to other publications as well. The best part? He isn't even 21 yet. Follow his Facebook fan page to get access to his latest articles, find his website here, or follow him on Twitter.


21 thoughts on “GA Police Forcibly Removing Blood From Citizens Without Legitimate Probable Cause (VIDEO)

  1. I was under this impression that to refuse a DUI check, whether breath, blood, roadside check, etc is simply considered the same as failing any of those tests. When you get your license you agree to submit to DUI testing when requested by an officer.

    So if someone refuses a breathalyzer, just arrest them as DUI.

    Posted by MCA | August 10, 2013, 12:04 pm
    • That’s a violation of the fifth amendment. They can’t arrest you for refusing to test. All they can do is get a warrant for a blood seizure.

      Posted by Justin Acuff | August 10, 2013, 12:11 pm
      • Actually, they can. In Georgia and many other states, you can be arrested and have your license revoked for a year for refusing to test. It’s called the Implied Consent Law. You agree to it when you get your license.

        Posted by Cris Reyes | August 11, 2013, 6:06 am
      • You aren’t arrested as part of the license suspension (NOT revocation. Look up the statute in question).

        Posted by Justin Acuff | August 11, 2013, 11:25 am
      • I meant suspension. Anyways, according to Georgia law, you can be arrested if suspected of DUI. Officers then tell you that you must take a breath, blood or urine test for alcohol. If you refuse, your license is suspended for a year.

        Posted by Cris Reyes | August 11, 2013, 11:44 am
      • Not in counties with a “no refusal” policy, which is what the article is covering. There is no option of losing your license. If you refuse the breath test, you WILL be strapped down, placed in a headlock, and have blood forcibly removed. Every time. It doesn’t matter if you’re calm and cooperative or not.

        Posted by Justin Acuff | August 11, 2013, 11:50 am
      • Just a question: what did you mean when you said that the warrant was a “technicality?” Because it seems to me that the police are legally correct in asking for a warrant. If you don’t want the test, they can get a warrant to legally test you. Isn’t that what the Fourth Amendment also guarantees? Of course it brings to question the validity of the Implied Consent Law.

        Posted by Cris Reyes | August 11, 2013, 12:18 pm
      • Because the step of acquiring a warrant is pointless. Look at it this way:

        1) They refuse a breath test.
        2) A warrant is acquired.
        3) Blood is forcibly taken.

        There is NO instance in which step two doesn’t happen. If step 1 happens, step 3 happens. The warrant step is entirely pointless, reducing it to a technicality — if they ask for one, they get it.

        It’s a judicial AND police problem.

        I’m not even opposed to this particularly. The vast majority of people tested ARE guilty, and it really is true that nobody that’s sober has a reason to refuse a breath test.

        But, there HAS to be a better way to lower the incidence of drunk driving without (as I see it) violating our constitutional rights. After all, the NSA spying is (mostly) legal as well — but that doesn’t make it right.

        Posted by Justin Acuff | August 11, 2013, 12:40 pm
      • Refusal can be seen as probable cause, but I get your point. The method shocked me. It’s barbaric.

        Posted by Cris Reyes | August 11, 2013, 12:41 pm
      • Refusal SHOULDN’T be probable cause. I look at it in a similar light as your right to stay silent — staying silent is NOT self-incrimination.

        And the method is sickening at best, I agree.

        Posted by Justin Acuff | August 11, 2013, 1:09 pm
    • If your going to forcefully acquire your evidence from someone shouldn’t it be the least invasive method possible? Breathing is an inevitability. Bloodletting is not in inevitability. Why not acquire your evidence through forceful breathalyzer administration instead.

      Posted by Saynt MacBee | August 12, 2013, 4:07 pm
  2. “The reporters in the video above are biased in favor of the seizures”

    This isn’t the case. Please refer to the last thirty seconds of the video for an example.

    Posted by Stephen L. Wilson | August 11, 2013, 12:26 am
  3. This is messed up. At least they have the common courtesy to get a warrant in Georgia. Our federal government spies on us every day with no warrants of any kind.

    Posted by Mark | August 21, 2013, 3:52 pm
    • Yep, and your legislators made it happen.

      Posted by Justin Acuff | August 21, 2013, 4:32 pm
      • This isn’t due to legislators. This is President Obama’s

        Posted by Mark | August 21, 2013, 7:26 pm
      • Nope, it’s legislators and laws drafted under the Bush administration, actually. Obama’s administration is just taking advantage of them. The Senate voted 98-1 for the Patriot Act, do you you even know that? One vote was absent. They didn’t even read the bill. Did you call your Senator and complain? No? Didn’t think so.

        Posted by Justin Acuff | August 21, 2013, 8:22 pm
  4. I like how you didn’t enjoy the fact that the legislators didn’t read the bill. Ever hear of the Affordable Care Act? Ha ha.

    You said that President Obama is just taking advantage of the law. It sounds like you’re okay with that. With one swipe of his pen, Pres. Obama could do away with all of the NSA snooping. But he hasn’t chosen to. And you’re alright with that?

    Posted by Mark | August 22, 2013, 1:40 pm
    • I’VE read the ACA. Have you?

      And I never said I was okay with that, just that it was legal. I don’t have to agree with everything Obama does to support other things he does.

      Posted by Justin Acuff | August 22, 2013, 2:12 pm
      • You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you’re against blood draws that have a warrant, but you believe that warrantless spying on Americans is fine. If that’s progressive, I’ll pass.

        Posted by Mark | August 22, 2013, 3:39 pm
      • Did you read the article? It’s about how the warrants aren’t legitimate because there isn’t probable cause. They turned that part of the system into a pointless technicality.

        Also, I JUST STATED I was against the spying. Are you blind?

        Posted by Justin Acuff | August 22, 2013, 5:09 pm

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow us on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 240 other followers


Join our growing list of financial supporters and sign up to donate $8 per month. Donate Button with Credit Cards

One-Time Donation

If you don't care to subscribe monthly, please consider making a one-time donation of any amount you'd like.

Register to vote!