# "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:** 4
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/61 "2015-02-11T19:49:04Z")
Seems to me like DUI testing is pointless if drunk drivers know ahead of time when and how to evade it. You need to catch such motorists off guard. ---
**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 11, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/62 "2015-02-11T19:52:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No. Well, probably not. The Fifth Amendment (rather than the Fourth) provides the right to remain silent. SCOTUS has previously ruled that notwithstanding the 5th Amendment you [must disclose your name to the police](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada) if detained, but those detentions require reasonable suspicion. DUI stops do not require reasonable suspicion, so they are dissimilar from the _Terry_ (and _Hiibel_) type. Okay, that’s the way I see the 5th Amendment too, but I don’t have much confidence in the SCOTUS to rule that my right to remain silent trumps the public’s right to safe roads, as I’m sure it would be framed were a case to reach the SCOTUS. If the 5th applies, then DUI checkpoints are a waste of time and money and manpower, is the ultimate point that I think Mr. Redlich is making. If the 5th does not apply, well, at least we’ll all know that. Of course, that presumes that someone gets arrested over this and it goes the distance, eh. ---
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/63 "2015-02-11T20:20:54Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Seems to me like DUI testing is pointless if drunk drivers know ahead of time when and how to evade it. You need to catch such motorists off guard. Judgement is the first thing to go when drinking. If one gets so sloshed that one doesn’t remember about the checkpoint, one probably shouldn’t be driving. ---
**Author:** ![OffByOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@OffByOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OffByOne)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/64 "2015-02-11T20:21:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > In my state they have [“no refusal”](http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/crime-law/no-refusal-checkpoint-in-clark-county-tonight/nhrKx/) checkpoints where refusals are met with an onsite magistrate who will sign a search warrant for your blood and a nurse who will take it. Search warrants are only issued for probable cause. What is the probable cause here? That you stopped when the police forced you to? That you had nothing to say? That you refused (or were unable) to PROVE your own innocence? “He didn’t say a word, Your Honor, but I could hear him thinking about how drunk he was.” ---
**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 11, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/65 "2015-02-11T21:01:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No. Well, probably not. The Fifth Amendment (rather than the Fourth) provides the right to remain silent. SCOTUS has previously ruled that notwithstanding the 5th Amendment you [must disclose your name to the police](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada) if detained, but those detentions require reasonable suspicion. DUI stops do not require reasonable suspicion, so they are dissimilar from the _Terry_ (and _Hiibel_) type. Disclosure doesn’t need to be verbal. I know you’re not saying that it does. I carry these [tear away business cards](http://www.calgunlawyers.com/tear-away-business-card/) for just such occasions. That law firm gives them away free. Great stocking stuffers! ---
**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 11, 2015, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/66 "2015-02-11T22:06:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Disclosure doesn’t need to be verbal. I know you’re not saying that it does. I carry these [tear away business cards](http://www.calgunlawyers.com/tear-away-business-card/) for just such occasions. That law firm gives them away free. Great stocking stuffers! I live in Nevada, not California, and I carry one of those in my wallet too. 😃 ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/67 "2015-02-11T22:22:35Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Okay, that’s the way I see the 5th Amendment too, but I don’t have much confidence in the SCOTUS to rule that my right to remain silent trumps the public’s right to safe roads, as I’m sure it would be framed were a case to reach the SCOTUS. > > If the 5th applies, then DUI checkpoints are a waste of time and money and manpower, is the ultimate point that I think Mr. Redlich is making. If the 5th does not apply, well, at least we’ll all know that. Of course, that presumes that someone gets arrested over this and it goes the distance, eh. It seems to me that the issue of “talking to the police” is normally about the right to not be questioned, to not get tripped up by trick questions into saying something you shouldn’t, etc. I can only extrapolate from my own experience but here, at least, the “talking” part has nothing to do with actually giving information, but is just a quick way to assess sobriety. The real intent is to use your breath to make words to verify that you can – the police probably couldn’t care less if you recited a nursery rhyme! 😃 Which I would argue is quite different than Fifth Amendment protections. And I should mention again – because I think it’s important – that no documents like a driver’s license or ownership are requested, no other questions are asked except “have you been drinking?”, and the priority is to minimize inconvenience and get you on your way in seconds. Sometimes, at checkpoint stops during the holiday season, they even give you a little gift like a book of coupons as a sort of apology for the few seconds of inconvenience. > [@Tatterdemalion](#): > > Judgement is the first thing to go when drinking. If one gets so sloshed that one doesn’t remember about the checkpoint, one probably shouldn’t be driving. I disagree. Chronic alcoholics would probably be extremely vigilant about knowing where the checkpoints are and would be highly accomplished at avoiding them. If one is a professional drunk, one develops certain survival skills. I am literally speechless about the fact that apparently in many jurisdictions checkpoint locations are publicized in advance. Stupid stupid stupid stupid is about all I can say. It’s like giving a week’s notice of a “surprise” bank audit so the poor dears can clean up the books and fake all the correct numbers. Why bother doing the audit? ---
**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 11, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/68 "2015-02-11T23:03:37Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It seems to me that the issue of “talking to the police” is normally about the right to not be questioned, to not get tripped up by trick questions into saying something you shouldn’t, etc. I can only extrapolate from my own experience but **here, at least, the “talking” part has nothing to do with actually giving information, but is just a quick way to assess sobriety**. The real intent is to use your breath to make words to verify that you can – the police probably couldn’t care less if you recited a nursery rhyme! 😃 Which I would argue is quite different than Fifth Amendment protections. (bolding mine) If the whole point isn’t to gather information, what are the police doing? And do I have a right to withhold information from the police, if said information might incriminate me? Do I have that same right when driving a vehicle? The information gathered here could include my speech, my manner of speech, the smell of my breath, etc. Do I have to give up all that information to the police when driving a vehicle? Is there anything I’m NOT required to give up when driving a vehicle? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/69 "2015-02-11T23:26:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But if you _ **have** _ been drinking it could change your life. That’s why it’s a deterrent that works. And, not to moralize excessively, but if someone else has been drinking and driving and is on the same road as you it could _ **end** _ your life, or change it in a very bad way. To anyone who considers that, on balance, those few seconds spent at a random DUI checkpoint constitutes “unreasonable detention”, I say cry me a river. I have little patience for libertarian absolutes and their practitioners. Not to quibble, but it is not “a few seconds”. Often there’s a line up of cars not to mention having to stop in the first place. But the thing that irks me is that this intrusion is done in the name of public safety wrt drunk drivers but they catch very few - the vast majority of seizures and charges are for other things that no one agreed was worth the intrusion. The vast majority of drunk divers are caught with traditional methods. But hey, police needed another “tool in the toolbox” to combat DUI and you can’t blame them using that tool however they like. ---
**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 11, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/70 "2015-02-11T23:40:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It seems to me that the issue of “talking to the police” is normally about the right to not be questioned, to not get tripped up by trick questions into saying something you shouldn’t, etc. I can only extrapolate from my own experience but here, at least, the “talking” part has nothing to do with actually giving information, but is just a quick way to assess sobriety. The real intent is to use your breath to make words to verify that you can – the police probably couldn’t care less if you recited a nursery rhyme! 😃 Which I would argue is quite different than Fifth Amendment protections. Your thought process of what the issue of talking to police actually hinges upon is very strange. The whole basis of not talking to the police is to avoid self incrimination. The reason police engage drivers at a checkpoint is to try and establish probable cause to arrest the driver. You know, find incriminating evidence. Your idea that the talking has nothing to do with giving information makes no sense. > [@](#): > > And I should mention again – because I think it’s important – that no documents like a driver’s license or ownership are requested, no other questions are asked except “have you been drinking?”, and the priority is to minimize inconvenience and get you on your way in seconds. Sometimes, at checkpoint stops during the holiday season, they even give you a little gift like a book of coupons as a sort of apology for the few seconds of inconvenience. This isn’t true in CA. CA they require you to show your driver’s license. In the past if the driver did not have a valid license, then police would impound the vehicle, increasing their supply of vehicles to later auction so they could collect more revenue, in addition to splitting fees for towing and releasing from impound. The law in CA was changed in 2012 to prohibit the impounding of the vehicle if the only offense was not having a valid license. Now, if a sober driver does not have a license – or has a license that has been suspended or revoked – officers must make a reasonable attempt to identify the registered owner of the vehicle. If the owner authorizes release of the vehicle to a driver with a valid license by the end of the checkpoint, the vehicle may not be impounded. Here’s a [NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14sfcheck.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) that discusses the income incentives for checkpoints, towing, etc. > [@](#): > > The Investigative Reporting Program reviewed hundreds of pages of city financial records and police reports, and analyzed data from sobriety checkpoints during the past two years. The data revealed that police departments across the state are seizing a growing number of vehicles from unlicensed drivers. In the last fiscal year, the police seized approximately 24,000 such cars at sobriety checkpoints, up from 17,900 in 2008 and 15,700 in 2007. > > Law enforcement officials say demographics play no role in determining where the police establish checkpoints. But records show that cities where Hispanics make up a majority of the population are seizing cars at three times the rate of cities with small minority populations. > > Sobriety checkpoints typically take place on major thoroughfares near highways. On average, officers seize seven cars for each drunken-driving arrest, state data show. The disparity is far greater in some cities. San Rafael averaged almost 15 impoundments for each drunken-driving arrest in the last fiscal year, and the police in Oakland seized 11 cars for every drunken driver who was caught. And in Montebello, state records show, checkpoints netted up to 60 impoundments for every drunken driver apprehended. Here’s a [2011 article](http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/year-checkpoint-delivered-thousands-impounds-9482) that discusses similar themes: > [@](#): > > And while the checkpoints are ostensibly intended to snare drunken drivers, officers impounded six cars for every one DUI arrest made, according to data from the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center at UC Berkeley. The center operates a grant program funding the checkpoints for the California Office of Traffic Safety. > > Vehicle seizures totaled 17,419 last fiscal year. An investigation by California Watch and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley found most of the motorists losing their cars at the operations were sober, unlicensed illegal immigrants. > > Unlike in previous years, the most recent data documents how many unlicensed drivers police encountered during the operations. Under state law, motorists who don’t have a license or who have had their driving privileges suspended or revoked can have their cars impounded for 30 days. The fees and fines that car owners must pay to retrieve their vehicle often reach more than $1,500. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/71 "2015-02-12T01:05:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I disagree. Chronic alcoholics would probably be extremely vigilant about knowing where the checkpoints are and would be highly accomplished at avoiding them. If one is a professional drunk, one develops certain survival skills. I am literally speechless about the fact that apparently in many jurisdictions checkpoint locations are publicized in advance. Stupid stupid stupid stupid is about all I can say. It’s like giving a week’s notice of a “surprise” bank audit so the poor dears can clean up the books and fake all the correct numbers. Why bother doing the audit? I suspect many drunk driving incidents are more often unplanned “I can drive drive fine after 4” or “I’m planning on stopping after 2, oops had some more, now I’m too drunk to come up with an alternate plan” ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/72 "2015-02-12T01:22:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > They have to be random, unpredictable, and frequent enough with severe enough penalties that they constitute a real deterrent, causing drunks to have second thoughts about drinking and driving. So, in other words, the only checkpoints that you think will be real deterrents are probably illegal under current law in the US? (I don’t know if there’s anything definitive saying that checkpoints can’t be random or unpredictable, but certainly many law enforcement agencies ([example](http://statepatrol.ohio.gov/sobcheck.stm)) refuse to do either as they believe it could turn out that way.) ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/73 "2015-02-12T01:32:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Okay, you disagree. I happen to think the Sitz decision was wrongly decided myself, but I don’t wear a black robe when I go to work. In any case, are you conceding that your earlier statement was wrong? You said: > > I’m not sure if you are actually conceding that your statement was false. Are you? I concede that DUI checkpoints are as Constitutional as the [Japanese internment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States) was during WW2. ---
**Author:** ![Cugel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cugel/32/1199_2.png) [@Cugel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cugel)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/74 "2015-02-12T02:20:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > They have to be random, unpredictable, and frequent enough with severe enough penalties that they constitute a real deterrent, causing drunks to have second thoughts about drinking and driving. That’s pretty much how it is in Australia (known as RBTs), plus crap loads of ads on telly and elsewhere. Of course, since it is in one’s own interest to get pissheads off the road, there isn’t a whole lot crying and wailing about it. Some anecdotal goodnessy > **[Best and Worst Experience with RBT's - On the road](https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/2106534)** > > Hi all, i wanted to ask whirlpooler's, what are your best and worst experience with RBT's. e.g were they nice, did they give you second chances? were they reall ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/75 "2015-02-12T03:13:54Z")
> [@OffByOne](#): > > Search warrants are only issued for probable cause. What is the probable cause here? That you stopped when the police forced you to? That you had nothing to say? That you refused (or were unable) to PROVE your own innocence? > > “He didn’t say a word, Your Honor, but I could hear him thinking about how drunk he was.” I dunno. Seems like brown shirt mentality to me. I suppose if enough people object to it they’ll stop doing it. The only tolerable side to this is that they advertise the locations well in advance. It’s not hard to steer clear of them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/76 "2015-02-12T15:01:45Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > I concede that DUI checkpoints are as Constitutional as the [Japanese internment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States) was during WW2. Really? They were upheld by the Supreme Court but the government later [confessed error](http://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/confession-error-solicitor-generals-mistakes-during-japanese-american-internment-cases) with respect to the factual underpinnings of the decision, rendering the decision unusable as precedent? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/77 "2015-02-12T17:50:15Z")
> [@](#): > > And while the checkpoints are ostensibly intended to snare drunken drivers, officers impounded six cars for every one DUI arrest made, according to data from the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center at UC Berkeley. The center operates a grant program funding the checkpoints for the California Office of Traffic Safety. > > Vehicle seizures totaled 17,419 last fiscal year. An investigation by California Watch and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley found most of the motorists losing their cars at the operations were sober, unlicensed illegal immigrants. > > Unlike in previous years, the most recent data documents how many unlicensed drivers police encountered during the operations. Under state law, motorists who don’t have a license or who have had their driving privileges suspended or revoked can have their cars impounded for 30 days. The fees and fines that car owners must pay to retrieve their vehicle often reach more than $1,500. This strikes me as a feature, not a bug. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/78 "2015-02-12T21:51:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And while the checkpoints are ostensibly intended to snare drunken drivers, officers impounded six cars for every one DUI arrest made, according to data from the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center at UC Berkeley. The center operates a grant program funding the checkpoints for the California Office of Traffic Safety. > > > > Vehicle seizures totaled 17,419 last fiscal year. An investigation by California Watch and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley found most of the motorists losing their cars at the operations were sober, unlicensed illegal immigrants. > > > > Unlike in previous years, the most recent data documents how many unlicensed drivers police encountered during the operations. Under state law, motorists who don’t have a license or who have had their driving privileges suspended or revoked can have their cars impounded for 30 days. The fees and fines that car owners must pay to retrieve their vehicle often reach more than $1,500. > > This strikes me as a feature, not a bug. > > Regards, > Shodan Yeah, I read the results of a local checkpoint in a newspaper. They didn’t get any drunk drivers, but they gave out several tickets for things like expired tags and broken lights. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/79 "2015-02-12T22:09:21Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > Yeah, I read the results of a local checkpoint in a newspaper. They didn’t get any drunk drivers, but they gave out several tickets for things like expired tags and broken lights. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad. Even if it gets just one expired tag holder off the street, it’s worth every dime! These people are criminals! ---
**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 12, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318/80 "2015-02-12T22:27:18Z")
I think it creates a moral hazard when we police for revenue rather than for public safety. That’s how shit like asset forfeiture rises in use. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-talk-to-the-police-even-at-dui-checkpoints-says-florida-lawyer/712318.md?page=5)