# Your papers please- DUI checkpoints now general purpose dragnets. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2010, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494 "2010-01-11T08:46:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/241 "2010-01-16T10:40:49Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I and it’s worth bearing in mind that at the moment the filter isn’t in place and the last time the Government tried it was proven the whole thing is an expensive, unworkable mess and gave up. Do you mean “gave up” in the sense of “tried, and is trying, again”? > [@](#): > > There’s no reason to believe this time around will be any different. The consensus from my colleagues at University (who are far more knowledgeable than I on the subject) is that “It won’t happen”, because it’s A) Unpopular, B) Expensive, and C) Unworkable. It works in some authoritarian countries. It is not all that expensive on the scale of Telstra (with whom I used to work managing a partnership here in the US). The issue is, will the people put up with it? Your claim of unpopularity goes to that point. Are there local polls and protests that would lead us to believe this is dead in the water? > [@](#): > > In short, it’s something that you’ve just found out about but is “Old News” to everyone here. I didn’t “just find out about it”. I just mentioned it on this thread as it seemed to be germane. If someone made such a proposal here, our citizens would go berserk in shooting it down. Has that happened there? > [@](#): > > And- even though I’m against a 'Net Censoring Scheme- the reality is that most of the sites on the blacklist are/would be things that right-thinking people wouldn’t want to be looking up anyway. It’s like being told it’s illegal for you to own a Spaceship. Theoretically it’s an outrage, but realistically, you’re never going to own one anyway, so why get worked up about it? This is getting ever more disturbing. Where do you draw the line pray tell about what you accept the government deciding what you could see or not see, own or not own, build or not build, study but not study, who you could communicate with about what or not? Why would you allow your government to implement what you say is unworkable? What if it is not? What could the purpose be other than political control and consolidation? Has this sort of thing ever been proposed, let alone implemented, for any reason other than that? > [@](#): > > But seriously, don’t go expecting me to do “Research Paper” level investigations just to convince you that I’m not making things up. I am just expecting you to provide quality cites. Goes with being at University, being able to sort dreck from good stuff. Or at this point, at least something. sicne you are backpdaling from presenting anything (as though you won’t be spending tons of time on here anyway the next few months 🙂 ) then yes, it does look like you made stuff up. I don’t think you did, but I don’t think that if you looked at the issue critically, you will find the support you think is there either. All in the name of fighting ignorance of mine and yours, I can’t let you walk away from a claim like you made, and a claim of “Cite”, without noting that I see you walking away with the request unfulfilled. Fine if you want to do that, but then I get to take your claim that “everyone knows this” as unsupported hyperbole, OK? > [@](#): > > I’ll wait for some of the other Aussies on the boards to come in and back me up, but the short answer to that is “Yes, they do”, with the obvious exceptions of small children and people living in Aboriginal missions and things like that. But you can’t google up _anything_? > [@](#): > > Also, after a Wiki search, it seems that [even the CDC in the US agrees that Alcohol Testing Checkpoints reduce accidents by around 20%](http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/research/checkpoints.htm)- and the data they used to get that information included RBTs in Australia. Possibly interesting, but that doesn’t even contain a citation to the study being referenced. I am not really persuaded by the verbiage there that they are suggesting a cause/effect rather than a correlation. Once they seem to do each. So it would be nice to see the actual study instead of a press release type page. > [@](#): > > That would, I think, support my view that RBTs reduce drink-driving accidents and therefore make the roads safer for everyone. Have you read the paper? Don’t be so credulous about reading an abstract or a press release 🙂 And I don’t see anything that suggests roads are “safer for everyone”, let alone that RBTs do that. That is a horse of an entirely different color. I am sure it was not addressed in any of the studies this meta-study refers to. For example, RBTs don’t happen here, so how can our roads be safer as a result of your police policies? > [@](#): > > Which I think I’ve done. I’m not polling all 22 million people in Australia just to satisfy you. Asserting something is not proving it. You said above you would wait for others to come along to even confirm it. I will await that too. But you have not shown me any data that hints that anyone beyond you alone know what you assert _everyone knows_, or even how anyone would know it. If I missed it in a post, please refer me to the post number and I will be happy to re-read and review it. > [@](#): > > It’s on the news, in the papers, the subject of innumerable Press Releases by the Police and Ministers For Various Road And Transport Related Things which are widely heard by anyone with a radio or TV or news website access when they’re released but entirely too time consuming to go and actually look up for the purposes of a disagreement on an internet messageboard, basically. That is interesting! All of that kind of stuff ends up on google forever here. Does it not end up indexed in your country? I would be surprised, but then, your country wants to limit what you can read clearly, maybe they already have limited it somehow? > [@](#): > > And I do wish you’d stop going on about “Speech Restrictions”. You have libel laws in the US, right? Do you consider the US to have “Speech Restrictions” because of them? No. You are actually comparing ancient common law such as libel, with the proposed limitations on communications in your country? Of course there are limits here, we like to say you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or my individual right to speech ends where it harms you. Other than that, pretty much its a free for all. And so it is hard for Americans to understand the proposed limitations on speech, to be implemented by technical means, as proposed and tested, by your government. > [@](#): > > Personally, I’d like to see a “Freedom of Speech” clause put into our Constitution, but for the time being we’ve got the next best thing. Without knowing the full details of your laws, that was my general impression too, until this came up in the news. Why _doesn’t_ Australia have something similar to our 1st Amendment’s speech clauses? > [@](#): > > At the risk of sounding inflammatory (and I’m honestly not trying to be), perhaps some of those principles are… in need of adjustment for the modern world? Perhaps “principles” does not mean what you think it means, or at least what I think you think it means? > [@](#): > > That’s an entirely different kettle of fish to polishing off a bottle of bourbon and climbing into a one-tonne motor vehicle capable of driving over 100km/h _on a road with lots of other cars and people on it_. So that is sufficient grounds in your view to allow police suspicionless searches? In the old days, no one had bombs and automatic guns in their houses too, but that has happened many times now. So should we allow suspicionless searches in our homes? Maybe all our data should not be private either? Why not allow the government to look at anything anytime, for any or no reason at all? Maybe we can just apologize to the Queen about that 18th Century kerfuffle with her predecessor, and ask back in, because it turns out what was important to us then is no longer applicable in the modern world? Really, how far would you have us take it? > [@](#): > > Why not petition your local MP to have the law amended so that all they _can_ do at a DUI checkpoint is breathalyse the driver, check that the vehicle is registered, and that’s it? Even if we wanted to, it doesn’t work so simply here. We have 2 hundred years of legal precedence. You can’t simply legislate that away, even if you wanted to. The precedents (and IANAL) include the plain site doctrine, which means if it can be seen then it is not a search. Unlikely you could say “except at a checkpoint” because then you are gonna have cops see a gun that is gonna kill someone later that night, or a known and wanted suspect will go by because only breathalyzers are allowed. That won’t fly, you can’t separate make stuff invisible by fiat in our legal system. But what you can do, is simply not search anyone unless you have a good reason too. Then you can be sure that your evidence will stand up in court! And you will achieve your goal to the extent we want it to be achieved as a society without infringing on our principles, such as “innocent until proven guilty” among others. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t that solve the problem for you? Safer roads, and no concerns about the police deciding to search people’s cars for no particular reason. No, it would not only not solve the problem, it would create new ones. > [@](#): > > I’d say that’s accurate at a basic level, but the nuances could probably keep a Ph.D student busy for some time. 😉 That’s why we have mutual embassies 🙂 > [@](#): > > I don’t see why not. Instead of just breathalysing random people, you’d just breathalyse every Nth person to avoid accusations of profiling. The rest of of wouldn’t have to change in any fundamental way that I can see. Well, for one thing, the breath test itself is a search in those circumstances, one without a warrant. We have implied consent laws, but in conjunction with protection against coerced searches. So, to use your phrase, you are introducing a new kettle of fish in coercing the search. I don’t have to give a breath test now if I don’t want to. In my state, as mentioned upthread, implied consent does not kick in until _after_ I am arrested. Then, the penalties I would risk are both administrative (loss of license) and criminal. I don’t consent, and I am not drunk, it makes the case hard to prosecute. See how it goes? Not advocating that as a legal strategy, readers, but the point is, I don’t have to give the test now, so how would you justify forcing someone to give it under your new law? In fact, what you are proposing is even further down the slippery slope that **Dinsdale** described than what we have now. I understand that the illusion or hope of safety is the appeal, but can’t you think of another way? I can - maybe no one is allowed out during some set of weekly hours that account for 20% of drunk driving incidents. That could work just as well. What could be wrong with that? Everyone gets to spend more time with family, or at work making money, or whatever? It is perfect, no police searches, no nothing. Or is it? ---
**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 16, 2010, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/242 "2010-01-16T14:09:39Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Do you mean “gave up” in the sense of “tried, and is trying, again”? They gave up that time and are having another go at it. As I’ve said, I don’t foresee this effort being any more successful than the last one. > [@](#): > > It works in some authoritarian countries. It is not all that expensive on the scale of Telstra (with whom I used to work managing a partnership here in the US). The issue is, will the people put up with it? Your claim of unpopularity goes to that point. Are there local polls and protests that would lead us to believe this is dead in the water? Australia is not nearly as politically active as the US at a grassroots level, unless you’re a [del]Commie[/del] Greenie (or a Uni Student :p) > [@](#): > > I didn’t “just find out about it”. I just mentioned it on this thread as it seemed to be germane. Seemed to be, but isn’t. > [@](#): > > If someone made such a proposal here, our citizens would go berserk in shooting it down. Has that happened there? No, because it’s not likely to happen. If it looks like it will actually happen, _then_ you’ll start seeing more vocal opposition to it. > [@](#): > > This is getting ever more disturbing. Where do you draw the line pray tell about what you accept the government deciding what you could see or not see, own or not own, build or not build, study but not study, who you could communicate with about what or not? I’ll take it on a case-by-case basis. > [@](#): > > Why would you allow your government to implement what you say is unworkable? What if it is not? What could the purpose be other than political control and consolidation? Has this sort of thing ever been proposed, let alone implemented, for any reason other than that? I believe the semi-official version is “Won’t someone think of _Families_???”; ie parents know jack shit about The Internet but they know it’s full of nasty things that Little Billy And Susie probably shouldn’t see. So The Government is stepping in to provide a filter to block the worst of it out; again so that if people see That Sort Of Thing then they’ve _really_ got to be looking for it. So, I can understand the sentiment, but I don’t think it’s practical or workable and the money would be better spent on educating people about… pretty much anything. > [@](#): > > I am just expecting you to provide quality cites. Goes with being at University, And since this isn’t part of my university course and you’re not one of my tutors, you’re going to be disappointed, I’m afraid. > [@](#): > > But you can’t google up _anything_? I _might_, but I’m not going to. Because I have actual work to do- as in, things that bring in an income- and in general better things to do with my time. And I’ve already made an effort to find the sort of thing you’re talking about. You’ve just linked to Wire Service news stories and decided because of what you’ve read there that Australia is some sort of Communist Authoritarian Tyranny when that’s clearly not the case. > [@](#): > > So it would be nice to see the actual study instead of a press release type page. I’m sure you can find it if you’re so interested. I don’t have access to university journals atm and you evidently do. > [@](#): > > And I don’t see anything that suggests roads are “safer for everyone”, let alone that RBTs do that. That is a horse of an entirely different color. I am sure it was not addressed in any of the studies this meta-study refers to. For example, RBTs don’t happen here, so how can our roads be safer as a result of your police policies? It was a general study of something like 23 countries, not just the US. And you’re still dodging the facts that it’s been shown- by scientific studies, regardless of whether they’ve been linked to your satisfaction or not- that RBTs/Sobriety Checkpoints _do_ work. > [@](#): > > That is interesting! All of that kind of stuff ends up on google forever here. Does it not end up indexed in your country? I would be surprised, but then, your country wants to limit what you can read clearly, maybe they already have limited it somehow? Oh, it’s probably there. I didn’t say it wasn’t. I just said it was entirely too much hassle to go and look for it, especially since you’ve got such exacting standards about what you’re prepared to accept as “proof”, from the sounds of it. > [@](#): > > You are actually comparing ancient common law such as libel, with the proposed limitations on communications in your country? Of course there are limits here, we like to say you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or my individual right to speech ends where it harms you. Other than that, pretty much its a free for all. And so it is hard for Americans to understand the proposed limitations on speech, to be implemented by technical means, as proposed and tested, by your government. Right now I’m struggling to think of anything that I can’t say in Australia that I could say in the US because of your Freedom Of Speech enshrinement, and the best I can come up with is things that might be qualified as Hate Speech and therefore restricted in parts of the US as well. What sort of things do you think you can say in the US that we can’t say here? Remember, Political & Economic matters are two things that we _do_ have freedom of speech about. So Government attempts to censor the internet can’t be for political consolidation because people have a legal right to criticise the Government and to discuss politics and economics. > [@](#): > > Without knowing the full details of your laws, that was my general impression too, until this came up in the news. Why _doesn’t_ Australia have something similar to our 1st Amendment’s speech clauses? Because we peacefully became Independent from the UK in 1901 and, being a “Civilised” country modelled on the Westminster System who became independent for the “right” reasons (ie not by armed revolution) it Was Just Understood that there was no need for a Freedom Of Speech clause since it was felt existing Common Law and the _de facto_ situation covered that anyway. Same reason there’s no right to bear arms in our Constitution either- it was just taken as read that people needed guns (what with most people living on farms and all that) and that there were penalties in place to deal with misuse of guns (ie shooting people), and that should be about it. > [@](#): > > So that is sufficient grounds in your view to allow police suspicionless searches? Also, how is Breathalysing someone a “search”? Anything the police can find during an RBT they could find by pulling up next to your car at the traffic lights, or walking past as you park on the side of the road. I think that’s a key component in our disagreement- I don’t consider an RBT a “search”, and even if it was, I certainly don’t think it’s an unreasonable one. > [@](#): > > Perhaps “principles” does not mean what you think it means, or at least what I think you think it means? In this context I’m translating it as “Theories On Ways In Which To Do Things”. > [@](#): > > In the old days, no one had bombs and automatic guns in their houses too, but that has happened many times now. So should we allow suspicionless searches in our homes? Firstly, there’s this thing known as the Castle Doctrine (“A Man’s Home Is His Castle…”) which dates from the 1600s and is the entire reason why the police need a warrant to search someone’s house. Said doctrine does not state “And Iffe a Manne Is Out Rydinge In His Carte Or Trap Or Uponne Hif Horfe Or Ox Or Other Beaft of Burden Whilft Under Ye Influence Of Spirituouf Liquorf; It Too Shall Be Confidered Hif Caftle And Shalt Not Be Subject To Interference By Ye Police Without Good Caufe In Ye Forme Of A Search Warrant”. Also, your house can’t drive around. They’re not even close to comparable. Does it count as a search if you’ve got a glasshouse visible from the footpath and you’ve got barrels of radioactive waste (for example) clearly visible within said glasshouse? > [@](#): > > Maybe all our data should not be private either? Why not allow the government to look at anything anytime, for any or no reason at all? That’s patently absurd and you know it. There are countless reasons why the Government shouldn’t have access to citizen’s private data. The only reasons I can see for not wanting RBTs are “Because I drink and drive a lot and I might get caught” or “Being A Paranoid Crazy Person Who Thin”. I don’t think you’re either of those, but surely you can see how your viewpoint looks to… I don’t know, all the members from the Commonwealth? > [@](#): > > Maybe we can just apologize to the Queen about that 18th Century kerfuffle with her predecessor, and ask back in, because it turns out what was important to us then is no longer applicable in the modern world? The reality is that the world when the US Constitution was written is _vastly_ different to the one we live in now. That doesn’t mean it should be screwn up and thrown away, but I think a lot of people need to understand that times have changed and what worked for guys in powdered wigs and buckskins doesn’t necessarily work for the realities of life in the 21st century. Just as we’re discovering that perhaps someone _should_ have put a “Free Speech” clause in the Australian Constitution, there’s nothing that says you guys can’t discover (for example) that perhaps someone _should_ have clarified the Second Amendment a bit more clearly at the time (to pick one example). > [@](#): > > Even if we wanted to, it doesn’t work so simply here. We have 2 hundred years of legal precedence. You can’t simply legislate that away, even if you wanted to. Australia was settled about the same time the US became Independent. We too have around 200 years of Common Law and Legal Precedents yet we managed to come > [@](#): > > No, it would not only not solve the problem, it would create new ones. Such as? Assuming that the “plain sight” rule stays (ie, if you can see it through the windows, it’s not a search) I struggle to think what those new problems might be. [quote] I don’t have to give a breath test now if I don’t want to. In my state, as mentioned upthread, implied consent does not kick in until _after_ I am arrested. Then, the penalties I would risk are both administrative (loss of license) and criminal. I don’t consent, and I am not drunk, it makes the case hard to prosecute. See how it goes? Not advocating that as a legal strategy, readers, but the point is, I don’t have to give the test now, so how would you justify forcing someone to give it under your new law? [/qupte] Make it against to refuse to provide a breath test. That’s how it works here- the penalties for refusing to provide a breath test are the same as DUI. In fact, what you are proposing is even further down the slippery slope that **Dinsdale** described than what we have now. I understand that the illusion or hope of safety is the appeal, but can’t you think of another way? > [@](#): > > I can - maybe no one is allowed out during some set of weekly hours that account for 20% of drunk driving incidents. That could work just as well. What could be wrong with that? Everyone gets to spend more time with family, or at work making money, or whatever? It is perfect, no police searches, no nothing. AIUI There’s a freedom of movement clause in our Constitution that would make such an idea Unconstitutional, nevermind patently silly. The reality- as several people from outside the US have said- is that RBTs do not make a Police State. Have you ever actually been to Australia? If you had, you’d see that the country is just as Democratic and Free- for all intents and purposes- as the US is. Working with Telstra doesn’t count- complaining about Telstra is one of Australia’s national sports, you know. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/243 "2010-01-16T14:11:53Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Demonstrably false in my town. I was threatened myself a month ago by an off duty cop who is a neighbor, having a bad day I guess and seeing me walk my dogs past his place as I do every day at that time, ran out of the house shouting I was lucky he didn’t shoot me and the dogs. Which he probably will one day just to be part of the club he is in. Already more than 10 percent have done just that in the last year and a half, More than ten percent of your town’s police force has shot someone and their dogs to death in the last eighteen months? Just how small a police force is this? ---
**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 16, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/244 "2010-01-16T14:19:38Z")
Sorry, the quote tags got horribly messed up. Hopefully you can still see the points I was trying to make though… ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/245 "2010-01-16T16:48:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Have you ever actually been to Australia? If you had, you’d see that the country is just as Democratic and Free- for all intents and purposes- as the US is. Beginning with the Constitution’s adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also know as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/246 "2010-01-16T18:35:20Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > No, it would not only not solve the problem, it would create new ones. I’m not seeing how it wouldn’t solve the problem. If you really do stop every x number of drivers rather than leaving it up to police discretion, then you don’t have to worry about cops checking on a pretext. But that being said, if somebody’s is driving through the checkpoint and appears intoxicated, he should be tested, so I think there’s room for some sort of police discretion there. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/247 "2010-01-16T19:09:41Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Just so you know, airport security measures, such as personal searches, have been around longer than DUI checkpoint ruling (most were enacted in 1972, the DUI ruling was in 1990). I think you would be hard pressed to argue airport security measures are the fault of DUI checkpoints. Listen to what I’ve said. We are not getting electronically naked because of a DUI precedent. Since there is no metric applied to an intrusion into the 4th Amendment there is no limit. There is nothing codified that says it is worth delaying people X amount of time to save Y number of lives. The entire concept revolves around “if it saves only 1 life”. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/248 "2010-01-16T20:04:20Z")
The problem, as I see it, is that most American citizens are ignorant of their rights. And this usually stems from apathy. Ask your neighbor if they’ve ever read the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, or the Constitution at full length and the I’m betting the answer would be invariably “no”. It always strikes me as incredulous when people make the argument that: 'you have NO idea what the Founding Fathers were thinking at that time". Bullshit. Read the Federalist Papers and educate yourselves. WE THE PEOPLE are the power in this country. We ENTRUST our government to NOT fuck up and violate Constitutional law. Unfortunately, our society has become so enamored with the idea of PERSONAL SAFETY to forgo your rights. In reality, alot of our elected officials are guilty of violating the oath they took. Some people ask, well, why aren’t they held accountable? It’s because of apathy. It’s akin to drawing a line in the sand over and over and daring our representatives to step across it. After you draw enough lines, your back will be in a corner. I offer an analogy: do you think Hitler started putting Jews in cattle cars two weeks after he was in power. NO. He started out writing editorials saying how the Jews were causing all the problems in Germany. After edicting that all Jews wear stars for identification and Kristallnacht still there was no resistence. Its when they were finally loaded ONTO the cattle cars that one spoke out saying OK, enough is ENOUGH. But it’s too late then. Is my analogy extreme? Maybe. Is the Constitution outdated because of whats going on today? No. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/249 "2010-01-17T01:37:27Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I cannot reasonably choose to avoid public streets and roadways. > [@not\_alice](#): > > You can avoid them perhaps, but not everyone can. Some can’t drive for whatever reason, license, ability, or health, and then can not travel other than by bus, train, or plane, all subject to search. This becomes a Federal issue if the travel is interstate. I wrote that I **cannot** reasonably choose to avoid public streets and roadways. The alternative would be for me to remain on my private property for the rest of my life. However, even this is not a deterrent to the police; I have heard of people being arrested for DUI even when parked in their driveway on their own property. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/250 "2010-01-17T05:46:59Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > How does stopping me and everyone else unlucky enough to be passing a particular point at a particular time prevent DUI? If I don’t know when and where, then cognitively, it is as though it doesn’t exist, just like a speed trap. It is only a pipe dream that it is cognitively a deterrent to others that I had to pass through. It works two ways - first for those that happen to be passing that point that are actually drunk, they get caught and prosecuted. Secondly it works because responsible, thoughtful and law abiding citizens know that if they do drive drunk, they stand a very real chance of having to pass through a checkpoint. Pass through a checkpoint and you license is gone. Most people acknowledge this, most people don’t want to get caught, everybody I know supports anti drink drive laws. We also know, that if you drive over the limit (but not falling down drunk), absent an accident or random breath testing the chances of getting caught are vanishingly small. **It is for the deterrent effect as much as anything else that the roadblocks are set up.** ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/251 "2010-01-17T05:49:37Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I wrote that I **cannot** reasonably choose to avoid public streets and roadways. The alternative would be for me to remain on my private property for the rest of my life. However, even this is not a deterrent to the police; I have heard of people being arrested for DUI even when parked in their driveway on their own property. Really? Can you provide a cite for that? I have heard of two such cases back home, in BOTH instances, the police had followed the driver home to the driveway. There was one case in Singapore recently where a doctor was charged and convicted of drunk driving when she was found drunk in her parked car, which was on an expressway. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/252 "2010-01-17T06:17:34Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Maybe, but the basic organizing principles of your country is different than ours. Otherwise you would just be a star on our field of blue by now. Just kidding about that last one. 🙂 Well our founding documents may be different, but are you trying to say that as a drunk, you have the right and freedom to pilot a one tonne vehicle even when the law mandates that drunks don’t have the skills to do so safely? > [@not\_alice](#): > > That is not how it ends up working in practice here. Too often, the forced stops are pretext stops. Well THAT is of course a whole 'nother problem. If your police aren’t trustworthy then NO law is ever going to work. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/253 "2010-01-17T06:28:38Z")
OK…so I figured perhaps some actual research in order… I would say this is pretty unequivocal… [http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc249.pdf](http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc249.pdf) (I jumped straight to the conclusion) ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/254 "2010-01-17T07:25:39Z")
Okay, new thread for the Australian Free Speech debate is up [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12003845). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/255 "2010-01-17T16:24:39Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > It makes no sense to argue that the law is bad by using examples of the law being broken. I’m sure somewhere there’s a prohibition against a policeman summarily executing you. But that’s a silly law, because if he “fears for his safety” in some abstract way he can shoot you for his “own protection.” I was just countering the idea that the police have no right to search your private vehicle. On paper, that’s true, but there are so many exceptions to the rule (legal ones) that make the protection all but academic. Bottom line is that if the police want to search your vehicle, they can concoct a legal reason to do so. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > What aspect of a uniformly imposed block that asks you for identification and proof of registration, two items you are required by law to have with you while driving, is _unreasonable_? The “block” part. This is a free society. I should have the right to go about my business unimpeded unless someone can articulate a reasonable suspicion that I am violating the law. I understand that cars are different than horses. Are you saying that with advances in technology, we must give up freedoms in order to be safe? I dispute that. ---
**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 17, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/256 "2010-01-17T23:13:04Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The “block” part. This is a free society. I should have the right to go about my business unimpeded unless someone can articulate a reasonable suspicion that I am violating the law. And I- and, I’d wager, most other reasonable people- don’t consider an RBT to be an “impedement” to going about our business. On account of how quick and unobtrusive they are. > [@](#): > > I understand that cars are different than horses. Are you saying that with advances in technology, we must give up freedoms in order to be safe? Not so much “give up” as “have amended”. I know there are more than a few people on the boards with this idea that The Government should be responsible for Defence, The Post Office, Federal Highways, and Nothing Else. That might have been a fine ideal 300 years ago, but you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tune and the reality is that it doesn’t work that way anymore and it can’t be changed. Or, Times Change, if you prefer. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/257 "2010-01-17T23:25:20Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I’m not seeing how it wouldn’t solve the problem. If you really do stop every x number of drivers rather than leaving it up to police discretion, then you don’t have to worry about cops checking on a pretext. Think about your set oc choices for “location” for instance. > [@](#): > > But that being said, if somebody’s is driving through the checkpoint and appears intoxicated, he should be tested, so I think there’s room for some sort of police discretion there. Define “should”? If the sequence leading up to the test is not a legal search, then the test itself will be inadmissible in a criminal case, so what is the point? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/258 "2010-01-17T23:28:30Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > More than ten percent of your town’s police force has shot someone and their dogs to death in the last eighteen months? > > Just how small a police force is this? No one has shot any dogs that I am aware of, but yes, I believe our force is about 40 people, and that would put the number at about 10%. Nice club, huh? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/259 "2010-01-17T23:31:37Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > **It is for the deterrent effect as much as anything else that the roadblocks are set up.** That is a fine hypothesis. Any citations that prove it works better than any other alternatives? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/260 "2010-01-17T23:35:05Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Well our founding documents may be different, but are you trying to say that as a drunk, you have the right and freedom to pilot a one tonne vehicle even when the law mandates that drunks don’t have the skills to do so safely? I am suggesting that regardless of my state of inebriation, my rights, and everyone’s are inalienable. > [@](#): > > Well THAT is of course a whole 'nother problem. If your police aren’t trustworthy then NO law is ever going to work. Which is why it is better to simply constrain the cops. Individual rights trump police operating manuals every time. Eventually, sigh. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=14)