B.S. Drug Test
 

My oldman O/O was in a accident yesterday. Was not his fault no one got hurt. A older Lady 74 years old pulled out of a side street on him. Did alittle damage to his truck. Her car was messed up had to get towed. He had a witness and the lady said she pulled out. So the PA state police knew it was not his fault. So they say to him leave the truck there on the shoulder you have to go for a drug test. My dad was pissed. It was not his fault and they made him take a drug test. Took 3 1/2 hrs when it was all said and done. Who is paying for his lost time for taking the drug test. The PA trooper told him it is a law that anyone with a CDL weather there at fault or not have to take a drug test. Another B.S. law/Rule after CDL holders. If it was his fault i could see the drug test but this was just a waste of his time all afternoon was last. By the way the old lady didn't get nothing. God some things just get me going.

Re: B.S. Drug Test
 

That's how it is for ANY driver workin' with the city. You can be sitting still and someone hits you and you still take a drug test, and not just for CDL vehicles either.

But city workers are gett paid when there afternoon is wasted. So they dont care.

its a good law. If the old lady takes him to court and the lawyer trys the driving under the influence card, he will have a legal document stating other wise, get over it.

What's the problem? The drug test is covering his ass.

Everyone knows that you have to drug test after any accident- it's in the CFR. It's a good thing, too. It helps sober drivers, and it hopefully gets positive-testing drivers jail time.

I've had to do it, in nearly the same situation- an elderly woman ran into my trailer when she failed to notice her lane ended. It was not my fault, and the police report said it was not my fault. She got ticketed, her car got totalled, and she went to the ER as a precaution.

I got to pee in a cup. Big deal. The drug test is just more evidence for ME.

-p.

i am over it it didn't in happen to me. Just wanted to get some other drivers opinion

8) Maybe you should look at it from our side as professional drivers??
If there wasn't so many people out there under the influence of drugs and alcohol who still thinks its ok to drive in that condition many of us wouldn't have to put up with all the tests and laws that now exist.

I for one will take a test anytime because I know I'm clean?? And its not a waste of time nor does it bother me at all.

DC

Actually I was tested 'after' work. One of those time was after a 12 hour shift and before HAVING to go to court 3 hours after my shift was over.

It's SOP when there's an Accident.
If he lost time and money take her to small claims court.

Whether or not we get paid for the time....is immaterial. The FMCSR's clearly outline the when/how/where a UA/Drug Test is required. One of them is "when one of the vehicles has to be towed" from the scene.

He lost less than 4 hours.....sure its a pain, but whats even a bigger pain is to not have the UA/Drug Test done, then have papers filed against filed against you.....and then have the filing lawyer take notice of the fact that the driver neglected to comply with the FMCSR's. $$$ka-ching, ka-ching, KA-CHING$$$, then he's going to subpoena 6 months of the logs, turn pro's loose on them....and you'd best not have fudged on them....cuz if his pros find any errors....its a real slippery slope from there on out.

Its a requirement of the job....and it is both a "Damocles Sword" and also a double-edged sword. For those of us who know we are clean....its our proof that we were sober and not under the influence of anything. For others, its the beginning of a death knell to their careers.

I used to think the Firearms Business was heavily regulated.

that type test is pure bs :dung: :dung: your father is still an American citizen and shouldn't be forced to prove himself innocent of any crime, especially when there is no suspicion that any crime has even occurred. I accept the prehire drug test and can live with the random test(don't like them but can live with them) but to be treated as if you are guilty and have to prove your innocence of a crime that never occurred is insane.

"come check me out, I have nothing to hide" is the most asinine argument in favor of allowing this type of illegal search. I still maintain my right to be secure in my person, papers and property. Its the same as saying if a cop is driving past your house and thinks that its possible a crime is occurring there he can demand entrance and search, just because a crime could be happening.So now its come to the point, because you have nothing to hide, the Government is free to toss your home anytime some civil servant thinks that it is possible some crime may possibly be, has or will occur in your house? They do not automatically audit the bank teller after a robbery because she may be a tax cheat do they?

THOSE WHO WOULD SURRENDER LIBERTY TO SECURE SAFETY, DESERVE NEITHER to steal from Ben Franklin.

If the man with the gun tells me I must pee in the bottle, I pee in the bottle. I might not like it, I sure as hell don't want to do it, I resent the implication and the intrusion, but pee I will, my family still likes to eat. However I will not pretend that its all right, I won't snivel and say I'm clean so go ahead and test me. Its still wrong to FORCE me to prove I am innocent of committing a crime that may or may not have occurred.

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing they to take the piss test, it is voluntary. A Commercial Drivers License is a privilege not a right. Anyone can refuse to take the test.

figuratively or literally, the gun is held to your head. You pee or I shoot you is the same as you pee or lose your license. I don't know where this granting me the privilege to do anything is the right of the government. The government can call almost anything they want a privilege, that doesn't make it so.

Rules and regulations that are reasonable are fine. Prehire test, fine, random test ok, I'll do it, but to require you to prove yourself innocent of any crime, let alone prove the crime never occurred is still wrong. Wrong is wrong no matter how the government presents it to you. I did not trade my citizenship for a CDL, no matter what the government thinks, but under the barrel of the gun I am forced to submit.

Actually this is based off constiutional law.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

this is based off the bill of rights of the United States Constitution, not constitunial law

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is no fourth amendment violation here. At any point and time, you can surrender your CDL and no longer be subjected to this requirement. As long as you hold that CDL you have given "implied consent" to search actions by law enforcement. That is a condition of your CDL, something that you have consented to in return for the privilage of holding a CDL. See that's where it all changes, the concept of privilage. You have no right to a CDL (or drivers license for that matter.) You have been granted the privilage of holding one. As such, the Government can require what it deems appropriate, without fear of violating the Constitution.

and when you drive on public highways you're subject to the rules of the political subdivisions therein; including implied consent to your blood, breath, urine or other bodily fluid in accordance with the laws of whichever state you're in.

The government of our nation have every right to control interstate commerce because that right is expressly given in our Constitution and has not been repealled yet. That is why there are rules on who, how, why, when, and what can be transported from one place to another.


If Mac's dad feels his rights were violated by that cop when he acted under the color of authority then Mac's dad has every right to try to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit against him. He also has every right to bring a civil suit against the at-fault driver for damages (lost time in his case)

The fact here is this, when you sign your paperwork to get your CDL or any other license then you have to abide by those laws, otherwise you will not be licensed to drive, and personally I wouldn't want to get caught running a commercial load without a valid CDL.

The government has an obligation to protect the populace. Yes we all have rights, but those rights stop cold when the infringe on other's rights. Your right to a free press is not anymore important than my right to a free press. I wouldn't want an inexperienced or unlicensed commerical driver transporting nuclear waste any more than I want a nutcase performing surgery on me or a 17 year old arresting me. All three have certain licenses that must be earned in order to do those jobs and all three are done that way to protect others.

(Example only, I'm sure Mac's dad is an upright citizen) If Mac's dad 'was' under the influence then he is more likely to hurt someone while driving. If Mac's dad was not licensed to drive a commercial vehicle he is more likely to hurt someone. If Mac's dad was intoxicated and killed someone in a wreck how is 'his right to protection from unreasonable searches or seizures' more important than my right to live?

BTW, Mackman; you've got a great looking bike.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

STOP PUTTING THE GOVERMENT ABOVE YOURSELF. Just because we sumit to these laws doesn't make them right. At no point do you surrender your rights as a citizen, you sumit because you MUST, that doesn't make it right, the commerce clause does not say you give up individual rights it says the goverment sets the rules the STATES must live by. If the driver of the car wasen't correrced into peeing in the bottle can you not see unequal treatment under the law.

the specific test this thread referred to is not a random test it is a test requiring a driver to prove himself innocent of a crime that cannot be shown to have occurred. It is the responcibility of the goverment to prove him guilty, it is not lawful to make the driver prove his innocense.

Yeah well see, the Commerce Clause was one of those few powers that was given 'specifically' to the federal government.


BTW, 'implied consent' works the opposite way. If you were to deny me a sample of your blood, breath, urine, or other bodily fluid then it is now 'Your' burden of proof to the court to show that you were not intoxicated. You're more than welcome to turn in your CDL and no longer engage in interstate commerce and then turn in your license and no longer drive on public highways.



Of course you can deny me anything because I stopped working as a cop in June (for now at least) Also, incase you were wondering; I am a democrat, I just happen to like guns. :twisted: :P

I for one look at post accident drug testing as a way to CYA. On june 27 1996 in Germantown HIlls IL near Peoria I was involved in a Fatal accident. A drunk driver BAC .019 speeding his speed from accident reconstruction 75 in a 45 zone not wearing his seat belt hit me with enough force to literaly make my 1973 transtar explode the cab separated from the frame the radiator was tilted 10 inches to the side ds fuel tank looked like someone took a can opener to it. He still had enough energy left after doing all that to the tractor the trailer I was pulling ended up with the driver side dolly leg bent 90 degrees to the bottom rail. I took the required post accident test and turned out the deceasced was the drinking buddy of the local stote police barricks commander. That guy wanted my A^& on a sliver platter. The D.A refused to charge me with anything since everything was legal in my logbook and my U/A came back clean as a whistle. The sad thing is now I am now disabled do to the fact that this accident caused a cloased head injury that a few years later gave me epilepsy and forced me off the road. there is nothing as a :dung: drug test. If I had not taken that one I would have more than likely gone to the PENETENTERY for 15 yrs or so.

BAC
 

"BAC .019" Don't think that BAC equals being under the influence.... unless a decimal point was misplaced (0.19). BOL

Re: BAC
 

you are right I misplaced the decmial point he was .19

It's prefectly lawful. You really are having a problem with the concept of privilage aren't you? If the feds want to tell you that you have to drive standing on your head to hold a CDL, then you'd better get your legs in the air. It's that simple. The holding of a drivers license, and implied consent of the terms related to such have nothing to do with Constitutional law. As a point of fact, the whole of the agreement would be goverened by contract law, as your license is an implied contract with the issuing state and your CDL is an implied contract with the federal government. If it really bugs you that much, if your grasp of the law is really so limited that you will rant and rave about that which you have no knowledge of, then the DMV will gladly let you surrender your license. Then you won't have to worry about any of this anymore. Beyond that, you can rant all you want, and you can scream about things being unjust, and you can take all of that indignation and $1.50 and buy yourself a cup of coffee, because thats all it's worth. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer.

The ICC is one of the Departments in our Government which has Full Constitutional authority.
Yeah it would suck and be humiliating to have to take a drug test after an accident but it would also, as stated above, clear you of any wrong doing,.

Thanks i take it you looked at my myspace. I got pipes and some other goodies on there now i should update it. These are some good opinion's here really did think this topic was going to take off like it did. I see both sides.

you can't be that simple. There is no right for the government to grant any privilege to its citizens, read what the constitution actually says, leave the lawyers with the rest of the bottom feeders and actually read the words as written. Privilege is granted to the government by the citizens, subjects are granted privilege by the crown. All rights not given to to the federal government or the state are reserved to the people. We gave the government the privilege of spending OUR money to enhance interstate commerce, and the movement of the military. There is no privilege to drive on roads built by our own money for our use.

Then this "implied" hog puke. What is an implied contract? There is no such thing as an implied contract in civil law, ask a lawyer. You can imply anything you want, that doesn't make it a contract. And what is implied consent? Nice words, sounds like a good thing, but what exactly is it? It is an a forced, unwarrented search by an armed offical of the State conducted under threat of arrest. Criminal arrest does not fall under contract law.

RCSO brought up the commerce clause(only one to have something to back his argument up with), a favorite of big government fans.
Did you know this was used to regulate a BBQ restaurant because some of the food items they sold had crossed state lines( Katzenbach v. McClung)
or that the government regulated a rec facility because 3 out of 4 items sold in their snack bar were purchased from outside their state( Daniel v. Paul)? OK I can see some limited interstate commerce here, but how about the Missouri farmer the feds told could not grow wheat on his own land, for his own consumption because that would effect interstate commerce(Wickard v. Filburn)?

oh but I am sorry, I see by many of your childish replies that because its the law I can't question that. Turn in my cdl, surrender my license to DMV, come on children, when did I lose my right to question the laws imposed on us? Some of you are true scholars, you tell me I am wrong but offer no rebuttal but telling me to turn in my cdl or some antidote on how being made to pee saved you from a life time on Devils Island.

And I am sorry, but how cowed by the government are you to write this?:
"You really are having a problem with the concept of privilege aren't you? If the feds want to tell you that you have to drive standing on your head to hold a CDL, then you'd better get your legs in the air. It's that simple."
Yes I do have a problem with the concept of the feds granting me a privilege, however if they tell you to drive standing on your head, and you don't question them on it, then you sir are an ass!

I question a law that forces a man, who no one believes has committed any crime, who shows no sign of impairment, who has done nothing even remotely suspicious, to give evidence against himself to prove his innocence of a crime that didn't happen. And if he refuses to give this evidence, he is then guilty of committing this crime that never occurred. Can you say you can't see a basic unfairness in this?
I didn't say to give the cop a hard time, I never said to refuse the test, and there is nothing wrong with CYA, but I did, still, and will continue to say the law is flawed, and no one has said anything to show me how I am wrong.

So many here cry and complain about the rules and regulations a Private employer forces you to work under, but oh my god, I question the legality of a law the government forces us to live under and suddenly I'm not worthy of holding my cdl. My dog has seen more miles than most of you, I have a pair of boots that have spent more time in a truck than a lot of you have been alive(MMMM hand made Tony Lamas, 25 yo) and I'll put my driving record and abilities up against any man, except Yooper, he drives thru hails of bullets and dodges grenades, that I can't compete with :lol:
so don't tell me I can't question the law without ripping up my cdl, maybe a little less blind obedience, and a little more questioning of authority will help us regain a few lost "privileges"

THE PRICE OF LIBERTY IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE T. Jefferson


DesertRat, that is a rant, where is my coffee? :lol: :lol:

So following your logic, any schmo with the inclination should be able to smoke a bunch of crack and hop behind the wheel of a propane tanker, after all the Constitution doesn't say he can't.

how is the drug test after the fact going to stop him from doing this?

It will sure as hell stop him from doing it a second time... which is kind of the point of the test when you get right down to it.

I don't 'have' to back up my arguement. You refuse a test and you can whine about it while you're license is stripped from you.


No sign of an impairment, I'd say a tractor trailer wreck is a pretty big sign. It's what we call 'a clue'

excuse me but are comprehension skills really that low around here?

when, or where have I ever said to refuse to take the test? Show me just one time where I said I wouldn't take the test. Just once where I said anyone should refuse to take it. I guess its comes down to you have nothing to use against my argument that the test is based on flawed law, so you are gonna just keep going back to the penalty for refusing the test.
And yes you do need to back yourself up, ya just can't.

and I will let that crack about the wreck being a sign of impairment go until you go back and read the first post over again, maybe sober up a little cause only the impaired could write something like that. It's what we call "a clue" :roll:

its a shame you edited that line from your post, I kinda liked it, but yes there is one thing worse then that inadvertant anarchist, that is some one who would buy into drivil such as this:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

woah does that make you an intentional despot?? :shock:

what are you talking about? No lawyer would be stupid enough to base a case around the possibility that the driver might have been drinking without any proof :!:

Well I did look at "Implied & Oral Contracts" and I found they DO exist. See: http://www.discriminationattorney.co...imp_cont.shtml

Quoting from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

Quoting from: http://employment-law.freeadvice.com..._contracts.htm

Another one: http://www.eandi.org/ThePulse/Commentary/ImpliedC.html

So there is in fact such a thing as Implied Contract in civil law.

Now looking at the question of "Is there a Implied Contract in respect to a Driving License?" This can be clearly shown by case law. One of many cases can be sited. One such example is: http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=15691

One of many Implied Contracts a driver agrees to is -- To submit to testing --. All states plus the federal government require drug and alcohol testing. And the driver agrees to perform these test as a condition of their right to drive.

If a person doesn't want to agree then the state does not have to issue that person a license.

kc0iv

No, just someone who realizes the limitations of the Constitution. This isn't exactly a big news flash. There are numerous court cases where it has been established that "implied consent" is valid and legal. It just occurs to me that ranting and raving about it is pointless. There have been plenty of court cases on this issue, mostly involving DUI stops and random police checkpoints, and none have been successful (had any case been successful, we would not have "implied consent" laws in all 50 states, which we do.) It's hard to make a claim that something violates the Constitution when there is a stack of case law saying you are wrong.

Furthermore, in this case I am inclined to agree with Government policy, which is rare for me. I'm no fan of Government, as a rule I believe most of what the Government does could be done more efficiently and to better ends by the private sector. But, in matters of public safety (and drivers licensing, certainly CDL licensing, would qualify) I believe some Government regulation is necessary. My reasoning is quite simple, the world is full of boneheads. We let any schmo who wants to hit the road in any vehicle they want to, we have a receipe for disaster. It is in the best interest of the commonweal to have a system in place to regulate such activities. Mind you, I don't believe that system should be excessive or overly obtrusive. But I don't believe a simple drug test is either of those things.

What started his rant was the fact that he didn't get paid for the time needed to take the drug test.

Hmmm - let's see, you don't get paid for sitting at the dock, for sitting in a truck stop waiting for a load, etc etc etc.

I would have no problems about taking a drug test if I was involved in an accident, my fault or not. Reason? Because it's the law.

He has a dump truck mostly does work by the HR. All i was saying is the person who was at fault didn't even get a drug test. Her husband came and she went home. But all because you have a CDL you need a drug test. He had no problem with the test because he doesn't do any drugs it ain't the point he was afraid he was going to fail it. It was the point that the other lady just went home. Drug test her shes the one that didn't stop at the stop sign. I see both sides but i still think its alittle B.S.

well just because its a law doesn't make it right.