Slashdot Mirror
'No Refusal' DUI Checkpoints Coming To Florida?
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."
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.
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...
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
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.
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.
--Forest C. Adcock--
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Drunk drivers have been killing about a 9/11 worth of Americans every couple months since the 1960s. Given the extent to which we've allowed the government to invade our privacy in ineffective ways in the name of protecting us from terrorism, I'm happy to see them do something genuinely effective against a problem that's about a hundred times worse than terrorism.
And the problem is, all politicians are too big of pussies to rein them in. Their eventual goal is 0% legal BAC and probably after that, a complete prohibition on alcohol at all. And you know what? I think they'll eventually get it. Baby steps. It's been going on for decades.
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?
Sign me up.
I am the laaawww!
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
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 & https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.52
my sig depressingly relevant, again
weinersmith
"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.
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!
Looks like Mel Gibson's boozing it up again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
don't make people who seem sober take any stupid breath tests or blood tests.
How do you define "seems sober"?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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?
It's more of a spot check on nights like New Years day when they know that a lot of people are going to be driving drunk. I don't think that they force everybody to take the breathalyzer test without probable cause, but the main purpose is to cause people that are likely to drive drunk to think again.
What you're suggesting sounds questionable, sort of like speed traps.
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
The sooner we get it over with and go full authoritarian, the sooner people might wake up and stop advocating more authoritarianism. I don't think a revolution will ever come in the western world with people as fat and lazy as they are, but it would be nice to know it won't get any worse.
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.
Great Intellect...
I do believe probable cause is still required sir...
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
Read it.
Drop a dime on your politicians and cops today. Fight these assholes with their own tools.
--
BMO
I think that you overestimate people. A nontrivial fraction of the human population likes authoritarianism. 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.
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
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If you drive with a 0.07, which is marginally close to illegal, you should be in the backseat of a cab. dont pretend this makes no sense to you. that's like arguing attempted murder vs murder.. "your honor, the guy pulled through, that means im not a bad person" your argument reflects that logic. drink a soda=drive yourself home drink alcohol=call a cab. if you can afford to party, you can afford a cab. I will however argue against (at the proper time) people who are picked up and fined for opting to walk while drunk. This is contradictory and I know a woman who walked home and got arrested. I think someone opting to leave their car should receive something of a pat-on-the-back. unless they are rowdy or doing something so destructive that it alone would warrant a fine, leave them be.
I AM the law!
Do it the way we have been successfully doing it here in Victoria, Australia for over two decades. Random breath testing, either preliminary testing performed by ANY cop doing ANY stop using a hand held device, or process an entire stream of traffic using one of thirty-odd 'booze buses', each equipped with several cops who breath test everybody, AND can also perform the second stage (analytical) breath test on site (in the specially equipped bus). Yeah, you CAN refuse a breath test, that's easy, but you're then charged with refusing to take a breath test which carries the same penalty as if you blew the end off the range!! No we don't enforce 'mandatory taking of blood', after all that would be considered a deprivation of a citizen's rights in some enlightened cultures. But refusal = guilty, it's your choice!! Also for the past few years the booze buses are being converted to booze/drugs buses and a saliva test is used to check drivers for cannabis or amphetamine use. Some may scream of invasion of privacy, but the statistics clearly reflect the good that is done by this initiative. Road fatalities have fallen by 2/3!!! Injuries have fallen a similar amount. Stavros_Oz, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
It's not difficult to interact with a person and determine if they are sober or not.
Bullshit. My dad, a heavy drinker, talked his way out of speeding tickets when he would have blown a DUI. There were plenty of times that -I- couldn't tell that he'd been drinking. It's too bad he didn't get caught, he might have lived longer. There are plenty of people that don't show it. Some of his friends haven't finished pickling their livers yet.
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.
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?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?
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 arguments instead of frothing at the mouth you'll get much more support. And if you really think you need to jump to such hyperbole? Doesn't that make you question your logic in the first place?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It implies a collapse of a free and civil society for the same reason that universal health care, sane drug laws and a tax structure not best described as Byzantine does: Americans are terrified of their government but have no problem with oligarchs having their way with them. This situation suits the upper class just fine---they get to keep society's eyes off their own goings-on by fingering government at every occasion.
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.
--srj/mmv
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.
--Forest C. Adcock--
"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!"
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.
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
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 immature. If you want to argue against drunk driving then go for it, there are many good reasons that you can refer to. Your own idiocy sadly isn't one of them.
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.
Think of the children, you unpatriotic SOB.
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...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
the term homeland security has always creped me out
Do you grow POT in your house. Is it a methlab ? Well if your not doing anything illegal in your home you wont have anything to worry about. So lets just get rid of search warrants all together.
Why should a COP (Crooks On Public Salary) need to have to get a search warrant for anything ? It just slows the whole process down and allows criminals to get away with what they are doing.
Imagine if the police could just go door to door and go through each house in a town looking for methlabs. They would all be gone in a few days.
Imagine if cops could just walk into your home anytime they wanted.If they could search for anything in it , No warrants needed.
Would you beat your wife? No the Cops (Crooks On Public Salary) might see the bruising.
Would you Illegally download *BAD THING* Kiddy Porn, Terrorist plans, Pirated Music... Of Course not none of that is worth prison time right?
Drugs? Child abuse? People living there off the lease ?
Why stop there. Why not have a "professional Jury" there as well. We can just put the possible drunk driver on trial as well. Hey while we are at it lets fine them right there and then as well.
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.
"Lame" - Galaxar
It doesn't just creep you out ... it feels you up.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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?
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.
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.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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 hope you will never have to experience the loss of a friend who got killed by a drunk driver.
If, on the other hand, you DO have friends / relatives who got killed by a drunk driver, I think I can repeat your comforting words "I'm sorry, but it's just it's only the price of my freedom that your friend just paid".
Next. If your freedom means killing others under false pretences, the only think I can say is. Well. Let's look at this from the my side. What would you say if I'd have you killed for my freedom? Hey. It's MY freedom and you might me in the way. You might be a swell guy, but you never know... Better safe then sorry, You have a different opinion, so you might also limit MY freedom.
Seeing my point? There is freedom. There is fairness. There's a balance.
Well. So much for my first post this year. Maybe if I explain that I knew people that were killed by DUFI, you'll understand my reaction.
I TOTALLY agree with you that freedom is worth a lot, but getting killed by an ass who stepped into a car while under influence has nothing to de with freedom.
Privacy is terrorism.
A speech given outlining a history of DUI, how the supreme court has ruled on DUI vs the Constitution, and a little of the technical reasons why breathalyzers are bogus: http://drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.htm
"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 debate, it is necessary to show that no slippery slope actually exists in that case. The more common attempt at counter-argument -- that slippery slopes do not exist -- is simply false.
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?
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
State sovereign immunity does not protect them from being sued in federal court as the federal government is a superior sovereign.
Unfortunately both types, I think, are evolutionary adaptations -- a herd needs both those who go for safety instead of high-risk/high-reward behavior (conservatives) and those who prefer new, high-risk/high-reward behavior instead of the familiar (liberals). The former type, left to their own would lead to authoritarianism; the latter type, left to their own would lead to chaos. They're meant to establish some sort of dynamic equilibrium.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Talking and driving are still different things. The games used to see if somebody is drunk are rubbish in terms of determining driving impairment while a blood alcohol and breath tests have a few decades of solid work behind them. The alternative of putting somebody in a car on a track and throwing random events at them on the way and see how they handle it has already been compared with blood alcohol levels. Doing such a test on the spot is fairly pointless unless the objective is fluking a get out of jail free card for somebody that is a wonderful driver while sober and merely a bad one while drunk.
Personally I think people do not take this seriously because they are isolated from the results. Back when there were a lot of drunks on the roads everyone knew somebody that had died or been injured as a result of an alcohol related car accident, or if lucky knew of a near miss (such as my father hitting several road markers and a sign).
You could refuse an alcohol test? WTF! Seriously something wrong there - and now people complain because what? The "right" to refuse to be tested for being drunk while driving has been taken away? The only ludicrous part about this is that the presence of a judge is required to make testing possible.
In my country (where I drink, and catch a cab home) face-palm is my reaction to the idea that police can't alcohol test people driving out of a pub carpark - but face-palm doesn't cover my reaction to discovering on a recent trip to the US, that in a state where driving whilst drunk, and/or driving with an open alcoholic drink container in the vehicle *is* illegal... I can drive-in to a roadside stand, buy, and consume, a refreshing frozen daquiri without leaving my vehicle.
Janus Project is what's next.
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?
That idea used to sound better back when refusing to be searched wasn't considered "probable cause".
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!
The right to use common modes of transportation is a right that has been a part of common law (which is supposed to be respected by our courts) since long before the Constitution was drafted. The fact that it isn't explicitly in the Constitution does not make it any less of a legal "right", according to our system of law.
Once again we have the incredibly weird "What would Hitler do?" obsession. It's only a step away from jumping up and saying "look at that man, he's drinking his coffee the same way Hitler would".
I see posts like the above as either a nasty little attempt at emotional manipulation or a sign of chronic mental illness. I think it is the former so I shall call you a manipulative liar lower than scum at a sewerage treatment works who is happy to dance on the graves of millions to push his trivial little point instead of merely a madman.
It's posts like the above that make it impossible to discuss many things rationally here.
The SCOTUS ruled (6-3) these roadblocks do indeed violate the Fourth Amendment (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz), but that's OK because the government has a "substantial government interest" to reduce drunk driving. It is a very wrong and scary decision - imagine applying that logic to other constitutional protections: "It's OK to suppress free speech because the government has a 'substantial government interest' in keep things peaceful"; "It is OK to ignore due process because the government has a 'substantial government interest' in reducing crime."
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."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
all on top of a common foundation of populist authoritarianism.
Perhaps it's something entirely different. Perhaps 80% of people understand that the release of most of these documents had nothing to do with holding the government accountable, but rather was intended as a detrimental action against the government. Couple that with the fact that even journalists are criminally liable for releasing documents that are known to be illegally obtained. Wikileaks broke a federal law. So did the New York Times. It has nothing to do with freedom of the press - these organisations violated federal law. That's why 80% of the people think what they did was wrong. The fact that you support it only means that maybe your viewpoint is in the vast minority and is also possibly wrong. It's quite narcissistic of you to think that since you think it's good and 80% of America thinks it's bad, that 80% must just be stupid or misinformed. It's far more likely that you are the one who needs to think things through a little more.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
That's freedom pancakes, comrade. Back to the reeducation camp for you.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
"Lame" - Galaxar
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'd rather my restrictions be enumerated than my freedoms. Unfortunately the restriction list seems to be getting longer.
For standing in the hot sun because you were right and not saying ok to a search because it was easy, Thank You.
Am I the only one worried about escalation here? Cops start bringing judges to roadblocks, and drunk drivers start carpooling with Supreme Court justices. Where will the madness end?
change weight! wow! its almost as if your listing all the things that people can change, that a authoritarian government dosent really particularly care about, in the hopes that people will ignore the lack of choice in things that actully really matter. its kinda like being able to choose what color you want to paint the wall of your prison cell.
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.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Just wait until you see the new design for the Florida State Troopers' helmets.
A nontrivial fraction of the human population likes being tied up, spanked and having someone pee in their mouths.
What was your point again?
The whole issue here is the implied consent, not having judges on site (which is what people here seem to be flipping out over).
These work like a normal DUI checkpoint. Most people have been through them. They have the road blocked, you drive up, they ask for you license. When you hand it to them they smell your breath and the car and shine a flashlight into your eyes to see how they dilate. If any of those offer probably cause they ask you to pull over and go through a sobriety check. Failing that they generally give a breathalyzer test and failing that you get arrested. You, through the fifth amendment, have a right to voluntarily refuse. They, through how our legal system work, then have a right to request a judge review the case and issue a warrant, usually for a blood test as you have no physical control of that (no warrant could make you blow through the tube hard). All of that is perfectly legal and has been since the US was first founded and, IMO is just fine.
Now, people who drive drunk often have tricks, most do not work. One of them that might maybe work is to simply refuse everything and wait for a judge to be consulted, review the case, issue the warrant, get a medical technician down there, and draw blood. A process that can even take a couple of hours on busy nights. During that time you metabolize alcohol and have a chance to fall below the legal limit, especially if you were barely over the limit to begin with.
The *only* difference is that the Judge and medical worker are on site. If, as stated in some of these articles Florida has some "implied consent" then the issue is there, not with this type of checkpoint. They could have a drunk tank collect up people, drive the to the county building, issue the warrants, and take blood already on the simple refusal. This isn't a change in law or a change in practice, it is a change in the amount of time needed. They make the argument (and again, this part is *not* new by any means) that by accepting your drivers license that you have already pre-agreed to take a breathalyzer test any time, anywhere, and for any reason. Not really sure though why you can't suddenly decide that to not be the case as you can certainly decide in a question by question case to exercise your fifth amendment rights, further the fourth amendment isn't a tiny one either and is fairly explicit about refusal not being evidence for a warrant. Obviously given the amount of time this has been in effect it either hasn't been challenged or has and some crazy judge found it constitutional. I suspect that a constitutional fight against an "implied consent" would win (but, as we have seen with our current courts the constitution is seen as a "living document" where the bigger question is can you rationalize it to say what you want it too so who knows), I suspect they know that, and like many other crappy laws they only enforce in places that they know they would not loose.
As for the Judge on site, many other states do them and its a pretty good idea. In most states they can't detain for refusal of the breathalyzer unless they have fairly strong probable cause - basically if they would have detained you and gotten blood before they still can. If the police have probable cause to require testing and given that the most accurate gathering of facts will occur this way it is quite within the intents of our judiciary system to do this. Further with the Judge on site they can personally oversee the idea of probable cause and the treatment of the detainees by the police. Lastly it certainly works well on the whole "speedy justice system". For everyone but the person that is only slightly over the legal limit who would have gotten away with it this is a win. There isn't a constitutional argument that it is his right for a slow gathering of facts simply because that would favor them.
I would bet Florida is on shaky grounds with it not because of the judge on site, but because implied consent is, well, stupid. Having a Judge on site is a pretty good idea IMO.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Wikileaks broke a federal law. So did the New York Times.
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.
BM3
Here are the real numbers for traffic fatalities.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
I'm having trouble finding the data on their site so can you source another location that compares advances in car safety versus drunk driving enforcement as a leading cause for the reduction in traffic fatalities? Bonus points for adjusting the percentage of fatalities over the years for the increase in licensed drivers.
In other words, I'm having trouble seeing "the history that shows strict enforcement of impaired ..." in the data from what I hope is an unbiased source. What's your source?
Here before all but 8486 of you.
stonewallred, I have something hugely disappointing to share with you. The baby Jesus in and of Himself is not all that special.
Now, the Baby Jesus in rainbow short-shorts and on roller-skates... that sorta shit would save Vegas in a time of famine.
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.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
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.
I presume there are other solutions to the "lots of idiots driving out there" problem anyway, e.g. "negative" solutions like much harsher penalties for DUI convictions, more stringent requirements for driving licenses, etc (these may be politically harder to implement, but of course the idea is to make people take driving more seriously, and not just consider it something they do without thinking); and "positive" solutions like much stronger support for a decent public transit system (may be problematic due to cultural and historical issues in the U.S.), etc. But things are definitely messed up.
[I'm quite shocked by the blase attitude many people seem to have towards driving after drinking in the U.S.; I'm constantly hearing stories from friends in the states about how they went to a party/bar/etc and then drove home afterwards "but it's OK 'cause the driver only had a few drinks"...]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
back to the re-education camp for griddling
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
We (Americans) CERTAINLY do not have the right to drive a car on public roadways which are under the authority of the government we elect. We certainly do have the right to drive a car in a private environment such as a private racetrack or farmland etc etc.
This is why we can be required to gain a license to use roads and highways. As a result we can be forced to comply with the laws set forth by the local and state governments.
That said, the vehicle we use to drive in is most definitely personal property and our 4th amendment rights apply. What is in the car is private and can only be forcible revealed with legitimate probable cause. This is the same principal that makes looking under a persons clothes or opening a briefcase a violation of the 4th amendment.
The danger in allowing these pull-over and no-cause searches is that it erodes the 4th amendment, and each erosion makes the next one easier because parallels can usually be drawn between the first law and the proposed law.
I'm not him, but I'll be more than happy to! In my state when the capital forced the locals to get rid of "speed traps" and all the other nasty "revenue generators" which were ONLY used on those with out of town plates, they came up with a new scam, what we call the prohibition dance. And it goes something like this: Get caught driving even if your alcohol is BELOW the limit? That's impaired driving! Passenger in a car, such as what is advocated in all those "designated driver" commercials? That's public drunk. walk? Same, public drunk. Take a cab? That's public drunk and if you have less than $200 cash vagrancy as well.
Notice a pattern here friend? Notice how there is no answer that doesn't involve giving the state $1000+ of your hard earned money? News Flash: ALL LAWS WILL BE ABUSED BY THE AUTHORITIES...full stop. Look at 16 year olds in prison as "sex offenders" for sexting their own tits to their BFs. What if the cops decide there isn't enough "revenue" (Which is ALL this is about, if you think the average Florida cop gives a shit about you and whether you wrap you car around a pole or not I have a nice bridge for you to look at) and decides they need to do "spot inspections" on every vehicle, in case they can find something to rob you...errr...detain you for? Got a judge right there baby, no pesky 4th amendment troubles here!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
I DO NOT drive impaired. Yet I choose to Not drive on "DUI enforcement holidays" because I refuse to be cowed into "showing my papers" for the privilege for driving from point A to point B. You must provide identification (at least here in California) which is another "papers please" affront and I grudgingly accept that. But as soon as you try to "exercise your rights" and refuse to tell the police where you are going, what you have doing, what your business is, you will likely be arrested. That my friends is a police state. Try it for yourself some time. If you dare. I'd suggest you have a hidden camera if you do.
This nonsense in FL is just a case of the judge(s) "sucking up OT gravy" like all the police officers.
In my town, most of these "papers please" checkpoints result in very few DUIs and mostly just impounds for license and registration violations, some warrants, etc (mostly "undocumented workers"). It is a "cash cow" for the cities, PD, etc. Saturation patrols have been far more effective in removing impaired drivers from the road.
Who will guard the guards?
Considering that roadside sobriety checkpoints are less than 30 years old
No, they're not. Where you live, perhaps, but alco-stops were common in the 1960s in some countries. Back then, you inflated a small bag through a one-time-use glass vial filled with crystals. If the crystals turned green, you likely had alcohol in your system (or were diabetic), and would be taken to a hospital for a blood test unless you admitted to drink driving (in which case they would take your statement, licence and drive you home -- you'd get your fine and weeks in jail later).
This is a LOT more than just "click-it or ticket" laws. This is "Everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and if you refuse to cooperate then you get a needle in your arm...by force".
"Fact: a driver who is "not otherwise detain-able" is one who's not committing the already-existing crime of "reckless driving"."
All drunk drivers are reckless but not all reckless drivers are drunk.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
He only illustrated your point when you lied by deliberately misattributing a quote to him. When you have to lie to make a point, your point is not worth making.
Learn to love Alaska
Since you love posts picking nits... and I suspect this bit of education isn't for you but for the people you're mocking... the slippery slope argument itself is not a fallacy. A slippery slope argument is valid insofar as the logical basis for the starting point remains constant through to the ending point. Where it becomes fallacious is where additional premises are required to arrive at the ending point. It can even remain a valid argument even if the actual consequences fall short of the ending point.
Right, it wasn't news reporting, it was an attack on the US government.
We can spin this all day: It was an attack on the US government's habit of carrying out illegal actions and then proceeding to lie to its populace and the world about the intent behind the actions, and the actions themselves.
The simple truth is that it was news reporting, however hamhanded. It's news, and it was reported. HTH.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Licensing isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Unreasonable searches and seizures are.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No. In this case, begin a dick is a duty.
Thousands of men suffered and died for that principle that you want to so casually ignore.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If a court order can lead to the taking of such samples, then no, they're not covered under the right against self-incrimination. They're simply covered under the right against undue search and seizure.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
How about altering the penalties for DUI and reckless/careless driving, and speeding based upon the weight or dangerousness of the vehicle you are driving? Something like 10 cents/pound or something. Why should someone drunk on a moped who is likely only going to hurt himself face the same penalty as someone driving a dump truck while drunk?
Because the 18-wheeler who's trying to avoid flattening the drunken moped driver could cause a 50-car pileup and kill multiple people. It's not always about what you hit. Sometimes, it's about what happens to those trying to avoid you.
There were government thugs with machine guns at subway stations in Boston last night (New Year's Eve). How long before someone gets shot by them, or by a cop for "resisting" at one of these DUI stops?
They're not arguing that probable-cause initiated arrests with a judge onsite is wrong. They're arguing that stopping and interrogating every individual on the street without probable cause is wrong, and more specifically, unconstitutional.