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

[Robert_S]

While we're at it, why do I have to take a driving test to get a license to drive in the first place? Do they have probable cause to suspect that I don't know the rules of the road? Also, why do I have to display my vehicle's tags? What probable cause is there that I haven't properly registered my vehicle and paid my fees?

[eXcommunicate]

While we're at it, why do I have to take a driving test to get a license to drive in the first place? Do they have probable cause to suspect that I don't know the rules of the road? Also, why do I have to display my vehicle's tags? What probable cause is there that I haven't properly registered my vehicle and paid my fees?

Maybe you're just trying to be cute. Maybe you're trying to make a real point. I'm not sure. I'll just say that you can still drive on the road without a driver's license. However, for the police to pull you over and charge you for driving without a license they require probable cause to pull you over to begin with. It seems like these days "driving while breathing" seems to be cause enough for the police to pull you over and harass you.

My original point still stands:

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.

Tell me why I shouldn't label some of you (Coito, Warren) hypocrites.

[maiforpeace]

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.

So you don't think the reduction of alcohol related accidents by 20% isn't a good enough reason to sacrifice just a tiny bit of your liberties?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 22#p715974

[Warren Dew]

So you don't think the reduction of alcohol related accidents by 20% isn't a good enough reason to sacrifice just a tiny bit of your liberties?

No, I don't. As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And if I did, I would be in favor of banning alcohol completely, which would certainly reduce alcohol related accidents by far more. Are you in favor of that?

[Robert_S]

While we're at it, why do I have to take a driving test to get a license to drive in the first place? Do they have probable cause to suspect that I don't know the rules of the road? Also, why do I have to display my vehicle's tags? What probable cause is there that I haven't properly registered my vehicle and paid my fees?

Maybe you're just trying to be cute. Maybe you're trying to make a real point. I'm not sure. I'll just say that you can still drive on the road without a driver's license. However, for the police to pull you over and charge you for driving without a license they require probable cause to pull you over to begin with. It seems like these days "driving while breathing" seems to be cause enough for the police to pull you over and harass you.

A little of each, but we already have examples of the driver being responsible to provide evidence of compliance with the law.

Actually, I'd like to see more random checkpoints, but not with an automatic breath test, just a quick look at the license,registration and proof of insurance. If a person seems at all out of it or smells a bit, then they can be investigated. There will probably be some bias on the officer's part, but that can be sorted out on court and it will prevent more serious abuses on the part of intoxicated drivers. If you don't like it, you can still drive... on private property.

[JimC]

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.

I wasn't confusing the two, just broadening the debate by adding international comparisons...
I certainly prefer our system, in that case...

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.

There seems to be two separate issues arising from the OP. The first is whether random breath testing stations are a fair way of reducing road trauma from drunk driving; I, and most UK posters, have no issue with it at all, given a fair way to confirm the original breat test fail.

The second issue was the Florida proposal to have compulsory blood tests if you refuse to take a breathalyzer, and most posters in this thread seem to clearly oppose that...

[maiforpeace]

So you don't think the reduction of alcohol related accidents by 20% isn't a good enough reason to sacrifice just a tiny bit of your liberties?

No, I don't. As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And if I did, I would be in favor of banning alcohol completely, which would certainly reduce alcohol related accidents by far more. Are you in favor of that?

Yes, well Ben Franklin didn't live in a world where lethal weapons rushed at high speeds in different directions driven by drunk people either.

[Tigger]

As a slight digression, what do people think about the actual limits involved. In the UK you're allowed:
* 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath
* 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
* 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine
People don't understand this, so it's idly translated into "Oh, you can probably have a couple of pints of average strength beer". So people will invariably drink up to that level and assume they're okay and safe to drive. What is alarming is they take no regard of how they actually feel. They think that because they have only had a couple of pints that they must be ok to drive, whereas it's not a given.
If the driving limit was zero, then there would be no ambiguity. Obviously the testing technology employed needs to be suitable, and account would need to be taken of someone who'd, say, just used mouthwash (doesn't that only happen when people are trying to avoid the test?). In the UK such a system is in place.
Anyone who says they are just as safe a driver after a couple of drinks as they are when they have had none probably are correct: with that attitude I don't imagine they're that good in the first place.

[JimC]

As a slight digression, what do people think about the actual limits involved. In the UK you're allowed:
* 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath
* 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
* 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine
People don't understand this, so it's idly translated into "Oh, you can probably have a couple of pints of average strength beer". So people will invariably drink up to that level and assume they're okay and safe to drive. What is alarming is they take no regard of how they actually feel. They think that because they have only had a couple of pints that they must be ok to drive, whereas it's not a given.
If the driving limit was zero, then there would be no ambiguity. Obviously the testing technology employed needs to be suitable, and account would need to be taken of someone who'd, say, just used mouthwash (doesn't that only happen when people are trying to avoid the test?). In the UK such a system is in place.
Anyone who says they are just as safe a driver after a couple of drinks as they are when they have had none probably are correct: with that attitude I don't imagine they're that good in the first place.

In Oz, the level is expressed as a % of alcohol in the blood; 0.05%, quite low by international standards (yours would be 0.08%). Depending on weight, you can reach our limit after a couple of drinks, so my limit is one drink if I'm going to drive, which I know will ensure I am well under.

[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?

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.

I agree, where there is a reason for suspicion, conduct a reasonable search (including, breathalyzers and blood tests). We apparently take the same position on this issue, then. My mistake.

[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.

Laughable

What is laughable is people dismissing a "civil liberty" as unimportant. It's one thing to say these searches are reasonable, even without any suspicion or cause. It's quite another to say there is "no civil liberties issue." There is always a civil liberties ISSUE when the cops are searching you. Even if you get pulled over for speeding - what the cop does is a civil liberties issue. What is "laughable" about that? You think cops can or should be able to just do as they please if you're in a car - no issue at all as to restraint or proper conduct?

[Coito ergo sum]

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)

That's what the Rhenquist Supreme Court said - where the intrusion is relatively minor, one can be stopped and searched in this way without any reason needed. So, nationally, there is at present no constitutional problem with these kinds of stops. Some states, one example being Michigan, have interpreted their State Constitutions as prohibiting even minor reasonless searches, though. So, there is some variation in the US on this isse.

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.

I don't get why you would think this. You are fine with major penalties for refusing a breathalyzer. Why would you be against having the breath test refusal constituting probable cause to take a blood test for alcohol? Are you against blood tests for alcohol even if there is probable cause?

And, if refusal to take breath test is not sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to demand a blood test, then what is sufficient probable cause for a blood test?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Anytime the police stop you when you don't want to be stopped, your liberty is being impinged on. The question is whether the police are stopping you justifiably. If they are, then your liberty is justifiably being impinged on. If they have no reason to stop you, it's not anger or over-the-top to question whether the stop is unjustifiable.

Many measures will save lives and are opposed. And, nobody is "angry." We're discussing an issue. I, for one, have specifically acknowledged that opinions can and will vary when the issue is whether something is "reasonable."

The test shouldn't be, in my opinion, that a measure is acceptable as long as we haven't risen to the level of a police state. Free countries ought to place restrictions on police far greater than that necessary to prevent the country from becoming a police state. If that reduces police efficiency, well, sometimes that's necessary. It's the same reason we don't give cops carte blanche to stop us willy-nilly on the street, just to check if we have drugs on us (or in us). If there's no "reason" to check, they shouldn't check, right?

[Warren Dew]

Yes, well Ben Franklin didn't live in a world where lethal weapons rushed at high speeds in different directions driven by drunk people either.

I see you avoided my question about just banning alcohol. I assume that means you have an inconsistent position you don't want to face up to.

People don't understand this, so it's idly translated into "Oh, you can probably have a couple of pints of average strength beer". So people will invariably drink up to that level and assume they're okay and safe to drive.

In my socal circles in the US., it's translated to "don't drink and drive". One solution is to set up designated drivers who won't drink at all.

Anyone who says they are just as safe a driver after a couple of drinks as they are when they have had none probably are correct: with that attitude I don't imagine they're that good in the first place.

Tests say otherwise. Even bad drivers can get worse.

[maiforpeace]

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)

That's what the Rhenquist Supreme Court said - where the intrusion is relatively minor, one can be stopped and searched in this way without any reason needed. So, nationally, there is at present no constitutional problem with these kinds of stops. Some states, one example being Michigan, have interpreted their State Constitutions as prohibiting even minor reasonless searches, though. So, there is some variation in the US on this isse.

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.

I don't get why you would think this. You are fine with major penalties for refusing a breathalyzer. Why would you be against having the breath test refusal constituting probable cause to take a blood test for alcohol? Are you against blood tests for alcohol even if there is probable cause?

And, if refusal to take breath test is not sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to demand a blood test, then what is sufficient probable cause for a blood test?

I understand Jim as saying this to be an either/or scenario. You have the choice to refuse the breathalyzer, and suffer the penalties associated with it, or you refuse the breathalyzer and submit to the blood test, and not suffer the penalties. To refuse the breathalyzer, and suffer penalties, and be forced to take the blood test on top of that, is what he seems to be objecting to.