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

[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.

[GreyICE]

You don't need to be weaving all over the road to be a shit driver because of drink, so what's wrong with a pre-emptive strike? Sometimes the first clue is the little kid that ends up under the wheels that indicates the driver wasn't at his best. Fuck civil liberties and the excuses that the technology doesn't work. If you drive, you permanently have the responsibility of showing at any time that you are competent so to do.

No, I don't have that responsibility. When I drive I have the responsibility to be at all times competent to do so. Not to prove this to your satisfaction. But hell, lets roll this fallacy over to all areas of life!

Often times the first warning we get of random shootings is the murderer pulling out a gun and starting to fire. So what's wrong with a pre-emptive strike? Any time you're walking around in public, you have the responsibility to prove to a police officer you're not carrying a gun.

Often times the first warning we get that a terrorist has planted a bomb is the enormous explosion. So what's wrong with a pre-emptive strike? Any time you are on your property you have the responsibility to prove you're not making bombs.

Often times the first warning we get that someone is manufacturing dangerous drugs is kids dead from overdose. So what's wrong with a pre-emptive strike? Any time anyone purchases anything in the store, they have to prove that nothing they're buying is being used to make drugs.


I mean honestly. What's wrong with a pre-emptive strike?

[GreyICE]

(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.

So you uniformly support every measure that would reduce drunk driving?

[Animavore]

It's not about "nothing." Whether the police can detain you and search you for no reason is not "nothing." These things have repercussions, and they set precedents. This is about State power and individual liberty, certainly something worth discussing. And, it's not something that merits hand-waving away, calling it "Americans making a big fuss over nothing."

Except there is no search and detain. There's only stopping you briefly to ask you a question which you should have no trouble complying with.

[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.

So you uniformly support every measure that would reduce drunk driving?

Elaborate.

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

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.

If that is definitely what happens to someone who refuses a breathalyzer for any reason, then I have no problems with it, as it means that drunks will still be off the road. If this policy is followed consistently, then there would be no advantage to forcing people to undergo blood tests, and they should be opposed on civil liberties grounds, since they are way more invasive than a breath test.

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. A rather masochistic stance to take on a quixotic principle...

[maiforpeace]

Fuck me you Americans make a big fuss over nothing. These checkpoints, it seems to me, are for everyone. It would be different if they came up behind you and flashed their lights (and even then...). It takes a couple of seconds to blow into a stupid machine but refusing could take all night - and all for what? So you can say, "I showed them"?
And the likelihood of it being wrong is fuck all, by the way.

I'm an American!

Don't lump all Americans in one boat, especially since CES and GreyIce are the only Americans besides me participating in this discussion.

[Warren Dew]

Failing the breathalyzer doesn't automatically mean you get a DUI - they will still perform sobriety tests, and ultimately the blood test, so refusing the breathalyzer just seems dumb.

Why not perform a field sobriety test first, and ask for a breathalyzer or blood test only if the person fails the sobriety test, giving probable cause for a search? And why should I have to put up with being taken to the station where they can do a blood test just because I use mouthwash or happen to be on a zero carb diet?

Also, the situation in Florida appears to be due to breathalyzers that were changed after certification, and not recertified, which the police are refusing to release for discovery:

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Clo ... 06042.html

Stopping everyone at a roadblock and testing them with questionable equipment seems to me like the kind of fishing expedition that citizens of a free country shouldn't have to put up with.

[Animavore]

Oh yeah. Sorry Mai. I knew after I submitted it was a bad choice.

[maiforpeace]

Failing the breathalyzer doesn't automatically mean you get a DUI - they will still perform sobriety tests, and ultimately the blood test, so refusing the breathalyzer just seems dumb.

Why not perform a field sobriety test first, and ask for a breathalyzer or blood test only if the person fails the sobriety test, giving probable cause for a search? And why should I have to put up with being taken to the station where they can do a blood test just because I use mouthwash or happen to be on a zero carb diet?

Also, the situation in Florida appears to be due to breathalyzers that were changed after certification, and not recertified, which the police are refusing to release for discovery:

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Clo ... 06042.html

Stopping everyone at a roadblock and testing them with questionable equipment seems to me like the kind of fishing expedition that citizens of a free country shouldn't have to put up with.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we were talking specifically about sobriety checkpoints. In this case, performing the sobriety test before the breathalyzer is probably pretty inefficient.

[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.

[JimC]

Failing the breathalyzer doesn't automatically mean you get a DUI - they will still perform sobriety tests, and ultimately the blood test, so refusing the breathalyzer just seems dumb. You have a good chance of passing it, and, if you don't, you can vindicate yourself with the other tests. On the other hand if you refuse the breathalyzer they are going to haul your ass in anyway.

Why test it, just to prove a point? In the meantime, the rest of your evening or day will be ruined, regardless, and good luck in a civil suit for false arrest.

There was a time when the word "principles" meant something. If I'm weaving all over the road, sure, breathalyze away. There's reason to believe I'm drunk.

Me being in the car is not good grounds to believe I'm drunk. No matter what day of the year it is. Whyever would I submit to that sort of a test under those circumstances, especially when its so likely to be wrong and used against me (and they really are)? Book me! Take me down to the station! Explain to the judge that your probable cause was that I was in the driver's seat of an automobile!

You have an evening. I can look in the mirror without flinching. I'd trade one for the other.

Except you don't have to be weaving all over the road to be drunk.

Fuck me you Americans make a big fuss over nothing. These checkpoints, it seems to me, are for everyone. It would be different if they came up behind you and flashed their lights (and even then...). It takes a couple of seconds to blow into a stupid machine but refusing could take all night - and all for what? So you can say, "I showed them"?
And the likelihood of it being wrong is fuck all, by the way.

Exactly. Random breath testing is a fact of life on Australian roads, and no-one objects in the slightest... (compulsory blood tests would be very different, of course). And the small number of incorrect breathalyzer readings are still subject to later over-rule anyway...

Speed cameras are a whole other argument, particularly given the evidence that they are employed as revenue raisers in some areas here...

[Coito ergo sum]

Failing the breathalyzer doesn't automatically mean you get a DUI - they will still perform sobriety tests, and ultimately the blood test, so refusing the breathalyzer just seems dumb.

Why not perform a field sobriety test first, and ask for a breathalyzer or blood test only if the person fails the sobriety test, giving probable cause for a search? And why should I have to put up with being taken to the station where they can do a blood test just because I use mouthwash or happen to be on a zero carb diet?

Also, the situation in Florida appears to be due to breathalyzers that were changed after certification, and not recertified, which the police are refusing to release for discovery:

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Clo ... 06042.html

Stopping everyone at a roadblock and testing them with questionable equipment seems to me like the kind of fishing expedition that citizens of a free country shouldn't have to put up with.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we were talking specifically about sobriety checkpoints. In this case, performing the sobriety test before the breathalyzer is probably pretty inefficient.

Quite often, efficiency is sacrificed in favor of constitutionality.

It would be "efficient," for example, for cops to make spot checks in a town and randomly search homes for the presence of illegal drugs. They'd be bound to find plenty of drugs that way, and catch many law breakers. They need probable cause and a warrant, though, and that reduces efficiency.

[Warren Dew]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

Failing the breathalyzer doesn't automatically mean you get a DUI - they will still perform sobriety tests, and ultimately the blood test, so refusing the breathalyzer just seems dumb. You have a good chance of passing it, and, if you don't, you can vindicate yourself with the other tests. On the other hand if you refuse the breathalyzer they are going to haul your ass in anyway.

Why test it, just to prove a point? In the meantime, the rest of your evening or day will be ruined, regardless, and good luck in a civil suit for false arrest.

There was a time when the word "principles" meant something. If I'm weaving all over the road, sure, breathalyze away. There's reason to believe I'm drunk.

Me being in the car is not good grounds to believe I'm drunk. No matter what day of the year it is. Whyever would I submit to that sort of a test under those circumstances, especially when its so likely to be wrong and used against me (and they really are)? Book me! Take me down to the station! Explain to the judge that your probable cause was that I was in the driver's seat of an automobile!

You have an evening. I can look in the mirror without flinching. I'd trade one for the other.

Except you don't have to be weaving all over the road to be drunk.

Fuck me you Americans make a big fuss over nothing. These checkpoints, it seems to me, are for everyone. It would be different if they came up behind you and flashed their lights (and even then...). It takes a couple of seconds to blow into a stupid machine but refusing could take all night - and all for what? So you can say, "I showed them"?
And the likelihood of it being wrong is fuck all, by the way.

Exactly. Random breath testing is a fact of life on Australian roads, and no-one objects in the slightest... (compulsory blood tests would be very different, of course). And the small number of incorrect breathalyzer readings are still subject to later over-rule anyway...

Speed cameras are a whole other argument, particularly given the evidence that they are employed as revenue raisers in some areas here...

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?