"No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

They are introducing this policy because there are lawyers encouraging drunk drivers to exploit a loophole in the law and hence endanger the lives of other road-users with impunity.

Fuck the civil rights of those cunts, I say. I drink all the time but I never get into my car when I am over the limit. Anyone that does deserves to be pincushioned and to have the law thrown straight at them. Fuckers.

There is also the civil rights of non-drinkers who are detained and searched for no reason...fuck them too, ay?

And, it is true that the breathalyzer is not always accurate, nor do the cops consistently follow proper procedures in using it in all cases. So, just because you blow .08 doesn't mean you are .08. So, if a person has one or two drinks, and gets pulled over, it's not necessarily a bad move to not want to blow into it. If you do, an it shows .08 when you're not, you're going to have fuckload of a time demonstrating that you weren't .08.

Of course, if you do refuse to blow into a breathalyzer, the cop is generally going to arrest you and stick you in the clink that night. You'll likely get a suspended license for 1 year, and have to fight to get your driving privilege back. So, it's no picnic either way.

I don't know how you do things over there but, in the UK, you can't be prosecuted on the evidence of a roadside breath test alone. The usual procedure is for several more tests to be taken, on far more accurate machines, at set intervals. Alternatively, a blood test can be taken. The roadside test is simply to determine which drivers are potentially over the limit and should be checked further. Refusal to comply incurs a penalty.

It comes down to the old "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" adage, which, I will admit, is bullshit - but so is pissed-up drivers trying to manipulate the law to allow them to endanger the lives of others. For every innocent, sober driver refusing to breath into the bag on principle, there are a hundred drunks doing so to avoid detection. And so, yes, I do say "fuck them" to those 1 in a hundred as well - because they are enabling that avoidance. Drunk driving is one of the biggest causes of road deaths over here and it is worse in your country. Making a civil rights issue out of it is pure bollocks.

[Animavore]

(2) Pulling over everyone, the innocent with the guilty, in what amounts to a dragnet and making everyone take a test whether there is any reason or not.

That's really the issue, as I see it anyway.

Talk about inconsistency in your thinking. There is no difference between this and checking people on the way on to an aeroplane. They serve the exact same purpose. One is to protect passengers in the air and the other to protect motorists and pedestrians on the street.

There is a huge difference, and I've already explained why. Let me try again. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally "reasonable" provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives. There is a different security concern with passenger airplanes that is not present in automobiles - terrorism - weapons - bombs - and no opportunity to arrest anyone after a crime is committed, since if the crime is committed and succeeds, everyone is dead. That's not what is at issue with traffic stops.

I've read decent arguments that the new airport scanners fail the tests for reasonable airplane security searches. I am not yet convinced by them, but I can certainly see the merit in the arguments that the new TSA security measures are unconstitutional, and I may yet change positions on that.

The underlined bit can be reworded thus.
A particular sobriety screening test is constitutionally "reasonable" provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of alcohol.

As for saying the security concern is different, I don't think it is. You don't have to be all over the road, as as already been pointed out, to fuck up drink driving. It's better to regulate who drives out onto, say, motorways (or whatever you call them) by putting checkpoints on the pass than to hope to spot a drunk driver by chance by patrolling it.

Now, that said, in UK and Ireland we had a succession of ad campaigns and other awareness that changed people's minds over a period of a decade or more toward drink driving so that attitudes changed to become more intolerant of them that now drink driving seems like a total abomination to most people. We never really had laws come straight in and change how our roads were regulated so it was somewhat consensual.

Maybe it'll happen in America, maybe not.

[Coito ergo sum]

I suppose people may refuse a breathalyzer on civil liberties grounds, but it's not much of an imposition, and faulty readings will be overturned in subsequent, more accurate tests.

Can you provide evidence for that?

Most likely the police will count on the breathalyzer reading, and it will be up to the motorist to get their own blood test, which will take quite a while. The jury may be presented with a positive breath test and a negative blood test - but the blood test will be from a day later, when the alcohol would have cleared anyway. The jury may well convict on the breath test alone.

And, there's not going to be any jury - the motorist will be left with the choice of settling for a plea bargain, or risking getting whacked really hard because the prosecutor will, as usual, over-charge the case to coerce a plea.

[Coito ergo sum]

(2) Pulling over everyone, the innocent with the guilty, in what amounts to a dragnet and making everyone take a test whether there is any reason or not.

That's really the issue, as I see it anyway.

Talk about inconsistency in your thinking. There is no difference between this and checking people on the way on to an aeroplane. They serve the exact same purpose. One is to protect passengers in the air and the other to protect motorists and pedestrians on the street.

There is a huge difference, and I've already explained why. Let me try again. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally "reasonable" provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives. There is a different security concern with passenger airplanes that is not present in automobiles - terrorism - weapons - bombs - and no opportunity to arrest anyone after a crime is committed, since if the crime is committed and succeeds, everyone is dead. That's not what is at issue with traffic stops.

I've read decent arguments that the new airport scanners fail the tests for reasonable airplane security searches. I am not yet convinced by them, but I can certainly see the merit in the arguments that the new TSA security measures are unconstitutional, and I may yet change positions on that.

The underlined bit can be reworded thus.
A particular sobriety screening test is constitutionally "reasonable" provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of alcohol.

The difference is that the risk of bombs on airplanes is that 300 people die in a suicide terrorist attack, which ultimate constitutes an act of war, making the crime a national security concern. That is not what is at issue with traffic stops.

As for saying the security concern is different, I don't think it is.

Well - it is, at least the federal courts in the US say it is, so far.

You don't have to be all over the road, as as already been pointed out, to fuck up drink driving. It's better to regulate who drives out onto, say, motorways (or whatever you call them) by putting checkpoints on the pass than to hope to spot a drunk driver by chance by patrolling it.

One does not need to be all over the road to be pulled over by the police either.

Now, that said, in UK and Ireland we had a succession of ad campaigns and other awareness that changed people's minds over a period of a decade or more toward drink driving so that attitudes changed to become more intolerant of them that now drink driving seems like a total abomination to most people. We never really had laws come straight in and change how our roads were regulated so it was somewhat consensual.

Maybe it'll happen in America, maybe not.

It already has happened here. Drunk driving is not culturally acceptable in America. This issue isn't about being in favor of drunk driving any more than being against random searches of houses is in favor of criminals who hid drugs in their homes. It's about the proper limits of police arbitrary authority.

[maiforpeace]

I posted earlier about laws in California...there are two charges that are levied, one by the state in criminal court, and one by the DMV in civil court. if you refuse the breathalyzer test in California, you may not get convicted in criminal court of a DUI, but the DMW will automatically suspend your license for one year, regardless of whether you were drunk or sober. That's what you agree to when you get a California Driver's license.

So for those of you who insist on standing on principle just don't do it in California...or any other state that has similar laws.

[JimC]

I suppose people may refuse a breathalyzer on civil liberties grounds, but it's not much of an imposition, and faulty readings will be overturned in subsequent, more accurate tests.

Can you provide evidence for that?

Most likely the police will count on the breathalyzer reading, and it will be up to the motorist to get their own blood test, which will take quite a while. The jury may be presented with a positive breath test and a negative blood test - but the blood test will be from a day later, when the alcohol would have cleared anyway. The jury may well convict on the breath test alone.

In Australia, at least, a breath test above the limit is not used as sufficient evidence for conviction, unless the right to a (free) blood test is waived... They have buses set up where the blood tests can be done on the spot...

CES wrote:

The only reason blood tests are "of course" very different to you is that you aren't used to them. Why should they be different, really? Just a little pin-prick and a few drops of blood and we have an efficient and accurate means of arresting drunks.

Compulsory blood tests are certainly acceptable if probable cause exists - so why not just have everyone do it?

A "slippery slope" argument if I ever heard one. It is perfectly possibly for a populace to draw clear line as to what is invasive, and what is not...

[Coito ergo sum]

It comes down to the old "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" adage, which, I will admit, is bullshit - but so is pissed-up drivers trying to manipulate the law to allow them to endanger the lives of others. For every innocent, sober driver refusing to breath into the bag on principle, there are a hundred drunks doing so to avoid detection. And so, yes, I do say "fuck them" to those 1 in a hundred as well - because they are enabling that avoidance. Drunk driving is one of the biggest causes of road deaths over here and it is worse in your country. Making a civil rights issue out of it is pure bollocks.

That's the worst adage ever. If that adage prevailed, then there would be no reason to limit police authority in any way. A cop shows up at your door and says, "I'm doing searches of all the houses on your block, because we picked your neighborhood at random." Do you say, "I'm sorry, officer, but unless you have probable cause and a warrant, I'm going to have to ask you to fuck right off and let me get back to masturbating to internet porn?" Or, do you say, "well, if I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear, and let the cop in and rummage through your underwear drawer?" For every innocent citizen inconvenienced, there are many homes that contain illegal drugs, and not to mention the other illegal things that might be incidentally discovered on a basic search of a home - illegal guns, illegal porn, child abuse, spousal abuse, you name it. We'd stop so much more crime if we just had the cops check everybody, or at least randomly scour neighborhoods for hidden crime, that to make a civil rights issue out of it is pure bollocks....

Who'da thunk making a civil rights issue about civil rights....

Stop and frisk rules? Get rid of them, because if you're walking down the street with nothing to hide, then a quick frisk by a cop is nothing to fear...

I cringe when I hear the adage - if you have nothing to hide, then why worry about it....it's not about hiding. It's about being left alone. It's about not being detained for no reason. It's about privacy not being invaded unreasonably. It's about rights that have been held dear since Magna Carta meaning something....it's not about efficiency or whether anyone has something to hide.

If you have nothing to hide, why not be compelled to testify in a criminal trial? Why shouldn't the defendant testify? All he does by not testifying is withhold his testimony/truth from the jury, and they don't have the full story to base their decision on. Right? If the defendant has done nothing wrong, why refuse to testify? Maybe we should infer his guilt because he won't testify?

[Coito ergo sum]

[

A "slippery slope" argument if I ever heard one. It is perfectly possibly for a populace to draw clear line as to what is invasive, and what is not...

Sure - and I draw it at cops stopping me out in public for no reason.

I can understand being searched if I'm entering a particular building - like security searches to enter court houses, airports and schools. But, just minding one's own business on a public way? That seems quite invasive.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It comes down to the old "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" adage, which, I will admit, is bullshit - but so is pissed-up drivers trying to manipulate the law to allow them to endanger the lives of others. For every innocent, sober driver refusing to breath into the bag on principle, there are a hundred drunks doing so to avoid detection. And so, yes, I do say "fuck them" to those 1 in a hundred as well - because they are enabling that avoidance. Drunk driving is one of the biggest causes of road deaths over here and it is worse in your country. Making a civil rights issue out of it is pure bollocks.

That's the worst adage ever. If that adage prevailed, then there would be no reason to limit police authority in any way. A cop shows up at your door and says, "I'm doing searches of all the houses on your block, because we picked your neighborhood at random." Do you say, "I'm sorry, officer, but unless you have probable cause and a warrant, I'm going to have to ask you to fuck right off and let me get back to masturbating to internet porn?" Or, do you say, "well, if I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear, and let the cop in and rummage through your underwear drawer?" For every innocent citizen inconvenienced, there are many homes that contain illegal drugs, and not to mention the other illegal things that might be incidentally discovered on a basic search of a home - illegal guns, illegal porn, child abuse, spousal abuse, you name it. We'd stop so much more crime if we just had the cops check everybody, or at least randomly scour neighborhoods for hidden crime, that to make a civil rights issue out of it is pure bollocks....

Who'da thunk making a civil rights issue about civil rights....

Stop and frisk rules? Get rid of them, because if you're walking down the street with nothing to hide, then a quick frisk by a cop is nothing to fear...

I cringe when I hear the adage - if you have nothing to hide, then why worry about it....it's not about hiding. It's about being left alone. It's about not being detained for no reason. It's about privacy not being invaded unreasonably. It's about rights that have been held dear since Magna Carta meaning something....it's not about efficiency or whether anyone has something to hide.

If you have nothing to hide, why not be compelled to testify in a criminal trial? Why shouldn't the defendant testify? All he does by not testifying is withhold his testimony/truth from the jury, and they don't have the full story to base their decision on. Right? If the defendant has done nothing wrong, why refuse to testify? Maybe we should infer his guilt because he won't testify?

I said it was bullshit. I am not sure why you are arguing as if I claimed otherwise.

Obviously, there needs to be checks on the powers of the police BUT, where there is a reason for suspicion - ie., in this case, erratic driving, open containers of alcohol visible in the vehicle, the car leaving a bar at 1am, etc. - then asking the driver to give a breath sample is neither unwarranted nor intrusive. If the guy is a designated driver ferrying his mates out for a few beers, then all good - and he should be happy to blow into the bag, confident that the police presence is deterring many 4-wheel-deathtraps from taking to the road.

For the record, I don't agree with purely random breath checks - but wherever there is probable cause, go for it. It is at this point that the "done nothing, nothing to fear" adage becomes applicable and not otherwise.

[normal]

Of course there is a civil liberties issue. Law enforcement is saying that refusal to consent to a breathalyzer is probable cause for a warrant to draw your blood. How is that not a civil rights issue? Even if you're in favor of it, the "search and seizure" right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is certainly implicated. It's no different than walking down the street minding your own business and having a police officer say - "I want to frisk you" and you reply "no, I don't consent," and then a judge writes a warrant on the spot claiming "probable cause" based on your refusal to consent.

It's a MAJOR issue.

Now, if the warrants issued were based on articulable suspicions - like "smell of alcohol," or "slurred speech" or other indications that the crime of driving under the influence is being committed, that's another story. But, they're taking the MERE REFUSAL to consent to a search as probable cause for an even greater search.

We all oppose drunk driving, but that doesn't mean that whatever law enforcement does to stop drunk driving is appropriate.

Laughable

[JimC]

Well, it boils down to this, at least in Australia:

* random breath testing stations are common practice, with a "booze bus" in attendance.
* the vast majority of people happily submit to what is a quick and easy test (you don't even have to get out of your car), and the vast majority of those will pass, and be on their way in minutes (I am only occasionally tested, as it is more frequent at night, and I rarely drive at night)
* I haven't ever heard of someone refusing on principle; strong penalties apply to refusal
* police cars on patrol also carry breathalyzers, but they are not used randomly, more to check on people driving erratically
* those who fail the preliminary test are asked to take a second one, in the bus. If that is also failed, you are asked to take a blood test there and then. It is not compulsory, but if you refuse, the breath tests become the evidence. If you have just used mouthwash, or think the breathalyzer was shonky, you will be vindicated...
* I read of many people bitching (with some justification, at times) about our speed camera set up, but I have never read or heard anybody objecting to our system of breath testing
* various analogies and slippery slope arguments have been used to conflate this system with other examples of police invasion of privacy. Simply, no overlap.

As far as the OP goes, I agree that a compulsory blood test after refusing to take a breath test is over the top, and a breach of liberty, and also unecessary if solid penalties for refusal are in place.

[Trolldor]

Americans need this shit because of the assholes who carry on about freedoms and civil liberties being impinged anytime someone introduces a law on gun control, on breath testing. It doesn't matter that no liberty is being impinged pon, it doesn't matter that other nations have similar policies implemented and haven't reverted to a police state, what matters is that you get angry over a measure which will save lives.

[maiforpeace]

Americans need this shit because of the assholes who carry on about freedoms and civil liberties being impinged anytime someone introduces a law on gun control, on breath testing. It doesn't matter that no liberty is being impinged pon, it doesn't matter that other nations have similar policies implemented and haven't reverted to a police state, what matters is that you get angry over a measure which will save lives.

Funny you should mention gun control...the original manufacturer of the breathalyzer was Smith and Wesson. No joke.

[eXcommunicate]

Of course there is a civil liberties issue. Law enforcement is saying that refusal to consent to a breathalyzer is probable cause for a warrant to draw your blood. How is that not a civil rights issue? Even if you're in favor of it, the "search and seizure" right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is certainly implicated. It's no different than walking down the street minding your own business and having a police officer say - "I want to frisk you" and you reply "no, I don't consent," and then a judge writes a warrant on the spot claiming "probable cause" based on your refusal to consent.

It's a MAJOR issue.

Now, if the warrants issued were based on articulable suspicions - like "smell of alcohol," or "slurred speech" or other indications that the crime of driving under the influence is being committed, that's another story. But, they're taking the MERE REFUSAL to consent to a search as probable cause for an even greater search.

We all oppose drunk driving, but that doesn't mean that whatever law enforcement does to stop drunk driving is appropriate.

There is no Constitutional right to (ride an airplane) drive a car. The government has every right to (pat you down and/or pornoscan you against your wishes) breathalyze and/or bloodtest you against your wishes.

[Warren Dew]

I don't know how you do things over there but, in the UK, you can't be prosecuted on the evidence of a roadside breath test alone.

In Australia, at least, a breath test above the limit is not used as sufficient evidence for conviction, unless the right to a (free) blood test is waived...

In the U.S., you can be convicted on a blood test alone, on a breath test alone, or on the policeman's word alone. Since the original post is about Florida, part of the U.S., let's not make incorrect assumptions about UK or Australian rules applying.

Obviously, there needs to be checks on the powers of the police BUT, where there is a reason for suspicion - ie., in this case, erratic driving, open containers of alcohol visible in the vehicle, the car leaving a bar at 1am, etc. - then asking the driver to give a breath sample is neither unwarranted nor intrusive.

Actually, in this case it appears there is no such reason for suspicion. The original post appears to be discussing checkpoints where they stop every car that happens to be driving through and ask for a breath test.

If the police already have probable cause to stop you, then no one has a problem with demanding a breath test and hauling you in if you refuse. That's not what we're talking about here.