It’s all a matter of what you’re used to, and it’s a trade-off. Random arbitary breath tests are a deterrent to drink driving and may catch the occasional drunk driver, at the cost of inconveniencing a pretty large number of sober drivers. How much weight you put on the various costs and benefits is a personal decision.
Americans have grown up with the idea that Authority needs some kind of reason to suspect that you’ve done something wrong before interfering with your business: a concept I have some sympathy with.
Don’t your cars have to undergo a regular test to ensure they’re street legal, regardless of probable cause? Why not subject drivers to something similar? The roads are a shared resource with a great deal of potential for disaster. It’s good that most aspects of the situation are scrutinised.
As Martini Enfield has pointed out, the situation described is the norm for many other countries, and isn’t a slippery slope to anything.
I’m not American. I don’t have a problem with random breath tests but I can understand people who do. IIRC you’ve travelled a fair bit - you must have noticed that different countries place different priorities on things. In Australia (well, Western Australia anyway) for example there is no regular testing of vehicles to ensure they’re street legal, which was a bit of an eyebrow-raiser for me after the UK’s MOT requirement. Most of the world regards a routinely gun-carrying police force as the norm but that doesn’t mean the UK should follow. Americans like being able to refuse a breath test. It probably costs them a few lives per year. Is it worth it? That’s their judgement.
II fully understand the objections people have to it not being compulsory, although I don’t share those objections myself, but what I don’t understand is the point of running the thing, if people can just opt out.
How is it in any way effective? If people are drink-driving, they’ll just opt out of the test, won’t they?
If I understand Bricker’s post 12 correctly, refusal comes with a penalty. You may still be fined, have your license suspended etc. What they can’t (or at least couldn’t) do is compel you to have a blood test at a random checkpoint without grounds.
Interesting. I don’t doubt that, but it seems then that the law is not the final word on the subject.
I think you are right, but I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that the legislature has contemplated the fact that drivers can refuse a test and be subject to civil sanctions. By doing this the executive and judicial seem to be short circuiting that route.
Your point is well taken, but I think that is different. Robbing a bank is an affirmative act which can put people in danger. Police have a legitimate interest in stopping you. Refusing to submit to a test is a passive act. The alleged DUI is over and what is needed now is evidentiary. No lives are in danger.
To me it would be like an ordinance saying that your grass must be cut properly or else pay a $50 fine. It seems like the law could fine you $50 for not cutting your grass, but having a judge sign a warrant and a officer drag you out of bed, put a lawn mower in your hands and then force you to mow seems to be outside of what the law intended.
Let’s also not forget that these checkpoints are also often used more as a means of confiscating vehicles and generating revenue than as a tool to reduce drunk driving.
As much as it would soothe the OCD in me, laws cannot always be consistent. They can try to be, and in most cases that would be the best recourse, but sometimes when you have a holiday where people drink a lot, it’s better to bend the law a little. I have no problems with these kinds of DUI checkpoints during New Year’s or some other such holiday
Well, yes in CA/San Jose they confiscated quite a number of vehicles, mostly from un-licensed drivers (which often means a illegal alien). They were impounded for 30 days by which time the cost of getting them back often exceeded the value of the vehicle, thus the car reverted to the impound lot/tow truck co/police. However, the SJPD found out two things- confiscation of vehicles wasn’t stopping unlicensed drivers, they just buy cheap cars. And that the program wasn’t much of a money-maker.
well I’ll just thank my lucky stars that you’re not a justice on the supreme court, then.
and I’m not actually sure it’s been implemented in the sweeping, unfettered manner in which you suggest. however, if it truly is, then i’d point out that the countries in which it happens don’t have the same type of constitutional protections vis-a-vis police intrusion into private life as we have here. not saying it’s better here, but you can’t just pay lip service to it, hand wave it away with “it’s reasonable to me!” and be done with your analysis.
police power relies in no small part on compelled voluntariness by the citizenry. they’ll ask, you’ll be free to refuse, but you’re not “free” to refuse in the psychological dynamic sense of the notion.
you would be flat-out surprised if you knew how many (petty) criminals pony up confessions to their crimes (which subsequently operate as the bulk of the prosecutor’s case-in-chief) after they’ve been arrested, even if they know full well their Miranda rights (right to remain silent, etc.). Had they muttered “Lawyer, please” as their first words at the jail house, many probably wouldn’t have been indicted.
Except that a yearly assessment judging the streetworthiness of your vehicle as a condition of receiving an annual registration sticker which is required to operate your vehicle on the road is not analagous to being subject to random, unqualified searches and seizures of your person. the proper analogy would be subjecting drivers to annual driving tests to make sure they are properly aware of driving rules and regulations.
if it helps you any more, think in the opposite terms: cops are not allowed to pull you over, impound your car, and conduct an emissions test on your vehicle unless they have probable cause to believe that your car isn’t in compliance with the vehicle code. (and still, they probably aren’t allowed to do this either, but the point is that, absent probable cause, they can’t stop you and verify streetworthiness, either)
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.
Alright, I think I have the solution to the problem. In every county or jurisdiction that does this, any citizens’ committee should be allowed to set up their own roadblocks after training and registration, like a police commission. Imagine the fun and frolic when it is set up at the local courthouse or legislature.