RMNP DUI checkpoint

Stich wrote: Agreed. These checkpoints are galling. Has anyone refused to comply or heard of any acts of defiance that ended well?

I'm not sure if its the same in all other states but in AZ if you refuse a breathalyzer your license will automatically be suspended. However, you CAN and SHOULD refuse to take any other tests because they are bullshit. I know personally that a cop can cite you with a DUI for failing the sobriety tests (ie walking in a straight line, following the pen light with your eyes, etc.) with a BAC of only 0.05!

Also, I sympathize with anyone who has personally or knows someone who has been hurt or killed by a drunk driver but let's face it - the key word there is DRUNK driver - no one ever hears about the tragedy caused by the driver who stopped in for 2 beers on their way home from work.

Jim Amidon wrote:Being intoxicated while driving shouldn't be tolderated anywhere...... I don't see why a National Park is any different

Good to see that you support this police state. Suck it bitch.

wlashgraham wrote:So, I'm no lawyer, but I think the idea that checkpoints fail constitutional muster doesn't hold a lot of water. If any lawyers could correct inaccuracies here, you have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in private life. I don't know the exact legalise here but it would seem that if you are using a public utility like a road, you at some level forfeit the right to absolute privacy, as long as there is a clear and consistent search search pattern. But regardless of that, I find whining about weather or not something like checkpoints, which sits in a gray area, is unconstitutional kind of pointless. 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.

The problem is that a probable cause determination is an after the fact determination. You do have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in your private life; hence why search warrants are required for homes and not for vehicles. Greg is right when he points out that if a police officer asks for your consent to search, you may refuse. However, like I said a probable cause determination is done after the fact. So for example, a cop pulls you over and for whatever reason, simply asks for your consent to search your vehicle. You politely refuse. The officer can then claim he smelled alcohol on your breath, your eyes looked bloodshot, or any one of a million things and it will rise to the level of probable cause to search your car. Now Greg is correct, if anything was found during that search you could argue that the officer lacked the probable cause in the first place and did not have the right to search your car. But, since it is an after the fact determination, you've already been arrested for DUI, drug trafficking, had your stash taken, etc. You're then paying for a lawyer to argue to suppress the evidence. Best case scenario is you don't get charged because the officer did lack probable cause (a very difficult thing to prove in my opinion) because it is generally subjective and after the fact. In other words, it's going to be very difficult to argue that a police officer lacked probable cause to search your vehicle for drugs after they do in fact find drugs in your car. But, even if you were successful in arguing this, you still have an arrest on your record although no conviction, a bunch of lawyer fees, likely a bond posted that you will need to recover, and generally a huge legal headache. My advice is not to count on the constitutional protections in regards to criminal law. You're much better off burning a draft card or claiming that you were discriminated against than you are arguing that the 4th amendment should have protected you.

Helldorado wrote: Good to see that you support this police state. Suck it bitch.

Wow. That post is embarrassing for you. Get a grip buddy.

Helldorado wrote: Good to see that you support this police state. Suck it bitch.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.
vimeo.com/3258215

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…

Goodwin's Law in three pages