You are only required to show license, registration and, in some states, proof of insurance. Beyond that, if you think the questions are intrusive, just ask, “Am I under arrest?” If the answer is no, ask, “May I be on my way?” Of course, many cops don’t like people who insist on exercising their rights, so that may earn you a trip downtown. But if everybody declined to incriminate themselves, the current practice of interrogating all drivers would come to an end.
For Texas, this is strictly speaking true but not actually true.
For major holidays and events (4th of July, New Years, Superbowl, etc), you’ll have “insurance checkpoints” in many cities to make sure drivers are insured. To be fair, uninsured driving actually is a problem in parts of Texas. But you can be sure they catch a fair number of drunks at the same time.
Definitely true, according to my cop friend. They just want to look at you, smell you, see how you conduct yourself, see if you speech is slurred, etc. An experienced cop can recognize an impaired driver in about 10 seconds.
So to answer your question, what would likely happen (assuming that you appeared sober) is that the cop would tell you to be on your way, and then after you left say to the other cops something like “there goes another jailhouse lawyer asshole”. If you were real rude about it, they might want to hassle you, but at DUI checkpoints they are usually too busy; they have a line of cars, and cops actually are concerned about getting drunk drivers off the roads.
Cops can arrest anyone they want under the guise of “probable cause”. I was arrested and jailed for 48 hours for an alleged DUI without any evidence. I didn’t know my rights and was questioned and underwent field sobriety tests for at least 15 minutes, but they didn’t bother with a breathalyzer test because they knew I wasn’t drunk. They claimed that the distance I had driven was at least 5 miles, but I later used a map for an exact measure and it was less than a mile. They took a blood sample at the prison and charged me with a drugs DUI. My eyes were bloodshot because I wore contacts the previous day. The ACLU didn’t offer any help. I never did see a judge, and my case never went to trial since they had no evidence. When a prisoner asked why Miranda rights weren’t read to him, they replied that there was no need to do so before the arrest.
They were quite correct in that. Miranda rights must be mentioned before an interrogation, which usually happens after arrest.
IANAL but the way I see it - if you’ve been drinking to any degree the cop already smells it.
There may be automatic penalties for refusing to answer or submit to a test - BUT they may be less severe than being busted for DUI, so (according to a lawyer acquaintance) in some cases (if you think you’re likely to fail the test) that may be your better option.
Best to talk about these things with a lawyer knowledgeable about your local regulations beforehand.
I know a former DEA agent who tells me that more than breath they use the eyes, which is why the first thing they do is point a flashlight in your face. This will reveal drug use other than alcohol, too. That’s when an experienced cop will decide to follow through with a DUI arrest. All of that other stuff (walking on a line and saying the alphabet backwards, etc.) is really just going through the motions to get to a point where they can do a breathalyzer.
He also told me that most cops really dislike doing DUI arrests.
The two times I’ve been stopped at such checkpoints I’ve moved my car very slowly and stated “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me” while being polite. I make sure to take up as much of their time as possible while being polite. I say things like “I imagine it must be humiliating to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then be tasked to stop innocent citizens and ask them without reasonable suspicion whether they are committing a crime.” For some reason, they want me to leave rather than discuss the merits of their department’s use of taxpayer funds.
Having had several friends, and 1 relative who were killed in drunk driving incidents, I greatly approve of DWI checkpoints.
I want drunk drivers off our roads! And I’m willing to put up with a short delay at checkpoints (and even a minor infringement on Constitutional rights, if it is) to do so.
And what I think of your obstructionist effort to “take up as much of their time as possible” can’t be said here in GQ. :mad:
Minor infringement of Constitutional rights gives way to “off to Guantanamo without any due process.” It gave way to having our phone calls tapped in the “echelon” program. Each right that we fritter away is considered minor by someone in comparison to a greater good, such as seeing a checkpoint that may have a beneficial effect. Or it may be spitting in the ocean. How many drivers on the road at any given time are under the influence? I suppose check points could give us strong evidence of statistically how many. http://dui.lifetips.com/cat/61352/drunk-driving-facts-stats/index.html
If the checkpoints aren’t just for show, there should be a lot more of them. Lots of people drive drunk. (I barely drink and never drive after having my one glass limit.) To my way of thinking, far more damage is done to the constitution and to rights of citizens by setting the precedent of DUI checkpoints, than benefit brought by the checkpoints. I’ve been through two and saw one other in the 30 plus years they have been doing them. But for the purpose of occasionally catching a few drunk drivers (rather than a steady program that is more than symbolic), we have now let the police stop not just whomever they want on no suspicion whatsoever, but everybody.
If we carved out an exception to the Constitution for the laudable goal of ending drunk driving, we are making a mockery of it, because we are not using the checkpoints and the roads are filled with drunks. Meanwhile, the Constitution has been smeared with feces for 30 years with well meaning exceptions. After all, if we can’t have rights to not be stopped without suspicion, there really isn’t a need to actually get the drunks off the road. :mad:
Franklin in Poor Richard’s Almanack (1738) wrote: “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” This is usually paraphrased as something like: Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
I’d appreciate it if we’d shy away from arguments about whether DUI checkpoints are justifiable within the Constitution, or of what we think of them. I have strong feelings on that too, but that discussion belongs in GD.
I’d like this thread to be about current police procedures and case law.
The questioning they do before arrest is not an interrogation?
I’m sorry but this argument simply doesn’t hold water. In my own country of New Zealand, checkpoints are common - and go further than you have thought of in the states, there we use hand held “sniffers” to detect alcohol.
And you know what, even after 20 years of stop everyone, the programme hasn’t gone further.
And you know what else? We haven’t even come close to having a Gitmo in that period, or of waterboarding anybody.
That’s probably true.
I was in a taxi in New Zealand and we went through a checkpoint. As bengangmo said, they have hand held sniffers. The one I saw looks a bit like a microphone.
The cop asked the driver, “state your name into this please” and the driver said loudly and clearly “Mickey Mouse”. The cop said “thanks mate” and waved us on.
I should probably add that American cops might not be so accepting of a silly answer even if they have no use for a real answer.
Not that NZ cops are laid back at all when it comes to drunk driving.
[moderating]
Since this thread is in GQ rather than GD, that’s a good recommendation.
If folks want to debate justification of DUI checkpoints, please do it in GD.
[/moderating]
Here’s an incidentwhere a person refused to answer any questions. It resulted in the officers lying about reasonable suspicion, detention, and allegedly illegal search.
That’s a yes-and-no sort of thing, speaking from personal experience.
Yes, because 1) tons of paperwork 2) puke in the back seat of the patrol car 3) probably gonna have to fight the asshole driver to get him in cuffs 4)testifying because the asshole driver didn’t have the balls or the integrity to admit that he was impaired and the asshole attorney will ream the arresting officer in an attempt to get the asshole driver off.
No, because I really liked getting the impaired asshole off the street before he murdered an innocent victim. That trumped the paperwork and the fights and the puke and the asshole attornies all day, every day.
Assuming you haven’t been drinking and have no active warrants, only three things really matter in the grand scheme of things:
- The particular LEO and his attitude (mostly determined by how his day is going and his perception of your attitude)
- The quality of your lawyer
- The particular clerk magistrate or duty judge the day of arraignment
In other words, most factors are beyond your control. You won’t need to deal with #2 or #3 if you simply cooperate and act like a reasonable human being. You can have all of the case law apparently on your side, but the judge might think you are an asshole, so you lose.
So, answer the dang questions. If you want to gripe about infringement of constitutional rights, write the Commish. of the PD or your local rag.
If you have been drinking, you can always politely refuse to answer any questions and see what happens.
Once an officer asks you if you’ve been drinking, refusing to answer no matter how politely will create “suspicion” and you will not be driving away without first taking the field sobriety test at a minimum.
The best thing to do if you had a drop of alcohol in the past day is to say you havent had anything. You lie, period.
Saying you had cough medicine last night or only had one beer for lunch will more often than not create suspicion you’re downplaying it, and you will be doing at least the field test if not more.