Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
RMNP DUI checkpoint
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 3 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By beavs
From Ft. Collins, CO
Jul 19, 2011
HBL wrote:
Tell that to my sister who almost lost her life to a drunk driver and had to spend 3 months in ICU and untold hours in therapy and till this day still has issues. Or tell that to the kids that just lost their mother or father to some ass that was drunk. That's a bullshit point. According to the Supreme Court checkpoints are not illegal if they follow a set criteria that are clearly defined. Such as stopping every 4th car or every car for that matter. Many people that have warrants major or minor are also caught at checkpoints. A minor inconvenience. Over 35,000 people per year are killed by drunk drivers why the hell so pissed off about a checkpoint? The 2 beer thing subjective. If it's piss beer like coors that's a 3/2 beer you'd probably piss that out pretty quick. But if you drink a good beer that's over 6% you better wait.


I apologize for not being more clear, I should have known that post would eventually hit a nerve with someone the way its worded. I'll clarify again, my point is in regard to the limits and the specifics of the laws (by no means am I suggesting that drunk driving should be legal). I just personally believe the laws are not reasonable due to economic and political factors and that it has little to do with safety. Politicians and lawmakers take advantage of people with reason to get emotional for their own benefit, it's a sad reality.

FLAG
By JoeP
From Littleton, CO
Jul 19, 2011
wlashgraham wrote:
If your really that pissed off about this perceived transgression, rally your local community against DUI checkpoints and pass legislation limiting your local or state law enforcement officials. Democracy is fun that way.


I think you missed the earlier posts regarding MADD and its influence/power. You realize that no legislator would vote for such a law, as it would be political suicide. No voter initiative would be successful because MADD would crush anything of the sort through scare proganda tactics - "protect the children" will be the rally cry.

But more importantly, any state that even attempted to do this would likely be threatened with revocation of all federal highway funding. See Wisconsin about 10 years ago, state movement to lower the drinking to 18, MADD freaked out, and the Feds threatened to revoke highway funding. Legal age stayed at 21.

Similarly, I believe the threat of losing fed highway funds is why so many (if not all) states have adopted the .08 limit.

FLAG
By Rick Blair
From Denver
Jul 19, 2011
This is a novel auto blocking belay device.  I thi...
Another point is the work around here with the 10th amendment to the US Constitution ( State Rights ). The fed cannot regulate drinking age or DUI BAC limits. They get around this by pulling federal highway funding for any state which does not comply to federal standards. Talk about a slippery slope.

The 9th amendment is totally ignored. Our constitution and the reasoning/philosophy behind it ( our guide book as citizens ) is not taught in history in detail in our schools. The constitution was written for citizens to read and interpret, not just supreme court justices.

Sometimes I feel like its George Orwell's "Animal Farm" and there are just way to many horses in the Barn.

FLAG
By beavs
From Ft. Collins, CO
Jul 19, 2011
Peter Stokes wrote:
Guideline #1? That said, I am kind of tired of hearing how evil people are who drive after 1 or 2 beers, and next to nothing about all the other reasons people get hurt and killed in automobile crashes. It's stupid and irresponsible to drive drunk- it's also stupid and irresponsible to drive too fast for conditions, to drive aggressively, to drive while texting or talking on a cell phone, to drive while turning around and yelling at your kids, and to run stop signs and red lights. If you can drive safely after 2 beers you should be allowed to... if you can't drive safely when sober you should not be allowed to. The problem isn't one type of bad driving, it's bad driving.


I agree, if it were really about safety the laws and the enforcement of them would go much further to address other causes of accidents. Laws that pass almost always somehow tap into anger and/or fear in voters. How would a politician get enough people angry at their grandparents, kids, or the weather? Drunk drivers are easy money.

FLAG
By Nikolai Daiss-Fechner
From Boulder, CO
Jul 19, 2011
Bouldering at Bishop
Going to play devil's advocate a little here

There is significant research that BAC levels of .08 and .1 have measurable effects on reaction time. When you are in a car, you are in control of a very destructive object. Do you think that having a slowed reaction time as compared to being completely sober is acceptable? What if a child runs out in front of you and that half a second is the difference between hitting it and avoiding it? Could you live with yourself if you were constantly thinking about how a faster reaction might have saved a life? Even if you don't "feel" intoxicated, you cannot argue that there is an impact on reaction times and decision making, even at "low" BAC levels. The research is available if you feel like googleing... Part of me likes to think that when driving, you should have 100% of your "capabilities."

Article

More
- a start

That said, I too have driven from southern sun with two beer under the belt. And I question the practice of checkpoints to the extent that they seem like a violation of rights.

FLAG
By Rick Blair
From Denver
Jul 19, 2011
This is a novel auto blocking belay device.  I thi...
Nikolai Daiss-Fechner wrote:
When you are in a car, you are in control of a very destructive object. Do you think that having a slowed reaction time as compared to being completely sober is acceptable?

I totally agree, we should have checkpoints all over to determine if everyone is 100% alert. Are you a little buzzed? haven't slept ( which studies haves shown can be worse than DUI)? Just got in a heated argument with a family member? Left a funeral? Talking to somone in the car? Phone? Into that song just a little too much? Snacking? Drinking coffee? The only standard here can be 100% attention and reaction time to drive a car.

FLAG
By beavs
From Ft. Collins, CO
Jul 19, 2011
Nikolai Daiss-Fechner wrote:
Going to play devil's advocate a little here There is significant research that BAC levels of .08 and .1 have measurable effects on reaction time. When you are in a car, you are in control of a very destructive object. Do you think that having a slowed reaction time as compared to being completely sober is acceptable? What if a child runs out in front of you and that half a second is the difference between hitting it and avoiding it? Could you live with yourself if you were constantly thinking about how a faster reaction might have saved a life? Even if you don't "feel" intoxicated, you cannot argue that there is an impact on reaction times and decision making, even at "low" BAC levels. The research is available if you feel like googleing... Part of me likes to think that when driving, you should have 100% of your "capabilities." Article More - a start That said, I too have driven from southern sun with two beer under the belt. And I question the practice of checkpoints to the extent that they seem like a violation of rights.


I'm suspicious about the research cited here. I seem to remember learning in stats that any sampling size of less than 50 is unreliable (correct me if I'm wrong, it's been awhile!). These 2 studies had sampling sizes of 38 and 16. They also didn't seem to really "prove" much of anything at the "moderate intoxication" levels.

FLAG
By Nikolai Daiss-Fechner
From Boulder, CO
Jul 19, 2011
Bouldering at Bishop
I'm not trying to say that 100% attention is achievable. Only that this is one thing that people can actually control. Not sleeping, bad day, etc just "happen." Drinking doesn't. That is a choice we have the opportunity to consciously make. Why not stack the cards in our favor? (I'm intentionally taking an extreme view here... not necessarily advocating anything). Oh and the research is 30 seconds of google... by no means exhaustive. You could find many more studies.

FLAG
 
By Jeremy Kasmann
From Denver, CO
Jul 19, 2011
beavs wrote:
I'm suspicious about the research cited here. I seem to remember learning in stats that any sampling size of less than 50 is unreliable (correct me if I'm wrong, it's been awhile!). These 2 studies had sampling sizes of 38 and 16. They also didn't seem to really "prove" much of anything at the "moderate intoxication" levels.


As I read it, the first study specifically stated there was no meaningful difference between sober and .05.

FLAG
By Jeremy Kasmann
From Denver, CO
Jul 19, 2011
Nikolai Daiss-Fechner wrote:
I'm not trying to say that 100% attention is achievable. Only that this is one thing that people can actually control. Not sleeping, bad day, etc just "happen." Drinking doesn't. That is a choice we have the opportunity to consciously make. Why not stack the cards in our favor? (I'm intentionally taking an extreme view here... not necessarily advocating anything). Oh and the research is 30 seconds of google... by no means exhaustive. You could find many more studies.


Amount of sleep, texting, talking to others in the car, music, drinking (both alcoholic before the drive and non-alcoholic while driving), and many other distractions are all things we can control. The real question is, how does each affect real world accident rates (ie, not response time in a lab test)? And how do those rates compare to .05 and .08 BAC?

FLAG
By RyanO
From sunshine
Jul 19, 2011
Maybe i'm just a skinny guy, but I learned a long time ago not to drive away from the southern sun with two beers under my belt.. If I'm driving, one beer and then water from there on out - maybe a sip here and there, but two sosun microbrews means duitime for anyone. I actually got pulled over years ago after having dinner and two beers at the spot, I blew a .05, they gave me a DUI, and ($4K later) I got out of it.

Oh yea, and for you "anti police state" people: Yea some things about the way our governments are run kinda sucks, but that's the way it is so get used to it. The system was designed to go nowhere fast, so not much is going to change in the near future - that's a "Good Thing". If you don't like it, feel free to move to a more progressive country, like.. Venezuela. That way there's more room here for the people that want to play by the rules :) Thanks.

FLAG
By Jeremy Kasmann
From Denver, CO
Jul 19, 2011
Shumin Wu wrote:
Yes but BAC is one of the few easily enforceable rules, which is why it became a law and rigorously enforced. Same thing with seat belt. Amount of sleep is enforced indirectly (through daily driving limit) with truck drivers, but wouldn't be easily enforced for general public. Texting law was obsolete before it became law: what about checking e-mails, browsing web, or reply a text with speech recognition?


Sure, but the post I responded to was about the choices we make and can control, not laws that can be reasonably enforced. Put it another way: what percentage of MADD contributors and volunteers text or talk on the phone while driving?

FLAG
By P.K.
Jul 19, 2011
Back in 2002, I started a grassroots campaign in Colorado called DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers), and was trying to get an initiative on the ballet to raise the BAC to .20 so one could still party reasonably and drive home safely....turns out no one else likes to party anymore

FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Jul 19, 2011
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W.
caughtinside wrote:
The police do not have the power to forcibly interrogate you. That right to remain silent? You have it at all times. However, if a cop asks you questions and you don't say a word, it looks suspicious and they can press it into probable cause to detain you (although not to search your car w/o permission or a warrant.) Regarding the refusal to take a test, I think that is part of the terms of your license. The whole driving is a privilege, not a right thing. So I think technically you can refuse both breath and blood tests, but that will result in automatic suspension of your license.


all roadside tests are only performed to help establish probable cause. And yes you can refuse without loss of license. Those tests are not even admisable in court due to their inaccuracies.

Sorry David. I don't have a source for you to read. But the government is not the best source.

FLAG
By matt.l.b
Jul 19, 2011
Personal
Greg D wrote:
And yes you can refuse without loss of license


Upon getting a drivers license you sign a contract with the state whereby you agree that failure to comply with an officer asking you to submit to that test voids that contract. The repercussions of this is losing your driving privileges for one year.

FLAG
By M Sprague
Administrator
From New England
Jul 19, 2011
Lichen head. Me, with my usual weatherbeaten, lich...
You guys just have to learn how to drive like they do in Dukes of Hazzard, and then you wouldn't worry about a little 'ol checkpoint.

FLAG
 
By mike h
From Denver, CO
Jul 19, 2011
vv, laos
Greg D wrote:
And yes you can refuse without loss of license. Those tests are not even admisable in court due to their inaccuracies.


Really?

"Refusal to take the test is both admissible in court and a basis for revocation of a driver's license." -state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/ol...

FLAG
By James Beissel
From Boulder, CO
Jul 19, 2011
Ghostride da whip!
Goodwin's Law in three pages

FLAG
By Derek Lawrence
From Bailey
Jul 19, 2011
Cocaine Corner
Mike h wrote:
"Really?

"Refusal to take the test is both admissible in court and a basis for revocation of a driver's license." -www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/COLORADO%20DRUNK%20>>>"

you left out the part
"when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer who has probable cause"
You can refuse roadsides which are "the stand on 1 ft." etc., tests which they use to establish the probable cause for the breath/blood test...

What I want to know is if you can refuse it if it's the first thing they request? I had a friend get shuttled thru a checkpoint in Grand County CO (with all traffic), rolled the window down and had a cop shove a breathalyzer in his face and say "blow". This was at 10am on 4th July couple years ago...

He passed but can you say no to such a request? What probable cause would they have?

FLAG
By P.K.
Jul 20, 2011
If anybody wants the true info to go michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?...

and then Colorado Revise Statutes and then read C.R.S. 42-4-1301.1 for the express consent statute

FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Jul 20, 2011
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W.
matt.l.b wrote:
Upon getting a drivers license you sign a contract with the state whereby you agree that failure to comply with an officer asking you to submit to that test voids that contract. The repercussions of this is losing your driving privileges for one year.


Once again, someone that has not looked at the law closely or has not experienced it first hand. The roadside is voluntary. The one at the shop after they have decided to arrest you if they have enough probable cause, has a consequence if you refuse. Period. Check with your lawyer. Don't take my word for it.

FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Jul 20, 2011
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W.
mike h wrote:
Really? "Refusal to take the test is both admissible in court and a basis for revocation of a driver's license." -state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/ol...


This is a meaningless link. You silly people and your internet searches. There is no mention of roadside vs back at the shop, which is the only point I'm trying to get across. If you are drunk and you refuse the roadside, you are going to get arrested anyway. Then, you will be asked to take the blood or breath back at the shop or hospital in some cases. If you are drunk, you are going loose you license anyway. Think twice before you submit to anything.

FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Jul 20, 2011
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W.
Mike Dallin wrote:
My favorite example is Utah, I've heard of them pulling over out-of-staters for some innocuous reason like a burnt out light or something, and they casually ask to search your car. Many out-of-staters think no problem, I have nothing to hide, the cop is being super friendly and he just helpfully pointed out that my tail light is out so what the heck, but then cop immediately searches the cooler for alcohol, as bringing alcohol in to Utah - even for personal use - is illegal, and most out-of-staters don't know it, they prey on your ignorance. So the rule is you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by allowing a search. Just don't do it! M


And while I'm at it, this is not quite true either. Check the Utah laws. One can transport a case of beer or is it two and one bottle of booze as personal property while traveling through Utah. There is probably some caveat like intent to consume while in the state. I don't remember exactly when I read the laws. There is a mp.com discussion on this topic as well.

FLAG
By Dana Bartlett
From CT
Jul 20, 2011
Peter Stokes wrote:
Guideline #1? That said, I am kind of tired of hearing how evil people are who drive after 1 or 2 beers, and next to nothing about all the other reasons people get hurt and killed in automobile crashes. It's stupid and irresponsible to drive drunk- it's also stupid and irresponsible to drive too fast for conditions, to drive aggressively, to drive while texting or talking on a cell phone, to drive while turning around and yelling at your kids, and to run stop signs and red lights. If you can drive safely after 2 beers you should be allowed to... if you can't drive safely when sober you should not be allowed to. The problem isn't one type of bad driving, it's bad driving.


You make good points, and all of the behaviors that you mention can be dangerous if you do them while driving. But you can immediately stop talking on a cell phone and you can, if you are angry, quickly calm down. But you can't sober up at will or speed up the process of becoming sober. I am certainly not saying that cell phone use while driving or aggressive driving are okay - not at all - but I think there is an important difference bewteen intoxication and those behaviors.

FLAG
 
By matt.l.b
Jul 20, 2011
Personal
Greg D wrote:
Once again, someone that has not looked at the law closely or has not experienced it first hand. The roadside is voluntary. The one at the shop after they have decided to arrest you if they have enough probable cause, has a consequence if you refuse. Period. Check with your lawyer. Don't take my word for it.


I meet both criteria. The preliminary roadside is voluntary yes. For that matter rolling down your window completely is voluntary. But if an Officer asks you to blow and you don't you violate your contract with the state. The exception to voluntary is if there has been an accident, under those circumstances a registered nurse or paramedic will draw blood. At which time the chain of evidence has begun and tracked which your attorney may question it's handling at a later time.

Unless there is an accident you do not have to consent to any chemical tests. You may be arrested for DUI or anything really. Let's say that it is changing lanes without signalling. The chances are unless you are hammered the Distract Attorney will not press charges without hard evidence like a chemical test or video of you swerving and staggering towards a cruiser carting a bottle of vodka around with vomit on your shirt and a cigarette glued to your lip. But the DOR/DMV has it's own judge, jury, and executioner and because you did not submit to a chemical test you are busted.

Per DMV if you refuse a test revocation of your privilege last for one year but unlike a DUI conviction does not require an interlock device whereas a conviction insures revocation and the interlock post reinstatement as of the first of last year when the law changed and became harsher for all offenders.

Greg D wrote:
Once again, someone that has not looked at the law closely



42-4-1301.1. Expressed consent for the taking of blood, breath, urine, or saliva sample - testing.

(1) Any person who drives any motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be deemed to have expressed such person's consent to the provisions of this section.

(2) (a) (I) A person who drives a motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be required to take and complete, and to cooperate in the taking and completing of, any test or tests of the person's breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the person's blood or breath when so requested and directed by a law enforcement officer having probable cause to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of the prohibitions against DUI, DUI per se, DWAI, habitual user, or UDD. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a person who is twenty-one years of age or older requests that the test be a blood test, then the test shall be of his or her blood; but, if the person requests that a specimen of his or her blood not be drawn, then a specimen of the person's breath shall be obtained and tested. A person who is under twenty-one years of age shall be entitled to request a blood test unless the alleged violation is UDD, in which case a specimen of the person's breath shall be obtained and tested, except as provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a).

(II) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a.5) of this subsection (2), if a person elects either a blood test or a breath test, the person shall not be permitted to change the election, and, if the person fails to take and complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, the test elected, the failure shall be deemed to be a refusal to submit to testing. If the person is unable to take, or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of a breath test because of injuries, illness, disease, physical infirmity, or physical incapacity, or if the person is receiving medical treatment at a location at which a breath testing instrument certified by the department of public health and environment is not available, the test shall be of the person's blood.

(III) If a law enforcement officer requests a test under this paragraph (a), the person must cooperate with the request such that the sample of blood or breath can be obtained within two hours of the person's driving.

^That's your contract. ^

16-3-103. Stopping of suspect.

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

Limited, temporary detention permissible though no probable cause to arrest exists. A police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigation of possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause for arrest. People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973); People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974).

In certain circumstances a police officer having less than probable cause to arrest may stop an individual for identification purposes and not violate the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986).

(III) If the person fails to take and complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, the other test requested by the law enforcement officer pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a.5), the failure shall be deemed to be a refusal to submit to testing.


Probable cause is easy to come up with for an officer. Often called chickens**t stops when the officer is bored and may have little to do. Sitting in his car dreaming of fishing and you drive by at a mile over the speed limit or have a brake light out (not the center that is not legal). He thought he smelled alcohol / or weed, noticed beer cans in the back of your truck that "appeared" to be fresh. Probable cause to pull you over is different than cause to ask for a preliminary just as it it different to search. At the same time it just as legal to ask for an "educational" search or preliminary roadside say to demonstrate technique to a new officer. At which time they may determine a deeper inquiry is justified and therefore legal.

Cops also make mistakes when it come to the finite parts of the law. They are not attorneys after all. They are educated to the extent as they are required in order to fulfill their employment responsibility. I once had an officer tell me it was illegal to carry a loaded handgun in my vehicle.

Greg D wrote:
Check with your lawyer. Don't take my word for it.


Greg you are right about two things.

Four pieces of advice.
-Consult with a respected attorney, in good standing with the Colorado BAR.
-Don't drive drunk.
-Never break more than one law at a time.
-When all else fails... Use head save ass.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 3 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>