# "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:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/101 "2011-01-04T07:33:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > _“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. The thing is, actively discouraging drink-driving isn’t “Temporary Safety”; it’s a long-term proposition. I also don’t believe it’s in any way comparable to the sort of thing Mr. Franklin was envisioning back in the age of wigs and breeches. ---
**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 4, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/102 "2011-01-04T14:03:21Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The thing is, actively discouraging drink-driving isn’t “Temporary Safety”; it’s a long-term proposition. I also don’t believe it’s in any way comparable to the sort of thing Mr. Franklin was envisioning back in the age of wigs and breeches. How so? This isn’t some new issue we’re talking about. Franklin was familiar with concepts like warrants, search and seizures, due process, self-incrimination, public spaces, police power, and judicial bias. The only thing you’d have had to bring him up to speed on would be the concept of a car and a breathalyzer and both of those could be explained in a couple of minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/103 "2011-01-04T17:03:09Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The thing is, actively discouraging drink-driving isn’t “Temporary Safety”; it’s a long-term proposition. I also don’t believe it’s in any way comparable to the sort of thing Mr. Franklin was envisioning back in the age of wigs and breeches. I think a roadblock that is fishing for criminal activity is exactly what Mr. Franklin was talking about. ---
**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 5, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/104 "2011-01-05T01:08:29Z")
And I think rigidly adhering to centuries old propositions in this age is ridiculous. In particular, for activities you know will happen, for which effective measures to limit deaths exist, for which said measures are minimally invasive, all for the sake of FREEEEEEDDDOOOOOOMM. The tradeoff for this nebulous freedom from stopping at a checkpoint is increased fatalities due to drunk driving. IMO, this is not an acceptable tradeoff. This is not security theater. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/105 "2011-01-05T04:05:38Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > And I think rigidly adhering to centuries old propositions in this age is ridiculous. In particular, for activities you know will happen, for which effective measures to limit deaths exist, for which said measures are minimally invasive, all for the sake of FREEEEEEDDDOOOOOOMM. > > The tradeoff for this nebulous freedom from stopping at a checkpoint is increased fatalities due to drunk driving. IMO, this is not an acceptable tradeoff. This is not security theater. To start with, it’s not a minor inconvenience to demand that you stop unnecessarily and prove you are not committing a crime. Putting aside the fact that there is no probable cause to engage in this behavior it can easily delay someone from arriving to work on-time. Officer’s do not issue permission slips for being late. On top of that there is no limit to how laws are applied using this mentality. You could be stopped walking down the street for a full security screen to see if you have drugs on you or weapons or outstanding warrants (fill in your favorite crime here). Beyond that the process takes police OFF the street where they could be patrolling multiple routes looking for signs of incapacitation. We are giving up our ability to move about freely and losing valuable patrol time checking on a very narrow corridor of people who are not committing crimes. There is nothing nebulous about freedom and loosing it a little bit at a time doesn’t make it OK. It just sugar coats it until the next layer of freedom is given up. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/106 "2011-01-05T09:18:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I think a roadblock that is fishing for criminal activity is exactly what Mr. Franklin was talking about. The point I’m making is that- IMHO- the tradeoff (catching drunk drivers on the roads) far outweighs the minor inconvenience of being randomly flagged down at an RBT (they don’t stop everyone), asked to blow into a breathalyser, and sent on your way (assuming you haven’t been drinking). Mr. Franklin’s quote is about trading liberty for _a little_ security. I argue that RBTs are _a lot_ of security; especially when combined with public education. ---
**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 5, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/107 "2011-01-05T18:37:52Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > And I think rigidly adhering to centuries old propositions in this age is ridiculous. In particular, for activities you know will happen, for which effective measures to limit deaths exist, for which said measures are minimally invasive, all for the sake of FREEEEEEDDDOOOOOOMM. > > The tradeoff for this nebulous freedom from stopping at a checkpoint is increased fatalities due to drunk driving. IMO, this is not an acceptable tradeoff. This is not security theater. > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The point I’m making is that- IMHO- the tradeoff (catching drunk drivers on the roads) far outweighs the minor inconvenience of being randomly flagged down at an RBT (they don’t stop everyone), asked to blow into a breathalyser, and sent on your way (assuming you haven’t been drinking). > > Mr. Franklin’s quote is about trading liberty for _a little_ security. I argue that RBTs are _a lot_ of security; especially when combined with public education. The problem is the assumption that checkpoints reduce drunk drivers on the road or have some overall safety improvement value is dubious. It is mostly theater and a whole bunch of revenue generation for good measure.[Drunk driving laws should be abolished and you’d likely see a decrease in alcohol related fatalities.](http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws) Even if checkpoints had a positive effect in that they reduced alcohol related accidents, I would still be against them as they are an infringement on my rights. ---
**Author:** ![Cugel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cugel/32/1199_2.png) [@Cugel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cugel)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/108 "2011-01-06T07:45:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Drunk driving laws should be abolished and you’d likely see a decrease in alcohol related fatalities Could be. There’d so many drunks on the road driving erratically they’d have a hard time hitting each other. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/109 "2011-01-06T13:28:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The problem is the assumption that checkpoints reduce drunk drivers on the road or have some overall safety improvement value is dubious. It is mostly theater and a whole bunch of revenue generation for good measure.[Drunk driving laws should be abolished and you’d likely see a decrease in alcohol related fatalities.](http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws) > > Even if checkpoints had a positive effect in that they reduced alcohol related accidents, I would still be against them as they are an infringement on my rights. Your citation is flawed: > [@Your link](#): > > Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don’t drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don’t use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them. The first claim is _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_. And then when the data no longer supports even that weak claim, the contradiction is hand-waved away with no supporting evidence, and a weak chain of reasoning. If the states that use roadblocks sway the numbers so little, why were they of more effect before 2004? ---
**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 6, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/110 "2011-01-06T20:55:24Z")
I dont think Balko is stating that the cause of the increase in fatalities was due to the lower blood alcohol limit. He is stating that the result was predicted and the prediction came to pass. Other outside factors could also be in play and most certainly were, but none the less the results were there. He is also not stating that the increase began in 2004. The increase began in the years leading up to that point. That date was picked because that was the last date of data availability at the time of writing. Here’s an [article](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5167)that expands the reasoning further: > [@](#): > > Both predictions [increased fatalities and revenue generation] have proven true. From 2000 to 2003, drunk-driving deaths began to inch upward again, after two decades of decline. In March of this year, the National Transportation Safety Board conceded as much in a newsletter, warning that, “Americans are more aware than ever before of the dangers of drinking and driving. Few realize, however, that drunk driving fatalities continue to rise – and that thousands of them are caused by extreme or repeat offenders known as ‘hard core drinking drivers.’” > > The release noted that these hardcore offenders produce 40 percent of traffic accidents, but comprise just 33 percent of arrests. If we look at fatalities, the numbers are worse: People with a blood alcohol content (BAC) above .10 account for 77 percent of alcohol-related fatalities (the average drunk driving fatality involves a BAC of .17). In other words, motorists with very high blood alcohol levels account for an increasing percentage of highway fatalities, but a decreasing percentage of arrests. Of course, the federal government still doesn’t get it. The top bullet point in the NTSB’s press release’s action agenda was to install yet more “frequent and statewide sobriety checkpoints.” ---
**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 6, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/111 "2011-01-06T21:15:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The first claim is _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_. And then when the data no longer supports even that weak claim, the contradiction is hand-waved away with no supporting evidence, and a weak chain of reasoning. If the states that use roadblocks sway the numbers so little, why were they of more effect before 2004? If I’m understanding the cited information correctly, there is a valid statistical point to it. The author appears to be saying that some states use DUI checkpoints and some don’t and that the non-checkpoint states have fewer DUI-related fatalities than the checkpoint states. The national DUI-related fatality total is the mixture of both checkpoint and non-checkpoint states so it doesn’t directly reflect the effectiveness of either policy. This doesn’t prove the author is correct - there may be other causes involved. But I feel it does make a strong enough argument that it can’t be dismissed out of hand. And on a seperate issue, what are your views on the seperation of powers question raised here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/112 "2011-01-07T00:18:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If I’m understanding the cited information correctly, there is a valid statistical point to it. The author appears to be saying that some states use DUI checkpoints and some don’t and that the non-checkpoint states have fewer DUI-related fatalities than the checkpoint states. The national DUI-related fatality total is the mixture of both checkpoint and non-checkpoint states so it doesn’t directly reflect the effectiveness of either policy. The author implies this, but doesn’t explicitly state it, which leads me to suspecthe’s usuing the weasel method. I’d like to see a cite for the specific claim. > [@](#): > > And on a seperate issue, what are your views on the seperation of powers question raised here? It makes me uncomfortable, which is why I started the thread. But I think it’s legal. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999/113 "2011-01-07T01:20:30Z")
[| GHSA](http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html) It all depends in what state you live. In Michigan the supreme court ruled checkpoints were in violation of the state constitution. Paying a highly paid judge to sit at a checkpoint seems wasteful. The court system is jammed already. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-refusal-dui-checkpoint/565999.md?page=5)