# "No refusal" DUI checkpoint **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 31, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999 "2010-12-31T23:17:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/61 "2011-01-01T20:19:30Z")
> [@snowmaster](#): > > To the best of my knowledge, yes, in every state but New Hampshire. Thanks > [@](#): > > Live Free or Die. What? ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/62 "2011-01-01T20:56:28Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > What? That is the motto of the great state of New Hampshire, where personal freedoms are a matter of special pride. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/63 "2011-01-01T21:12:47Z")
Ah. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/64 "2011-01-01T21:24:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I would bet there were no judges in the field. Instead, as in my county, there is always a judge on duty who can be reached by telephone. I don’t know whether the physical warrant needs to be in the hands of the police to “search” or whether the telephonic nod is sufficient. Perhaps you’d care to comment on that. [This blog entry](http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/09/no_refusal_dwi_crackdowns_ever.php) says: > [@](#): > > Normally, DWI suspects who refuse to take a Breathalyzer (as attorneys always prefer) are taken downtown and processed, and if a blood test is deemed necessary, the paperwork is filed for a warrant. > > In the no-refusal weekends, a judge is on site to approve warrants and a nurse is handy to take the blood. You’re screwed. But [here is a detailed description](http://www.tdcaa.com/node/1141) of procedures used, and it appears that the warrant and supporting affidavit were faxed to the judge, who faxed them back. So I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/65 "2011-01-01T22:11:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > My objection isn’t to this procedure per se, but to the general notion of the refusal to take the breathalyzer as being probable cause. If the police cannot justify a breathalyzer without consent at a roadside checkpoint under the Fourth Amendment (upon threat of arrest), then they should not be able to conduct a blood test based on the refusal to consent. When denial of consent becomes probable cause, the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningless. > > That said, maybe they’re asking for a warrant based on observed conduct of the driver other than refusal. > > Also, as a policy matter, most of the evidence suggests that DUI checkpoints are a waste of time and resources. This. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/66 "2011-01-01T22:12:51Z")
I don’t know the background on the SC decision but setting up roadblocks to see if a crime might be in progress was a bad precedent. I also don’t see how a judge could rule on a mandatory check without a prior indication of driver incapacitation. As far as forcing a person to give blood, that flies in the face of the 5th amendment and the ability to refuse a breathalyzer test. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/67 "2011-01-02T00:24:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > As far as forcing a person to give blood, that flies in the face of the 5th amendment… Yeah… not quite. _Schmerber v. California_, 384 US 757 (1966) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/68 "2011-01-02T00:42:35Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Yeah… not quite. > > _Schmerber v. California_, 384 US 757 (1966) That ranks up there with imminent domain decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/69 "2011-01-02T00:55:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That ranks up there with imminent domain decisions. not really, but thanks for playing. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/70 "2011-01-02T01:05:06Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > not really, but thanks for playing. well based on your debate response … nuh uh ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/71 "2011-01-02T01:19:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > well based on your debate response … nuh uh I’m not going to derail the thread with multiple posts about you claiming that you know more about 5th amendment jurisprudence than the supreme court. but since you insist, the 5th amendment was born from concerns about using torture to extract testimonial evidence from suspects. blood chemistry isn’t testimonial. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/72 "2011-01-02T01:43:22Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > I’m not going to derail the thread with multiple posts about you claiming that you know more about 5th amendment jurisprudence than the supreme court. > > but since you insist, the 5th amendment was born from concerns about using torture to extract testimonial evidence from suspects. blood chemistry isn’t testimonial. And burning a flag isn’t actual speech. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/73 "2011-01-02T01:47:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And burning a flag isn’t actual speech. that isn’t a fifth amendment issue, now is it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/74 "2011-01-02T01:51:07Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > that isn’t a fifth amendment issue, now is it. No, it’s an example of interpretation of communication to mean more than talking. In this case, it’s a function of self incrimination whether it’s a breathalizer test or a blood test. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/75 "2011-01-02T01:55:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, it’s an example of interpretation of communication to mean more than talking. In this case, it’s a function of self incrimination whether it’s a breathalizer test or a blood test. except the phrase “self incrimination” and the word “communication” do not appear anywhere in the text of the 5th. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/76 "2011-01-02T02:02:38Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > except the phrase “self incrimination” and the word “communication” do not appear anywhere in the text of the 5th. An even stronger reason when dealing with the concept of self incrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/77 "2011-01-02T02:05:07Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > An even stronger reason when dealing with the concept of self incrimination. i could respond if your words were intelligible. and if you wanted to create your own thread on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/78 "2011-01-02T02:12:38Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > i could respond if your words were intelligible. and if you wanted to create your own thread on the matter. uh huh. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/79 "2011-01-02T02:16:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > uh huh. glad you agree. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/80 "2011-01-02T02:39:10Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > glad you agree. yeah that’s what I meant in response to a person who ends a debate with an insult. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999.md?page=5)