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

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/sto ... &catid=250

Tampa, Florida-- 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.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

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.

It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area.

"I think you'll see the difference because people will not drink and drive. I truly believe that," she said.

Not everyone is on board, though.

DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett sees the mandatory blood test as a violation of constitutional rights.

"It's a slippery slope and it's got to stop somewhere," Hayslett explained, "what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"

The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.

"Now you've got attorneys telling their clients, don't blow, don't blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they're not operating as the state or the government says they're supposed to operate," said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.

Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October.

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

She adds that this type of checkpoint would be heavily advertised, with the goal of deterring any drunk driving.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.

[Animavore]

For fuck's sake

[Feck]

Failing to supply a breath test is an offence in the UK with just about the exact same penalties as being over the limit .

There is no civil liberties case to answer FFS . Drink driving is not a misdemeanour !

[Animavore]

I'm not sure what they do in Ireland for refusing to take a blood test but it's not force you down and take you blood.
It's more reasonable to tell people that refusal to give blood is the same as saying that you're drunk and arrest you for it. Some people are highly afraid of needles. What they are doing is tantamount to getting an arachnaphobic and throwing them into a small room full of spiders. It's a form of torture.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not sure what they do in Ireland for refusing to take a blood test but it's not force you down and take you blood.
It's more reasonable to tell people that refusal to give blood is the same as saying that you're drunk and arrest you for it. Some people are highly afraid of needles. What they are doing is tantamount to getting an arachnaphobic and throwing them into a small room full of spiders. It's a form of torture.

I don't think it's reasonable at all to tell people that refusal to give blood is the same as saying you're drunk. If there is no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that I'm drunk, I think the cops need to stay the fuck out of my body.

[Animavore]

I'm not sure what they do in Ireland for refusing to take a blood test but it's not force you down and take you blood.
It's more reasonable to tell people that refusal to give blood is the same as saying that you're drunk and arrest you for it. Some people are highly afraid of needles. What they are doing is tantamount to getting an arachnaphobic and throwing them into a small room full of spiders. It's a form of torture.

I don't think it's reasonable at all to tell people that refusal to give blood is the same as saying you're drunk. If there is no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that I'm drunk, I think the cops need to stay the fuck out of my body.

I don't think giving a breathalyser is the same as having your body invaded. And weren't you the one who had no problem with having your body searched at the airport with no probable cause and couldn't seem to understand why some people had quite a big deal with it? I see a breathalyser the same as I see an airport metal scan, I see the blood test as being like a body search.
I think it's unreasonable to not give a breathalyser just as I see it unreasonable to not walk through a metal detector. And I see no reason why someone who refuses to do either should not be seen as suspicious.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not sure what they do in Ireland for refusing to take a blood test but it's not force you down and take you blood.
It's more reasonable to tell people that refusal to give blood is the same as saying that you're drunk and arrest you for it. Some people are highly afraid of needles. What they are doing is tantamount to getting an arachnaphobic and throwing them into a small room full of spiders. It's a form of torture.

I don't think it's reasonable at all to tell people that refusal to give blood is the same as saying you're drunk. If there is no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that I'm drunk, I think the cops need to stay the fuck out of my body.

I don't think giving a breathalyser is the same as having your body invaded. And weren't you the one who had no problem with having your body searched at the airport with no probable cause and couldn't seem to understand why some people had quite a big deal with it? I see a breathalyser the same as I see an airport metal scan, I see the blood test as being like a body search.
I think it's unreasonable to not give a breathalyser just as I see it unreasonable to not walk through a metal detector. And I see no reason why someone who refuses to do either should not be seen as suspicious.

Neither do I. Giving a breathalyzer is not the same as having a blood test.

Sure, I don't mind having a "pat down" at an airport because it's a completely different circumstance. It's an airplane, and there is no opportunity to arrest a successful perpetrator after the fact, and there is no other reasonable means to prevent explosives from being brought on a plane.

Reasonableness, in terms of searches and seizures, always depends on the circumstances. And, the circumstances are different if I'm boarding a plane that will carry 300 people in the air, captive, to a destination and result in near certain death for all persons on board if explosives are successfully brought on board and detonated.

In the case of a car driving down the street, the concerns are not the same at all, and there is plenty of opportunity to arrest people who show signs of having consumed alcohol. Furthermore, breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable and the refusal to take one doesn't indicate guilt, necessarily, but could certainly indicate a distrust of the technology.

A person who refuses to go through a scanner at the airport is not necessarily "suspicious." He can choose not to board the plan and go get in his car or board a train, or charter a flight on a private plane or whatever. It's not the same thing at all as just driving along, already in a car, minding one's own business, not showing any signs of drinking, and then having a cop say "here, I want you to take this breathalyzer" and then if you say "no, what makes you think I've been drinking?" - that constitutes probable cause to issue a warrant to draw your blood.

Clearly - you're entitled to your opinion that these are reasonable searches and seizures. I disagree, and I think there is a reasonable distinction between airport security and random checkpoints on the highway, because the danger to be prevented is remarkably different.

[Feck]

Well thanks to anti terrorism laws cops can search you without any cause in the Uk ,and there is a difference ! When walking down the street I'm not endangering the lives of others in any meaningful way. I am (potentially) when driving . It's a no brainer ,And I was the victim of police harassment for 18 months so I gave on average 5 breath samples a Week for those months !

If you fail to supply a Breath test at the road side when asked then you are tantamount to admitting to being over the limit (or at least unsure of your alcohol levels )
You are also obstructing the police costing the state money and wasting police time !
Please check how alcohol impairs driving performance but increases the confidence and aggression of a driver many many measures before slurred speech or any obvious signs of Drunkenness .

Appropriate Yep demanding that drivers prove they are capable of driving when asked is entirely appropriate .

[Animavore]

In the case of a car driving down the street, the concerns are not the same at all, and there is plenty of opportunity to arrest people who show signs of having consumed alcohol. Furthermore, breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable and the refusal to take one doesn't indicate guilt, necessarily, but could certainly indicate a distrust of the technology.

Well that's complete bollox for a start. Someone could be driving along seemingly fine and then suddenly lose it. You don't need to drink much to have an accident because you were drinking, and this is proven in controlled tests. I'm not sure how laws are in America but over here and UK you don't have to be completely smashed to be considered a drink driver. You seem to be implying that in America you have to be barely unable to walk let alone drive to be considered drunk.

A person who refuses to go through a scanner at the airport is not necessarily "suspicious." He can choose not to board the plan and go get in his car or board a train, or charter a flight on a private plane or whatever. It's not the same thing at all as just driving along, already in a car, minding one's own business, not showing any signs of drinking, and then having a cop say "here, I want you to take this breathalyzer" and then if you say "no, what makes you think I've been drinking?" - that constitutes probable cause to issue a warrant to draw your blood.

This further suggests that you Americans have a completely different idea to drink driving. You can get done in this country for having two drinks, you're allowed one. And, again, tests show that just a couple of drinks impairs your driving so you don't have to show signs so I think refusing a breathalyser is completely unreasonable and I disagree with how much chances you claim cops have to detect you before an accident can happen. I would agree with you if they forced the breathalyser into your mouth but in all the ones I have seen the cops hand it to you, you do your part and hand it back. It's all quite civilised with no intrusion at all.
Which is more than can be said about body pats and forced needles.

[maiforpeace]

The police need to have a reasonable suspicion to stop you for drunk driving. In regards to sobriety checkpoints, the police are not allowed to just set them up, willy nilly where they want to, they have some very strict guidelines to follow.

The Centers for Disease Control, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.[13]
Public Health Law Research[14], an independent organization, reported in a 2009 evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of selective breath testing sobriety sobriety checkpoints as a public health intervention aimed at reducing the harms associated with alcohol impaired driving

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint

If sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol related crashes by only 10%, I think that's a good thing. I don't have a problem with this law at all. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you refuse the breathalizer because you think it's an inaccurate measure, then a blood test will vindicate you, won't it?

EDIT: I referred to sobriety checkpoints in this post because they seemed like the most intrusive of all the ways that the police might stop you for drunk driving.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the case of a car driving down the street, the concerns are not the same at all, and there is plenty of opportunity to arrest people who show signs of having consumed alcohol. Furthermore, breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable and the refusal to take one doesn't indicate guilt, necessarily, but could certainly indicate a distrust of the technology.

Well that's complete bollox for a start. Someone could be driving along seemingly fine and then suddenly lose it. You don't need to drink much to have an accident because you were drinking, and this is proven in controlled tests. I'm not sure how laws are in America but over here and UK you don't have to be completely smashed to be considered a drink driver. You seem to be implying that in America you have to be barely unable to walk let alone drive to be considered drunk.

I haven't implied that at all. What I have stated is that there are different concerns when we're talking about aircraft safety and pulling someone over for suspected drinking and driving. The situations are different, and therefore what is a "reasonable search" in one instance may not be reasonable in another instance. Just because one would allow airport security to do a pat down, doesn't mean that one needs to be willing to allow any and all other searches, anytime, anywhere, anyhow.

A person who refuses to go through a scanner at the airport is not necessarily "suspicious." He can choose not to board the plan and go get in his car or board a train, or charter a flight on a private plane or whatever. It's not the same thing at all as just driving along, already in a car, minding one's own business, not showing any signs of drinking, and then having a cop say "here, I want you to take this breathalyzer" and then if you say "no, what makes you think I've been drinking?" - that constitutes probable cause to issue a warrant to draw your blood.

This further suggests that you Americans have a completely different idea to drink driving. You can get done in this country for having two drinks, you're allowed one. And, again, tests show that just a couple of drinks impairs your driving so you don't have to show signs so I think refusing a breathalyser is completely unreasonable and I disagree with how much chances you claim cops have to detect you before an accident can happen. I would agree with you if they forced the breathalyser into your mouth but in all the ones I have seen the cops hand it to you, you do your part and hand it back. It's all quite civilised with no intrusion at all.
Which is more than can be said about body pats and forced needles.

So, we disagree. When the question is whether a particular search is "reasonable" or not, then I'm sure opinions on what is reasonable will vary.

You are, however, forced to take the breathalyzer - it's only if you consent to the breahtalyzer that you'll have it handed to you, breathe into it, and hand it back. If you don't consent, they will issue a warrant and forcibly test you for blood alcohol.

The intrusion is the stop in the first place. If I'm driving along, obeying the traffic rules, stopping me for no reason does not appear to be a "reasonable" search. If there is no "reason" then how can the search be "reasonable?"

But - we're headed down the road in the US where you simply have to do what cops say when they say it, and failure to obey is seen as evidence of wrongdoing. It's already that way in the minds of much of the public, who think that if a cop tells you to do something you automatically have to do it -- many people think if a cop comes to your house and says, I want to get in to look around, that you have to let them in - and many people these days even justify it by saying "well, if you have nothing to hide, then why would you care if a cop looks around..."

Traditionally, however, Americans have jealously guarded their liberty from law enforcement action, and it is traditionally American that police act within prescribed limits, and they aren't dictators. Traditionally, in the US, police have needed "reasonable suspicion" to detain someone to see if there is some wrongdoing going on (they have to be able to articulate this suspicion with objective facts), and they could detain a person only so long as is reasonably needed to conduct the investigation. If the detention is too long, and the judge agrees, then charges could be dropped because of that unreasonable detention.

In the case of these "no refusal" traffic stops, they are stopping and detaining people in the general public without any reason to suspect that anyone in particular is doing anything wrong. Then they are demanding that people so detained subject themselves to a breathalyzer test. Not only are they not under arrest, and detained without suspicion of a crime, but they are not free to refuse the test(search). If they refuse, than that MERE REFUSAL - not evidence - not reason - just the mere refusal - is considered "probable cause" to issue a warrant for a blood draw test. So, they now are issuing a warrant without probable cause, because it's based on a stop without reasonable suspicion in the first place.

There is one thing we do agree on: I do think that sounds quite un-American.

[Coito ergo sum]

The police need to have a reasonable suspicion to stop you for drunk driving. In regards to sobriety checkpoints, the police are not allowed to just set them up, willy nilly where they want to, they have some very strict guidelines to follow.

The Centers for Disease Control, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.[13]
Public Health Law Research[14], an independent organization, reported in a 2009 evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of selective breath testing sobriety sobriety checkpoints as a public health intervention aimed at reducing the harms associated with alcohol impaired driving

If sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol related crashes by only 10%, I think that's a good thing. I don't have a problem with this law at all. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you refuse the breathalizer because you think it's an inaccurate measure, then a blood test will vindicate you, won't it?

I can certainly respect your opinion that these things have good results.

However, the privilege/rights distinction isn't really relevant here. The idea that privileges have an inferior status than rights has no basis in constitutional law. In the constitution, a privilege is a kind of right, like the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," and the "privileges and immunities" clause in the 14th amendment.

Saying that driving is a 'privilege and not a right' doesn't imply that law enforcement can conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, or that the standard is lower. Homeownership is no more of a "right" than driving a car, but cops can't just enter all the homes in a neighborhood to search for drugs, simply because they know that statistically some of the homes will have drugs in them.

The Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the right that warrants shall only issue on probable cause, is the important issue here. That applies whether you are engaged in the "privilege" of walking through the local park, the "privilege" of riding a bicycle along the street, or the "privilege" of driving a car. Being engaged in a "privilege" does not mean the practice described in the article "reasonable."

[Feck]

For all those that think you are losing your Freedumb by accepting the Police right to breathalize you on a whim ,Look on the bright side it might only be a single Mum you kill , it could only be a few children you orphan (or you could really fuck up and hit my car and hurt my Dawg ).
When a Police man Stops you and asks for a few moments and one long Breath just on the off -chance that you have a significant amount of alcohol in your blood stream Then you comply without becoming an amateur constitutional lawyer ,without giving the cop a hard time and fucking cheerfully . That cop is not out busting people for kicks he (or she ) is trying to save the lives of you and others ! They are the first on the scene of accidents you want to know why they don't think much of your Freedumb and you Liberties ? ASK ONE !

[maiforpeace]

Forget 'unreasonable' search for a minute CES. So what, in your mind constitutes a 'reasonable' search?