New Mexico: Drunk until proven innocent.

Great Debates
1

Acording to a story here, the New Mexico House has passed a law requiring all vehicles sold in New Mexico to be equiped with Breathalizer ignition interlocks by 2008. (Albuquerque Journal Story)

Now, I am not defending DWI, it’s a crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I also have no problem with these devices for people who are repeat DWI offenders (who have proven by their actions that they can not be trusted not to drive drunk), but I can see no way that this type of law does not directly contradict an individual’s right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The sponsor of the bill, Judiciary Committee Chairman W. Ken Martinez, D-Grants, claims that “This bill would save lives”. It very well might (more on that in a sec). Giving police the power to randomly search citizens would undoubtedly cut down on a whole host of crimes from drug dealing and use to internet music piracy, but do we really want to live in a society where the government has the right to harass, search, monitor and/or test it’s citizens at it’s whim, all in the name of “safety”? I know that I sure don’t.

But will it save lives? Undoubtedly, some drunk at some time would attempt to drive and be defeated by the interlock system. However, from what I have been able to find out, such systems are fairly easy to circumvent, from having a sober person blow to blowing up a balloon before taking your first drink and using the balloon to take the test when you’re lit. Aditionally, some of these systems require the driver to randomly blow again after they are already driving or else they shut down the car. How dangerous is this? Forget cell phones, do we want an entire state full of people swerving all over the interstates trying to blow into a tube at random times? My elderly mother can drive her car safely for the few things she needs, shopping and the like, but I’m not sure I want her having to break consentration to blow in a tube while driving down a winding road.

Also, what about the costs? Everybody has to shell out the $$$ to install one of these devices, that’s about $1000 per vehicle right there. Mr. Martinez claims that “tax credits” will be offered to offset the cost. I’ve heard that one before, besides, aren’t tax credits usually used to give people incentive to do something? If the bill makes interlocks manditory for all cars, how long do you think it will be before these nebulous “tax credits” mysteriously disappear? Nobody gets “tax credits” not to speed, or for getting your car inspected or for anything else required by legislation: the law is the law and citizens must comply with it, period. The bill would require the devices on commercial vehicles as well, if I have a company I may very well decide to locate in Arizona rather than New Mexico simply to avoid the extra expense on my company fleet.

No, I see this as one more attempt for the government to insuate itself into every facit of our daily lives. I find it ironic that there has been a huge Democratic backlash to Mr. Ashcroft’s draconian “security” measures in this country, yet here we have a Democrat introducing a bill that will be far more intrusive into people’s right to live unencumbered by senseless regulations. It goes to show, IMHO, that there is not much difference between the parties in that they all tend to think that they are better and smarter than the public, we should all baaa, baaa, baaa along and trust them, after all, they’re with the government and they’re here to help. :rolleyes:

2

I see this in the computer field all the time: People using technology rather than dealing with the problem.
“My employee spends all her time surfing the internet, can you remove IE from her computer?”
Yes we can, but that’s not going to solve your problem.

“Too many people are driving drunk, can we make a car that won’t run if the driver’s drunk?”
Sure we can, but we’re still not solving the problem.

Narrow-minded idiots. :rolleyes:

3

From the Albuquerque Journal link:

He’s right. The idiotic behavior, rationalization and voting patterns of New Mexico state legislators needs to be modified. I can’t possibly see how this thing can be constitutional. Of course, I think sobriety checkpoints and random police stops are unconstitutional, too.

4

A couple of things, Dave:

  1. The bill passed the House, and with three days left for the Senate to vote on it the bill will most likely die there.

  2. It appears to be some guys attempt to get his name in the papers as being tough on drunk driving.

  3. Should this pass the Senate and become law by some miracle, the Supreme Court will almost certainly shoot it down.

There’s just no way this will stand up.

5

I remeber similar legislation here in California that would have required the same thing, but only if you had a previous conviction for drunk driving. I would have supported that. Wonder what happened to it.

6

On what grounds? I don’t see how this would be unconstitutional…

7

Oh, I agree, and thought about putting that in the OP but decided that the important thing wasn’t that someone had proposed a dumbass piece of legislation, legislators do that all the time. The thing that suprised me was that the entire House actually passed this idiotic bill.

8

Unreasonable search and seizure.

9

But the government isn’t searching or seizing anything, they’re merely requiring that people take a breathalyzer test (using a device which they own) before they can drive. Presumably, the results of the test wouldn’t be used by the government in any way, shape or form (much less criminal actions)–I don’t see how the fourth ammendment applies here.

10

Unreasonable search?

While you get around targeting only some people (the reason that random checks didn’t fly.) I’m not sure that you have enough reason to do a DUI search just because they’re starting their car. OTOH, you are testing everyone and I’m reasonably sure (real lawyers…?) that a “stop everyone” checkpoint is legitimate if its done for a valid reason.

It would probably depend on how the court phrased the question.

C

11

The test is by definition used by the government. It’s government mandated equipment and the results of the test are the determining factor as to whether you can operate the vehicle or not.

Just because you won’t necessarily be convicted because of the results doesn’t mean that the government isn’t showing an interest in your decision making process.

12

I know “prior restraint” usually applies to publishing, but could a case by extension be made here? And could “entrapment” be another application against this thing?

13

This really was supposed to go in GD. Can a mod move it for me?

Bueller…
Bueller…
Bueller…

14

Sure it is. It’s searching your breath and if the device reads your breath a certain way it seizes your car by preventing its operation.

SCOTUS has upheld random checks to combat drunk driving in at least two cases, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976). It has upheld the use of random stops for the purpose of collecting information on crimes committed in the area (Freeper site, sorry, but it’s still factually accurate) but has barred random stops for the purpose of drug enforcement.

15

Oh my f’n GAWD! Thanks for posting this Weirddave. I can’t believe I didn’t hear of this before.

I wonder if I could get transferred to Oregon…

16

There would be no constitutional implications of requiring that a person use a breathalyzer to pre-test sobriety before starting a car. The government isn’t requiring that you blow on the breathalyzer; you can simply refuse to drive the car, or use only cars manufactured before 2008, etc. This would be no different than requiring you to obtain a license to legally drive, or to provide proof of insurance before registering your car.

There is no “search”; the government isn’t searching you. There is no “seizure”; the government isn’t holding on to either you or your car. Assertions to the contrary are without merit; I suggest doing some basic constitutional law review first.

Just because a thing is constitutional doesn’t make it an intelligent thing to do. I won’t comment whether I think it is a good thing or a bad thing to do here, because I don’t know enough about the practicality versus the cost to make intelligent comment. But it certainly seems to have difficulties because it sounds like one can circumvent the intended process without much trouble.

Still, let’s all please remember: driving is a privilege, not a right. The state could outlaw automobiles entirely, should it choose to.

17

Prior restraint applies to publishing because the government is forbidden to make any laws abridging the freedom of the press. The government is not forbidden to make laws abridging the freedom to drive. Despite what the Homebrews of the world believe, the government could forbid all driving without offending the constitution, as long as there was a rational basis for the prohibition.

Entrapment is also absolutely inapplicable here. If you’re really curious to know why, there are at least half a dozen threads here that have discussed what entrapment means.

  • Rick
18

Or even without a rational basis. A blanket ban would apply to everyone, and would not trip equal protection scrutiny of any kind – including rational basis.

19

I don’t think that a state’s requirement of particular features on cars sold in the state is unconstitutional, but it may be in violation of federal law.

I recall (no cite) that under U.S. motor vehicle laws, states cannot impose non-uinform requiements on cars sold. I believe that there is an exception that states can require for “California emissions” packages, but no other requirements are permitted.

20

I think we should introduce legislation requiring all elected officials to wear shoulder pads, elbow and knee pads, back braces, Kevlar armor, and crash helmets, 24-7.

After all, they could fall and hurt themselves, or be assassinated, at any time. And we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill for their medical bills and retirement funds.

This legislation could save lives, you know. And taxpayer dollars.

:rolleyes: