Tag Archives: DUI

Medical Cannabis Patients in Israel Will Now Be Allowed to Drive

Tel Aviv, Israel – The Israeli Health Ministry, on Tuesday, introduced a new amendment that will allow individuals to drive after using medical cannabis, after many patients complained that their freedom of movement was being restricted.

Currently, Israel recognizes more than 30,000 medical cannabis users who have a government-issued permit, but these patients were previously not allowed to drive since the government classified cannabis and all its derivatives as a dangerous drug under Israeli law, classifying anyone with a dangerous drug in their system as being “drunk,” according to Haaretz.

The Israeli permit to use medical cannabis specifically states: “While using the dangerous drug it is completely forbidden to carry out acts requiring concentration, including driving and operating heavy equipment.”

According to a report from Haaretz:

The new amendment, which will come into effect in about 30 days, stipulates that patients will be permitted to drive three hours after smoking cannabis. If they consumed it in the form of edibles or as oil, they will have to wait six hours before getting behind the wheel, while those who also consumed alcohol will have to wait 12 hours after taking cannabis before being allowed to drive.

The amendment puts further restrictions on drivers who use cannabis, requiring them to be under the supervision of the doctor who signed their medical cannabis permit and to refrain from consuming other substances classified as dangerous at the same time. The amendment also limits the cannabis dosage for drivers to 50 grams a month with an active ingredient concentration below 15 percent, or up to 40 grams a month with an active ingredient concentration below 20 percent.

Health ministers had previously refused to make an exception for the medicinal use of cannabis, requiring patients to acknowledge that they understood they were not allowed to drive if being treated with cannabis. Under the new amendment, individuals will be allowed to drive three hours after taking the drug, but critics note that there is no way to enforce the amendment due to being unable to verify when a patient last used cannabis.

[RELATED: Reality Check: Jeff Sessions Wages War on Cannabis]

The amendment decriminalizes patients who had become “offenders against their will,” according to the Health Ministry. Despite the progress, the Medical Cannabis Association, which advances patients’ rights, was critical of the amendment, highlighting the fact that amendment doesn’t apply to many patients using medical cannabis.

“There’s no way to ascertain the percentage level of active ingredients in each and every flower, so there’s no way to determine what active ingredient percentage a patient consumed in the hours before he got behind the wheel,” the Medical Cannabis Association noted.

“On top of that, the number of patients who take more than 40 grams of cannabis a month is significant, as is the percentage of patients who use another narcotic medicine as well. The amendment doesn’t apply to at least a quarter of medical cannabis users,” the non-profit group added.

Kansas Supreme Court Overturns Law Criminalizing DUI Test Refusals

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that a state law that makes it a crime for a DUI suspect to refuse a warrantless blood or breathalyzer test is unconstitutional.

The law assessed criminal penalties ranging from a misdemeanor for a first-time refuser to up to a felony for repeat offenders.

According to The Kansas City Star, the justices voted 6 to 1 against the law, claiming that blood and breathalyzer tests are a form of search and that the criminal law prohibiting refusals imposes a punishment against individuals who attempt to reserve their Fourth Amendment constitutional right not to be subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure.

[RELATED: TN Cops to Draw Blood at Labor Day Weekend ‘No Refusal’ DUI Checkpoints]

The law had been enacted in an effort to give teeth to the state’s implied consent law, which requires residents to consent to being subjected to DUI investigations as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license.

However, the court ruled that drivers who agree to the implied consent statement retain the right to terminate the agreement.

Once a suspect withdraws consent, whether it be express consent or implied (under the statute), a search based on that consent cannot proceed,” stated the court in its majority opinion.

Ex-Lawrence Police Department officer and current member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s national board of directors Jay Norton told The Kansas City Star, “Obviously MADD’s position is that driving is a privilege and not a right. … We support penalties for refusing to take chemical tests. We think law enforcement members need to have all the tools at their disposal to keep our roads safe from drunken drivers who kill about 10,000 people a year.

[RELATED: Amid Protests, Sheriff Ends Participation in “No Refusal” Blood-Draw Checkpoints]

Kansas criminal defense attorney Jay Norton said in support of the ruling, “The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the individual citizen to be free from forced searches by the government.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. McNeely that in most DUI cases police must obtain a warrant before ordering a suspect to submit to a blood or breathalyzer test, except in “exigent circumstances,” with justices noting that the fact that the suspect’s body might be metabolizing evidence of intoxication at the time of the stop is not an emergency reason justifying a warrantless search.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will consider whether state-level laws criminalizing the refusal of warrantless DUI tests are constitutional.

According to KSN-TV, “roughly a dozen” states currently have laws on the books which criminalize the refusal of warrantless blood or breathalyzer tests by DUI suspects.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Tennessee Highway Patrol Under Fire After Troopers Expose Alleged DUI Quota System

A December 2014 email, uncovered by attorney Don Spurrell and exposed to the public by Johnson City Press, from Tennessee Highway Patrol Lt. Traci Barrett to her troopers, said, “If we have personnel that fall behind the district trooper average on DUI arrests, then I cannot allow us to remain on permanent shifts. As we all know, DUI arrests are extremely important, and no group of personnel should be expected to ’carry’ another group.” The email raised questions as to whether Tennessee Highway Patrol is using a proportional or percentage-based quota system to increase its Driving Under the Influence arrest statistics.

However, following these allegations, six current and former troopers with THP have come forward to Johnson City Press to blow the whistle on what they say is indeed a quota system. Though most of the whistleblowers have chosen to speak with reporter Becky Campbell under conditions of anonymity due to fears of retaliation by higher-ups at THP, retired ex-trooper Mike Holt said openly, “When I was working, if you didn’t have a certain number of DUI arrests, you were punished… I know what a DUI looks like. I was leading my troop with moving violations … it wasn’t enough. I worked straight evenings for four months because I didn’t have enough DUI arrests. I’m just not going to arrest somebody and take them to jail if they’re not drunk.” Holt also complained that THP administrators have been pushing for officers to seek revenue raising opportunities in cities rather than patrolling the state’s highways according to the THP’s traditional mandate.

“There is a quota. There sure is. They call it goals and they use percentages and not a set number [as that goal],” said an anonymous officer to Johnson City Press. That officer noted that, though he is under fire by THP for not arresting enough citizens for DUIs, his conviction rate is high. He claimed that officers who arrest fewer citizens have higher conviction rates, whereas officers who meet THP quotas have lower conviction rates, suggesting that some of the quota-motivated pickups constitute wrongful arrests. However, the claim about conviction rates could not be confirmed as the software system used by county clerk offices lacks a search function.

An anonymous trooper still employed at THP said, “When you arrest somebody for DUI, you’ve just cost them $10,000. I’m not arresting somebody and ruining them just for a number.”

THP Col. Tracy Trott denied the existence of a quota system in an interview with Johnson City Press and said, “We don’t have a quota on any type of arrests, DUI, speeding or otherwise.”



Florida Attorney Offers Drivers A Bold Approach To Challenging DUI Checkpoints

Florida-based attorney Warren Redlich has attracted the attention of police and motorists alike due to a series of flyers he created to provide an option for drivers objecting to procedures at sobriety checkpoints.

At sobriety checkpoints, drivers are typically expected to roll their window down and provide their license and other documents. Redlich has created fliers for residents in ten states- New York, Florida, California, New Jersey, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, Georgia and South Carolina- that drivers would place on their window. According to FairDUI.org, the website that provides the fliers for downloading and printing, “the idea behind the flyer is that you keep it in your car and show it to police at checkpoints and traffic stops.”

The front sides of the fliers read “I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer” and proceed to cite state laws that lead to the claim that there’s no need to roll the window down, verbally communicate with police, or physically hand over any documents. The Florida flier, for example, cites a state statute that requires drivers to “display” their license to police “upon the demand of a law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the department.” The other nine fliers also provide state-specific laws on the fliers pointing out that the language of the laws do not mention requiring the physical transfer of documents from one hand into another.

The back sides of the fliers instruct drivers to keep their window closed, remain completely silent, and record the encounter.

A Youtube video published on January 1st shows motorist Jeff Gray as he uses Redlich’s flier in lieu of talking to police during a sobriety checkpoint on New Year’s Eve in Chiefland, Florida:

Gray placed his license, registration and proof of insurance in a plastic bag and attached it to a string held in place by the car’s window. Gray stopped his vehicle at the checkpoint, and appears to have been cleared to leave without incident.

Redlich told USA Today that the fliers are “a method for innocent people to protect themselves from a bad DUI arrest.” Despite Gray’s success in avoiding being challenged by police at the checkpoint in Chiefland, law enforcement officials have said that this strategy isn’t legitimate. “He was allowed to proceed because he clearly was not driving while intoxicated,” Veda Coleman-Wright, the Broward Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, said regarding Gray’s encounter at the checkpoint. “If those officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver was impaired, they would have investigated further.”

“They wouldn’t be allowed out of that checkpoint until they talk to us. We have a legitimate right to do it,” said Sheriff David Shoar, St. Johns County president of the Florida Sheriffs Association. “If I was out there, I wouldn’t wave them through. I want to talk to that person more now.”

Garrett Berman from Florida’s Traffic Safety Resource division said the laws have changed. “It changed from displaying their license to actually present or submit the license to the officer,” Berman said. “The whole process is actually streamlined to take 30-45 seconds. The problem is when you put that display up; you’re actually going out of your way to delay that detainment.”

Law enforcement officials noted that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that random DUI checkpoints don’t violate constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Associated Press reported that no comprehensive statistics are available detailing how many drunk drivers are caught at checkpoints.

“I’m not anti-cop. I’m anti-bad government and anti-bad cop. I support good cops,” Redlich said. “I would like if police didn’t waste their time with something like checkpoints and would focus their attention on violent crime.” According to Redlich, he has yet to be notified that a driver has been unsuccessful in using one of his fliers. Legal experts have been unable to determine if the fliers would prove useful in court. “These guys are all pushing the envelope,” said David S. Weinstein, a former Miami prosecutor. He said that most states consider driving to be a privilege and people surrender some rights when driving.

FairDUI.org warns that the fliers are not suitable for every person or every situation and clarifies that the fliers are not for people who are driving drunk.

Tenn. Thanksgiving DUI checkpoint will leave you speechless (VIDEO)

MURFREESBORO, Tenn., December 1, 2014– Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, the Murfreesboro Police Department and Tennessee Highway Patrol set up a DUI checkpoint within the city limits. Camera in hand, three young men face the police head on and capture some astonishing footage. The Murfreesboro Police Department is no stranger to national media. Worldwide headlines were made last Fourth of July weekend when the same police department was filmed antagonizing a driver for “knowing his rights” at a DUI checkpoint. However, this most recent video, shot and published by the same individuals, is exponentially more shocking than the Fourth of July incident.


Happy Thanksgiving.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & Twitter.

Amid Protests, Sheriff Ends Participation in “No Refusal” Blood-Draw Checkpoints

An article posted last week on BenSwann.com noted that police in Clark County, OH were planning to and, on Friday, eventually did conduct “no refusal” checkpoints at which drivers suspected of driving under the influence could be forced to submit to a blood test against their will if they refused to consent to a breathalyzer test. According to WHIO-TV, Clark County Sheriff Gene Kelly recently announced that his office would no longer be participating in future “no refusal” checkpoints after Friday’s program drew protesters from across Ohio. Sheriff Kelly, responding to a volley of complaints that he received via social media and email, said, “If this is not a positive event then we need to find another way to do our job and create an environment of public safety, and I’m intending to do that.”

WHIO-TV NewsCenter 7‘s video coverage of the controversy credited a blog published on Infowars with inspiring state-wide activists to gather at the checkpoints in protest, waving signs with slogans like, “Vampire cops ahead, they will take your blood! Turn now!” Though 464 drivers passed through last Friday’s checkpoint, no search warrants were issued for involuntary blood extractions.

Protesters complained that the “no refusal” checkpoints violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections found in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, as the program targets drivers for investigation on the basis of their geographical location, rather than their driving, and because many feel that forced blood extractions are an unreasonable type of search.

Springfield Police Division Lieutenant Tom Zawata told WHIO-TV that he is uncertain whether or not more “no refusal” checkpoints will be conducted this year. “We chose to use it at this checkpoint as a way to make the public aware there is an opportunity and existing ability to obtain a search warrant,” said Zawata, implying that the checkpoints were intended as a promotional and educational event, rather than a serious effort to apprehend known drunk drivers. Since the Clark County Operating a Vehicle Impaired Task Force is made up of officers from several police agencies, the fact that Sheriff Gene Kelly’s office is not participating in the program in the future does not necessarily mean that there will be no more “no refusal” checkpoints in the county.

Behind the scenes, the federal government recently decreased its financial contributions to Clark County’s OVI checkpoints program, leading police to conduct fewer of them this year than in previous years.


TN Cops to Draw Blood at Labor Day Weekend ‘No Refusal’ DUI Checkpoints

Tennessee has a new Labor Day tradition. According to WKRN-TV, the Tennessee Highway Patrol will continue its “no refusal” blood-extraction DUI checkpoints this Labor Day weekend, starting on midnight on August 29 and continuing until midnight on September 1. Under “no refusal” enforcement, suspected drunk drivers will be forced to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test, even if they refuse.

The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security issued a press release on this weekend’s crackdown, saying, “State troopers will conduct ‘No Refusal’ enforcement in the following counties: Union (Knoxville District); Hamilton and Marion (Chattanooga District); Montgomery (Nashville District); Shelby (Memphis District); Hawkins (Fall Branch District); Smith (Cookeville); Maury (Lawrenceburg); and Hardin County (Jackson District).” The press release also describes how police coverage will work over the weekend, “In addition to ‘No Refusal’ enforcement, highway patrol personnel will also conduct driver’s license, sobriety and seat belt checkpoints, as well as saturation patrols and bar and tavern checks.”

Due to the disputed constitutionality of police checkpoints, Tennessee state law requires that their locations be publicly announced in advance so that Tennesseans who don’t want to be inconvenienced can adjust their routes. The locations of this weekend’s checkpoints can be found at this link.

Civil liberties advocates often question whether police checkpoints, which force motorists to submit to a criminal investigation on the basis of their geographic location rather than probable cause, violate the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Also, police positioned at checkpoints do not have an opportunity to see how a suspect has been driving and instead must rely on less-precise indicators like red eyes or fatigued behavior, which might also suggest that the suspect is coming home from a long work shift and not intoxicated at all. As more officers are placed at checkpoints, fewer can subsequently be assigned to patrols upon which they could watch for impaired motorists in the act of driving dangerously.

Forced blood extractions take place off-site at a police precinct, making the process time consuming for individuals who might be innocent. Additionally, for those who refuse to comply, extraction locations are equipped with tools to strap down suspects and masks to cover their faces.

Approval for involuntary blood draws is typically attained via telephone as judge magistrates will remain on standby throughout the weekend to handle officers’ requests.

Police Planning 4th of July ‘No Refusal’ Blood-Draw DUI Checkpoints

On July 4th, 1776, America’s founding generation took its first historic step towards an experiment in freedom that unleashed one of the most innovative and productive nations in world history. On July 2nd of that year, the Second Continental Congress had voted to separate itself from the oppressive tyranny of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Two days later, the Declaration of Independence was drafted (though historians dispute whether it might have been signed a month later).

Since that time, citizens across the US have celebrated American-style freedom on the Fourth of July, grilling out and firing fireworks in honor of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. However, some alarming new Independence Day traditions have emerged in the contemporary United States. State and local police across the country are preparing “no refusal” DUI and DWI checkpoints at which citizens will be investigated for suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, not on the basis of their driving, but simply due to their geographic location. Those who refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test will be forced to endure a blood test instead.

Texas police have announced that they will be running “no refusal” programs with mandatory blood testing for those who refuse breathalyzers, as will law enforcers in Oregon and Tennessee. Judicial officials will be on hand all throughout the holiday weekend to approve warrants, in some cases over the phone, that allow officers to take blood from citizens by force, which will then be examined for intoxicants. Due to the questionable constitutionality of its program, Tennessee state law requires that the locations of the checkpoints be made available to the public in advance. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security has publicized its checkpoint locations, which can be found at this link.

Civil liberties advocates have long argued that checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, as being in a geographic location does not constitute probable cause to launch a criminal investigation against an individual. Also, checkpoints take officers off the street, where it would be easier to watch for reckless drivers, and instead concentrate them in specific locations where drivers wait in a line, making it impossible for police to determine whether or not the individuals being investigated are driving dangerously. Without being able to watch for signs of reckless driving, officers will rely on less reliable indicators such as communication skills or redness of eyes to make judgments on drivers’ level of impairment, possibly putting individuals with colds, allergies, or long shifts at work in a position to be falsely suspected of DUI. Those who do not want to submit to a breathalyzer test could then be subjected to a blood test by force on the very day set aside by Americans to celebrate freedom from tyranny.

Shocking Video: Woman’s Face Shattered After Cop Throws Her Into Concrete Bench

47-year-old Cassandra Feuerstein was arrested in Skokie, Illinois for drunk driving on March 10. Her experience was far from a routine DUI arrest.

After Feuerstein was pulled over for driving under the influence of alcohol, she fell asleep in her car and was subsequently arrested.

Feuerstein was then taken to the station, where one officer threw her head-first into a concrete bench — her face was shattered as a result.

article-2453145-18AA060E00000578-703_634x307-1 article-2453145-18AA05F300000578-454_634x343-2 article-2453145-18AA060100000578-493_634x320-2 article-2453145-18AA061600000578-557_634x377-2

The unsettling incident was caught on video:

Now Feuerstein is suing the police officer, Michael Hart, who threw her. She claims that multiple bones in her face needed to be replaced with reconstructive surgery after being shattered.


Before Feuerstein was shoved by Hart, there was no evidence on video of her being aggressive towards the officers. In fact, the beginning of the video shows her being very compliant with a female officer as she was pat down and searched.

The video then shows Hart throwing Feuerstein face-first into the cell. After Feuerstein’s face hit a concrete bench, a large pool of blood collected around her.

One officer entered the cell to help Feuerstein and slow the bleeding until she was sent to the hospital.

At this time, it is unclear why Hart threw Feuerstein so forcefully. He filed a report, asserting that the 47-year-old was not cooperating with the officers, but Feuerstein claims this is not true.

Torreya Hamilton, the attorney representing Feuerstein, said, “The video speaks for itself. She does nothing to justify what this male police officer does. If this was a tavern fight… it’d be like she got sucker-punched.”

The town of Skokie has spoken out on the incident. Ann Tennes, a Skokie spokeswoman, said, “The Village of Skokie expresses deep concern for Ms Cassandra Feuerstein’s injuries that occurred at the Skokie Police Station earlier this year. Officer Michael Hart has been on station duty and has no contact with the public. Both the Village of Skokie and the Cook County State’s Attorney have ongoing investigations pending that began when the incident occurred.”

VIDEO: Woman Arrested For DUI Gets Strip Searched & Tossed Naked Into Cell

33-year-old Dana Holmes was almost three times over the legal blood alcohol limit when she was pulled over in May.

Video footage of her DUI arrest shows Holmes cooperating with police and making no visible attempt to resist arrest.

After the Chicago woman was taken to the Lasalle County jail for DUI, one female officer put her against a wall and searched her while three male officers watched. Then Holmes’s leg moved; the officers claim the leg movement was a kick at them, but Holmes denies this. “I don’t know if I lost my balance or what happened, but I wasn’t being combative at all,” Holmes insisted.

After the leg movement, the police became aggressive.

In the video footage, all four officers can be seen pulling Holmes to the ground and then stripping her completely naked. Holmes was then left alone, completely naked in the cell where she remained alone on the ground until officers eventually threw a “padded suit” at her.


Holmes said, “I was terrified. I felt helpless. I was scared and I lay there crying. I just prayed.”

The entire incident was captured on a surveillance camera.

Holmes is now suing Lasalle County police for “violating her civil rights.” Holmes said, “There’s a lot of people that get DUIs, a lot of people that just make mistakes in life. That still doesn’t give them a reason to do what they did. My dignity is worth more than that, and other people’s too.”

Holmes’s attorney, Terry Ekl, said the incident is “not only a violation of her civil rights, it’s also a crime.” Ekl pointed out that in Illinois, it is illegal to be stripped in the presence of any officer not actually doing the search, and the search may only be conducted by an officer of the same sex.

But police claim Holmes had attitude and was “causing problems” while they tried to arrest her.

Even if what the police claim is true, and Holmes was indeed “causing problems,” does that justify their actions?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Police Brutality? Woman’s Face Seriously Injured During DUI Arrest

An unsettling dashcam video from August 10 shows a possible police brutality. The footage was recorded during a “routine” DUI traffic stop.

The video, initially released by the Tallahassee Democrat, shows Christina West, 44, having her head slammed against a police car. She is then taken to the ground with force. The incident took place after West crashed her car into a house on Kilkenny Drive in Florida.

The footage is “very disturbing,” said State Attorney Willie Meggs. In fact, he said it was “one of the most disturbing videos” he has ever laid eyes on.

“I am extremely upset. This is a very disturbing situation to me, and I’m dealing with it,” said Meggs.

West’s face sustained serious injuries as a result of the arrest. She was treated for “a broken orbital bone, along with a swollen eye, bloody nose and cuts to her arms and legs.”

woman beat by police

West appears to resist arrest in parts of the video. But the nature of her interaction with the police in that specific moment is not entirely clear from the footage.

The bigger question is whether these kinds of injuries should have resulted from any kind of resistance she may have given to arrest. In the video, there are at least two police near her and possibly as many as four on the scene. With two to four police officers on the scene, why is it that they could not have found a way to put her in the cruiser without damaging her face?

Police are currently conducting an “internal investigation” to determine the extent of fault of the various parties involved.

Police Power Expands With Roadside DWI Blood Draws In Texas

The state of Texas has authorized 6,000 paramedics to assist policemen by conducting roadside DWI blood draws during traffic stops.

This arguably intrusive procedure has resulted from a new law, passed by the Texas Legislature in the spring. It went into effect this Sunday.

DUI Blood Drawn

If a police officer requests a blood draw, EMTs will now come on the scene promptly. A blood test will then be administered at the scene of an accident or right after an arrest is made.

Before this law went into effect, blood draws usually took place in hospitals or jails and were conducted by medical personnel with higher degrees of training than the average paramedic.

But now paramedics draw blood results on the spot. Susan Reed, the Bexar County District Attorney, said, “In the last legislative session, the legislation addressed an issue of whether EMTs could take blood in relation to intoxication behind the wheel, be it an accident issue or an arrest. We could develop a system of mobile units, using EMTs to do that. But remember, it is still the circumstance of having the sanitary place.”

The new law will conceivably be a primary catalyst for making more DWI arrests. Reed said the mobile blood tests “[give] us more options and more ability to do warrants and do blood draws in relation to DWI.”

It is notable that the new law came into effect on Labor Day weekend, a time of heightened DWI arrests and police presence. Last year during the holiday weekend, 25,000 speeding tickets were given out in the state.

For years, police and the supreme court have increasingly limited the rights of motorists to make claims of unlawful search and seizure. This latest move in Texas fits within that trend.

Are on-spot DWI blood draws a mere tool to help officials rack up tickets? Or are they justifiable? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

He Has No Drugs And Knows His Constitutional Rights

Across the nation yesterday and likely all throughout this weekend, local law enforcement will be putting up DUI checkpoints.  The idea behind these checkpoints is that they help to get drunk drivers off of the roads.  Unfortunately, time and again we see that these checkpoints do very little in that regard while managing to trample over the constitutional rights of sober drivers.

Today, I was alerted by a viewer to this video as he asked for help sharing it.  It was taken not even 24 hours ago by a young man in Rutherford County, TN by the name of Chris Kalbaugh.  Chris was stopped at one of these checkpoints last night and as you will see in the video he complied with the law.  The whole time Chris was recording his encounter with police.  Over and over his constitutional check-pointrights were violated and once again he was told the same thing so many of us have heard over and over: that we must sacrifice our liberty for safety.  In Chris’ case, none of the conduct by police in this video made him or anyone else on the roadways in Rutherford County any safer.

Here is the video and a quote from the Rutherford County Libertarians Facebook page:

“As we speak, video of police abuse here in Rutherford County is being viewed by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, thanks to reddit picking it up. Concerned citizens are flooding the phone lines and email inboxes of the local sheriff’s office, police department, and highway patrol. Hats off to fellow member Chris Kalbaugh for asserting his constitutional rights.”