Michigan roadside drug testing device and procedures explained

Michigan roadside drug testing device and procedures explained

If you are pulled over in one of five Michigan counties and a police officer believes you’re impaired by drugs, you could be asked to submit your saliva to be tested.

A Michigan State Police official explained the process for the state’s new roadside drug testing pilot program that begins Wednesday, Nov. 8, in Berrien, Delta, Kent, St. Clair and Washtenaw counties, that runs for one year.

Drug Recognition Experts (DREs), with specialized training in the signs of drug impairment, will carry handheld devices to test for the presence of drugs in drivers’ saliva.

Despite the new tool, police will continue to follow established procedures during traffic stops to check for drug impairment, MSP First Lt. Jim Flegel said.

“They’re not going to be randomly pulling people over, they have to have a valid reason,” he said. “They’re going to be looking for things like weaving in their lane, driving too fast, driving too slow, not using your turn signals — indicators that would indicate that somebody’s driving while impaired.”

After making a traffic stop, police would still have to establish probable cause for impairment, he said, by performing field sobriety tests.

“The only difference with the pilot program is if they determine they’re impaired on some type of drug, they’re going to ask them to submit to the oral fluid swab,” Flegel said.

The Alere DDS2 oral fluid test instrument will be used to measure for the presence of drugs in drivers’ saliva, Michigan State Police spokeswoman Shanon Banner said

 

 

Michigan police face questions about using experimental saliva drug test at DUI stops

Michigan police face questions about using experimental saliva drug test at DUI stops

Michigan Medical Marijuana Association president Michael Komorn said he’s concerned about the test’s accuracy

 

NILES, Mich. — Michigan State Police officers are conducting roadside saliva tests on suspected drug-impaired motorists as part of a program spurring questions about the tests’ accuracy.

 

State Police Special First Lt. Jim Flegel told the South Bend Tribune that the program uses a portable saliva-testing device that can tell officers if there are certain drugs in a driver’s system, such as marijuana or opiates. The program will test the accuracy and reliability of the Alere DDS2 device, which is meant to assess the presence of drugs in about five minutes.

(HMMMM…..DNA Collection device?)

Law enforcement and academic experts say settling on such a test is complicated because drugs affect everyone differently and there is wide variation in the potency of pot and other drugs and the way they are consumed. As a result, there is no consensus on what level amounts to impairment.

 

Michigan Medical Marijuana Association president Michael Komorn said he’s concerned about the test’s accuracy and the program’s experimental nature. Komorn said the saliva tests may have a high error rate.

 

“Nobody should be compelled to take this test until we’ve got some confirmation that it is an accurate test,” Michael Komorn said. “That’s basic fundamental liberty and freedom, that government shouldn’t be able to subject individuals to tests.”

 

The $150,000 program is called the Preliminary Oral Fluid Analysis. It aims to combat an increase in fatal crashes caused by drug-impaired drivers, Flegel said. Officers must have a reason to suspect impairment before testing a driver, he said. Officers have undergone a two-week training course and must follow a 12-step analysis to assess potential drug impairment.

 

The state saw a more than 30 percent increase in fatal crashes from 2015 to 2016. There were almost 240 fatal crashes in 2016, compared to almost 180 crashes the previous year.

 

The program is currently being used in five Michigan counties: Berrien, Delta, Kent, St. Clair and Washtenaw.

 

Police will report to the Legislature in a year about the program’s accuracy and the number of arrests. The program could be rolled out to more areas if it’s found to be effective, Flegel said.

 

Published: Nov 27, 2017, 10:14 am • By The Associated Press

New Roadside Drug Test

New Roadside Drug Test

What is the law?

 

The Michigan legislature has passed into law a one-year pilot program set up in five counties that allows for Michigan State Police to perform roadside drug tests. The way this will work is if a driver gets pulled over for a traffic offense, in one of the five counties that are yet to be determined and shows signs of being under the influence of drugs the specially trained “drug recognition expert” will be able to conduct a field sobriety test. After which, the officer will be able to use the new saliva-based testing to check and see whether the driver has consumed marijuana, heroin, or cocaine.

 – Can you say DNA collection?-

What the purpose is?

 

The officials in charge of pushing through this policy cite the reasoning being that there has been a large increase recently of drugged driving accidents and drugged driving fatalities. The addition of this test to the already used field sobriety testing is intended as means to provide further probable cause to establish the grounds for a lawful arrest.

 

Additional arrests leads to additional fines and penalties that the police are able to collect from its citizens.

– Can you say More Money?-

 

What is the science behind this test?

 

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/EvaluationOfDriversInRelationToPerSeReport.pdf

In a study performed by AAA’s safety foundation, it was determined that it is impossible to set a blood-test threshold for THC. The test states:

 

There is no evidence from the data collected, particularly from the subjects assessed through the DRE exam, that any objective threshold exists that established impairment, based on THC concentrations measured in specimens collected from cannabis-positive subjects placed under arrest for impaired driving. An association between the presence and degree of indicators of impairment or effect from cannabis use were evident when comparing data from cannabis-positive and cannabis-negative subjects. However, when examining differences in performance in these parameters between subjects with high (>5 2 ng/mL) and low (<5 ng/mL) THC concentrations, minimal differences were found.

 

Setting any sort of legal limit or per se limit for cannabis and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science.

 

Furthermore, in a study done by Forensic Fluids Laboratory the window of time during which a swab test can pick up a THC positive test is up to as long as 3 days. Even though someone may still have THC in their system 3 days after consuming Cannabis, the likelihood that they are still intoxicated is extremely unlikely.

 

As a result of the probable cause that can be gained from this swab test an officer has the ability to issue an arrest warrant based on evidence that is not providing any scientific proof of the driver current intoxication, but based on its result creates an extremely misleading affidavit.

What’s required of you in a Michigan traffic stop?

What’s required of you in a Michigan traffic stop?

July 24, 2015

Dashcam video released this week from a traffic stop shows how a confrontation between a Texas woman and the arresting officer escalated.

Given the circumstances in the aforementioned Sandra Bland case, we wanted to find out what is allowed and not allowed during a traffic stop in Michigan.

Civil rights attorney Julia Kelly says the first thing is to have a valid license, registration, and proof of insurance in your car. “Are you required to give it to them? Yes, no questions asked. Driving in Michigan is a privilege, not a right.”

The officer will likely leave you in your car and check your ID. But, if he or she asks you to get out of the car, Kelly says, you should comply. “If he asks you a lawful command to get out, you should obey those commands to get out of vehicle.”

We also asked former Flint police officer and Grand Rapids Community College assistant professor Jermaine Reese what’s expected of an officer. The driver might be smoking a cigarette, angry that they got a ticket, or using profanity.

“They can do that. They can. The biggest thing is to remain professional. No matter what they choose to call you. I’ve been called everything but a child of God, but your responsibility is that you remain professional.”

In the end, most would agree that there is a level of respect expected from both the driver and the officer. It’s better to argue the legality of the situation in court, rather than have it escalate at the scene.

 

Question: Do I have to comply if ordered to leave a public area by a police officer? 

Answer: If you disobey a police officer’s order to leave, you may be arrested. But is the order legal? It depends on why the officer is asking. If you are disrupting traffic, on private property without permission, or otherwise breaking the law, then the order is legal. But if the officer is requesting that you leave a public space because he or she disagrees with your message, the order is not legal.

There are a multitude of laws regulating public roadways that ensure pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic. If you break those, police can order you to leave the roadway, but you can congregate legally on the sidewalk.

 

Q: Can I record video of police?

A: It is legal to openly record on-duty police officers in public spaces. Some state laws may prohibit filming anyone in a public space without their consent, but there is doubt about whether those laws are constitutional. However, an officer may arrest you if you are obstructing an investigation.

 

Q: Can an officer search me on the street with no warrant when I am not under arrest?

A: There are limited circumstances under which an officer can search someone without a warrant who is not under arrest. They are:

  • Voluntary consent. If an officer asks you for permission to search you or your possessions and you voluntarily say yes, the officer has the right to do so.
  • Reasonable suspicion. If police have reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in criminal activity, they may stop you briefly. If they have reasonable suspicion that you may be carrying a weapon, they may pat you down for weapons. However, they may not conduct a full search unless they have probable cause to arrest you.

There are other exceptions for when police can search a home or a car and its passengers.

 

Q: How can a curfew trump my right to assemble and protest?

 A: The government has the right to impose curfews in certain emergency situations to protect the lives, safety and property of citizens. However, it is unconstitutional if the curfew is imposed only to prevent a peaceable assembly.

 

Q: If I’m walking in public and an officer asks to speak to me, do I have to stop?

A: This is considered a voluntary encounter. The officer has the same right to request that you speak to him as any other person would, but you do not have to answer, nor do you have to stop. Ask the officer if you are free to go. If police have reasonable suspicion to believe you are engaged in a crime, they may detain you briefly to investigate.

Sources: Paul D. Butler, professor at Georgetown Law; Daniel J. Haus, attorney; Roger Goldman, professor emeritus at Saint Louis University School of Law; Orin S. Kerr, professor at the George Washington University Law School; Kenneth White, attorney

PDF Copy with Graphics

Michigan police face questions about using experimental saliva drug test at DUI stops

Stop and Seize – A great article in the Washington Post

Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes.

 

Largely hidden from public view: the spread of an aggressive brand of policing that has spurred the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from motorists and others not charged with crimes.

Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms that teach the techniques of “highway interdiction” to departments across the country.

One of those firms created a private intelligence network known as Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop.

Many of the reports have been funneled to federal agencies and fusion centers as part of the government’s burgeoning law enforcement intelligence systems — despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections.

A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

“All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine,” Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book under a pseudonym. Hain is a marketing specialist for Desert Snow, a leading interdiction training firm based in Guthrie, Okla., whose founders also created Black Asphalt.

Cash seizures can be made under state or federal civil law. One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing. Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.

The Post found:

  • There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
  • Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
  • Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.
  • Agencies with police known to be participating in the Black Asphalt intelligence network have seen a 32 percent jump in seizures beginning in 2005, three times the rate of other police departments. Desert Snow-trained officers reported more than $427 million in cash seizures during highway stops in just one five-year period, according to company officials. More than 25,000 police have belonged to Black Asphalt, company officials said.
  • State law enforcement officials in Iowa and Kansas prohibited the use of the Black Asphalt network because of concerns that it might not be a legal law enforcement tool. A federal prosecutor in Nebraska warned that Black Asphalt reports could violate laws governing civil liberties, the handling of sensitive law enforcement information and the disclosure of pretrial information to defendants. But officials at Justice and Homeland Security continued to use it.

Civil forfeiture cash seizures

Under the federal Equitable Sharing Program, police have seized $2.5 billion since 2001 from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued. Police reasoned that the money was crime-related. About $1.7 billion was sent back to law enforcement agencies for their use.

Here’s a list of some of the money sent back to local police in the United States for seizures made alone or with others.

      • New York City Police Participated in 2,167 seizures – $27 million of $134.2 million
      • Los Angeles County Sheriff, Calif. Participated in 2,564 seizures-$24.3 million of $126 million
      • Los Angeles Police, Calif. Participated in 2,375 seizures-$18.4 million of $86.1 million
      • Houston Police, Tex. Participated in 798 seizures-$14.7 million of $63.3 million
      • Wayne County Sheriff, Mich. – 530 seizures-$13.4 million of $31.6 million
      • St. Louis County Police, Mo. – 644 seizures-$11.5 million of $42.1 million
      • Douglas County Sheriff, Neb. – 159 seizures-$11.5 million of $16.2 million
      • Atlanta Police, Ga. – 827 seizures-$9.3 million of $74.6 million
      • North Miami Beach Police, Fla. – 64 seizures-$9.1 million of $30.3 million
      • Laredo Police, Tex. – 149 seizures-$8.5 million of $20.1 million
      • Amtrak Police, Pa. – 894 seizures-$7.9 million of $53.2 million
      • Chicago Police, Ill. – 634 seizures-$7.9 million of $56.3 million
      • Milwaukee Police, Wis. – 1,223 seizures-$7.9 million of $19 million
      • Las Vegas Metropolitan Police., Nev. – 243 seizures-$7.3 million of $18 million
      • Baltimore Police, Md. – 1,528 seizures-$7.1 million of $18.5 million
      • Baltimore County Police, Md. – 981 seizures-$6.8 million of $19 million
      • San Diego Police, Calif. – 1,498 seizures-$6.8 million of $31.6 million
      • Jefferson County Sheriff, Ala. – 71 seizures-$6.7 million of $11.4 million
      • DeKalb County Police, Ga. – 408 seizures-$6.5 million of $41 million
      • Port Authority Of N.Y. and N.J. Police – 380 seizures-$6.3 million of $30.5 million
      • San Diego County Sheriff, Calif. – 1,511 seizures-$6.3 million of $33.2 million
      • City Of Phoenix Police, Ariz. – 483 seizures-$6 million of $15.8 million

There are no local agencies in the United States that received rebates of more than $250,000.

Note: Table does not include statewide agencies or task forces and only includes local agencies who received more than $250,000.

Source: A Washington Post analysis of Department of Justice data

 

Stop and Seize: More Investigative Articles by the Washington Post

In recent years, thousands of people have had cash confiscated by police without being charged with crimes. The Post looks at the police culture behind the seizures and the people who were forced to fight the government to get their money back.
Part 2: One training firm started a private intelligence-sharing network and helped shape law enforcement nationwide. Part 3: Motorists caught up in the seizures talk about the experience and the legal battles that sometimes took more than a year. Part 4: Police agencies nationwide routinely buy vehicles and weapons with money and property seized under federal civil forfeiture law from people who were not charged with a crime. Part 5: Highway seizure in Iowa fuels debate about asset-forfeiture laws. Part 6: D.C. police plan for future seizure proceeds years in advance in city budget documents. Chat transcript​: The reporters behind “Stop and Seize” answered your readers’ about the investigative series.

Know your rights:

During traffic stops on the nation’s highways, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects motorists “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The law also gives police the power to investigate and act on their suspicions.

      1. Police have a long-established authority to stop motorists for traffic infractions. They can use traffic violations as a pretext for a deeper inquiry as long as the stop is based on an identifiable infraction.
      2. An officer may detain a driver only as long as it takes to deal with the reason for the stop. After that, police have the authority to request further conversation. A motorist has the right to decline and ask whether the stop is concluded. If so, the motorist can leave.
      3. The officer also has the authority to briefly detain and question a person as long as the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on specific and articulable facts but falls short of the legal standard for making an arrest.
      4. A traffic infraction or reasonable suspicion alone do not give police authority to search a vehicle or a closed container, such as luggage. Police may ask for permission to search; drivers may decline. Police do not have to tell drivers that they have a right to refuse.
      5. An officer may expand a roadside investigation if the driver’s responses and other circumstances justify a belief that it is more likely than not that criminal activity is occurring. Under this standard, known as probable cause, an officer can make an arrest or search a vehicle without permission. An alert by a drug-sniffing dog can provide probable cause, as can the smell of marijuana.
      6. Police can seize cash that they find if they have probable cause to suspect that it is related to criminal activity. The seizure happens through a civil action known as asset forfeiture. Police do not need to charge a person with a crime. The burden of proof is then on the driver to show that the cash is not related to a crime by a legal standard known as preponderance of the evidence.

Sources: Jon Norris, criminal defense attorney; David A. Harris, University of Pittsburgh law professor; Scott Bullock, civil liberties lawyer, Institute for Justice; Department of Homeland Security.

Article Published on September 6, 2014

Read more detail here.  There is a lot more information