"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

Phoenix said:

Full Story HERE


Street Judges? Reminds me of Judge Dredd. "I AM the law"
Seems like this should violate some type of separation of powers. I also wonder what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" to take the blood since this is a checkpoint situation. Many times refusal constitutes "reasonable suspicion" which is bogus.
I believe checkpoint are unconstitutional period. This IMO is another example of the American people are tolerant of an unconstitutional practice because it has become the norm and it is "for the public safety" or "the greater good". Now the government takes that practice to another level to see if they can get away with it also.

Click to expand...

Texas has had them for some time, and in Texas, if you refuse a breath test, they take you to a hospital or clinic, strap you into a gurney (the same kind used for lethal injections), and draw your blood. Last night (New Year's Eve), they had them going full force, and made LOTS of arrests. How else do you think they can afford to pay for all those helicopters and crime labs? It's a pyramid scheme of sorts. If you are poor or middle class, you get thrown into the pyramid, and then you get sucked dry of your money. If you don't have money, then you go into the plantation jail, or even prison, system here, where people work their asses off, and the state or county makes one hell of a profit from it. You know, I had no idea that this kind of money making machine even existed until I got my own DWI, which I am still on probation for. Now don't get me wrong. I broke the law, and deserved what I got, but this experience opened my eyes to what the court system in Texas is doing. IMHO, the judicial system, along with the police departments, ARE crimes. That's what they have become. Justice in Texas is all about the money now, and how to wring as much of it as they can out of the citizenry, and nothing more. There is no justice here. The president of the Houston chapter of MADD was arrested for DWI, and so was a judge known as the hanging judge for drunk drivers. Both got off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If you are rich or important, that's what you get. If you are not, then they go medieval on you, until they have sucked every penny you have from you. Class warfare? You bet your ass it is. Even so, I am not complaining about my punishment. That opened my eyes too. I won't drive after drinking beer any more, and that just might save me a lot of grief. After all, I don't want to die, nor do I want to end up killing someone else either, but drinking and driving is a good way to end up doing both. So I'll take my sentence and learn from it.

Phoenix said:

maybe someone spilled a beer on you and you smell like alcohol. We could give a hundred examples. i shouldn't be forced to give my blood period. Do you have to give your blood as a truck driver?

Click to expand...

But there would still be probable cause. If the checkpoints simply ascertain if a person may have been drinking or not with no intrusion, I have no problem with it and it isn't constitutional. If the police officer determines through your actions or your breath that there is probable cause that you may be driving drunk, there is no problem with the breathalyzer or blood test...

danarhea said:

I won't drive after drinking beer any more, and that just might save me a lot of grief. After all, I don't want to die, nor do I want to end up killing someone else either, but drinking and driving is a good way to end up doing both. So I'll take my sentence and learn from it.

Click to expand...

+1 I am glad you learned from the experience. Sadly, so many do not and are repeat offenders. The fatal and permanent nature of injuries and deaths caused by driving while intoxicated has necessitated some of these somewhat extreme measures. It seems like some states ARE going overboard, but it wouldn't be necessary if it wern't for the irresponsible minority who are KILLING people...

That being said, I support check points in which the officer is initially non-invasive and lets you go on your way if you show no signs/probable cause of being intoxicated. If there is alcohol on your breath or the officer can smell alcohol in the car (or obviously sees an open can/cup/bottle of alcohol) there is probable cause and I completely support breathalyzers/blood tests in such situations. I see nothing unconstitutional about that...

ludahai said:

+1 I am glad you learned from the experience. Sadly, so many do not and are repeat offenders. The fatal and permanent nature of injuries and deaths caused by driving while intoxicated has necessitated some of these somewhat extreme measures. It seems like some states ARE going overboard, but it wouldn't be necessary if it wern't for the irresponsible minority who are KILLING people...

That being said, I support check points in which the officer is initially non-invasive and lets you go on your way if you show no signs/probable cause of being intoxicated. If there is alcohol on your breath or the officer can smell alcohol in the car (or obviously sees an open can/cup/bottle of alcohol) there is probable cause and I completely support breathalyzers/blood tests in such situations. I see nothing unconstitutional about that...

Click to expand...

Then it should also be good enough for the president of the Houston Chapter of MADD. She is also a drunk driver, but didn't have to go through what everybody else has to. Like I said, there are 2 standards of justice in Texas. One for the rich and important, and one for everybody else.

Simply driving a car at 2 AM is not cause for reasonable suspiscion. This **** needs to stop.

I totally agree with you danarhea

Phoenix said:

Full Story HERE


Street Judges? Reminds me of Judge Dredd. "I AM the law"
Seems like this should violate some type of separation of powers. I also wonder what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" to take the blood since this is a checkpoint situation. Many times refusal constitutes "reasonable suspicion" which is bogus.
I believe checkpoint are unconstitutional period. This IMO is another example of the American people are tolerant of an unconstitutional practice because it has become the norm and it is "for the public safety" or "the greater good". Now the government takes that practice to another level to see if they can get away with it also.

Click to expand...

I've said it before: the "slippery slope" is NOT a fallacy, if the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

I've been through a lot of sobriety checkpoints over the years. In every instance, I was stone-cold sober. I had done nothing illegal, but was still subjected to a substantial travel delay, inconvenience, and--in essence--an unreasonable search and seizure with zero suspicion on the part of the officer that I'd been drinking. My only "crime" was to be driving on a particular street on that particular day.

There is no way on earth that this is not an unconstitutional action by local government.

Kal'Stang said:

Interesting. Here in Idaho you don't have a right to refuse a breathalizer test. If you do then the cop can take your license away on the spot. It is something that must be agreed upon before they will issue your license to you. I figured it to be a pretty sensible requirement and am actually surprised that other states don't have it.

Click to expand...

That was my thought. Maybe in Florida they are behind the times.

I thought every state already had these provisions in the law that stated that if you refuse a roadside sobriety test, youlose your license.

Why would a judge need to be there to issue a warrant at that moment, and what judge would want to out on a cold night, most likely a holiday, doing that?

SgtRock said:

I never said that, you did. What about the majority of those going through sobriety checkpoints that have not been drinking? Dosn't the 4th amendment apply to them?

Click to expand...

What kind of search is somebody subjected to if they go through a checkpoint and have not been drinking?

They are waved through and they go on their way.

Where is the illegal search?

Phoenix said:

Full Story HERE


Street Judges? Reminds me of Judge Dredd. "I AM the law"
Seems like this should violate some type of separation of powers. I also wonder what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" to take the blood since this is a checkpoint situation. Many times refusal constitutes "reasonable suspicion" which is bogus.
I believe checkpoint are unconstitutional period. This IMO is another example of the American people are tolerant of an unconstitutional practice because it has become the norm and it is "for the public safety" or "the greater good". Now the government takes that practice to another level to see if they can get away with it also.

Click to expand...

I think anytime this kind of **** occurs citizens should get together and go through these check points and refuse the breathalyzer. Anytime the government wishes to infringe on rights the citizens should make it as financially and time costly as possible.

The Giant Noodle said:

Yes and no. Now, like the OP posted, you can not refuse to take the test in some States. They will FORCE the person.... by whatever means possible.... to restrain you. Then forcably take a syringe.... put in in your body.... and then take your blood..... if they even suspect you to be under the influence.

Click to expand...

Could you please give me links to wherever you obtained this information?

Thx.

.

Catz Part Deux said:

I've been through a lot of sobriety checkpoints over the years. In every instance, I was stone-cold sober. I had done nothing illegal, but was still subjected to a substantial travel delay, inconvenience, and--in essence--an unreasonable search and seizure with zero suspicion on the part of the officer that I'd been drinking. My only "crime" was to be driving on a particular street on that particular day.

There is no way on earth that this is not an unconstitutional action by local government.

Click to expand...

Good for you. Stone cold sober is the only way to drive.

The people in this picture were subjected to a substantial travel delay, also.

Drunk Driver Accident
448 x 440 | 43KB
nylawyercaraccident.com

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

Good for you. Stone cold sober is the only way to drive.

The people in this picture were subjected to a substantial travel delay, also.

Click to expand...

Oh give me a break. :roll:
Lets bring out photos of accidents! Here is one from an elderly driver!

Mason66 said:

What kind of search is somebody subjected to if they go through a checkpoint and have not been drinking?

They are waved through and they go on their way.

Where is the illegal search?

Click to expand...

I have been through checkpoints where, despite being sober (I don't drink), I was required to show license and registration ("Your papers, citizen!"), was asked where I was going and what I had been doing (I've been at work, I'm going home, duh), and other questions that were actually none of their damn business, given that I had violated NO traffic laws or other laws.

I frigging hate roadblocks. It's one step closer to being stopped on the street and questioned just because you're there.

Goshin said:

It's one step closer to being stopped on the street and questioned just because you're there.

Click to expand...

That happens a lot in this country. Especially if you're poor and black. Too many people have let it slide for 40 years because it was happening to someone else. Now the rest of us are getting stopped and searched. Just getting on an airplane is considered probable cause now. We let them treat us all like criminals, even though we're not breaking any laws.

The Giant Noodle said:

Oh give me a break. :roll:
Lets bring out photos of accidents! Here is one from an elderly driver!

Click to expand...

Accidents are what it's all about. Let's by all means compare photos of accidents caused by alcohol with those caused by those "elderly" drivers.

Or, we could look at some dry old dull statistics:

It has been estimated that 7 percent of all crashes and 44 percent of fatal crashes involve alcohol use. The risk of a fatal crash is estimated to be from three to fifteen times higher for a drunk driver (one with a BAC of at least 0.10 to 100 milligrams of alcohol for each 100 milliliters of blood—the legal limit in most U.S. states) than for a nondrinking driver. Alcohol is more frequently present in fatal than in nonfatal crashes. About 25 to 35 percent of those drivers requiring ER care for injuries resulting from such crashes have a BAC of 0.10 or greater.

Goshin said:

I have been through checkpoints where, despite being sober (I don't drink), I was required to show license and registration ("Your papers, citizen!"), was asked where I was going and what I had been doing (I've been at work, I'm going home, duh), and other questions that were actually none of their damn business, given that I had violated NO traffic laws or other laws.

I frigging hate roadblocks. It's one step closer to being stopped on the street and questioned just because you're there.

Click to expand...

Exactly right. People who support them appear to have zero understanding of the constitution.

Mason66 said:

That was my thought. Maybe in Florida they are behind the times.

I thought every state already had these provisions in the law that stated that if you refuse a roadside sobriety test, youlose your license.

Why would a judge need to be there to issue a warrant at that moment, and what judge would want to out on a cold night, most likely a holiday, doing that?

Click to expand...

I read an article concerning the same types of checkpoints that have been used around the San Antonio area. Towards the end there were some interviews with DWI defense lawyers. One lawyer said that he has a large number of DWI cases that have been in the courts system for over five years. These cases were attributed to warrants that had not been filled out correctly. I guess that answers your "What kind of judge" question.

Catz Part Deux said:

Exactly how is this constitutional? Freaking Florida.

Click to expand...

It's constitutional because we've freaked out about drunk driving and as a result will allow ANY intrusion by the police into the matter. Same reason DUI check points and the such are "constitutional". Not enough people complain because no one wants to think rationally about it.

Dittohead not! said:

Accidents are what it's all about. Let's by all means compare photos of accidents caused by alcohol with those caused by those "elderly" drivers.

Or, we could look at some dry old dull statistics:

It has been estimated that 7 percent of all crashes and 44 percent of fatal crashes involve alcohol use. The risk of a fatal crash is estimated to be from three to fifteen times higher for a drunk driver (one with a BAC of at least 0.10 to 100 milligrams of alcohol for each 100 milliliters of blood—the legal limit in most U.S. states) than for a nondrinking driver. Alcohol is more frequently present in fatal than in nonfatal crashes. About 25 to 35 percent of those drivers requiring ER care for injuries resulting from such crashes have a BAC of 0.10 or greater.

Click to expand...

Of that 44%, they'll include any and all BAC. Meaning that someone with a BAC of .015 (one beer) would be counted as alcohol related death if said person were so unlucky as to be involved in a fatal accident on the way home.

jamesrage said:

I think anytime this kind of **** occurs citizens should get together and go through these check points and refuse the breathalyzer. Anytime the government wishes to infringe on rights the citizens should make it as financially and time costly as possible.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah! james, organization really could put a halt to this garbage. Form a caravan as long as possible and have everyone soak a handkerchief in beer the day before, then put the damp handkerchief in the breast pocket, refuse the breath test, and give them bunches of clean blood draws to work on in the lab. The downside would be the traffic jam from Hell.

It's a really great idea.

Phoenix said:

Full Story HERE


Street Judges? Reminds me of Judge Dredd. "I AM the law"
Seems like this should violate some type of separation of powers. I also wonder what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" to take the blood since this is a checkpoint situation. Many times refusal constitutes "reasonable suspicion" which is bogus.
I believe checkpoint are unconstitutional period. This IMO is another example of the American people are tolerant of an unconstitutional practice because it has become the norm and it is "for the public safety" or "the greater good". Now the government takes that practice to another level to see if they can get away with it also.

Click to expand...

When you're an idiot who drives drunk, you give up your rights.

IMHO.



File this thread topic under BFD.

Ikari said:

Of that 44%, they'll include any and all BAC. Meaning that someone with a BAC of .015 (one beer) would be counted as alcohol related death if said person were so unlucky as to be involved in a fatal accident on the way home.

Click to expand...

Does that mean you think the stats are being inflated? Why would anyone do that?
Alcohol, according to the link, is the #2 cause of accidents, with fast aggressive driving being the first. I'm still not convinced that checkpoints are the best idea, or that they are even constitutional, but both drunk driving and fast aggressive driving needs to be severely cracked down on. It seems likely to me that the two are related as well, as alcohol tends to cloud people's judgement.

hazlnut said:

When you're an idiot who drives drunk, you give up your rights.

IMHO.

Click to expand...

And IMO your opinion is very dangerous.

1. This is a checkpoint, dealing with those potentially over the limit and those who are NOT.
2. regardless of what crime you are /ACCUSED/ of doing, DUE PROCESS is still a term with meaning.