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.
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.
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.”
Disclosure doesn’t need to be verbal. I know you’re not saying that it does. I carry these tear away business cards for just such occasions. That law firm gives them away free. Great stocking stuffers!
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 that discusses the income incentives for checkpoints, towing, etc.
Here’s a 2011 article that discusses similar themes:
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”
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) refuse to do either as they believe it could turn out that way.)
They were upheld by the Supreme Court but the government later confessed error with respect to the factual underpinnings of the decision, rendering the decision unusable as precedent?
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.
