One point of clarification: under Canadian law, the cases I cited referred to random stops, not random testing. We’ve got a graduated system: if the officer pulls you over and there’s no sign the driver’s been drinking, that’s the end of the stop (barring any problem with license, registration, etc.).
If there’s evidence that the drive has been drinking recently, the officer can then make a demand the drive take a road-side test. The results of that test are for screening only, and are not admissible in court.
If the driver passes the roadside test, that’s it, the driver can go. If the driver fails the roadside test, the officer can make a breathalyzer demand, and take the driver to the nearest police station. The breathalyzer results are admissible in court, but before the driver has to take it, the police must give the driver time to consult counsel.
Refusal to take a roadside test, or the breathalzyer, are separate offences, with exactly the same penalties as driving over .08.
In some jurisdictions, if the officer doesn’t have a roadside tester, the officer will ask the driver to do roadside sobriety tests. Those tests are also for screening only, to decide if the officer makes a breathalyzer demand; the results of the sobriety tests can’t be used in court (other than to show the officer had grounds for the demand),
The cops already have authority to pull people over who are driving erratically, so chasing after and pulling over someone who is not driving erratically represents a waste of police time and resources and I’d be opposed on that basis, alone.
Roadblocks, however, remain an efficient tool for snagging intoxicated drivers while letting sober ones through with minimal hassle, so they should remain.
Yes, but it is also a waste of police time to have several officers manning a roadblock for a few hours. Not to mention a waste of my time to have to wait in line to go through the roadblock. Besides, how much time would really be wasted if a cop just pulled over a car or two while (s)he had some downtime? If the person showed no signs of intoxication he/she would be released immediately. That would take what?..maybe a minute or so from the time the cop puts on the lights until the time you are back on the road. You see the problem with the times mentioned in the sites above pertaining to the average amount of time each car was detained at a roadblock is that they do not count the time you spend waiting to get to the roadblock.
Odd definition of efficient, there. The roadblock complained of in the Sitz case, linked by wring and myself on page 1 of this thread, 126 cars were pulled over and two drivers were pulled out of their car for a field sobriety test. one of those two was arrested. A third driver tried to run the roadblock and was pulled over, given a field test and arrested. So, there was a 1.5% detection rate - which was pretty good compared to results from other states, which reported a 1% detection rate.
To catch 1 person, it is “efficient” to invade the privacy of 99 others?
If catching people is all you want to do, then probably not. But as i said earlier, the greatest gains made by such random stops are that the increased possibility of getting caught causes more people to think before they act like idiots and drink and drive.
Were not talking about 99 wiretaps and body cavity searches, here. For the 99 sober drivers, the intrusion is pretty minimal.
To try to put it in perspective, imagine yourself in a room with 99 people and you are told that one person among you is carry a bomb that could go off at any time and kill some ramdon members of the group. You know that you don’t have the bomb, but how much cooperation are you prepared to give?
[ul][li]None, in which case the bomber goes unchecked and someone (possibly you) might get killed.[/li][li]Have the cops ask everybody if they have a bomb. It costs you a few seconds while you say “no”, but only a very obvious or dumb bomber is likely to get caught.[/li][li]Have everybody walk through a metal detector. This probably finds the bomb, but also generates false positives, which could potentially waste a few minutes of your time.[/li][li]Have the cops frisk everybody. This takes longer but definitely finds the bomb. The intrusion level is high, though.[/li][/ul]
If a person finds only the first option viable and the last three all equally intolerable, then that person has no grasp of cost/benefit tradeoffs. Actually, I think that person is acting like a spoiled brat. And cars driven by drunks kill considerably more people in the U.S. than bombs, by any definition.
::sigh:: It is not minimal for the 2 or 3 (or whathaveyou) who are stopped - stone-cold sober - in the company of a person who is not their spouse at 3 A.M.
In any event, there is no such thing as a minimal detention. It’s an absolute. Either you are allowed to freely go about your business - the “liberty” protection of the U.S. Constitution - or you are not.
Ya know what’s really funny? If the police set up a roadblock to search for bombs, it would be unconstitutional under Indianapolis v. Edmonds. Roadblocks are unconstitutional if the intent is general crime control or prevention.
But in any event, Bryan, you seem to misunderstand “probable cause.” In the hypothetical you post, the police have reason to believe that there is a bomb in that room. Probable cause is a valid and legal reason to interfere with individuals’ liberty rights.
Let’s change your hypothetical to make it accord with traffic stops.
You are in a room with 99 people. The police arrive and say, “we have no particular reason to believe that any of you are carrying a bomb, but one of you may be. Therefore, we are going to search all of you.”
Which alternative on your list would you find “tolerable” then?
Civil liberties cost lives. Simple fact.
[ul]
[li]Requiring that murders be proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that some murderers go free. [/li][li]Forbidding the police from randomly detaining and searching people means that people with concealed weapons or adulterated heroin can freely go about their business of shooting people or selling a lethal dose.[/li][li]Allowing the free exercise of religion means that the government can’t prevent the type of preaching that leads to abortion-doctor assassinations.[/li][li]Freedom of speech means that people like Tim McVeigh can read The Turner Diaries and be inspired to blow up government buildings.[/ul] [/li]The list goes on indefinitely.
You want a cost/benefit analysis? There it is. We can either live in a free society, at the cost of a lot of lost and wasted lives, or we can live in a society where government takes away our freedoms, but be a lot safer.
Looking at the cost/benefit analysis, I come down firmly on the side of a free society, as did the Founding Fathers. I am fully aware that at some point those freedoms may mean that I or a loved one may be shot, robbed, raped, or kidnapped. That risk, IMO, is a price worth paying for a free life. Call me a spoiled brat, if you wish, but unless that cop has a good reason to believe that there is indeed a bomb in that room, he/she is not going to search me.
Yah, you said it earlier, and I ignored it earlier, because it is an utterly unsupported supposition.
Even assuming that it is constitutional to interfere with the liberty interest of some people in order to deter others from committing crime (which it isn’t), I haven’t seen any evidence, and you haven’t provided any, that roadblocks deter people from drinking and driving. The Sitz Court did not use this as a rationale in finding DUI roadblocks constitutional.
Whether or not the intrusion is minimal is not the issue here. It would be a “minimal intrusion” for the police to go around and randomly open people’s doors to see if they smelled weed. If they did they would make an arrest, if they did not they would leave. As long as you were not smoking weed the cop would only be there for a few seconds. Minimal intrusion?:rolleyes:
The fact is a “minimal intrusion” is still an intrusion, which I should not have to be subjected to with out probable cause.
I think a simple glance at drunk-driving casualty lists indicates the need for this sort of law enforcement. The inability to distinguish between a few roadside questions and a full-blown home invasion mystifies me. You’re operating heavy machinery in a public space. Why should you be immune from scrutiny?
I’ve just reread the 4th Amendment and it doesn’t prohibit all searches, just “unreasonable” ones. With the straitjacket Sua wants to put on the cops, you may as well nullify law enforcement altogether and turn them into a body pickup service, because they’ll only be able to intervene after the damage has been done.
Sure, civil liberties cost lives. How many lost lives are you willing to tolerate, though? Protection of the concepts of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, freedom from unreasonable physical search, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are major pillars of a just society and should be maintained, even if some people die as a result. But why should there be freedom to drive drunk? I must have missed that amendment.
I think a simple glance at drunk driving casualty lists demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these roadblocks. IMO, police officers time would be better spent DRIVING around and pulling over people who appear to be driving drunk, instead of sitting at a road block for a few hours and catching one person.
I did not suggest a “full blown home invasion”. I suggested a random appearance at the door to detect the scent of marijuana smoke coming from inside the house. If you were not smoking weed it would be a “minimal intrusion”. You could be back on the couch in a matter of seconds.
You should not be immune from scrutiny. Officers should scrutinize the way you drive and if they notice swerving, or other DUI indicators they should pull you over.
Not one person in this thread has suggested to allow people to drive drunk. The suggestion is to allow people to drive sober without being stopped for no reason.
Why do I picture an American flag waving in the background while you spout this from atop your soapbox. You make it sound like the only choices available are Roadblocks or Free Society, which just isn’t true. I come down on the side of SCOTAS on this one, roadblocks are Constitutional because they are not unreasonable searches. And the benefits of removing drunk drivers from the road, as well as the deterrant effect of strong enforcement of drunk driving laws, do outweigh the minimal intrusion of being forced to stop for a reasonable amount of time.
Hasn’t the ineffectiveness canard already been pounded down enough? Guess not, so here’s the reply canard:
“I think a simple glance at disease casualty lists demonstrates the ineffectiveness of medicine.”
**
You do realize that most cities have more than one or two police officers, right? And that a roadblock in one area doesn’t mean that they’re not looking for drunken drivers anywhere else?
**
As has been raised on this thread before, drugs are a victimless crime with a very, very low chance of hurting someone else in and of themselves. Drunken driving, on the other hand, has a much higher chance of hurting someone in and of itself.
Not to mention the fact that homes are sacred because you have to have one. You don’t have to drive.
The government has a reasonable interest in ensuring that people drive well. Living well is your own affair.
A. thanks Sua for noting that I also posted the link on page one (I did take some ‘small’ measure of glee from beating the lawyers here w/the cite )
B. Congrats to you specifically for getting me to change my view on it (the stats re: # of drunks found vs. # of people stopped did it). This is something that my Snookie has been trying to convince me of, for years.
C. Given the data, I suggest that a better use of our limited police resources (vs. drunk roadblocks) would be : vigorous, visible patrols near clubs/bars - places large amounts of folks congregate, drink and will be driving home from. Large amounts of press about additional funds/additional patrols looking for drunk drivers (along w/the information re: fines, court costs, insurance costs, lawyer costs - so the press release would include “the average fine for driving while impaired is $1000 and 2 weekends in jail. The average increase in car insurance costs is 20%, the average cost for hiring a private attorney to fight the charge is $3000” - all data made up BTW) Additional informational/training seminars given to persons who own, operate and staff bars, taverns etc.
The goal, you see, shouldn’t be ‘catching’ the most drunk drivers, the goal should be preventing the most drunk drivers.
I also want to make this clear. I think roadblocks are constitutional, but I also think they are not the best way to fight drunk driving. There is a short article about drunk driving and the effectiveness of roadblocks you can check out. So, to actually answer the title of this thread. DUI roadblocks are legal, so I support them. But I think there are better, more efficient ways to fight drunk driving, so I am not insanely dedicated to them, and I think most police departments should abandon them in favor of other methods.
I didn’t raise the issue of a home invasion. I altered your hypothetical about the bomb to match roadblocks. I note you didn’t respond to that.
And of course you are subject to scrutiny. If you are driving erratically or speeding or the like, a cop can scrutinize you to your heart’s content. The cop has to have a reason to pull you over, is all I’m saying.
Is that such a bizarre request?
What a load of horseshit. In Indianapolis v. Edmonds, the Supreme Court found that roadblocks intended to uncover drugs were unconstitutional. Those roadblocks were even less instrusive than DUI roadblocks - all they consisted of was a stop, then a circling of the car by a drug-sniffing dog. And looking at public opinion surveys, most people consider drugs to be much more of a danger than drunk driving.
In your opinion, did the Supreme Court “nullify law enforcement altogether and turn them into a body pickup service”? I didn’t think so.
So you read the 4th Amendment. Good for you. You do know what the definition of “unreasonable” is? It is “without probable cause.”
Gosh, Becky, last I checked, no one here said that were was a freedom to drive drunk. But thanks for the hyperbole. The relevant right is the freedom from searches and seizures without probable cause (and seizures are what we are really talking about here), in case you actually didn’t know.
But, you know, there is no amendment granting freedom to do drugs, but we don’t stop people on the street and search them for drugs. There isn’t a freedom to carry a concealed weapon, but nope, no random searches for them either.
As for how many deaths we tolerate in defense of civil liberties? Can’t put a figure on it, but I can give you an idea. In 1996, there were 34,000 firearm deaths. In the year 2000, according to MADD, there were 16,600 drunk driving deaths. But, once again, no roadblocks to find illegal guns - indeed, such a roadblock would be unconstitutional under Edmonds.
Ahh, our cynical times. Guess what, Hamlet? Some people still actually believe in stuff.
No, what I’m saying is that roadblocks make our society less free. And that simply is true. Any increase in the power of the government to command us is a lessening of our freedom. And the rule, until Sitz, was that government could interfere with our freedom only when they had probable cause to think a crime had been committed or was about to be committed.
Would you be opposed to a cop opening your door, and instead of arresting you if he/she smelled pot, simply taking your car keys away until you sobered up? That’s a pretty minimal intrusion and would likely prevent considerably more DUIs than the 1% found at roadblocks.
wring, I knew you’d come around. I owe you an email. My bad.
House != car. Which I’m presuming you left off from the post you quoted for a reason.
I’m just saying that all this “let’s compare drunken driving to drug possession” is ridiculous. If you want to compare drunken driving with drugged driving, I can get behind that. Otherwise, we should go with a more apple-vs.-apple comparison. I remember something upthread about drunken driving vs. shooting a gun into the air. Can we use that for further metaphors or stick with the drug canard?
It may be a matter of semantics, but, although sobriety checkpoints are a lessening of our freedom in the broad sense of that term, they are not a UNCONSTITUTIONAL lessening of our freedom. We have the freedom, guaranteed under the 4th Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. As I stated before, I and SCOTUS agree that sobriety checkpoints are not an unreasonable seizure under the Constitution. You can speak of free societies and the Founding Fathers all day, but the fact remains even the Founding Fathers put limits on citizen’s rights. Sobriety checkpoints are one example of a modern limitation.
Also, not to nitpick, but for awhile now, the government has had the right to interfere with your freedom without probable cause in what is called Terry stops, which others can read about here. From your argument above, I would assume you are also against Terry stops because they allow the curtailing of your freedoms without probable cause. And I, once again, agree with the SCOTUS that they are not violations of your Constitutional rights. More limits on your “freedom?” Maybe, but it is neither unconstitutional, nor is it a bad thing.
)