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.
I think a roadblock that is fishing for criminal activity is exactly what Mr. Franklin was talking about.
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.
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.
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.
Could be. There’d so many drunks on the road driving erratically they’d have a hard time hitting each other.
Your citation is flawed:
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?
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 articlethat expands the reasoning further:
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?
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.
It makes me uncomfortable, which is why I started the thread. But I think it’s legal.
| GHSA 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.