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.
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--
In Florida, refusal to take the breath test means your license is automatically suspended (or revoked? one of them), but, beyond that, refusal cannot be used as evidence against you. So you still can't drive anymore, but you might escape the DUI conviction.
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.
I suspect people refuse the breath test to buy time. It'll take a half hour to drag you to the police station, and maybe longer to get the blood test arranged, and by then your blood alcohol level might be lower?
Dunno. Never had to worry about it. I have enough money to afford a cab if it ever came down to it, and I stay home on drinking occasions like New Years to avoid the drunks.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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?
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test.
You mean the fact that it's an error prone test, that can draw false positives due to diabetes, low-carb dieting, and various non-intoxicated metabolic states, along with the fact that once the test is completed, the results can't easily be challenged and shown to be false, since there is no blood sample with which to do further testing.
Yeah, sounds great, I'll do a breath test anytime. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to my compliance with what I consider an unreasonable demand, due to the inherent unreliability and non-repeatability.
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
I believe the difference is that by the time you're facing a breathalyzer--which as you point out, there are penalties for refusing--you've committed some sort of violation. At that point, you're interacting with the police and if they have reason to believe you are under the influence--either due to the previously cited violation or via observable signs (smell of alcohol, slurring of words, etc.)--they can begin the series of tests to confirm their suspicions.
In this case, you're just pulled over and and checked for no valid reason other than everyone is being checked.
Is now when we drag out the "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about" line?
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.
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?
Ok, I'll sign away my constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure (among other things) just because you invoked 9/11 on a totally unrelated issue.
You seem to think that because they do worse things, it is fine for them to do bad things. I hope you end up getting filled with holes by some police officer while walking down the street, just because you "looked suspicious." After all, we invaded a whole country, what's one shady smuck on a sidewalk?
Great Intellect...
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 just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test."
The same reason you should refuse to provide the police with any information. False positives.
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.
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
Actually, in all cases the U.S. Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and supersedes all other legal documents on United States soil. The fourth amendment is in full force in Florida and would be a valid defense against these checkpoints. Having the judiciary working hand in hand with the police and rubberstamping warrants on the site of the alleged crime (the checkpoint) is, in my opinion, a violation of reasonable search and seizure: state law be damned.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
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 hook here is BAC has a legally "known" decay rate so they acn and will in fact say that if your BAC was 0.08 when tested then it is assumed that WHEN YOU WERE PULLED OVER your BAC was 0.10 and therefore you get tagged for DUI.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
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.
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.
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
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.
You have the ability to do a blood test while locked in the back of a police car, or in a police cell, where the results of the test will show blood alcohol level in a legally admissable and verifiable form?
Nice.
There's an obvious difference. A mandatory DUI test might be an unreasonable search -- or it might not. A mandatory driving test, on the other hand, is not a search.
The Fourth Amendment says people should be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects." These are all clearly material things, and don't include the contents of your brain. (That would be the Fifth Amendment, and that only applies to "bearing witness against oneself," not to an entirely voluntary test that is not even administered by the justice system). A physical search of your body by police, on the other hand -- such as a breath test -- does seem to fall in this category.
Furthermore, for most types of crimes -- even very serious ones -- there are no mandatory checkpoints. Police don't have the right to stop you on the street, for example, and go through your wallet and ask you for a receipt from the bank for any cash you might have, to prove you're not a thief. A married man does not have to pass wife-beating checkpoints, where police demand that his wife wipe off her makeup to prove that her face doesn't have bruises on it. When you take your kids to Disneyland, police can't take your blood to run a curbside paternity test, to prove you're not a kidnapper. And police don't have a right to demand that your girlfriend have sex with them to prove that she likes sex -- because if she doesn't like sex then you must be a rapist. (You think such things have never happened?)
Mandatory DUI tests might be "reasonable" if they help to reduce the amount of injury and death due to traffic accidents. I feel, however, that in this aim they work best as a deterrent, and when police pursue cases with too much vigor it starts to look like a quota game -- a way to make the police department look good by producing trumped-up statistics -- than a real societal benefit.
Breakfast served all day!
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
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test.
The government loves uninformed sheep like yourself.
Breathalyzers do NOT measure blood alcohol content. Instead, they use a chemical reaction as a proxy that is not specifically sensitive to just ethanol. It is possible to trigger false positives with certain foods. On top of that there is no accounting for different body sizes and metabolic rates and any host of other biological variables. There is no possible way to derive an accurate measurement using these instruments.
The industry and the courts want the public to stay in the dark on this issue because it is a convenient expedient to convicting drunks. Some countries have tried to dodge the issue by classifying intoxication by breath alcohol content but these machines can't even measure that with verifiable accuracy across the general population.
If a cop asks you to take a breathalyzer test you should ask to see the calibration sticker. No up to date cal, no good. Then ask him to explain how the device works, in detail. His ignorance of the device will be important should you end up in court over the issue.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why would you want to give the police anything when they are trying to find something to put you in prison for?
It's no different than refusing their request to search your car, or their request to search your house, or their request to enter your house, or to talk them without a lawyer.
It doesn't matter if you think you have done nothing wrong. You might be ignorant of a law you have broken, there might be a mistake, etc.
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.
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
Low carbohydrate-high protein diets will produce acetone, which will screw with them. Diabetics with control problems will also give incorrect readings for the same reason.
Also most ripe fruits will mess with them. Eat an overripe peach followed by a breath test and it will show you drunk enough that you ought to be dead. Repeat test 20 minutes later and it will still show you too drunk to drive.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
A nontrivial fraction of the human population likes being tied up, spanked and having someone pee in their mouths.
What was your point again?
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
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.
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.
"Doing something" about "the problem" is a sport amongst the politically inclined. It doesn't matter if the something addresses the problem or even if it IS a problem. Prosecutors routinely inflate charges to force a plea bargain and do everything in their power to block the release of prisoners AFTER they are exonerated by new evidence.
That doesn't mean that all cops, all prosecutors, etc are worse than the criminals they're supposed to oppose, but it does mean we're well advised to insist on a strict observance of the constitution at all times and otherwise keep them on a short leash. The dangers from that are far less than the dangers from giving them cart blanch.
Having the judge in the field with pen at the ready doesn't inspire much confidence that any sort of appropriate consideration or due process is going to happen. If he's just there for a rubber stamp ceremony it hardly meets the spirit of the 4th amendment. They've evidently given up even pretending to weigh the issues before forceably extracting bodily fluids for testing.
That is far more dangerous than someone intoxicated enough to have their reaction time off but not so much as to be obviously intoxicated.
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."
State figures sometimes count anything at all. However, consider:
Sober someone fiddling with the radio runs up on the sidewalk and kills 10 diners at an outdoor cafe. One of the tables had wine, so according to NHTSA that's 10 alcohol related fatalities (I'm NOT kidding).
The trend is practically meaningless due to the noise.
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.'"