# "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:** 5
**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, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/81 "2011-01-02T02:51:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > yeah that’s what I meant in response to a person who ends a debate with an insult. thanks for the confirmation. (fyi, calling that post, consisting of an incomplete sentence, unintelligible isn’t really an insult as much as it is a statement of fact.) ---
**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, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/82 "2011-01-02T03:02:25Z")
uh huh. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/83 "2011-01-02T03:14:30Z")
> [@snowmaster](#): > > To the best of my knowledge, yes, in every state but New Hampshire. Virginia allows cars to be uninsured, but it requires that the owner pay a $500 fee each year. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/84 "2011-01-02T17:45:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And burning a flag isn’t actual speech. I agree with what you are saying here. With things like free speech and the establishment of religion, the courts go WAY further than the text of the constitution and cover things like flag burning and prayer in school. But when it comes to the fifth amendment, they take a hard line textual approach and say that it only means testimonial incrimination. And when it comes to the second amendment, until recently, they ignored it, and today they still ignore the “bear” part of the amendment. And when it comes to the seventh amendment, they don’t apply it to the states at all. It seems to me that all of these BOR amendments should be read with the same consistency across the various activities they cover. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/85 "2011-01-02T17:50:10Z")
And it’s “_eminent_ domain”, not “imminent”. You’re welcome. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/86 "2011-01-02T23:50:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And it’s “_eminent_ domain”, not “imminent”. > > You’re welcome. Well dang it, I typed it with an “e” and somehow ended up with the other version in the spelling correction. And thanks. I’ve always had a hard time with the checkpoint stops. It just seems like a slippery slope legal decision that would lead to strip searches and who knows what in public places. The way the legal system works, it’s much easier to get a law or decision established than it is to remove/correct it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/87 "2011-01-03T00:54:14Z")
Getting back to the OP, I think Bricker raised a good issue about the seperation of powers. This policy is making judges a de facto branch of the executive branch, which I think is a bad idea. Judges are supposed to be representing both the police and the drivers equally and impartially. I think this policy could have the effect of turning judges into auxillary police officers. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/88 "2011-01-03T01:18:44Z")
There is no “could” about it, they are directly participating in the process as an extension of the police force. It would be no different than a judge following around any other orchestrated police effort. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/89 "2011-01-03T01:19:45Z")
That issue is the judge’s ability to resist making himself part of the police, and that pressure exists in any circumstances. Judges have to authorize warrants that the police want _anyway_. If the judge weren’t physically there, seeing the driver’s behavior for himself, he’d have to accept the cops’ word that there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant. This approach does seem more just as well as more efficient. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/90 "2011-01-03T01:37:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That issue is the judge’s ability to resist making himself part of the police, and that pressure exists in any circumstances. Judges have to authorize warrants that the police want _anyway_. > > If the judge weren’t physically there, seeing the driver’s behavior for himself, he’d have to accept the cops’ word that there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant. This approach does seem more just as well as more efficient. If the judge is there making decisions about the driver’s behavior then he has effectively become the police officer. That is not the function of the judge. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/91 "2011-01-03T01:45:14Z")
He’s making a decision whether he’s there or not. If he is, his decision is better informed. What, would you like to have the police not have to bother getting warrants at all? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/92 "2011-01-03T02:28:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He’s making a decision whether he’s there or not. If he is, his decision is better informed. > > What, would you like to have the police not have to bother getting warrants at all? I’d like the police to do their job instead of a bad rendition of check-point-charley. If judges are participating in public raids when are they suppose to be doing their regular job? ---
**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 3, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/93 "2011-01-03T02:29:19Z")
Dudes. Understand this: probable cause is not a tough evidentiary standard. A judge isn’t going to need to stick his head inside the car and look at the suspect - a warrant is going to issue if the cop says anything along the lines of “his eyes are dilated, he smells like booze, and he’s slurring a bit”. this kind of stuff (having the robe a stone’s throw away from where the cop is collecting his probable cause) just _significantly_ shortens the time between the warrant application and issuance. yes, if it becomes pro forma, or if the judge engages in any investigation, that’s disconcerting. but there’s no suggestion that that’s what happens - because it doesn’t need to. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/94 "2011-01-03T02:42:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’d like the police to do their job instead of a bad rendition of check-point-charley. If judges are participating in public raids when are they suppose to be doing their regular job? “doing their job” meaning… what, exactly? The police are stopping drivers, and if they suspect that the driver is drunk, getting a warrant. Looking good. The judge is assessing the evidence by the standard required by the statute, and if the standard is met… issues a warrant. Also good. I’m not seeing where they’re not “doing their job” here. If the police said “we don’t need no steeenking warrants” and carting you off to the clink, then that’s bad. I don’t see that happening here. In fact, I’m seeing a full willingness of the police to get a warrant. If the judge said “here’s a bunch of pre-signed warrants, just fill in the names and get back to me when my hangover wears off” then that’s bad. I don’t see that happening here either. Seriously, what would you like to see happen here? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/95 "2011-01-03T03:15:17Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > Seriously, what would you like to see happen here? I would like to see police patrolling streets (plural) and not wasting time with a checkpoint. I’d like them patrolling my neighborhood. There is no limit to the application of authority using a checkpoint mindset. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/96 "2011-01-03T03:35:14Z")
Maybe it’s just me not being a drink and driver, or much of a drinker, but I’d rather have the police checking for drunk drivers… where people drink. I used to live (until it closed down) just down the road from a pretty well known “cheap drink” club. The police used to have a checkpoint pretty much right outside the front gate of my apartment, and all of us were happy, because that meant drunk drivers only got about 600 feet up the road before getting arrested. Really, what good does it do to have police patrolling Noperson Road, Empty Street, and HellifIknowwhatyou’redoinghere Avenue, if on a known drink driving epidemic day, where statistically you just about _know_ someone will be driving drunk? Catch them _where the clubs are_, that way they’ll have less of an opportunity to do damage! Meh. No skin off my nose either way. Good on the judges staying up into the wee hours so that drunk drivers don’t get away withit. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/97 "2011-01-03T03:40:25Z")
in my area they announce the road blocks well in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/98 "2011-01-03T14:24:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That issue is the judge’s ability to resist making himself part of the police, and that pressure exists in any circumstances. Judges have to authorize warrants that the police want _anyway_. > > If the judge weren’t physically there, seeing the driver’s behavior for himself, he’d have to accept the cops’ word that there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant. This approach does seem more just as well as more efficient. They don’t _have to_ authorize a warrant - they’re supposed to be deciding whether or not sufficient cause exists to issue a warrant. And that’s why judges should maintain some distance from the police - so they can form independent decisions and not simply rubber stamp them. If you have judges working alongside police officers, you’re well into conlfict of interest territory. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/99 "2011-01-03T20:28:07Z")
Crack window only enough to provide driver’s license and required information and avoid eye contact. Then ask if being detained. If not, leave. Answer no questions. Better yet, give this [business card](http://www.calgunlawyers.com/Davis_%26_Associates/The_Ring_of_Fire/Entries/2010/6/2_New_Tear_Away_cards.html). And then the police will lie to get probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/100 "2011-01-03T23:02:33Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > Maybe it’s just me not being a drink and driver, or much of a drinker, but I’d rather have the police checking for drunk drivers.. where people drink. > > I used to live (until it closed down) just down the road from a pretty well known “cheap drink” club. The police used to have a checkpoint pretty much right outside the front gate of my apartment, and all of us were happy, because that meant drunk drivers only got about 600 feet up the road before getting arrested. > > Really, what good does it do to have police patrolling Noperson Road, Empty Street, and HellifIknowwhatyou’redoinghere Avenue, if on a known drink driving epidemic day, where statistically you just about _know_ someone will be driving drunk? Catch them _where the clubs are_, that way they’ll have less of an opportunity to do damage! > > Meh. No skin off my nose either way. Good on the judges staying up into the wee hours so that drunk drivers don’t get away withit. _“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”_ ~Benjamin Franklin ^^That’s why you should care. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999.md?page=6)