No refusal DUI checkpoint

[eagleskins]

At least 3 checkpoints in Charleston over the weekend. Total profiling going on.

[grizzaholic]

AZ we disagree on very little. THis is one of those times.

[GannonFan]

I've got no problem with checkpoints, per se, but I agree with the idea that there should be some type of probable cause to move to a breathalizer test. Granted, the standards for that probable cause are going to be real subjective and I'm sure a cop could swing it so that everyone presents some probable cause (heck, he could use beligerance of a motorist complaining about the checkpoint as probable cause - lot of angry drunks out there), but I'd rather have them go through the motions than just forego the motions altogether.

[D1B]

AZ we disagree on very little. THis is one of those times.

[AZGrizFan]

Which is great until you realize one out of every three drivers coming at you is impaired.

It's confirmed, AZ is a complete moron. Shithead hates government but wants em blocking streets and harassing people.

I support profiling.

[CID1990]

"We are hoping this will establish a precedent. We are sort of a test agency," said Garden City Police Chief David Lyons.


I think they are going to lose this one. Not on the legality of the checkpoint itself, but on the no refusal part. If they have a weak DUI law in GA, then they need to work on getting it strengthened. South Carolina had a similar problem and eventually revamped the law.

A couple points of order:

1. Probable cause is not the standard for making a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion is the standard.

2. A checkpoint that stops everyone is not profiling, and currently legal under prevailing case law.

3. It appears that Georgia does not have "implied consent" which means if you accept a driver's license (which is not a right) then it is implied that you have consented to a breath test when you are suspected of DUI. you can still refuse, but you will lose your license for a period of time if you do. That is about as close to "no refusal" as you can get and have the courts support it. That's why I think these guys will lose this one.

[Grizalltheway]

"We are hoping this will establish a precedent. We are sort of a test agency," said Garden City Police Chief David Lyons.


I think they are going to lose this one. Not on the legality of the checkpoint itself, but on the no refusal part. If they have a weak DUI law in GA, then they need to work on getting it strengthened. South Carolina had a similar problem and eventually revamped the law.

A couple points of order:

1. Probable cause is not the standard for making a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion is the standard.

2. A checkpoint that stops everyone is not profiling, and currently legal under prevailing case law.

3. It appears that Georgia does not have "implied consent" which means if you accept a driver's license (which is not a right) then it is implied that you have consented to a breath test when you are suspected of DUI. you can still refuse, but you will lose your license for a period of time if you do. That is about as close to "no refusal" as you can get and have the courts support it. That's why I think these guys will lose this one.

Fair enough. But, can driving at certain time of day, on a certain stretch of road, be construed as reasonable suspicion?

[Cap'n Cat]

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=14765744

So let me get this straight. If I'm totally sober and riding through Garden City on my way back from the beach with my family (I'm originally from the area) and I go through this checkpoint. I have violated no laws and have just driven through this random checkpoint. You immediately, without cause, request me to take a breathalyser. I've shown no effects of alcohol use and there is none present on my breath, etc. I rightfully exercise my constitutional right to refuse. Then, a judge automatically signs a search warrant -- without any evidence supporting the idea that I've used alcohol. How is my simple refusal to willfully submit to an unmerited search defined as probable cause for another unmerited search and you to draw my blood?

How exactly is that not a direct violation of my 4th Amendment right against an unwarranted search?

So, did you get a DUI?

Because 18 people DID that night.....you were out, on a Friday night....that's called profiling....and I have no problem with it.

....says the new Libertarian in a ReaganRoveRummyCheneyLimbaughBeckHannity SS uniform..................

[tribe_pride]

Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that checkpoint stops are legal so long as it passes certain guidelines. Stopping everyone is allowed. I believe that the breathalyzer test in most states is legal because you agree to that as a condition of obtaining your license.

[CID1990]

"We are hoping this will establish a precedent. We are sort of a test agency," said Garden City Police Chief David Lyons.


I think they are going to lose this one. Not on the legality of the checkpoint itself, but on the no refusal part. If they have a weak DUI law in GA, then they need to work on getting it strengthened. South Carolina had a similar problem and eventually revamped the law.

A couple points of order:

1. Probable cause is not the standard for making a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion is the standard.

2. A checkpoint that stops everyone is not profiling, and currently legal under prevailing case law.

3. It appears that Georgia does not have "implied consent" which means if you accept a driver's license (which is not a right) then it is implied that you have consented to a breath test when you are suspected of DUI. you can still refuse, but you will lose your license for a period of time if you do. That is about as close to "no refusal" as you can get and have the courts support it. That's why I think these guys will lose this one.

Fair enough. But, can driving at certain time of day, on a certain stretch of road, be construed as reasonable suspicion?

In order to stop a specific car, generally speaking, no.

However, checkpoints have been held by the courts to be ok as long as EVERYBODY gets stopped. Then, you are not working on suspicion, but public safety concerns. For instance, many agencies now refer to the checkpoints as "safety checkpoints" where they will not only check for licenses (driving is a privilege), equipment violations that cannot be readily seen as a car drives by, etc.

I believe the courts have held these things to be permissible since the very act of driving a car on a state maintained roadway is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, you can be stopped (along with everyone else) to check for those things that are directly related to your operation of that vehicle. Where the DUI comes into play (as well as the 5 pound bag of dope in the trunk, or Jimmy Hoffa's body) is when other factors in the stop lead the police to believe that there might be something going on with you. Personally, I think this starts to get into a 'fruit of the poison tree' issue, but as long as the initial stop is held to be permissible, then the 'fruits' of that stop are also permissible.

As long as the courts allow checkpoints, police will use them, because a large portion of the public will demand them. For every one person who complains about these things you would be staggered to know how many people are demanding that "something needs to be done" every time they see some guy speeding through their neighborhoods. When I was on the job, the last thing I wanted to be doing was a stupid checkpoint.

[CID1990]

Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that checkpoint stops are legal so long as it passes certain guidelines. Stopping everyone is allowed. I believe that the breathalyzer test in most states is legal because you agree to that as a condition of obtaining your license.

That is "implied consent".

[BDKJMU]

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=14765744

So let me get this straight. If I'm totally sober and riding through Garden City on my way back from the beach with my family (I'm originally from the area) and I go through this checkpoint. I have violated no laws and have just driven through this random checkpoint. You immediately, without cause, request me to take a breathalyser. I've shown no effects of alcohol use and there is none present on my breath, etc. I rightfully exercise my constitutional right to refuse. Then, a judge automatically signs a search warrant -- without any evidence supporting the idea that I've used alcohol. How is my simple refusal to willfully submit to an unmerited search defined as probable cause for another unmerited search and you to draw my blood?

How exactly is that not a direct violation of my 4th Amendment right against an unwarranted search?

Except that won't be the case. The article didn't say anything about without cause. Yo're only going to be asked to take a breathalyzer if you exhibit signs, like alcohol on your breath, bloodshot eyes, slured speech, etc.

[Baldy]

"We are hoping this will establish a precedent. We are sort of a test agency," said Garden City Police Chief David Lyons.


I think they are going to lose this one. Not on the legality of the checkpoint itself, but on the no refusal part. If they have a weak DUI law in GA, then they need to work on getting it strengthened. South Carolina had a similar problem and eventually revamped the law.

A couple points of order:

1. Probable cause is not the standard for making a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion is the standard.

2. A checkpoint that stops everyone is not profiling, and currently legal under prevailing case law.

3. It appears that Georgia does not have "implied consent" which means if you accept a driver's license (which is not a right) then it is implied that you have consented to a breath test when you are suspected of DUI. you can still refuse, but you will lose your license for a period of time if you do. That is about as close to "no refusal" as you can get and have the courts support it. That's why I think these guys will lose this one.

GA does have implied consent as a condition of getting a drivers license. What Garden City is doing goes way beyond that though. I agree with you, these DUI's might get thrown out if they are challenged.

[YoUDeeMan]

And I don't do it.

Doesn't make stopping people without probable cause right.

Agree.

However, I could more easily stomach a DWI checkpoint if they also ran checkpoints to catch other lawbreakers....like an illegal alien checkpoint with running INS bus on site. What I hate about the DWI checkpoints is it's selective enforcement of certain laws with unsympathetic offenders to generate revenue...not necessarily wrong as long as you choose to use similar means to enforce other laws.

Our local Newark newspaper runs stories about the DUI checkpoints and the officers usually end up arresting/fining multiple people for other non-alcohol related violations (driving w/o a licence/insurance, parole violations, etc.) so the checkpoints actually serve another purpose.

I support DUI checkpoints. Getting whack jobs off the roads is a good thing.

[D1B]

Victims of MADD manufactured hysteria and the state parlaying it into a huge revenue generator and state jobs/bureauocracy creation and retention program. Surprised to see the so called liberitarians and conks walking goosestep with such blatent fascism.

[HI54UNI]

These checkpoints are BS. How are they any different than this?

Your papers please.

[Vidav]

Don't drive drunk and they are nothing to worry about.

[D1B]

Don't drive drunk and they are nothing to worry about.

Not true. Once you allow this shit, it opens the door for more government harassment and intrusion.

I'm fine with tough laws, but committ a crime first.

[GannonFan]

Just thinking out loud here, for those who are opposed to these checkpoints, would the same apply to security checkpoints before boarding a plane? I would think if you're anti-checkpoint when driving you'd be anti-checkpoint when flying as well. Just throwing it out there.

[citdog]

Discussed this, and the numerous other, erosion of our rights by the government of 'the 'late united states' with a gentleman who was a Major in WW II and his buddies today. They all said "this isn't the country I fought for". Perhaps we should listen.

[YoUDeeMan]

Don't drive drunk and they are nothing to worry about.

Not true. Once you allow this shit, it opens the door for more government harassment and intrusion.

I'm fine with tough laws, but committ a crime first.

Sure, we'll just have you volunteer to drive around bars at night until some drunk driver kills you.

Then, after a chase in which he runs over your mother, the police will arrest him, he'll refuse to take the breathalizer, and some jury will let him go free because they realize they won't be able to convince the one pot smoking dirtbag juror to stop saying, "Vote against Big Brother" and they all want to go home to watch Oprah repeats.

Make sure your will leaves your bike to an AA member.

[Grizalltheway]

Hey cluck, should we be sending officers around to people's homes making sure they don't have explosives or guns they plan to kill people with? You know, without probable cause or reasonable suspiscion? Just to make sure no one gets hurt? I mean, as long as they do it to EVERYONE, that makes it okay, right?

[D1B]

Not true. Once you allow this shit, it opens the door for more government harassment and intrusion.

I'm fine with tough laws, but committ a crime first.

Sure, we'll just have you volunteer to drive around bars at night until some drunk driver kills you.

Then, after a chase in which he runs over your mother, the police will arrest him, he'll refuse to take the breathalizer, and some jury will let him go free because they realize they won't be able to convince the one pot smoking dirtbag juror to stop saying, "Vote against Big Brother" and they all want to go home to watch Oprah repeats.

Make sure your will leaves your bike to an AA member.

Cluck, I understand what you're saying, but that risk is the price we pay for a free society. Surely you don't trust the cops and government to exercise restraint here.

I also don't personally view drunk driving as an issue that requires that level of attention. I see it as a hysteria manufactured by the meddling hens of MADD. Law enforcement is in on the scam too as it's great job security. The harsh punishments and increased patrols already in place are doing a fine job keeping accidents and incidents in decline.

[YoUDeeMan]

Hey cluck, should we be sending officers around to people's homes making sure they don't have explosives or guns they plan to kill people with? You know, without probable cause or reasonable suspiscion? Just to make sure no one gets hurt? I mean, as long as they do it to EVERYONE, that makes it okay, right?

Hey, as long as they can pay for the operation out of the junk they find I'm OK with that. And while they're at it, if they find my son's torpedoes in a person's home, then I get to beat the snot out of the kid who took them from the UD pool last year.

BTW, a car on the road is not a home...unless, of course, you are living out of a vehicle, in which case then yup, I am all for searching those "homes" while they're on the road. Trailer parks, too...those people are really capable of some strange crap.

Driving is not a right. And as many people have pointed out to you, the officers only picked out 18 people for the breathalyzer test. Unless that was an untraveled road, it seems to me that the officers used reasonable suspicion to select those folks...which puts your argument into the Chicken Little category.

[AZGrizFan]

Sure, we'll just have you volunteer to drive around bars at night until some drunk driver kills you.

Then, after a chase in which he runs over your mother, the police will arrest him, he'll refuse to take the breathalizer, and some jury will let him go free because they realize they won't be able to convince the one pot smoking dirtbag juror to stop saying, "Vote against Big Brother" and they all want to go home to watch Oprah repeats.

Make sure your will leaves your bike to an AA member.

Cluck, I understand what you're saying, but that risk is the price we pay for a free society. Surely you don't trust the cops and government to exercise restraint here.

I also don't personally view drunk driving as an issue that requires that level of attention. I see it as a hysteria manufactured by the meddling hens of MADD. Law enforcement is in on the scam too as it's great job security. The harsh punishments and increased patrols already in place are doing a fine job keeping accidents and incidents in decline.

more people have died due to drunk driving THIS YEAR (4,538) than US casualties in the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR (4454) and it's somehow drunk driving that's a "hysteria"?