# "Don't talk to the police... even at DUI checkpoints!" says Florida lawyer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318 "2015-02-10T18:49:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/21 "2015-02-10T21:11:26Z")
I guess I’m not surprised but it’s not a good state of affairs when as a practical matter people believe police will simply lie to circumvent constitutional protections. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/22 "2015-02-10T21:19:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Could you, or Mr. Redlich, explain this statement in light of the 6-3 holding in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)? Sitz was about the act of setting up the checkpoint, stopping drivers. Not about speaking to police in any fashion. It’s not on point. Or are you referring to the fact that [from the article]\* “Warren Redlich contends the commonly-used checkpoints violate drivers’ constitutional rights.”\*? In that case yeah Redlich is wrong. That’s not what I interpreted Snowboarder Bo’s comment was about when he said _‘I think Mr. Redlich is right’_. I interpreted that to be regarding the lack of requirement to speak to police or open windows. Ultimately I think DUI checkpoints are more about revenue generation than driver/road safety. It makes money through code infractions so police do it. Also a sad state of affairs. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/23 "2015-02-10T21:31:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ultimately I think DUI checkpoints are more about revenue generation than driver/road safety. It makes money through code infractions so police do it. Also a sad state of affairs. Then get your co-constituents to vote to raise their taxes. Or get them to stop drinking and driving. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/24 "2015-02-10T21:34:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Only upon arrest. Refusing to submit prior to arrest is perfectly legal. Sounds like splitting hairs to me, and I fail to see how that get’s past Implied Consent, which is the concept I was trying to convey earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/25 "2015-02-10T21:36:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I guess I’m not surprised but it’s not a good state of affairs when as a practical matter people believe police will simply lie to circumvent constitutional protections. Having seen police officers lie like rugs, I think it’s a better state of affairs that they’re no longer receiving the benefit of the doubt. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/26 "2015-02-10T21:47:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [url=[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US\_DUI\_CHECKPOINT\_CHALLENGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-10-12-47-21](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DUI_CHECKPOINT_CHALLENGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-10-12-47-21)]It should come as no surprise that many police officers aren’t thrilled by this, but frankly, I think Mr. Redlich is right. > > How do you think the courts will rule? Do you think new laws might get passed to compel people to speak to the police? How would such laws stand up to scrutiny in the courts? > > In short: what do y’all think of this? > [@](#): > > “Don’t talk to the police… even at DUI checkpoints!” says Florida lawyer Lawyers say you really should not talk or chat with police in any event. example ,Like a cop stops person walking down street you have drugs on you? No? oh :eek::eek:when was last time you done drugs? In the morning. Okay you going jail for public intoxication. I see these spin tactics on cop shows all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/27 "2015-02-10T21:49:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Could you, or Mr. Redlich, explain this statement in light of the 6-3 holding in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)? I don’t see anywhere in that decision where it says a person has to talk to the police. Could you show me where it says that people need to do more than identify themselves and provide their registration? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/28 "2015-02-10T21:56:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Sitz was about the act of setting up the checkpoint, stopping drivers. Not about speaking to police in any fashion. It’s not on point. > > Or are you referring to the fact that [from the article]\* “Warren Redlich contends the commonly-used checkpoints violate drivers’ constitutional rights.”\*? In that case yeah Redlich is wrong. That’s not what I interpreted Snowboarder Bo’s comment was about when he said _‘I think Mr. Redlich is right’_. I interpreted that to be regarding the lack of requirement to speak to police or open windows. That’s more or less how I interpreted it also except that I interpreted to mean that he believes the police violate constitutional rights during checkpoint at the checkpoints themselves were unconstitutional but that they were used to violate peoples rights or in the course of their use police violated peoples rights. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/29 "2015-02-10T21:56:39Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > Sounds like splitting hairs to me, and I fail to see how that get’s past Implied Consent, which is the concept I was trying to convey earlier. Implied consent only applies after arrest. It may be splitting hairs but isn’t that what the law is about? 🙂 In other words, arrest is based on probable cause. Without that, there is no basis to be forced to submit to the blood/urine tests. FSTs are designed to establish probable cause. > [@](#): > > Having seen police officers lie like rugs, I think it’s a better state of affairs that they’re no longer receiving the benefit of the doubt. Police are still receiving the benefit of the doubt. My lamentation was that they lie so frequently that people expect it to happen. I wish it wasn’t the case [that they lie] ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/30 "2015-02-10T22:12:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Implied consent only applies after arrest. It may be splitting hairs but isn’t that what the law is about? 🙂 I keep imaging this as the “I’m not touching you” thing kids do. But instead of the “I’m not touching” you the guy is looking everyelse but at the police officer, maybe humming. 😃 In California, it seems that’s not true: [cite](http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/31 "2015-02-10T22:41:48Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > In California, it seems that’s not true: [cite](http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm). Here is the first sentence from your cite: > [@](#): > > California law requires you to take a breath or blood test if you are arrested for a DUI. **Bone** is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/32 "2015-02-10T22:42:17Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > I keep imaging this as the “I’m not touching you” thing kids do. But instead of the “I’m not touching” you the guy is looking everyelse but at the police officer, maybe humming. 😃 > > In California, it seems that’s not true: [cite](http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm). I’m not sure what part of that link you are using to support your position, or if you are actually disagreeing with me. Your cite however supports what I’ve written: > [@](#): > > California law requires you to take a breath or blood test\*\* if you are arrested\*\* for a DUI. California’s “implied consent” law says that **if you are lawfully arrested** by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). (my bold) Anyways, I prefer to use the [DMV site](http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/actions_aps_court.htm) since it’s more authoritative, but it says the same thing: > [@](#): > > When you drive in California, you consent to have your breath, blood or, under certain circumstances, urine tested\*\* if you are arrested\*\* for driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both. (my bold) This says nothing about whether or not police will lie to establish probable cause and therefore arrest you and force you to submit to the chemical test as required by law. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/33 "2015-02-10T22:54:49Z")
DUI checkpoints are patently Unconstitutional. Driving at a time of day or time of the year where drunken driving is prevalent is NOT reasonable suspicion that your person is driving under the influence. With regard to blowing and talking, I suggest you avoid the checkpoint at all costs. Aren’t they required to offer a turnaround prior to approaching a DUI checkpoint? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/34 "2015-02-10T22:55:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > In short: what do y’all think of this? Sounds like there’s a lawyer in Florida trying to drum up more business. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/35 "2015-02-10T22:59:21Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > DUI checkpoints are patently Unconstitutional. This is factually incorrect. You may wish it to be so but you are wrong with regard to current law. As \*\*Bricker \*\*and I mentioned above, [Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/444) is controlling. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/36 "2015-02-10T22:59:53Z")
Geez, my cite wasn’t exactly encyclopedic in lenght…anyway from a 1/4" down the page… > [@](#): > > Additionally, California’s implied consent law says that you consent to taking a preliminary breath test, even if you have not been arrested. This works like a field sobriety test. The officer will use the results to establish probable cause that you were driving under the influence. You do not have to take this preliminary test, and the officer should say so. Refusing it, however, probably won’t work in your favor if the officer has some other reason to think you had been drinking. Based on that other reason, the officer could still arrest you and then you will be required to take a test under the law described in the paragraph above. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/37 "2015-02-10T23:06:40Z")
On submitting to the [Sobriety Check](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d2/c4/a1/2814.2) First sentence… > [@](#): > > 2814.2. (a) A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/38 "2015-02-10T23:18:41Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > Geez, my cite wasn’t exactly encyclopedic in lenght…anyway from a 1/4" down the page… The fourth sentence in your cite says: > [@](#): > > You do not have to take this preliminary test, and the officer should say so. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/39 "2015-02-10T23:20:02Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > On submitting to the [Sobriety Check](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d2/c4/a1/2814.2) First sentence… That says you must submit to an inspection, not a breathalyzer test. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/40 "2015-02-11T00:32:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is factually incorrect. You may wish it to be so but you are wrong with regard to current law. > > As \*\*Bricker \*\*and I mentioned above, [Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/444) is controlling. No cites handy but I seem to recall similar decisions in Canada including one that was handed down by the Supreme Court, the essence of the judgment being that yes, DUI checkpoints technically violate the requirement for “probable cause”, but the violation is justified by a compelling public interest to curb drinking and driving. The problem with Mr. Redlich’s suggestion of just putting your documents up on the glass is that, as long as the checkpoints themselves are deemed constitutional as in the above examples, you are preventing the police from doing their job, namely to see if there is a smell of alcohol and to judge whether your speech sounds impaired. In particular jurisdictions you may or may not be able to challenge the checkpoint on constitutional grounds, but if it’s allowed then IMHO the presumption must be that you are obliged to submit to its intended function. FWIW, I’m on side with the “compelling public interest” argument. I think that some jurisdictions have gone too far with zero-tolerance policies and extremely draconian penalties, but the police do need some enforcement tools to work with. If drivers could only be stopped when actually observed to be swerving all over the road in a drunken stupor, the carnage on our roads would be much worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318.md?page=3)