'No Refusal' DUI Checkpoints Coming To Florida? 1219
schwit1 writes "With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads. But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving. ...
Florida is among several states now holding what are called 'no refusal' checkpoints. It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test."
Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test. It's non-invasive and it's not like it's a cheek swap DNA test. But I bet that no drop of blood goes to waste once they draw that...
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Informative)
In Florida, refusal to take the breath test means your license is automatically suspended (or revoked? one of them), but, beyond that, refusal cannot be used as evidence against you. So you still can't drive anymore, but you might escape the DUI conviction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect people refuse the breath test to buy time. It'll take a half hour to drag you to the police station, and maybe longer to get the blood test arranged, and by then your blood alcohol level might be lower?
Dunno. Never had to worry about it. I have enough money to afford a cab if it ever came down to it, and I stay home on drinking occasions like New Years to avoid the drunks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Interesting)
the hook here is BAC has a legally "known" decay rate so they acn and will in fact say that if your BAC was 0.08 when tested then it is assumed that WHEN YOU WERE PULLED OVER your BAC was 0.10 and therefore you get tagged for DUI.
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test.
You mean the fact that it's an error prone test, that can draw false positives due to diabetes, low-carb dieting, and various non-intoxicated metabolic states, along with the fact that once the test is completed, the results can't easily be challenged and shown to be false, since there is no blood sample with which to do further testing.
Yeah, sounds great, I'll do a breath test anytime. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to my compliance with what I consider an unreasonable demand, due to the inherent unreliability and non-repeatability.
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Doing something" about "the problem" is a sport amongst the politically inclined. It doesn't matter if the something addresses the problem or even if it IS a problem. Prosecutors routinely inflate charges to force a plea bargain and do everything in their power to block the release of prisoners AFTER they are exonerated by new evidence.
That doesn't mean that all cops, all prosecutors, etc are worse than the criminals they're supposed to oppose, but it does mean we're well advised to insist on a strict observance of the constitution at all times and otherwise keep them on a short leash. The dangers from that are far less than the dangers from giving them cart blanch.
Having the judge in the field with pen at the ready doesn't inspire much confidence that any sort of appropriate consideration or due process is going to happen. If he's just there for a rubber stamp ceremony it hardly meets the spirit of the 4th amendment. They've evidently given up even pretending to weigh the issues before forceably extracting bodily fluids for testing.
That is far more dangerous than someone intoxicated enough to have their reaction time off but not so much as to be obviously intoxicated.
Incorrect view of MN law (Score:5, Informative)
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
In Minnesota it is a separate crime to refuse to a blood, urine, or intoxilyzer 5000 test after being read the implied consent advisory. This is almost exclusively done at a place of detention. If you give them the finger they charge you with refusing to take the test. They can not forcibly take blood without a warrant unless there is an accident involving a fatality (or one of the other few exceptions). Minnesota law says if the test is lawfully refused then a test must not be given. IANAL but i suspect they would have to adjust this statute in order to force blood draws on people who refused, at least in Minnesota.
See MN SS 159A.51 and 169A.52 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.51 [mn.gov] & https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.52 [mn.gov]
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the difference is that by the time you're facing a breathalyzer--which as you point out, there are penalties for refusing--you've committed some sort of violation. At that point, you're interacting with the police and if they have reason to believe you are under the influence--either due to the previously cited violation or via observable signs (smell of alcohol, slurring of words, etc.)--they can begin the series of tests to confirm their suspicions.
In this case, you're just pulled over and and checked for no valid reason other than everyone is being checked.
Is now when we drag out the "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about" line?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats how it is in most of the world. Not jail maybe, but you get arrested for the purpose of getting a blood test if you refuse a breath test. Same if you fail the roadside breath test, you can be arrested long enough to get a more reliable test. That doesn't necessarily mean being charged on the spot or jail, unless you have a very high reading. It could mean a summons in the post.
Having a magistrate on site seems an awkward way to do things.
Florida is a state right? They get to pass their own laws? Why
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in all cases the U.S. Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and supersedes all other legal documents on United States soil. The fourth amendment is in full force in Florida and would be a valid defense against these checkpoints. Having the judiciary working hand in hand with the police and rubberstamping warrants on the site of the alleged crime (the checkpoint) is, in my opinion, a violation of reasonable search and seizure: state law be damned.
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:4, Interesting)
State figures sometimes count anything at all. However, consider:
Sober someone fiddling with the radio runs up on the sidewalk and kills 10 diners at an outdoor cafe. One of the tables had wine, so according to NHTSA that's 10 alcohol related fatalities (I'm NOT kidding).
The trend is practically meaningless due to the noise.
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test."
The same reason you should refuse to provide the police with any information. False positives.
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test.
The government loves uninformed sheep like yourself.
Breathalyzers do NOT measure blood alcohol content. Instead, they use a chemical reaction as a proxy that is not specifically sensitive to just ethanol. It is possible to trigger false positives with certain foods. On top of that there is no accounting for different body sizes and metabolic rates and any host of other biological variables. There is no possible way to derive an accurate measurement using these instruments.
The industry and the courts want the public to stay in the dark on this issue because it is a convenient expedient to convicting drunks. Some countries have tried to dodge the issue by classifying intoxication by breath alcohol content but these machines can't even measure that with verifiable accuracy across the general population.
If a cop asks you to take a breathalyzer test you should ask to see the calibration sticker. No up to date cal, no good. Then ask him to explain how the device works, in detail. His ignorance of the device will be important should you end up in court over the issue.
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:5, Informative)
Low carbohydrate-high protein diets will produce acetone, which will screw with them. Diabetics with control problems will also give incorrect readings for the same reason.
Also most ripe fruits will mess with them. Eat an overripe peach followed by a breath test and it will show you drunk enough that you ought to be dead. Repeat test 20 minutes later and it will still show you too drunk to drive.
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would you want to give the police anything when they are trying to find something to put you in prison for?
It's no different than refusing their request to search your car, or their request to search your house, or their request to enter your house, or to talk them without a lawyer.
It doesn't matter if you think you have done nothing wrong. You might be ignorant of a law you have broken, there might be a mistake, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
There is so much wrong here, it's hard to know where to even start... oh wait, you nicely numbered it. Sweet.
1) Bullshit, blood tests are accurate while breath tests are all across the board in terms of accuracy. If you think you are under the limit, always go with the blood test because the breathalyser is more likely to screw you.
2) Urban myth. Everyone and their mother has a breathalyser cheat method.
3) If the cop thinks you are purposely delaying, you're screwed. Furthermore, admitting *anything* to
Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score:4, Informative)
You have the ability to do a blood test while locked in the back of a police car, or in a police cell, where the results of the test will show blood alcohol level in a legally admissable and verifiable form?
Nice.
Penalty? (Score:4, Interesting)
At least in some states they need to consider the penalties for DUI. In many, drivers will be fined as little as $250 and be allowed to continue driving on a restricted license. DUI should result in a minimum one year total ban and a requirement to resit your test. There is no excuse for such behaviour.
Many other countries have made drink driving socially unacceotable. That status is long overdue in the US.
Re:Penalty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Around here, there is quite a lot of popular support for lifetime driving bans for the first offense. This might be an overkill, but I'd support that for 2nd one.
I'm quite shocked by the US where they catch a drunken bozo for the 5th time in a month and he still is allowed to drive to work and back.
Re:Penalty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds perfect, to me. I'm tired of treating driving like some sort of god-given right that we only take away from you in the absolute most dire circumstance. Convicted of driving drunk? Never drive again. Caught driving after a life time ban? Serve time in prison (maybe a year - five if you're doing it drunk). It's pretty easy to avoid losing your right to drive. You know, by just not drinking and driving.
People would be pissed as hell if, say, their doctor was caught performing surgery while drunk. Slap him on the wrist and send him right back into the surgery room. A second time. A third. A fifth. A twelfth.
For that matter, I'd like to see more attention given to proper driving *period*. Your car isn't your living room or your office. People always say things like "well, if I can't use my cell phone in a car, should I just not be allowed to have conversations, either -- since that's proven to be just as distracting?".
YES. Fucking hell YES. You are behind the wheel of a three ton 80mph fucking DEATH MACHINE. You shouldn't be eating, drinking, playing with your radio, reading, disciplining your kids, doing office work, making calls, texting, or any fucking other things. If that's too much to ask of people, they need to hire a fucking driver, walk/bike, take a taxi, or hop on a bus.
Re: (Score:3)
At least in some states they need to consider the penalties for DUI. In many, drivers will be fined as little as $250 and be allowed to continue driving on a restricted license. DUI should result in a minimum one year total ban and a requirement to resit your test. There is no excuse for such behaviour.
Many other countries have made drink driving socially unacceotable. That status is long overdue in the US.
Well, 0.08 is pretty much standard now, and while I don't think people should be driving at that amount, there are many medications that people take that make them just as dangerous behind a wheel and yet that is legal. Why is alcohol singled out?
Also, in most states, you have to get special insurance if you've had a DWI/DUI and it is a lot more than a small fine. On top of that, almost all states suspend your license, many upto a year. However, they do issue a hardship license so you can go to work. Un
Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
1: I don't know where you are, but New Years isn't "days away" here... It's here now.
2: Doesn't Florida fall under the same constitution as the rest of the US? Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment, and as much as I'd like to see all drunk drivers charged with attempted murder, I don't see how a judge can issue a warrant without evidence simply because someone exercises their rights. Two wrongs do not make a right in this case for sure.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
it does sound like the judge is using your refusal to take the test as probable cause to issue a warrant.
Sounds like a 4th amendment issue. "We don't have probable cause, so we can't get a warrant. MAY we search your house?" "NO you may not." "OK then, your refusal to allow us to search gives us probable cause to believe you're hiding something illegal. Now that we have probable cause, here's the warrant. Step aside."
The 4th amendment is specifically worded to prevent that sort of abuse. (before this, in England, probable cause was "required", but refusal WAS probable cause in the law's eyes, so it didn't matter) I don't see why simply having a judge on site changes anything. Actually I don't see why they can even do that do you once they haul you off to jail for refusal. It probably comes back to your agreeing to the test as a condition for receiving your state-issued drivers' license?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how a judge can issue a warrant without evidence simply because someone exercises their rights.
It's not. On the other hand, upon sworn testimony from an officer that he observed multiple objective indicia of drunkenness (e.g. slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smell of booze), a judge might conclude that it is more probable than not that you committed the crime of DUI.
That's been the standard for judging warrants since time immemorial -- the police gather evidence, they submit an sworn affidavit summarizing their evidence, the judge determines whether the materials in the affidavit suffice to establish
Re: (Score:3)
1) "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
Providing the police with evidence that can be used against you at trial is covered by the 5th amendment. That is why we have the right to remain silent under miranda rights. We can remain silent with our words OR with our actions so that we do not incriminate themselves.
2) A judge may NOT issue a warrant for any reason he pleases. A judge may only issue warrants if there is evidence supporting the belief that a cr
Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the way things are run, he's just an uninformed twit. In most, if not all states, you agree to surrender to breath testing at the discretion of law enforcement as part of getting your license. Courts tend to interpret the power a little more narrowly than cops would like, but if they have even the slightest reasonable suspicion, you're not going to get anywhere.
An on-the-spot judge is new, though, and is going to be problematic. We take separation of powers pretty seriously here. A judge is not a police officer, and shouldn't be acting like one. The commingling is going totrigger a massive legal fight.
Re: (Score:3)
Courts most certainly DO extend the right (not privilege) against self-incrimination to the collection of hair and blood samples. Unless the suspect volunteers these things, a court order must be produced for investigators to take either of them.
No citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment
Courts are almost never willing to extend the privilege against self-incrimination to the collection of ordinary physical evidence - hair, fingerprints, blood samples and so on - paricularly when the procedure is non-invasive - and least of all when you look and smell as drunk as a skunk.
You are very much in your right to refuse a brethalyzer test. The courts have upheld that time and again. However, since you do not have a constitutional right to drive, the courts have also held that states are free to revoke your privilege to drive if you refuse to take the test.
Why don't people understand that?
Re: (Score:3)
How can I not have the right to drive a vehicle though? (Yes, I know it's not a right. But thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.)
Our tax dollars pay for roads. Our tax dollars even pay to make the cars we drive (There is a Nissan plant in my town that was paid for by tax money from the state, NOT by Nissan.) How then can I be forced to have a license to use a public road? I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit
MADD is out of control. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I don't condone drunk driving. I'm sorry people get hurt and die. But at some point, you have to stand up and say, I think our system is OK as-is.
Why not just force them to take the damn breathalyzer rather than jabbing them with a needle? Do they have an RN there for that, or does Barney Fife take a crack at it?
RIP Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I was fascinated by that guys speech until he said:
"You saw what happened to Galileo. The government, for saying such things, based on SCIENCE, executed him."
Fail
We've been doing it for years....... (Score:4, Interesting)
Missouri (Score:3)
In Missouri, if you refuse the breath test, you are automatically guilty of a DWI, regardless of your blood alcohol. However, you do have a right to talk to your attorney before taking the test.
I'm sick of all the drunks on the road. (Score:3)
If there were a better alternative, I'd go there.
The trained drunks are really good at basic baseline driving. It is REALLY hard to catch them.
But give the trained drunk one glitch in his driving situation--one unexpected thing--and that sorry bastard becomes a KILLER.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps its time to just accept the tyrannical police state and dismiss the false claim of an impartial judiciary and replace the police with street judges.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Funny)
Sign me up.
I am the laaawww!
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think the worst part of all this is that they still lie to us and tell us we're free. We aren't and weren't, and at this rate, never will be.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't being duped, or sleepwalking into it, they are begging for some movement sufficiently authoritarian to allow them to absolve themselves of the painful business of maintaining a personal ego and subsume themselves in some forceful mass-movement. The ideas that diversity is deviance and dissent is treason are self-evident homespun wisdom in many quarters.
Just look at the massive disapproval of wikileaks for proof - at one point in recent weeks a polled showed a staggering 80% disapproval rate among US residents. It comes in all forms - Palinites accusing wikileaks supporters of being dirty terrorist sympathising liberals like Ron Paul and frothy left-wingers making up all kinds of criteria to differentiate wikileaks from "real" news reporting -- all on top of a common foundation of populist authoritarianism.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the New York Times broke a law in the U.S, they are within the juristiction of the U.S. legal framework and there should be arrests. Wikileaks is outside U.S. jurisdiction, why chase one and not the other?
Why have "secret meetings" to come up with a law to pursue Wikileaks if a law exists?
Why not press charges if a law exists?
Wikileaks have not broken any laws in the countries they operate from, perhaps the U.S. declare war on these countries for supporting "cyber terrorists" as one prominent person labelled Assange.
The U.S. government was offered the opportunity to vet the documents and have whatever they considered "sensitive" to be redacted and refused. Major newspapers are deciding what to publish, not Wikileaks, why doesn't the U'S. government chase the Guardian in the U.K.?
Perhaps 80% of people think they understand that the release of most of these documents had nothing to do with holding the government accountable, it appears more likely that they are misguided.
Personal freedom is important, maybe you should read your sig and stop doing backstroke.
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Insightful)
A nontrivial fraction of the human population likes being tied up, spanked and having someone pee in their mouths.
What was your point again?
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Interesting)
I knew someone once -- his politics don't matter so much, but he was very, very strongly authoritarian. Thing was, he didn't have that curious self-deception that so many authoritarians I've know have, thinking he would be one of the people on top. Instead he had no illusions that he would be a follower, and he embraced it. It's a strange sort of mental submission to Legalist thought, but you are entirely right: There are some humans who will embrace being slaves, so long as you make sure not to call it 'slavery.'
In fact there's another curious mindset that many authoritarians have. Some are followers, and some are leaders, and some are enforcers. They will follow and make sure that others follow. And they will gladly accept whatever power is given to them to do that enforcing. This person who was once my friend will be one of the jackbooted, baton-swinging enforcers of the state, as will, it seems, someone whom I was very fond of once. I do not have a vast circle of acquaintances; that at least two of them are ready to be authoritarian enforcers seems to be too many to me. I do not want to give up on freedom, but there are some days when an authoritarian system seems to be inevitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I think the worst part of all this is that they still lie to us and tell us we're free. We aren't and weren't, and at this rate, never will be.
The lies never stop at any level of authoritarianism. Hence the popularity of words like "Democratic" and "People's" in the names of totalitarian hellholes everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I think the worst part of all this is that they still lie to us and tell us we're free. We aren't and weren't, and at this rate, never will be.
The lies never stop at any level of authoritarianism. Hence the popularity of words like "Democratic" and "People's" in the names of totalitarian hellholes everywhere.
"Homeland Security". Sounds like something from Mother Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
the term homeland security has always creped me out
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Funny)
That's freedom pancakes, comrade. Back to the reeducation camp for you.
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF? Driving is a privilege, not a right, not even in the US. You'll need a licence for it, and in addition you'll choose to accept certain rules and regulations by choosing to drive.
In any sensible jurisdiction, if you choose to drive, you'll accept you could be stopped and breathtested at any time and if you refuse, you'll be, and you should be, automatically subject to a blood test.
If you don't like the breathalysing, then don't drive. As simply as that. This has nothing to do with being a police state.
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're conveniently ignoring that there are legitimate reasons to refuse, including illnesses that makes breathing hard through a tube either near impossible or hazardous, or simply having just ingested something that may give false positives.
I belong to the first category, but wouldn't object at all if alternative and well-proven methods like an eye cup test were available.
But to be detained and jabbed with a needle by non-medical personnel because some asshole sheriff would rather spend money on wagging his penis and forcing people than the much cheaper alternative of having alternative tests available -- now that I protest.
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Informative)
It's safe, cheap and accurate.
It's only safe if you trust your government to penetrate your skin, and I do not. They have proven in the past that it's not a good idea to permit them to do so and I prefer to recall the lessons of history. You don't have to inject someone with CCs of fluid to infect them with something. Paranoid? Maybe. Any reason I should expose myself to undue risk? No thanks. It has been shown that the US Government will go to somewhat extreme lengths to silence those who are inconvenient and I don't kid myself by thinking that they care about me so much, but I like to run my yap, and I don't like mechanisms which inhibit success.
If someone walked up to you, grabbed your finger, and caused it to bleed however trivially without your consent, that would be assault. Why you're willing to put up with it when it is less effective than a placebo is beyond me.
Re: (Score:3)
"What's next?" is not an argument. If we require drivers licenses, what's next -- permits to walk on the sidewalk? No.
You're obviously against these DUI checks. Go ahead and make a coherent case for point of view.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not against DUI checks.
I'm against what I experienced in Texas when the Homeland Gestapo demanded to search my trunk. I refused because they had no warrant. Had there been a judge there he could have issued a warrant on the spot, but he wasn't there, so instead the jack-booted thugs made me stand in the hot summer sun for an hour. I felt like a Black man circa 1950. Or Japanese american in 1942. Or German Jew in 1934. Not attacked- just intimated and treated like a rat by the cops.
Re: (Score:3)
Refusal to be searched is not probable cause. (Score:5, Informative)
That idea used to sound better back when refusing to be searched wasn't considered "probable cause".
Refusal to be searched is not probable cause. Sample decision:
United States v. Fuentes (1997, Ninth Circuit): "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause."
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the point is generally understood to be that the government has never been given authority to be bothering the citizens unless it has probable cause to do so. And that it is therefore not just "counterculture heroism" to hold them to that standard, but your duty as a citizen. Unless, of course, you are one of those that thinks the constitution is a meaningless piece of paper, and you enjoy watching the government slip into an authoritarian, non-constitutionally authorized mode of operation.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
When there is a continuum and this represents a movement towards one extreme end of that continuum, it is reasonable to ask what is next. American history is all about the gradual expansion of government intrusion and the gradual erosion of what were once sacrosanct civil rights. No official ultimate goal has been set, as in "once we reach this point we'll back off" so those of us who don't want to live in a police state quite legitimately wonder when the "for your safety" justifications will end.
Assuming you're willing to entertain such a case and accept it as valid so long as the reasoning is sound, even if you disagree with it (and around here that's a gigantic "if"), then sure. I'll explain this as well as I can.
The text of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
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.
That's the text. Now for how the courts have generally interpreted it. American jurisprudence has long held that even for things like traffic stops on public roads, this means that an officer must have either a warrant or probable cause. That is reasonable, and takes into consideration that there are very, very good reasons why we don't just blindly trust cops to not abuse their power. The idea is, they don't go on fishing expeditions and they don't hassle citizens without a good, justifiable reason.
Now then: the fact that you happen to be driving down a particular street is emphatically NOT probable cause to believe that you have committed any crime. So the cops don't have probable cause, and they don't have a warrant either. Do you see the problem?
If someone is driving poorly, weaving in and out of lanes, or otherwise their actual road performance demonstrates that they might be intoxicated, not only do I think it's reasonable for the police to pull that person over, I would consider them negligent if they were aware of it and didn't take action. Driving like you might be intoxicated is probable cause to believe that you are intoxicated and that's simple enough.
What's happening here with DUI laws is the same thing that's happening on several other fronts, including terrorism or "protecting the children" et al. An emotional, usually fear-based appeal is made to excuse the suspension of Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties. In my opinion, the politicians pushing for it are driven by a desire for more power and the citizens accepting it and making excuses for it are driven by plain old cowardice. There was a case like this involving roadblocks that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and I wish I could remember the name/date of that case. The ruling basically stated "yeah, this is almost definitely unconstitutional, but we'll accept it anyway because [at that time] there are 25,000 alcohol-related road fatalities each year."
Honestly, I don't care if there are 800,000 alcohol-related road fatalities each year. That would be incredibly unfortunate but freedom is worth that and then some, even if I end up among those 800,000. I'd rather retain the freedoms that many great men have fought and died for. The cowards who will surrender liberty for promises of safety are not worthy to lick the boots of those who understood the value of freedom. I am willing to take my chances with a few more drunks on the road. I consider that far less of a threat than the unchecked police power of the state, and history backs me up on this one without question.
That's my coherent case. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say that american history is all about the gradual expansion of civil rights at the cost of state powers, but interpret history how you'd like.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all I'm TUI. Second: in recent history you said something that I found interesting, so you have a green dot next to your name that encouraged me to read your post.
But...
"Honestly, I don't care if there are 800,000 alcohol-related road fatalities each year. That would be incredibly unfortunate but freedom is worth that and then some, even if I end up among those 800,000."
I think we disagree here. Your freedom TOTALLY ends at the very point where you or anybody is about to harm, damage or kill me.
I h
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Insightful)
If DUI checks are such an horrible imposition on liberty, then isn't having to have a driver's license to drive on the roads equally offensive to freedom? After all, shouldn't you be allowed to drive whatever vehicle you like, anywhere you like, without any kind of licensing? To believe otherwise would be sacrificing freedom for safety.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
If "driving around without a drunk test" belongs on the list of those freedoms
Murdering babies with a Sawzall doesn't belong on that lits of freedoms, either, but you know what? We'll still follow due process and give you a fair trial if you're accused of doing that.
Nobody is defending drunk drivers. What the other people here are trying to get across to you, and what you steadfastly refuse to understand for some reason, is that DUI should not be considered an exception to the Constitution. Get some abstract thinking skills, willya?
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what about the history that shows strict enforcement of impaired driving laws have led to a reduction in impaired driving in just about every jurisdiction where it's been done?
So the fact that unconstitutional tactics work can be used to justify their employment? Gee, Josef, if we take away everyone's car, I'll bet that will cut down on impaired-driving deaths even more!
Re:Consider it as a molehill and not a mountain (Score:4, Informative)
Get a grip and think about what those freedoms were and what those great men would probably really think about the situation.
Jesus H. Christ in a pogo stick sidecar, does the quote about those who would give up their rights really have to be pasted here again? We know what those great men would think about the situation: they would think we are losing our fucking minds.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "what's next?" is an argument when the example is not a non sequitur like take for example... yours. Having a judge on site to "streamline" the process like this is dangerous because it lessens the boundary between the executive and the judicial powers. Basically overriding the protection of your rights gets boiled down to "Ok you wont let me do this," *turns around, gets a stamp, turns back* "now you have to."
So, what's next? Making a police officer and a judge be a standard pair when on patrol? If getting a warrant becomes a 1-minute formality then yes indeed the next thing could easily be "no refusal" car searches. Because if the judge and the police officer gets paired up like this then there is no real separation of power.
"Oh but it is okay in this case, because it makes the roads safer!" is a very dangerous argument in itself. It advocates overriding the system when it feels "right", which is very subjective and is a method that can quickly turn sour or be horribly abused by men in power. Instead of undermining the system by doing stupid things like this, work within it. If something doesn't work, petition the legislative branch to change how it works, just don't go play Judge Dredd because it feels "right".
This is not a question of whether DUI checks are "bad" or if we should stop testing for it completely or whatever. That's a straw-man in this case, because it is not the argument the OP made that you're attacking.
Re: (Score:3)
"What's next?" is not an argument. If we require drivers licenses, what's next -- permits to walk on the sidewalk? No.
I love nitpicky posts like this. It's easy (and fun) to imagine the poster lying in a bruised and emaciated state, eyes wild and unfocused, days at most away from death, as he howls into the frozen Siberian night: "But the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy! How were we supposed to see it coming? It isn't faaaaaaiiiirrrrr!"
Re: (Score:3)
"But the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy! How were we supposed to see it coming? It isn't faaaaaaiiiirrrrr!"
Hahaha I have heard that so many times. But the fact is that people who say this don't understand their logical fallacies.
The "slippery slope" fallacy is an actual fallacy only when someone makes a "slippery slope" argument where no slippery slope actually exists. This makes the fallacy itself somewhat slippery. But what it boils down to is that slippery slopes are real enough... it's only a fallacy when one uses it in an argument unjustifiably. In order to counter a slippery slope argument in a logical
Re:Whats next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fact: a driver who is "not otherwise detain-able" is one who's not committing the already-existing crime of "reckless driving".
If said driver is not driving dangerously on account of his intoxication level, then any accident he's involved in is by its very nature just that—an accident. In such a case, the harm that is done to society by treating everyone as a latent criminal—from things as simple as lost time, to things as dangerous as malicious prosecutions and maintaining a general state of fear of jackbooted thuggery—far outweighs the purported good of safening the roadways from people who are dangerous on paper only. From there, the "what's next?" argument does logically extend to things like roadblock checkpoints to make sure your tire treads aren't a millimeter under regulation, or your radio isn't too loud, or indeed even to potential pedestrian offenses like needing regular shoe check-ups (because a faulty lace could result in tripping, and a trip could fall into the street, where the tripper could be hit by a car, or a driver might swerve to miss him and do more damage to an innocent pedestrian). And a "pedestrian permit" is also analogous in that it would generate every bit as much revenue as fining drivers who are only dangerous on paper.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent... using the refusal of a non-compulsory breathalyzer as probable cause for a compulsory blood test. That's some flawless logic right there!
If our society demands stricter enforcement of DUI, then there's already a well defined process for crafting new laws and allowing them to go through proper judicial reviews.
. . .subverting this process by using onsite judges to piss all over the fourth ammendment is NOT the solution!
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen this tactic used.
At one point I lived in Lake Elsinore California in a second story apartment with a balcony that looked down the worst street in town (it was really cheap.) The whole subdivision was tied together by a road called Quail - basically a horseshoe that was the only road in or out of the subdivision.
Cops blocked both ends of Quail and started a house-to-house search with judges walking the street. If you didn't voluntarily allow your home to be searched, the judge would walk up, sign a warrant and the cops would break down your door. No way in or out, no refusal.
My room mates and I sat on the balcony with a cooler full of beer and watched the action. When the cops came to our door and asked "can we search your house" we responded with a question - "Can we stop you?" He answered "No". No need to involve a judge, that would just piss someone off and we didn't need to make any enemies.
We were all handcuffed and put on the living room couch while about 20 cops tore our apartment apart, then left us with a huge mess. They didn't break anything, but we had to replace a lot of food that they dumped out. Clothes were rummaged through, dumped on the floor, walked on. No consideration was made that we weren't the people they were looking for. We got no apology.
We were, however, permitted to return to the balcony to watch the rest of our neighbors get arrested. This began the quietest 2 weeks that neighborhood had ever seen.
Re:Whats next? (Score:5, Interesting)
They were looking for meth dealers/labs.
They found a lot of them. There were white passenger vans pulling in empty and out full. They also had a U-Haul that would pull in empty, and out full of lab gear.
Humorous, yes...we all had a laugh as we were watching the rest of the neighborhood get arrested and cleaning up the mess. "Holy shit dude, we just got raided....We're like the only ones left on the street."
Disturbing, yes. We had done nothing wrong, but were treated as guilty until proven innocent.
Re:seems simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless the previous person blew high enough that there's residual alcohol inside the machine.
As far as I'm concerned, probable cause means probable cause. If they want to stop everybody at random checkpoints like the gestapo, fine, but don't make people who seem sober take any stupid breath tests or blood tests. If there's no probable cause to believe that the person has been drinking, such tests just plain don't pass constitutional muster.
Oh, and you can bet a blood test on the side of the road won't meet HIPAA requirements for electronic medical records.
Hope those states have good lawyers. They're going to need them.
Re: (Score:3)
don't make people who seem sober take any stupid breath tests or blood tests.
How do you define "seems sober"?
Re:seems simple (Score:4, Insightful)
If people aren't noticeably impaired by the alcohol, isn't that sort of not a problem then? The reason for BAC limits is just because we need something objective that correlates reasonably well with impairment, not because high BAC is inherently bad.
If we administered actual "impairment" tests, different people would probably have different BAC threshholds, depending on physiology, tolerances, etc. Perhaps we should go in that direction, and make people do some sort of hand-eye coordination task, instead of testing alcohol levels...
Re:seems simple (Score:5, Insightful)
in ontario canada, the stop-everybody stops do NOT make everyone blow.
they talk to you (real close to your face) and shine their flashlight at your eyes
and ask you if you have been drinking.
if they think you arentt bombed or clumsy with spilling drinks, they let you go
without a breath test.
probably because the breath tests use disposable tubes, and those tubes
probably cost real money and would soon swallow a police budget if used
on every single driver on a busy roadway.
also, i believe here 'probable cause' is still required for asking a breath test.
they can stop everybody at a roadside event, but the next step of actual testing
requires the officer, keeping a straight face, to be able to say in court he
had believed the driver had been consuming alcohol/appeared intoxicated.
of course many idiots will admit they had "1 drink" when asked if they
have been drinking -- this is probable cause.
Re:seems simple (Score:5, Insightful)
At least, here in Washington, you need a license to drive. And a license to drive is a privilege, for which the state is free to impose whatever conditions they see fit.
Which, at its heart, is a fundamental violation of basic constitutional rights. The right of freedom of movement means nothing if it is restricted to only certain means of travel.
Re: (Score:3)
if you plan to drink, plan to get a ride. if you werent drinking, you have nothing to fear about a breath test.
Unless, that is, you are diabetic or on a low-carb diet [proteinpower.com]
Re:seems simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you under-dosed on insulin, used mouthwash recently, ate sourdough bread, suffer any of a number of metabolic disorders, the breathalyser is miscalibrated, malfunctioning or operated incorrectly, etc etc etc.
The one good thing about a blood test is they have no excuse for not having a second sample for independent analysis.
Of course all of that is a destruction of constitutional rights when implemented as a roadblock. What happened to probable cause? I'm all for keeping DUI under control and making people safe but shredding the foundation of our society is much too high a price.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:seems simple (Score:4, Funny)
Looks like Mel Gibson's boozing it up again.
Re: (Score:3)
As offensive as he's being, he's right.
All the people who say "don't do x and you'll have nothing to worry about" need to be dumped down a well somewhere. They're the type that endorse police states. I'm sorry, but the downhill slide to a police state in the US needs to come to a friggin' stop.
More evidence of police-stateism just today:
Go here: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/12/31/1254208 [slashdot.org]
Read it.
Drop a dime on your politicians and cops today. Fight these assholes with their own tools.
--
BMO
Re:seems simple (Score:5, Insightful)
its not going to be enough residual alcohol to impress a reading. and if you didnt drink at all, *buzzed driving is drunk driving* then your CLEAN breath + the last guys millidrop of alcohol will not register 0.08 so what do you care? and yes, i support the crap out of safe flying associated x-rays. if x-raying some guy to check him for explosives guarantees me a safe flight, i say ZAP AWAY!
Do you find it odd that Israel and other places that have far bigger terrorism problems than the USA has ever experienced don't use such scanners and consider them to be not worthwhile? Or did you even know that?
The difference is that in the USA, the screeners are looking for weapons. In Israel, the screeners are looking for terrorists. They collect intelligence on the people who purchase tickets. They ask questions. If necessary they interrogate and perform psychological evaluations. They know who you are, where you're going, whether you plan to return, and maybe also why you're going there. They look for inconsistent or conflicting stories. What they do is more like old-fashioned police work. Israel has many enemies and those enemies tend to use terrorism tactics rather than conventional warfare.
The last hijacking that happened anywhere in Israel was on July 23, 1969. The Ben Gurion Airport just outside Tel Aviv has never had a single hijacking. I'm thinking we should listen to the Israelis on this matter.
And if intrusive groping of 80-year-old grandmas and terrified, screaming three-year-old girls becomes government-sponsored, I say the terrorists have been handed more of a victory than they ever could have hoped for.
Re: (Score:3)
What if he ate a christmas pudding laced with brandy?
What if he used some cough medicine that's made with alcohol?
There are plenty of sources of alcohol that don't include drinking beverages, including some that people don't expect or realise.
Driving while legally permitted to drive because you haven't had a drink relative to drink-driving is nothing like attempted versus actual murder.
if you can afford to party, you can afford a cab.
Clearly a lie. Also fails to acknowledge multiple free sources of alcohol.
Your arguments are inflammatory, specious and imm
Re:Something the judges should read (Score:4, Insightful)
Florida has implied consent laws. By choosing to drive on the roads, you agree to perform a breath test when requested by a police officer. If you don't want to, simply don't drive. Anyone refuse a test is already braking the law and will be facing a court appearance, a fine and a suspended license,
Doesn't it seem reasonable for a judge to determine that an individual refusing a non-invasive test, where the refusal has such significant repercussions, may indeed be over the limit and determine there is probable cause to test this rather than letting them off with a lighter penalty?
Re:Something the judges should read (Score:5, Insightful)
Implied consent is bullshit, and already makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. There is no consent to a breath test (or any other test) implied by driving.
No. Refusal of a search can never be probable cause for a search, as that too makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. If there were a an equivalently simple test for having committed a murder recently, it would still be unreasonable to allow cops to ask that people take it, and unreasonable for their refusal to be used as probable cause for forcing them to take such a test.
Re: (Score:3)
Implied consent is bullshit, and already makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. There is no consent to a breath test (or any other test) implied by driving.
Requiring you to submit to a breath test if you want to be allowed to drive in the state, is not a violation of your rights, because, you have no right to drive in the first place. Since driving is a privilidge, granted by the state, the state is free to restrict it in anyway it wants.
Re:Something the judges should read (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Something the judges should read (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also few statements in your driver's license EULA about not criticizing the government, allowing the state to quarter troops in your home, waiving your right to a jury trial in vehicular manslaughter cases, and permitting the police to scourge you at roadside for violating the speed limit.
Oh, wait, there aren't. But if there were, they'd have to be unconstitutional as well. Because if the state can force you to waive your fundamental rights as a condition of performing a common activity, your rights are pretty much null and void.
Besides, what if you're driving without a license? Can't be any implied consent there, and driving without a license carries a lesser penalty than drunk driving.
Re:I'm totally in favor of this (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to think that because they do worse things, it is fine for them to do bad things. I hope you end up getting filled with holes by some police officer while walking down the street, just because you "looked suspicious." After all, we invaded a whole country, what's one shady smuck on a sidewalk?
Re:I'm totally in favor of this (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an obvious difference. A mandatory DUI test might be an unreasonable search -- or it might not. A mandatory driving test, on the other hand, is not a search.
The Fourth Amendment says people should be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects." These are all clearly material things, and don't include the contents of your brain. (That would be the Fifth Amendment, and that only applies to "bearing witness against oneself," not to an entirely voluntary test that is not even administered by the justice system). A physical search of your body by police, on the other hand -- such as a breath test -- does seem to fall in this category.
Furthermore, for most types of crimes -- even very serious ones -- there are no mandatory checkpoints. Police don't have the right to stop you on the street, for example, and go through your wallet and ask you for a receipt from the bank for any cash you might have, to prove you're not a thief. A married man does not have to pass wife-beating checkpoints, where police demand that his wife wipe off her makeup to prove that her face doesn't have bruises on it. When you take your kids to Disneyland, police can't take your blood to run a curbside paternity test, to prove you're not a kidnapper. And police don't have a right to demand that your girlfriend have sex with them to prove that she likes sex -- because if she doesn't like sex then you must be a rapist. (You think such things have never happened?)
Mandatory DUI tests might be "reasonable" if they help to reduce the amount of injury and death due to traffic accidents. I feel, however, that in this aim they work best as a deterrent, and when police pursue cases with too much vigor it starts to look like a quota game -- a way to make the police department look good by producing trumped-up statistics -- than a real societal benefit.
Re:Checkpoints necessary? (Score:4, Interesting)
What you're suggesting sounds questionable, sort of like speed traps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are much better off staying within the US. Nowhere else is any better. Seriously, the best thing to do is to buy a small acreage somewhere and work from home. Raise some animals and grow a garden. The cost of living is low. UPS will deliver anything you could want from across the globe. The cops in rural areas are assholes, but they are easy enough to avoid. And odds are you will be surrounded by supportive neighbors who are sick of the bullshit as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, all except that whole showering in a mist of Zyclon-B thing, ya know?
And it's not to say I disagree with your general position or that I care that you throw around the term Nazi a bit but let's try to keep some perspective here. Perspective is one of the things that is missing from a lot of posts on Slashdot and it kinda makes people sound like raving retards. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. By making reasonable argu
Re:Welcome to Florida... Sieg Heil! (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be saying that testing for alcohol is protecting drivers against themselves. I ride a bicycle to work (in a different jurisdiction). Shouldn't I be protected against drunk drivers?
Do you approve of drunks operating other types of heavy machinery? How about airliners, trains, cargo ships?
Re:Thats not bad in British Columbia (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite the rest of the western world providing a working counterexample, many American citizens still think it's 1776 in the rest of the world and that the rest of us haven't managed to make democratic socialism work. It's also forced the American governments to do things in an underhanded and below-board manner (and to the detriment of freedom) because they can't have a hysteria-free debate on certain toics like the rest of the us have.
Its like the whole "gun" thing. Again, the much of the rest of the civilised world does without the level of gun nuttery baggage, and yet curiously we're not at the mercy of warlords or jackbooted thugs or what have you.
It's sad, really. Much of the country desperately needs to get a sense of perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone gets drunk and hits a fence post or otherwise breaks the law you punish them. But why punish people who haven't caused any actual problems because you don't agree with the risks they take?
"Hey, Officer. Sure I was drinking and shooting my M60 at that nearby office building. But I totally missed it. The whole building! I only shot the hill behind it. And no one was hurt. Why punish me because you don't agree with the risks I take?"
Is "Attempted Murder" a crime?