I think one argument in defense of roadblocks is that they do not treat people disparately. They stop everyone. Or every third car or somesuch.
I also believe that there is quite a string of decisions to the effect that you have a reduced expectation of privacy in your car as opposed to in your home.
While refusing to blow may earn you a suspension, it might be preferable to a DUI conviction. If you are stopped and feel you may be over the limit, you may want to consider simply getting out of your car and into the back seat of the cruiser, saying as little as possible.
Finally, I’m not nearly as bothered by the concept of roadblocks now that I have stopped drinking!
The Supreme Court decisions quoted above disagree with you, Willy. The privacy your enjoy in your car is considerably less than that you enjoy in your home - the state has a compelling interest to keep public roads safe.
This brings up another point. If you see flashing cop lights up ahead, how should you know it is a roadblock, and why should you not be allowed to turn around? Many times it may be an accident or something else that could delay you for long periods of time. If you want to turn around I believe you should be allowed. Of course, if you can turn around there is no point in having the roadblock in the first place because any one who is drunk would turn around.
Check out this crazy website. I am aginst roadblocks, but these peopl are obviously paranoid
Accurate, but irrelevant. First of all, the primary issue with roadblocks is not “search,” but that other part of the 4th Amendment, “seizure.” The perons, not the car, is being “seized” (any detention of you - that is, any action by an agent of the government that prevents you from moving or acting as you will - is a seizure under 4th Amendment jurisprudence).
This isn’t a privacy issue. This is a detention of you by the police.
Second, to the extent that “search” comes into play, what is being searched is not your car, but your person, for evidence of alcohol use. With some limited exceptions, the individual has the same protection against search of his/her person without regard to where he/she is.
Some people are conerned about how they enforce those laws.
**
A license to drive is regarded as a privilege here in the United States as well.
Maybe you’re unfamiliar with the concept of probable cause. In this country if we’re going to be bothered by the police we’d like them to have a valid reason to bother us. I have no problem with the police pulling someone over who is speeding or weaving in and out of traffic. I do have a problem with the police pulling me over without probable cause.
Cite, please? Eyewitness testimony of alcohol consumption is frequently admitted as evidence of intoxication, in my experience.
Note also that the person you’re responding to there described the direct observation of a person consuming a large quantity of alcohol shortly before a a DWI arrest, not merely the general “drinking habits” of the defendant.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[crash from falling off chair with laughter]
In theory, MG, you’re undoubtedly right. But in practice, the right to drive is as sacred as the right to bear arms or the right to plagiarize in high school papers.
[Anecdote]When my father was 75 and suffering Parkinson’s, he went to the licensing department, he didn’t want his license renewed because he knew he shouldn’t drive. He just wanted the state ID. The clerk behind the desk tried to convince him that she would renew his license, no problem, he had a “right” to drive. [/Anecdote]
Sua has hit it on the head here. I personally have been detained at a road block that was set up in a part of town known for drug traffic. I wasn’t trafficing drugs, just looking for a stolen truck that had been seen near there. I refused to allow them to search my car. Of course they asked why. I told them I didn’t want their dirty feet in my clean car. They had me pull to the side of the road and wait. After about fifteen minutes one of the officers advised me I could go, but not to drive back through that part of town unless I had legimate business there. Mind you that a report had been filed for the stolen truck and these guys knew nothing of it. The truck was found that very night two blocks from where the cops harassed me. Good job guys.
You can’t? You must be very unimaginative. I think a bigger invasion of privacy would be having your clothes cut off by a group of ER doctors as they try to find all the places you’re bleeding after being the victim of a drunk driver.
I’ve been caught up in spot checks four or five times in my life and the intrusion was minimal because in all cases I hadn’t been drinking at all and this was obvious. At no time was I even told to step out of my vehicle. Even if I had been subjected to a roadside sobriety test (part of me thinks this might be fun, in a way) it seems a fairly trivial imposition considering the holiday carnage one sees on the roads.
Of course, I can afford to be flippant because I never drive with even a hint of alcohol in me and I have contempt for those who do. Privelege, shmivelege, that’s a 3000lb guided missile under your drunken control.
I do see the distinction between these sorts of spot checks and the “driving while black” category, so don’t assume I’m in favor of absolute police discretion, but in exchange for the ability to travel at high speeds on a public road, I periodically have to show that I’m not acting like an idiot. Seems a small price to pay.
As for slippery slope arguments… doesn’t every instance of a police officer interacting with a citizen carry this risk? It’s good that people are concerned about this and mindful of potential abuse, but in the great cost/benefit trade-off, five minutes of my time vs. getting a few drunks off the road (the same road I’m traveling at around the same time, I should point out, if the drunks and I get snagged by the same net) seems like a perfectly fair trade.
I think that the Supremes got the distinction basically right here. With all due respect to Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens who I usually agree with, I just think the sobriety checkpoints are one invasion of privacy we have to put up with if you are going to drive a vehicle. Driving a motor vehicle is not only a privilege but also an awesome responsibility…really for most of us the major activity we pertake in where we most hold other people’s lives in our hands.
In theory, one could be over the legal limit and drive home entirely without incident. In doing so, that person would be committing a crime, but there is no injury and no victim. This is normally acceptable, because to be pulled over and ultimately charged with a DUI, one would have to be doing something to draw the attention.
If you’re swerving, making sudden stops or sharp turns, a patrol car may take note and pull you over. Clearly in that case, you are a danger on the road, and I have no problem with that person being charged with a DUI.
There are, however, some people who can exceed the legal limit and yet drive safely, at least some of the time. If these people are not driving dangerously, they would not usually be pulled over and ultimately charged. Unfortunately, sobriety checkpoints remove this barrier to justice. A person who is driving safely, and has caused no injury, can yet be in danger of receiving a DUI. I personally find this intolerable.
To use the law in this instrumentalist way, for preventative measures, is an abuse of law. With this, so begins the slippery slope into ever-increasing restrictions on liberty in the name of safety. In my opinion, the rule should be “no harm, no foul.” If you want to jail somebody, show me the injury brought upon another person.
I read the City of Indianapolis vs. Edmond. If these type of blocks have been tested in the supreme court and found unconsitutional, why the hell is my police dept. still doing it? !!!
I generally agree with you. I think victimless crimes shouldn’t be crimes.
However, I rather like the idea of being able to drive without having quite so many drunken morons who think, “I can make it home – I’m just as good a driver when I’ve had a few drinks,” on the road with me. Also, alcohol puts a person out of his or her right mind. It impairs judgment. A person who is impaired is not making a rational decision about whether he can drive home. Therefore, I’m glad that someone is protecting me from that person.
I put sobriety checkpoints in the same category as it being illegal to fire a gun randomly into the air – sure, the odds of the bullet hitting anyone on its way down are pretty low, but the consequences of such criminal* negligence outweigh our freedom to commit what is probably going to be a victimless crime.
– I use the word “criminal” here not in the legal sense, but in the egregious sense.
Eyewitness testimony does seem to be admissable. However, the state shows a preference for the results of the BAL test, regardless of such testimony. See U.S. v. Charger, 928 F.2d 818. It’s mostly dicta, but it shows a clear bias towards the BAL results.
I’m not sure whether testimony of general drinking habits is admissable, though I would doubt it.
The police in some states do put on roadblocks to search (often with a dog) for drugs.
They also have roadblocks to check people’s registration and insurance and to inspect their vehicle for safety. I’ve been stopped at one.
I was also stopped at one where I was immediately waved on when they saw I had out of state plates and license. I don’t know what they were looking for, but if it was alcohol, wouldn’t they want to stop any drunk drivers, not just locals?
In my town they have “anti-cruising” roadblocks on the main street on Saturday nights. When you pass, the police officer checks your license plate number, and if you go by three times in one night (without a good reason) then it’s a ticket for you!
It’s allegedly to keep teenagers from driving back and forth all night on the street, but they do it anyway on other streets. I’ve often wondered if those are legal either . . .
The fact that a person gets lucky should not excuse such behaviour, or rationalize a free pass for in others. I like stankow’s example of shooting into the air. Arguing “no harm, no foul” isn’t likely to get you very far in a court of law, nor should it. By that logic, trespassing isn’t a crime if you don’t get caught and poaching isn’t a crime if you don’t get caught and, one assumes, driving a steamroller while blindfolded through a residential neighborhood at 2 a.m. isn’t a crime if you don’t get caught. By extension, any preventative measure taken by a police officer is premature because no-one has (yet) been victimized. I see no reason you can’t extend this to carrying legally-owned handguns into a bank in plain sight. As long as you don’t actually start to rob the place, no harm, no foul. In fact, it would be rude in the extreme for the bank to comment negatively on the legal exercise of your second-amendment rights. I suppose even shooting at someone would be okay, up until the instant the bullet actually hits the person…
Well, that’s enough ridiculous extension. The U.S. Supreme Court hit the correct standard in Edmond; making it legal for cops to stop cars for the purpose of enforcing traffic safety laws, but not for random contraband searches. A police officer certainly has the right to control automobile traffic, bringing it to a halt if he feels it necessary. You see traffic cops doing this all the time; directing the flow. A simple check of drivers for impariment is simply not a huge invasion, considering the stakes involved.
Sure, a driver who has been drinking could make it home safely, and I’m sure the vast majority of such drivers do. Unfortunately, a significant number end their journeys by slamming into something or someone. On the rare occasions I run across a drunk-check roadblock, I can usually see a person being given the full roadside sobriety test, and occasionally a few suspects in cuffs. Even with full understanding of the presumption of innocence, those people were driving on (for example) Park street when they were stopped. I was driving on Park street when I was stopped. The conclusion is obvious. I was driving on the same street at around the same time as a drunk! There is an assumption of risk when driving a car, but that drunk was increasing the risk to me and my passengers because he/she was too damn stupid to take a cab. That is intolerable.
I occasionally chat with people who admit they’ve managed to get home safely after having a few. Simple politeness may keep me from commenting as I should, so I’ll try it here:
Shooting into the air and drunk driving are alike in that they meet the “recklessness” level of mens rea. If an injury does occur, the action provoking it will meet that standard, which could have an effect on the particular crime charged. When you fire a weapon into the air, you know that if it does cause injury you will be punished. Similiarly, when you drive drunk, you know that you are more likely to cause injury and be held criminally liable. Classifying these behaviours as reckless helps deter the behaviours, and this is accomplished without making the actions themselves criminal. It is consequences that should matter.
While this goes a little far, it may not be considered an “attempt” until you actually enter the bank with the gun. If you plan a robbery and sit in the car with your weapons, that may not be criminal. Case law is murky on where the line is drawn.
It’s not a matter of luck who makes it home safe and who doesn’t. Here in Missouri, the federal government blackmailed the state into adopting the .08 BAL level as the new standard of intoxication. 2 beers in one hour comes close to exceeding that level. Some people might be signifigantly affected by two beers, many people are not, even disregarding weight differences. At the very least, I believe that handing out DUIs based solely on whether an arbitrarily chosen BAL limit is exceeded is unjust. Field sobriety tests are far more just in that they’re flexible. If someone has a BAL of .10, yet can walk a straight line, touch his nose, speak coherently, etc., it’s good evidence that he’s not so much of a danger on the road. I would settle for an abandonment of these BAL tests, although I remain committed to the elimination of these laws entirely in principle.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. You may not be used to hearing that sort of thing on this issue, but I hold that position. Anyone who adopts a consequentialist ethical system MUST come to that conclusion. Most serious ethical philosophers have already done so. Consider one of the earliest and most popular consequentialists, John Stuart Mill. If driving drunk is my alternative to shelling out $5 for a cab and having to find a way to return to the bar the next day and retrieve the car, it may give me alot of pleasure. If nobody is injured, then my pleasure is the only factor. So according to utilitarianism, driving drunk may actually be good in some cases. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that generally one cannot admonish drunk driving under a consequentialist ethical system unless tangible injury occurs.
If you adopt a more old-fashioned ethical system, in which actions can be inherently good or bad regardless of their outcome, then one could hold the position that drunk driving is always bad.
Are you saying that it’s okay to drive drunk as long as you don’t hurt anybody?