Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

Other than Brewing => The Pub => Topic started by: uthristy on December 31, 2010, 07:57:30 PM

Title: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uthristy on December 31, 2010, 07:57:30 PM
It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250

----------------------

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: euge on December 31, 2010, 08:06:26 PM
I believe we have it here now. I don't drive even after only one beer but I think its total BS. First thing one does is ask for a lawyer in that situation. Period.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uthristy on December 31, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
People who know me will tell you I zero  tolerance for people that drink & drive (pot/drugs incl.)

But this is really going too far, wonder if they'll wait till your lawyer can get to the scene. I bet they'll say no and take the blood sample anyways.

Next are the police trained Phlebotomists? I bet NOT!

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: piszkiewiczp on December 31, 2010, 10:16:50 PM
It's a lot longer than the news article, but here's the actual law:
316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.1932.html

*Florida law explictly states that a Florida drivers license or th act driving in Florida implies consent to breath/blood/urine tests when arrested for impaired driving. (Several states have this provision on their books.)   
*It seems that a police officer must be making an arrest in order to request the breath/blood/urine test.
*Blood tests can only be done at a medical facility or in an ambulance or similar emergency vehicle.
*Only a physician, certified paramedic, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood can actually draw blood.

I guess that the key question is: Do you trust police to honestly enforce the law?[/li][/list]


Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on December 31, 2010, 11:33:56 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Unholy_three_cropped.png)

Quick, somebody doctor this pic to read for these modern times.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on December 31, 2010, 11:48:17 PM
"If man cannot be trusted to govern himself how can he trusted to govern others" - Thomas Jefferson
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 01, 2011, 01:04:28 AM
Can you see a judge sitting around at a checkpoint waiting to write warrants?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 01, 2011, 01:12:28 AM
Only if they are slammin some vodka.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Thirsty_Monk on January 01, 2011, 03:12:32 AM
Only if they are slammin some vodka.
Are we in Russian right now  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 01, 2011, 04:23:29 AM
Can you say "unconstitutional"?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tschmidlin on January 01, 2011, 09:15:48 AM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: beerocd on January 01, 2011, 01:45:09 PM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

innocent until proven guilty....gone
right to not self incriminate....gone
illegal search and seizure.....gone

and if you physically resist the blood draw, they just write you up as resisting an officer which carries a similar penalty - and FINE I would imagine. Since they only do this occasionally, could it be less about public safety and more about $$$?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 01, 2011, 02:22:19 PM
I was under the impression that refusal to take a breath test was equal to a confession.

Im not sure why someone would want to refuse the breath test, unless they were guilty.

Im the same as Euge, if I have just one beer I will not get behind the wheel. Im fortunate that I live near a train stop. There has been more than one hungover morning where I rode the train back to town to try and find my truck,  ::)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: corkybstewart on January 01, 2011, 03:05:40 PM
I was under the impression that refusal to take a breath test was equal to a confession.

Im not sure why someone would want to refuse the breath test, unless they were guilty.

Im the same as Euge, if I have just one beer I will not get behind the wheel. Im fortunate that I live near a train stop. There has been more than one hungover morning where I rode the train back to town to try and find my truck,  ::)
In NM refusal to take a breath or other field sobriety test is not an admission of guilt, it's a totally separate charge so you can get busted for refusing, then get busted for DWI later when the judge orders the test while you're sitting in the slammer.
And Cap, the law out here has been focusing on hungover people driving home in the morning who are still over the BA limit-you can't win.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 01, 2011, 03:12:20 PM
Wow, I never thought of that. Is it possible to fail a breath test eight hours after drinking? 

Im pretty sure I could pass a field sobriety test with a hangover, not sure about a breath test. Im sure my breath aint good then, kinda like a thousand Russian soldier marched over my tongue in their stocking feet but could I fail a breath test?

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 01, 2011, 03:33:33 PM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution.  

Why would anyone care if law enforcement entered their house without a warrant, if they had nothing to hide?

That was actually a response to 2 comments, but I can't seem to quote 2 people at the same time.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: corkybstewart on January 01, 2011, 05:48:10 PM
Wow, I never thought of that. Is it possible to fail a breath test eight hours after drinking? 

Im pretty sure I could pass a field sobriety test with a hangover, not sure about a breath test. Im sure my breath aint good then, kinda like a thousand Russian soldier marched over my tongue in their stocking feet but could I fail a breath test?


I'm safe, you're safe, most of us on this site are probably safe but if you're a heavy BMC drinker and drink an 18 pack between 6 and midnight, sleep 6 hours and get on the road you're probably still drunk.  I don't think the liver  metabolizes alcohol any faster just because you're asleep.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 01, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

In the US Supreme Court decision in the case DELAWARE V. PROUSE, 440 U. S. 648 (1979), it was found that an officer cannot pull over a lone vehicle to merely check the driver's/vehicle's license or registration.
However, the court stated that "The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative." http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html#663 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html#663)
Though not a specific ruling on the constitutionality of roadblocks, the suggestion is present that the court would rule in that manner were it presented as a case before the court.

Note however, that a police roadblock cannot be set-up "randomly," they must be pre-warned (such as public posting in a newspaper or on a police department website) and adequately posted as being such when you approach it.

In another court case, evidence found after searching a car that exited a highway to avoid a roadblock was suppressed, as the police had no reason to pull the vehicle over other than the "suspicious" act of exiting the highway to supposedly "avoid" the roadblock.

Obviously, the best thing to do is to avoid driving when there is a chance you might be above the limit... unless you want to be the first to take a case to the Supreme Court to have the rule on the constitutionality of the practice.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 01, 2011, 07:44:16 PM
My problem is this. Nothing is working and people are just driving around totally s*** faced. Im sure you all have seen it. Try telling someone that has had a few that they cant drive.They get defensive. Alcohol makes you think you can do anything.

Im also pissed that people just zig zag through traffic with no regard for other peoples safety, yet I get a ticket for driving ten miles over the speed limit. Why? Cause I am easier to catch.

I really wish law enforcement would take seriously our safety instead of just trying to meet ticket quotas and generate revenue.

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 01, 2011, 08:49:50 PM
Useless laws weaken the necessary laws - Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 01, 2011, 10:13:30 PM
People drive like Sh*t...I said it before I will say it again, It is my government's job to keep me
FREE Not Safe.  We are not safe, no matter what...hell it is dangerous
just breathing....

proof'
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk





Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 01, 2011, 10:35:41 PM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 01, 2011, 11:22:46 PM
People drive like Sh*t...I said it before I will say it again, It is my government's job to keep me
FREE Not Safe.  We are not safe, no matter what...hell it is dangerous
just breathing....

proof'
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk


I agree with you to an extent, but if my tax dollars are paying for a police force I dont want them out there trying to keep me free. I want them out there trying to keep me, my kids and my loved ones safe, just not only writing tickets to make money for the city.

That video is unbelievable and Ill bet you a lot of those drivers were drunk. I want those idiots off the road, or charged so severely that they stop doing it and start paying attention to the road.

I get so angry. Not sure what drivers are like where you live but here in Philly we have a high asshole count and a lot of them drive.








Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: beerocd on January 01, 2011, 11:53:25 PM
I get so angry. Not sure what drivers are like where you live but here in Philly we have a high asshole count and a lot of them drive.

Ooooh, filter FAIL.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: johnf on January 02, 2011, 12:12:13 AM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What part of being on the road on Saturday night when the bars close and refusing a breath test is not probable cause for a warrant?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 02, 2011, 12:14:22 AM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution.  

US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What part of being on the road on Saturday night when the bars close and refusing a breath test is not probable cause for a warrant?

 All of it.

  Tubercle spent 10 years in law enforcement busting DUI's. Ms. Tubercle did also (that's where she was met). Got 2 daughters and 2 sons -in-law in law enforcent now that bust them every day. Pulled up on many scenes where death and destruction was caused and many lives changed because of drunk drivers.

 Got sick of law enforcement due to the degradation of the constitution due to case law by activist judges. DUI check points are governed by the Carrol Doctrine due to the mobility of the alleged offender.

 There is very little of the 4th amendment left.

 BTW, a breath test doesn't require the level of probable cause, just reasonable suspicion.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 02, 2011, 12:56:38 AM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What part of being on the road on Saturday night when the bars close and refusing a breath test is not probable cause for a warrant?

You are kidding, right?  You're saying that just by driving a car at a particular time of day makes you suspicious and gives the authorities the power to detain you against your will and take blood from you against your will?

That kinda sucks for people who a driving to or from work don't you think?  Perhaps they should be required to carry a note from their employer, "Please excuse (your name here) from having his civil rights violated.  He is on his way home from work."
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 02, 2011, 01:20:43 AM
I have to ask again. Why refuse a breath test?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 01:56:29 AM
This checking is also being done in my area and I posted it in the wrong thread a few days ago.
Here it is better served in this thread.
From Google News...how is this for "Guilty until proven innocent"  or Trial by Breathalyzer...not your Peers...

Quote
The Laramie City Council approved the change to the city’s municipal code on final reading in an eight-to-one vote Tuesday night.

The ordinance also  creates a new offense of the refusal of a chemical test to determine BAC when a police officer deems there is probable cause to assume a driver is drunk. The penalty for refusal of a chemical test to determine BAC is the same as if the suspect blew a 0.15 BAC.
 

I believe this poorly worded dribble says that you will loose your Drivers license just for refusing a Breathalyzer.....
even if you have NOT touched a drop.....the offense has become the act of "refusal".

I have trouble discerning where the law ends and politics begins, so if this post is over the edge, I will gladly delete it.

Seems on topic because of the mention of laws in the opening paragraph of your post re:federalist papers
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 01:58:57 AM

What part of being on the road on Saturday night when the bars close and refusing a breath test is not probable cause for a warrant?

The part where I have NOT touched a drop, all my tail lights are working, I am NOT weaving, I did NOTHING wrong, but get  stopped anyhow and I should NOT have to prove my innocence because I am ......that is the part
Maybe I was the SOBER designated driver....and Now I am GUILTY until proven innocent
Edit:(tried by a machine instead of my peers)...that is just Backwards.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 02, 2011, 02:24:40 AM
How do you guys feel about employers making you take random piss tests?

Im thinking about implementing random drug testing for my company. I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 02:30:02 AM
How do you guys feel about employers making you take random piss tests?

Im thinking about implementing random drug testing for my company. I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

They could test my ability by washing it off their wet trowsers....no problem

Edit: In the military that was the most degrading thing I ever had to do...I won't do that any more...sorry
now I know better, I will p*ss all over you while you make sure I am not cheating

Edit#2; If more ppl would do this   ::)  , there might be less desire to have people go thru this madness. Why do you think you have ANY right to my urine?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 02, 2011, 02:40:06 AM
Ive heard a lot of construction company owners tell me that their insurance company makes them drug test their employees. If they refuse to comply their premium will quadruple. This is of coarse hear say.

Off topic but kinda related.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 02:44:24 AM
Yeah, off topic, but I believe Insurance companies need to be slapped and reeled in quite a bit.

Seems like they have been given the license to Milk us all badly....they should have to cover
you....PERIOD....car insurance,....paid for...You should be covered 100%....NO EXCLUSIONS
Medical insurance, paid for, you should be covered 100% NO EXCLUSIONS.
Home Insurance, paid for, you should be covered 100% NO EXCLUSIONS....

Edit: else get out of the insurance business....

well you get my meaning
Edit#2: AND they should get out of the business of trying to regulate/and manipulate things...like....Air Bags, and Power Brakes, and Crash testing Automobiles... and Medical procedures...and just get back to the business of insuring against loss.... Your Paid for loss not theirs. This to me seems the reasonable risk they assume for your payment. PERIOD
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 04:30:06 AM
I have to ask again. Why refuse a breath test?

Even if I was completely sober, I'd refuse one.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 02, 2011, 04:34:12 AM
Why? I dont understand.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 04:37:06 AM
Because I live in a FREE country and I AM innocent until proven guilty by a jury of my peers; not by a F__King machine.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 02, 2011, 04:40:05 AM
I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC! :D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 02, 2011, 04:50:44 AM
How could we enforce the law then?  

If there is no evidence there would be no convictions.

In a free country should we be allowed to drink and drive?  

I think if you are charged with drinking and driving you still have the right to a trial. I cant say I know to much about it. I have never even been suspected.

All I know is that a drunk driver slammed into a car where one of my best friends was a passenger. He was killed instantly when his head popped off.

I also lost my new truck in 2006 when a drunk driver ran a red light and broad sided me. He was also "under insured" I didnt have health insurance at the time and I only got done paying off the settled medical bills last year. I think I got about $10,000 dollars. I had $25,000 in medical bills. Totaled a $10,000 F250 only weeks after I got it.

What is the solution? Is there a solution?


Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
No easy solution is there. ???
  Blow in your ignition to start your car...yeah I heard that from an insurance company
that wants to milk you in yet another venue.  If that is what we need to do, then let the people that are mandating
that PAY for the priveledge of having it, instead of jacking up the already exorbitant cost of a vehicle.

So if you don.t blow a sober breath, your car won't start...lol...what a joke, you could have or hire someone
else to blow a sober ignition for you.

Computer eyeball response recognition software to start your car...your eyeballs must respond in a sober fashion along
with retina recognition.  Again let the ppl that feel they have to have this, Pay for it! and mandate it for every driver
behind the wheel. Don't add it to the cost of a vehicle's price tag.

Then in a free society, the people that build the mad max machines that run on ethanol, will be the loose cannons that
will not comply....NO there is no easy answer
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 02, 2011, 05:18:27 AM
I think the breath test is a means of collecting evidence. The machine does not convict a suspect but a trial may if there is sufficient evidence.  

If one was suspected of murder is it a violation of their rights to take finger prints?

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: corkybstewart on January 02, 2011, 05:21:42 AM
Ive heard a lot of construction company owners tell me that their insurance company makes them drug test their employees. If they refuse to comply their premium will quadruple. This is of coarse hear say.

Off topic but kinda related.
I run a geological technical services company in the oilfield.  We are required by both our insurance companies and our client oil companies to do regular drug testing of all our employees, including my daughter who makes log copies for the company.  I understand testing the people who are actually working on the rigs since the work is extremely dangerous, but making me test my office people is absurd.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 02, 2011, 01:59:13 PM
I think the breath test is a means of collecting evidence. The machine does not convict a suspect but a trial may if there is sufficient evidence.  

If one was suspected of murder is it a violation of their rights to take finger prints?

  A breath/blood test is not used to collect evidence for the arrest but to confirm the probable cause the officer had for making the warrantless arrest. I know this is a little nit-picky but there is a distinction. Many times an arrested suspect will have a zero reading for BAC but the law (here anyways) is for driving "impaired" regardless of the substance, including prescription medication. This determination is made on the street. The conviction only comes after evidence shows a person was driving impaired and any breath/blood test is used as a "totality of the circumstances". Recent changes in the law provide for a reading above a certain limit to show a presumption of guilt. These changes come from pressure from the Feds in the form of a threat to cut off highway funds just like was done with the seatbelt laws.

 Requiring a breath test at a check point just because you are driving is getting closer to going back to what caused the 4th amendment to be written in the first place. IMHO...
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 03:29:15 PM
Now as a citizen of the U.S.A., I have placed a copy of the United States Constitution
in the Vehicle I drive, WITH me so that I can really get someone's ire...and read the 4th ammendment
verbatum to someone should I need to.......like it will really matter if the chips are down....LOL.

(I do NOT drink alcohol at all and get behind a wheel personally)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 04:04:56 PM
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Looks pretty clear to me. A mandatory BAC test is an unreasonable search of one's person. You could even argue that they are illegally seizing your breath and/or blood.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: oscarvan on January 02, 2011, 04:46:40 PM
Many of you seem to forget that when you ACCEPTED the terms of your driving PRIVILEGES you AGREED to submit to all this. IOW you signed part of your rights away. So, drive without a license and THEN you have a case. Let me know how that works out for you.

Don't ask me how I know all this....... Meanwhile, when in doubt, one of these comes in very handy.

(http://cdn.autoanything.com/images/products/med/driving_accessories/q3_alcohawk_abi.jpg)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 04:48:05 PM
Looks pretty clear to me as well.  IF you push this envelope in the field, Out come the black
leather gauntlets and the Jack Boots and  the mirror shades and you will go right down the Sh*t highway like it or not.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uthristy on January 02, 2011, 04:53:44 PM

What part of being on the road on Saturday night when the bars close and refusing a breath test is not probable cause for a warrant?

So  I need to submit to a breath test before driving to work at 3-4am, what about those cities were the bars are open till 5-7am?  At what time will we be allowed to drive without having to submit to a breath test to drive?

How do you guys feel about employers making you take random piss tests?

Waste of time & money

I could do a pile of blow,mdma on friday and pass by monday. I know guys in the military that go to big raves in europe and never fail a test on monday

But smoke 1 joint and depending on test(s)  could show positive for months, or it could a false reading.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]
 1. Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

2. Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.

3. Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.

4. Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.

5. Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.

6. Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.

7. Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.

8. Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.

9. Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.

10. South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.

11. Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

Cannabis metabolites are funny things; they don't eliminate from the body in any predictable fashion. In fact, when you think about it, a metabolite is produced when the body metabolizes, or breaks down, a substance. The presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC! You could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uthristy on January 02, 2011, 04:55:40 PM
Many of you seem to forget that when you ACCEPTED the terms of your driving PRIVILEGES you AGREED to submit to all this. IOW you signed part of your rights away


No in Fla I have the RIGHT to refuse but I will lose my DL for  1yr. 

Unless I'm certain chief of police, even with video showing him driving offroad and refusing the test(s) he had all charges dropped. Funny how that works


http://www.policeone.com/news/51431-madd-outraged-ponce-inlet-police-chiefs-dui-dismissed

http://www.georgecreal.com/blog/?p=12
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 02, 2011, 05:05:00 PM
I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC! :D

Many years ago, I had just hired a new employee and invited him to a party at my house.  When he showed up, I handed him a joint and said "Here's the company drug test"!
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 05:11:13 PM
I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC! :D

Many years ago, I had just hired a new employee and invited him to a party at my house.  When he showed up, I handed him a joint and said "Here's the company drug test"!
Still Hiring?  ::)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 02, 2011, 05:32:12 PM
Closed the biz last summer...sorry!   ;)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 05:47:43 PM
I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC! :D

Many years ago, I had just hired a new employee and invited him to a party at my house.  When he showed up, I handed him a joint and said "Here's the company drug test"!

Did he continue to work for you?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: a10t2 on January 02, 2011, 05:57:57 PM
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Looks pretty clear to me. A mandatory BAC test is an unreasonable search of one's person. You could even argue that they are illegally seizing your breath and/or blood.
(emphasis mine)

I think you're missing the point of having a judge on the scene, which is that he issues a warrant, authorizing the police to search your person and seize evidence. The constitutional question here is not in the definition of "searches and seizures", but of "probably cause".
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 06:41:10 PM
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Looks pretty clear to me. A mandatory BAC test is an unreasonable search of one's person. You could even argue that they are illegally seizing your breath and/or blood.
(emphasis mine)

I think you're missing the point of having a judge on the scene, which is that he issues a warrant, authorizing the police to search your person and seize evidence. The constitutional question here is not in the definition of "searches and seizures", but of "probably cause".

That's not always the case at check points and when it is, it can easily be abused. I don't want to see drunk drivers running around hurting people either. However, in a free society, some things aren't perfect, but in the end it's worth the sacrifices. .
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: gisbrewmaster on January 02, 2011, 06:56:46 PM
This thread is crazy. You Drink too much and Drive you go through a DUI check point you get nailed. You have a beer with dinner you drive you don't get nailed. You don't drink at all and you drive you don't get nailed.  So who cares if you have to breath into a tube.  If it gets 1 drunk driver off the streets and possibly saves one person then deal. That person saved can be your family. I personally will only have 1 or 2 at the most for a whole evening if i am driving.  I would have no problem blowing into a tube or giving my blood(ok maybe not blood i hate needles lol!). It has nothing to do with freedom it has to do with safety and that is law enforcements job.

Also like others have said you gave up the right to decline a test when you got a license.

If you worry about this then I personally wouldn't want you on the road cause obviously you may have a problem with potentially drinking and driving.

GISBREWMASTER

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 07:24:35 PM
This thread is crazy. You Drink too much and Drive you go through a DUI check point you get nailed. You have a beer with dinner you drive you don't get nailed. You don't drink at all and you drive you don't get nailed.  So who cares if you have to breath into a tube.  If it gets 1 drunk driver off the streets and possibly saves one person then deal. That person saved can be your family. I personally will only have 1 or 2 at the most for a whole evening if i am driving.  I would have no problem blowing into a tube or giving my blood(ok maybe not blood i hate needles lol!). It has nothing to do with freedom it has to do with safety and that is law enforcements job.

Also like others have said you gave up the right to decline a test when you got a license.

If you worry about this then I personally wouldn't want you on the road cause obviously you may have a problem with potentially drinking and driving.

GISBREWMASTER



I rarely drink and drive, but if I do my drinking is very limited. Nonetheless, I would decline the initial BAC and force the warrant and blood test.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 02, 2011, 07:42:24 PM
I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC! :D

Many years ago, I had just hired a new employee and invited him to a party at my house.  When he showed up, I handed him a joint and said "Here's the company drug test"!

I'm still trying to figure out if Cap knows exactly what he said.  ;)

As far as the DUI checkpoints go - I freaking hate them. But I hate drunk drivers even worse.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: euge on January 02, 2011, 07:55:36 PM
It's a sad mess. The moral is stay off the road if you've been drinking alcohol. Take a cab if you must and have a lawyer you can call- which is what you do instead of answer questions.

I've some friends who got busted and their lives were devastated. They shouldn't have been driving and they paid a hefty price in money, time and reputation. One lost their job. They all now have criminal records.

That being said I don't think the threat of searches and seizures will stop very many people from getting behind the wheel. What it will do is acquaint them with the judicial system when they get arrested.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 02, 2011, 08:29:48 PM
It has nothing to do with freedom it has to do with safety and that is law enforcements job.


 Then I guess you would have no problem with The Man coming into your house, checking your fridge, food pantry, computer, cell phone, bank records, inquiring about your sex habits, checking how many times a week you eat at McDonald's, make sure your tub has some sort of non-slip material, fine you for being over the gov't mandated BMI...just to keep you safe. Beware, its creeping up on you, a little at a time.

 And no, Tubercle is not some paranoid conspiracy theorist; just old enough to have seen a lot of change and knows enough about history to know it can happen.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 02, 2011, 08:31:00 PM
Please keep this to the original point, and its legality and morality.  We're drifting into some dangerous territory.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 02, 2011, 08:31:55 PM
I agree...delete me as necessary.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 02, 2011, 08:40:36 PM
I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC! :D

Many years ago, I had just hired a new employee and invited him to a party at my house.  When he showed up, I handed him a joint and said "Here's the company drug test"!

I'm still trying to figure out if Cap knows exactly what he said.  ;)

As far as the DUI checkpoints go - I freaking hate them. But I hate drunk drivers even worse.

 ;)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 08:49:09 PM
I agree...delete me as necessary.

Why in the world would you be deleted?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 02, 2011, 08:49:56 PM
I agree...delete me as necessary.

No deletion, no thread locking...yet.  As long as everyone respects the rules, I'll respect your right to post.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 08:53:41 PM
I'm really confused. How is this dangerous territory? It's no different than discussing beer taxes, home brew legality or serving home brew at events.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 02, 2011, 08:57:05 PM
I'm really confused. How is this dangerous territory? It's no different than discussing beer taxes, home brew legality or serving home brew at events.

 Tubercle was getting a little too political...Damn, this dry stout is some good stuff :D Need to slow down a little.

 To Denny: Delete offending post, not me altogether ;D

 
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: gisbrewmaster on January 02, 2011, 08:59:22 PM
Legal and moral.

Legal - Cause you signed away your rights to total freedom on the road when you got a license. Also by testing everyone you are being fair and not discriminating against anyone which would be against the law.

I have only been to one DUI check point in my life and they didn't test everyone.  Only people with casue.  If they smell alcohol on your breath or you have glazed eyes or talk rudely is where people had the problem. Those would be valid reasons for a breath test.

Moral - Cause If you dumb enough to drink too much and drive you should be be nailed and the health and safety of the society will appreciate it. Whether it works or not is a different question.

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 02, 2011, 09:02:15 PM
To Denny: Delete offending post, not me altogether ;D

 

The world would be a duller place if I deleted YOU!  :)  I'm not deleting anything at this time, and I hope that no one gives me any reason to.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 02, 2011, 09:09:31 PM
To Denny: Delete offending post, not me altogether ;D

 

The world would be a duller place if I deleted YOU!  :)  I'm not deleting anything at this time, and I hope that no one gives me any reason to.

FWIW you brought illegal drugs into the topic.

Just saying.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: oscarvan on January 02, 2011, 10:18:36 PM
I.....took off the matress tags...... :-[
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 02, 2011, 10:27:45 PM
I.....took off the matress tags...... :-[
Were you drunk at the time ?????  :o
Edit: your eyes (http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=764;type=avatar)look a little funny....
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: a10t2 on January 02, 2011, 11:06:03 PM
It has nothing to do with freedom it has to do with safety and that is law enforcements job.

If safety is really the goal, there are number of genetic markers that are accurate predictors of alcoholism. Give everyone a DNA test and take away the driver's licenses of anyone at risk.

Privacy is the ultimate slippery slope.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 02, 2011, 11:39:58 PM
I think one key factor is that driving is not a right, but rather regarded as a privilege. If you fail to meet the guidelines surrounding that privilege, it can be revoked.
Another consideration is that rights of others who use a public road; does someone who uses a public road while at a reduced capacity to properly operate a vehicle violate the privilege of others on the road? Does such a person infringe on another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Maybe it's the rights of responsible drivers that is really being infringed upon by drunk drivers?

Ah, but what if someone is not drunk?
If I read correctly what has been posted here, the real bone of contention is over when can the police stop a citizen and assess their ability to operate a vehicle. If given probable cause, then there is no argument, or so I presume. Could we say that some of us are concerned over the idea of stopping anyone -- without cause -- to asses their condition to safely operate a vehicle on public roads? Seems so.

As someone else said, the higher courts consider it fair so long as everyone who passes a checkpoint is subject to the same scrutiny...i.e., an officer is not acting on his/her own discretion.

This is an important thing to debate -- without getting political (remaining philosophical) -- as our hobby can involve becoming impaired while consuming the fruits of our labor.

Unless we all agree to learn to brew non-alcoholic beer? ???

Edit: Sorry to say I am PUI..."posting under the influence"...I've been drinking Bud Light, Sweetwater IPA, and homebrewed American Brown Ale. Forgive me?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 02, 2011, 11:41:50 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful post.  You raise some really good points.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 03, 2011, 12:20:09 AM
Edit: Sorry to say I am PUI..."posting under the influence"...I've been drinking Bud Light, Sweetwater IPA, and homebrewed American Brown Ale. Forgive me?

Not for the Bud Light. No excuse for that.  :P But your relevant and cogent post makes up for it. :)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 03, 2011, 12:30:53 AM
Edit: Sorry to say I am PUI..."posting under the influence"...I've been drinking Bud Light, Sweetwater IPA, and homebrewed American Brown Ale. Forgive me?

Not for the Bud Light. No excuse for that.  :P But your relevant and cogent post makes up for it. :)

 Question: (this may require a separate post) How much Bud Light does it take to be "under the influence"? Not sure such a thing exist. May even be mitigating circumstances :'(
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 03, 2011, 12:33:47 AM
OK, some of you think that the 4th Amendment should be disregarded in the name of public safety.  How about we move down one Amendmant and try this one then:

US Constitution - Amendment 5 - Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 03, 2011, 12:40:40 AM
OK, some of you think that the 4th Amendment should be disregarded in the name of public safety.  How about we move down one Amendmant and try this one then:

US Constitution - Amendment 5 - Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
punatic,

 I agree, more than you will ever know, but this defense has been tried by more than one convict that refused to sign their 1040 form because by signing that "all the above statements are true" <paraphrased> would self convict someone if a mistake was made; penalties would have to be paid anyway. Sorry, it doesn't wash. Many things that happen on a highway, as opposed to private property, such as suspending a drivers license, are considered "administrative" instead of criminal.

 The only way to change things you don't agree with is to elect legislators that can un-do what is already done. It's the world world we live in.

 There is another way. People take the responsibility not to drive impaired. Then this discussion wouldn't exist. The we can get back to drinking! In our homes or with a designated driver, of course ;)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 03, 2011, 12:46:46 AM
US Constitution - Amendment 5 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

 long before the invention of the automobile.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 03, 2011, 12:48:24 AM
Edit: Sorry to say I am PUI..."posting under the influence"...I've been drinking Bud Light, Sweetwater IPA, and homebrewed American Brown Ale. Forgive me?

Not for the Bud Light. No excuse for that.  :P But your relevant and cogent post makes up for it. :)

 Question: (this may require a separate post) How much Bud Light does it take to be "under the influence"? Not sure such a thing exist. May even be mitigating circumstances :'(

Dunno - I've never been able to get through one beer. ::)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tubercle on January 03, 2011, 12:49:34 AM
US Constitution - Amendment 5 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

 long before the invention of the automobile.

 It has been long illegal to reign a horse intoxicated. Nothing has changed.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 03, 2011, 12:52:10 AM
Believe me when I say there are probably few people who want to see drunk drivers kept off of the road more than I, but errosion of our Constitutional rights to achieve that goal is crazy and unnecessary.

Someone whom I admire greatly, Benjamin Franklin, put it very well, " They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 03, 2011, 12:52:43 AM
Edit: Sorry to say I am PUI..."posting under the influence"...I've been drinking Bud Light, Sweetwater IPA, and homebrewed American Brown Ale. Forgive me?

Not for the Bud Light. No excuse for that.  :P But your relevant and cogent post makes up for it. :)

 Question: (this may require a separate post) How much Bud Light does it take to be "under the influence"? Not sure such a thing exist. May even be mitigating circumstances :'(

Dunno - I've never been able to get through one beer. ::)

OK... separate post started in The Pub asking "how low can you go?" Just to ensure we don't sidetrack our philosophical ruminations on this post.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Hokerer on January 03, 2011, 03:00:52 AM
I have only been to one DUI check point in my life and they didn't test everyone.  

That's nothing, I once went through the same DUI checkpoint three times in one night.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 03, 2011, 04:26:40 AM
I haven't been through one in years, but the last time I did my parting words were, "Thank you for wasting my time". I don't he liked it. Actually, my wife didn't either, but that's another story.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 03, 2011, 01:47:43 PM
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: MDixon on January 03, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
I didn't read the middle pages of the thread, but in NC refusal to take a breathalyzer is an automatic 1 year revocations of your driver's license.

Since we're in the pub, too many people feel like they have the right to something just because they live on the earth. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

As far as driving through the checkpoints, I've been through many in NC and once during college was definitely above the legal limit and SHOULD NOT have been driving. If you are calm with the officer and everything checks out they will generally let you on your merry way.

One night about 20 years ago I got stopped (blue lights, siren, over to the side) as the DD driving a friends car with a digital speedometer. The cops gave me grief and I did give them what for...they had no reason to stop me and I let them know I was within the speed limit and was driving as I should have been. Eventually they let us go, but I would guess the rookie that pulled us might have gotten an earful from her superior. Nowadays I'd probably have to throw out the "don't taze me bro" statement for good measure. ;D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 03, 2011, 02:48:08 PM
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.

Big difference!!!  The soldiers are risking their lives to protect my freedom. The cops, in this case, are taking it away.

It's all about generating revenue for the city.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 03, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.

Big difference!!!  The soldiers are risking their lives to protect my freedom. The cops, in this case, are taking it away.

It's all about generating revenue for the city.

Really? So there are no murders, rapists, thieves, vandals or burglars in your area! Cool!
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: beerocd on January 03, 2011, 03:06:13 PM
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.

Big difference!!!  The soldiers are risking their lives to protect my freedom. The cops, in this case, are taking it away.

It's all about generating revenue for the city.

Really? So there are no murders, rapists, thieves, vandals or burglars in your area! Cool!

Not in my car there aren't. :)
I rarely drink outside of walking distance from the house.
And we're all FOR the roadblocks so long as there not along our path.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 03, 2011, 03:15:17 PM
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.

Big difference!!!  The soldiers are risking their lives to protect my freedom. The cops, in this case, are taking it away.

It's all about generating revenue for the city.

Really? So there are no murders, rapists, thieves, vandals or burglars in your area! Cool!

Another of your random quotes, but yes, there are and that's who they should be trying to stop instead of just hassling innocent people at check points.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 03, 2011, 03:23:34 PM
As I have said before, I certainly don't like check points. I also think the DUI limits are too strict. But when you see how drastic the drop in DUI related deaths are over the last 20 years you realize they are necessary evils. You may change your tune if you are ever T boned by a drunk driver or if you ever have a family member killed.  I believe that police officers should be treated with respect whether you are at a checkpoint or being pulled over or whatever (as long as they are treating the citizen with respect as well). They risk their lives for minimal pay to serve the community. If you can't follow that logic ... well ... I don't have anything else to say to try and convince you.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: dirk_mclargehuge on January 03, 2011, 03:27:46 PM
I just read an interesting article in Reason Magazine.  When the Feds forced the states to go to a 0.08% BAC, alcohol related accidents went up, after a 20 year decline.  A UC Berekley study found "1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical nightly checkpoint would divert 20 or more cops from other tasks while yielding a dozen or more vehicle confiscations but only about three drunk driving arrests."

In Texas, refusing a breath test gets you a blood test.  Refusing that gets you the shoe leather express when they take your license away.  

I don't have a problem with police arresting someone they see driving impaired.  I have a problem with the police stopping everyone on a street to see if they are impaired.  Stopping everyone on a the street, to me, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  

But we've signed away our rights.  What's one more to throw on the scrap heap?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 03, 2011, 03:34:58 PM
I just read an interesting article in Reason Magazine.  When the Feds forced the states to go to a 0.08% BAC, alcohol related accidents went up, after a 20 year decline.  A UC Berekley study found "1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical nightly checkpoint would divert 20 or more cops from other tasks while yielding a dozen or more vehicle confiscations but only about three drunk driving arrests."

In Texas, refusing a breath test gets you a blood test.  Refusing that gets you the shoe leather express when they take your license away.  

I don't have a problem with police arresting someone they see driving impaired.  I have a problem with the police stopping everyone on a street to see if they are impaired.  Stopping everyone on a the street, to me, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  

But we've signed away our rights.  What's one more to throw on the scrap heap?

As I said, checkpoints are just another way of making money for the city in the interest of "preventing" drunk driving. Want to really stop most all drunk driving? Make all alcohol illegal. Those of your that aren't worried about your freedoms should embrace this. Oh, and be sure to remove the lock on your doors so the police can come check out the contents of your fridge anytime they want to.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uthristy on January 03, 2011, 03:42:25 PM
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.

Bull$hit, go dig up my post from morebeer, about getting stop almost every week while driving to work often by the same cops.

Heres some more cops just doing their jobs>
>Volusia County Sheriff Bob Vogel
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Vogel_Bob_33297530.aspx (http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Vogel_Bob_33297530.aspx)
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/forfeiture/forfeiture_media4.shtml (http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/forfeiture/forfeiture_media4.shtml)

< Daytona Beach. In June 1992, the Orlando Sentinel revealed that Volusia County Sheriff Bob Vogel had created a special police drug squad which preyed upon thousands of innocent motorists driving on U.S. Interstate 95. Operating under a broadly written Florida law allowing police seizure of cash and property based on probable cause without arrests in suspected felony cases, the police engaged in pure highway robbery.

Police conduct was guided by no written rules and reviewed only by the sheriff, who controlled all funds confiscated. Any motorists stopped who had $100 or more in cash were assumed to be a drug trafficker, and their money was taken. From 1989 until the bad publicity in 1992, the squad seized more than $8 million in cash from motorists, mostly blacks and Latinos, and in only four cases did the innocent owners get all their money back. >

<The Orlando Sentinel noted, “Deputies routinely said bills in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 were suspicious because they are typical of what dealers carry. But that leaves few alternatives for others. >
-------------------
That was my daily life, so along with the help of my lawyer (former state prosecutor) learned how to handle the roadside problem.

So now I standup for myself at every stop, not be a dick but its my rights as a American. My last traffic stop was 3yrs ago for speeding and talked my way out of the ticket--less than 7mph over.



You may change your tune if you are ever T boned by a drunk driver or if you ever have a family member killed.

Again this came up @ morebeer,  been there done that, and since then another couple  was killed leaving a young girl behind.
But  stopping everybody is the exact same as guilty till proven innocent.

Gee sounds just like TSA, suspect everybody as terrorist - if you have nothing to hide than you'll submit....
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 03, 2011, 03:43:31 PM
I just read an interesting article in Reason Magazine.  When the Feds forced the states to go to a 0.08% BAC, alcohol related accidents went up, after a 20 year decline.  A UC Berekley study found "1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical nightly checkpoint would divert 20 or more cops from other tasks while yielding a dozen or more vehicle confiscations but only about three drunk driving arrests."

I'm not saying that this is incorrect - but I sure would like to see the study in question. All of the reports I have seen on the actual number of DUI related deaths have gone down, not up. This is the only thing that has convinced me that the DUI checkpoints and absurdly low blood alc/vol. are in any way, shape or form legitimate.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uthristy on January 03, 2011, 03:46:40 PM
Scary how much people are willing to give up for the false illusion of safety.

If we wanted to limit drunks on the roads we could take a page from some of the EU countries, but that'll never happen.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: bluesman on January 03, 2011, 04:09:17 PM
This is a tough issue. If I knew without a doubt that DUI checkpoints saved lives, I would subscribe. How is one to know? Statistics...maybe. I see alot of paralells between this and the TSA checkpoints.

There has to be a better way.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: MDixon on January 03, 2011, 04:18:38 PM
I guess I'm not following why a license check is a problem. They have done them in NC since way before I started driving and I've been tooling around legally for almost 28 years. It's not about treating everyone as a criminal, it's about getting those who are in violation.

Don't forget DUI/DWI is about more than alcohol, it could be drugs - illegal or otherwise.

 - -

OTOH - Florida has always been a speed trap.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 03, 2011, 04:29:13 PM
There is another way. People take the responsibility not to drive impaired. Then this discussion wouldn't exist.

This is true here and of so many things...if only there was personal responsibility.  Of course, we're dealing with humans here.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: beerocd on January 03, 2011, 04:32:48 PM
Scary how much people are willing to give up for the false illusion of safety.

If we wanted to limit drunks on the roads we could take a page from some of the EU countries, but that'll never happen.


What's the EU method? Raise gas prices to $4/litre? That way you could only afford to drink OR drive.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: MDixon on January 03, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
Some have ZERO tolerance. Drive drunk, never be licensed again...period.

EDIT - I should point out I do not know that for certain, but have been told that before.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Kaiser on January 03, 2011, 04:47:05 PM
One aspect, that may contribute to drunk driving in the US, is the fact that the personal car is for many the only means of transportation to and from their watering hole. In Europe settlements tend to be less spread out and public transportation is much more widely available.

This is one thing I noticed when I came to the US. Getting drunk away from home meant that I have to make arrangements for someone to drive me or plan to sober up on the hosts couch.

Kai
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: corkybstewart on January 03, 2011, 05:07:33 PM
There used to be a roadblock set up pretty often at the end of my street.  It was strategically placed so that no VIP's from town would get busted, only us poor suckers who lived out of the city limits.  My neighbor went through it one night in front of us.  He was so drunk he couldn't stand up but he didn't get caught.  A cop at the roadblock told me that setting up near bars is entrapment, but out in the boonies we're fair game.  I also asked him how effective it was and he told me they had issued a couple dozen citations that night and mad a few arrests, but they were all for outstanding warrants and such.  So in other words theses roadblocks are PR stunts to show how diligently law enforcement is protecting  us.
Kaiser, the reason I do 99% of my drinking at home is that there is on real public transportation in my town, a situation faced by a very high percentage of Americans
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 03, 2011, 05:13:26 PM
The following seems to be reasons given for why checkpoints are allowable: (Please note, not my opinions, but what I've found from looking at past Supreme Court decisions relating to the subject. I know, nerdy, but hours of research is how I got through college -- my professors would rip you a new one if you failed to back up a paper with legiimate research and valid citing sources)

1. A checkpoint involves checking everyone that passes a specific point on a road; no one is singled out at the discretion of an officer. It’s not random with respect to who is checked, as all that pass are checked – even if but very briefly

2. The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your right to use the road is not being disallowed – you still have access – but there are conditions that you must meet to be allowed to operate a vehicle on public roads. Your ability to meet the conditions of that privilege can be assessed.

3. If probable cause is present, then an officer is not violating your fourth amendment rights if he/she assesses your ability to operate a motor vehicle, i.e., if you present signs of being intoxicated, it is not an “unreasonable search and seizure,” which the fourth amendment protects you against.

4. If you refuse a breathalyzer, and there is a judge present at the checkpoint, and probable cause exists, then yes, he can issue, right there and then, a warrant, supported by oath and affirmation, and which describe the “place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now granted, the Supreme Court may someday hear a case before it that prompts them to decide that checkpoints do somehow infringe upon personal freedoms or rights, but so far their rulings have not cast any light of unconstitutionality on the practice. Note however: one key point that has held them to support it is findings that show checkpoints are effective; the findings may prove to be wrong, or the numbers may drop to where the lack of effectiveness is outweighed by the inconveiience to motorists.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 03, 2011, 05:34:00 PM
The following seems to be reasons given for why checkpoints are allowable: (Please note, not my opinions, but what I've found from looking at past Supreme Court decisions relating to the subject. I know, nerdy, but hours of research is how I got through college -- my professors would rip you a new one if you failed to back up a paper with legiimate research and valid citing sources)

1. A checkpoint involves checking everyone that passes a specific point on a road; no one is singled out at the discretion of an officer. It’s not random with respect to who is checked, as all that pass are checked – even if but very briefly

2. The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your right to use the road is not being disallowed – you still have access – but there are conditions that you must meet to be allowed to operate a vehicle on public roads. Your ability to meet the conditions of that privilege can be assessed.

3. If probable cause is present, then an officer is not violating your fourth amendment rights if he/she assesses your ability to operate a motor vehicle, i.e., if you present signs of being intoxicated, it is not an “unreasonable search and seizure,” which the fourth amendment protects you against.

4. If you refuse a breathalyzer, and there is a judge present at the checkpoint, and probable cause exists, then yes, he can issue, right there and then, a warrant, supported by oath and affirmation, and which describe the “place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now granted, the Supreme Court may someday hear a case before it that prompts them to decide that checkpoints do somehow infringe upon personal freedoms or rights, but so far their rulings have not cast any light of unconstitutionality on the practice. Note however: one key point that has held them to support it is findings that show checkpoints are effective; the findings may prove to be wrong, or the numbers may drop to where the lack of effectiveness is outweighed by the inconveiience to motorists.


" The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right."

Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 03, 2011, 05:47:04 PM
No one would ban you from using the roads. Only from operating a vehicle.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: MDixon on January 03, 2011, 05:51:18 PM
I kinda figured Mikey for one of those people who would refuse to pay taxes...kind of a Wesley Snipes fan and all that jazz  ;D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 03, 2011, 05:53:00 PM
" The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right."

Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.

Yes...I had the same thought as you.
But it turns out that the consideration is merely that you have a "right to access" on a public road, and not how you access that road; denying you access while opearating a vehicle does not remove your right of access to the road...of course given that you have done something to lose the privilege to operate a vehicle.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Mikey on January 03, 2011, 05:56:56 PM
I kinda figured Mikey for one of those people who would refuse to pay taxes...kind of a Wesley Snipes fan and all that jazz  ;D

I'd be a rich man (well, much better off) had I done that.

I pay them, but I b**** every time I do. :D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: euge on January 03, 2011, 06:11:40 PM
Scary how much people are willing to give up for the false illusion of safety.

If we wanted to limit drunks on the roads we could take a page from some of the EU countries, but that'll never happen.


Is it Bulgaria that has the Death Penalty for the first offense of driving while intoxicated? I read that years ago but can't find it online. Of course it would be the only offense at that point. Quite a few countries in the EU have zero tolerance.

We got a new chief of police here a few years back- Chief William McManus. Evidently they booted him out of Minnesota so he came down South. One of the first things he wanted to do is initiate road-blocks and a prosecutable policy that a open package ie one can/bottle gone out of a six or twelve pack constituted a open container. This of course was met with outrage by the populace. So far this hasn't come to pass but I'm hoping he's "encouraged" to go further south- maybe to Mexico or Guatemala...
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: EHall on January 03, 2011, 06:13:38 PM
and even if I were to walk to the bar, get drunk and plan on walking home... I could still get arrested...
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: rjharper on January 03, 2011, 06:17:34 PM

If we wanted to limit drunks on the roads we could take a page from some of the EU countries, but that'll never happen.


In the UK, its the same 0.08 BAC limit.  Its the same in that officers cannot pull you over simply to check your licence.  They require probable cause or suspicion of intoxication.  But, get convicted, and its automatic loss of licence for 12 months, jail time and fines.  After that you have to re-sit your driving test (extended, harder test) and good luck finding an insurance company that will take you on.  Its also much less socially accepted, and people will not hesitate to take the keys from someone who's been drinking.
Over here it's "who's the most sober" at the end of the night.  Its no public transport to get home.  It's get convicted, then appeal for a restricted license since you need the car for work etc...  I think a large part is not just the police side of things, its the judicial punishment and social acceptance that we need to address.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 03, 2011, 06:28:32 PM


I pay them, but I b**** every time I do. :D

Mikey, it's mandetory that you b**** >:(, 'cause somewhere there's somebody who's praising to the skies 'cause they get back more than they pay in...so you gotta balance things out!  ;D

Thanks for bringing up taxes...now I'm depressed.
(somtimes I hate to bring up beer...but that's usually after I've drank it)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: dirk_mclargehuge on January 03, 2011, 10:47:23 PM
I just read an interesting article in Reason Magazine.  When the Feds forced the states to go to a 0.08% BAC, alcohol related accidents went up, after a 20 year decline.  A UC Berekley study found "1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical nightly checkpoint would divert 20 or more cops from other tasks while yielding a dozen or more vehicle confiscations but only about three drunk driving arrests."

I'm not saying that this is incorrect - but I sure would like to see the study in question. All of the reports I have seen on the actual number of DUI related deaths have gone down, not up. This is the only thing that has convinced me that the DUI checkpoints and absurdly low blood alc/vol. are in any way, shape or form legitimate.

The article does say that a redefinition of "alcohol related" could be responsible. If a sober driver jumps a curb and hits a drunk pedestrian, that is an alcohol related accident. But still, if one DUI check point gets 100 seized cars for every drunk taken of the road, it's not a DUI checkpoint. It's just a checkpoint, and they are unconstitutional. 
[/quote]
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 03, 2011, 11:18:00 PM
Driving is a privilege and not a right because the automobile was invented after the Bill of Rights was written. If there were automobiles back then they may have written something in.  Same reason why I feel there should be provision for this mess.

Today I was talking about this  to an off duty Phila police officer with whom I am acquainted, she told me some interesting facts and problems regarding the arrest of  drivers who are DUI.

The number one way DUI's are caught is when they are driving with their headlights off. Not weaving and not check points. So you lushes out there make sure your head lights are on.

At check pints you have to be pretty f'ed up to be called aside for a closer look. You would have to wreak, slur, be belligerent or have really bloodshot eyes.

This one I didnt know. They should give you the breath test in a climate controlled area, things like temp, humidity even car fumes can effect the accuracy of the results.  Thats why suspects are given a field sobriety test and then arrested to be given the breathalyzer at the station.

If you are a pot smoker or drug user, even prescription drugs and you are given a blood test (especially with pot) you could get a positive result even if you if you haven't used the drug in a month. In other words if you are given a blood test and it comes back positive you will be charged with DUI, even of the joint you smoked was a month before. So pot smokers, blow man blow, you don't want that blood test.

She also said the US has the highest or at least one of the highest fatality rates due to DUI.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 03, 2011, 11:22:29 PM
It's just a checkpoint, and they are unconstitutional.  

And three US Supreme Court justices agree with you. In the case of "Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990," one dissenting justice said
"This is a case that is driven by nothing more than symbolic state action — an insufficient justification for an otherwise unreasonable program of random seizures. Unfortunately, the Court is transfixed by the wrong symbol — the illusory prospect of punishing countless intoxicated motorists — when it should keep its eyes on the road plainly marked by the Constitution."

However, the decision was 6 to 3 in favor of allowing that "Sobriety Checkpoints" are constitutional, even though, in his delivery of the opinion of the court, chief justice Rehnquist noted:

"Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint...Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied." The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment."

The full text of the decision can be accessed here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11348246873623439918&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11348246873623439918&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uintafly on January 03, 2011, 11:41:55 PM
One aspect, that may contribute to drunk driving in the US, is the fact that the personal car is for many the only means of transportation to and from their watering hole. In Europe settlements tend to be less spread out and public transportation is much more widely available.

 

Very true. Here in Utah there was a push awhile back to extend weekend hours for public transportation to last until the bars close. I didn't happen and one of the reasons is they said that it would encourage drinking.  ??? But this is the same state that would love to force all drinkers to wear a scarlet A.

And if you really hate the invasion of privacy you will love going to our bars and having your drivers license scanned every time so the government can keep your drinking habits in their database. >:(
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 03, 2011, 11:54:10 PM
Scanned? For real. Now that is bad.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uintafly on January 04, 2011, 12:12:06 AM
Scanned? For real. Now that is bad.

Sad but true. Though they claim the info will only be used foir evidence against a DUI arrest.

It was the only way the legislature would allow a change in our "private-club" laws.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: a10t2 on January 04, 2011, 01:29:07 AM
Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.

Your taxes fund universities too, but you still can't get in without good grades.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uintafly on January 04, 2011, 01:56:32 AM
Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.

Your taxes fund universities too, but you still can't get in without good grades.

Unless you go to an SEC school!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 04, 2011, 02:30:49 AM
Scanned? For real. Now that is bad.

But wait, scanners were invented after the Constitution was written...
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 04, 2011, 03:12:34 AM
Ha, ha, ya got me there.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: johnf on January 04, 2011, 03:16:05 AM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What part of being on the road on Saturday night when the bars close and refusing a breath test is not probable cause for a warrant?

You are kidding, right?  You're saying that just by driving a car at a particular time of day makes you suspicious and gives the authorities the power to detain you against your will and take blood from you against your will?

That kinda sucks for people who a driving to or from work don't you think?  Perhaps they should be required to carry a note from their employer, "Please excuse (your name here) from having his civil rights violated.  He is on his way home from work."

No I do not think driving at a certain time alone is probable cause. That is why I used the word and.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 04, 2011, 03:45:24 AM
...but scanning the license is not even debatable cause that is clearly an invasion of privacy.

 When you are driving you are in public and responsible to the public. Just like pissing in the alley. The police peering down the alley to see if you are pissing is not an invasion of your rights.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Kaiser on January 04, 2011, 02:49:10 PM
Near where I live there is a liquor store that scans license and finger prints and takes a picture of you. But it doesn’t do that to everybody. Maybe only to customers who appear to be under the age of 30. But that is the only store in the area that does this. Maybe it’s a town law or their insurance mandates it.

Kai


Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: phillamb168 on January 04, 2011, 03:11:10 PM
In Chicago there was a liquor store just off the Belmont red line that did the same thing. They scanned my DL to, I guess, make sure it was valid, although I'm 26 and look it. They had a security guard in there, too, and you had to buzz the door to get in, so go figure.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: a10t2 on January 04, 2011, 03:54:57 PM
I think a lot of states are starting to incorporate bar codes into licenses, to crack down on forgeries. And bars and liquor stores scanning the license to do an age check makes sense. If they're actually going beyond that and storing information on your drinking habits, though... wow.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: MDixon on January 04, 2011, 03:58:52 PM
I guess the true sign you are getting old is when you are no longer asked for ID anymore...one of the local sports facilities cards everyone...makes me feel young again  ;)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: jeffy on January 04, 2011, 04:16:55 PM
I guess the true sign you are getting old is when you are no longer asked for ID anymore...one of the local sports facilities cards everyone...makes me feel young again  ;)

I girl at the grocery store asked for my ID recently and then said, "just kidding!"
A good way to make me feel bad.....
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 04, 2011, 04:22:41 PM
Here in Savannah Georgia, they now require anyone who serves alcohol to have a server's permit; no permit, no serving...serve someone underage, no permit.

Also, on January 1st, smoking became banned inside any bar/restaurant, including a radius of ten feet around any doors on the facility.

And Mike, yes it does feel good to get carded when you clearly look older than 21...well, older than 40 lets say.  :)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Hokerer on January 04, 2011, 06:14:02 PM
I guess the true sign you are getting old is when you are no longer asked for ID anymore...one of the local sports facilities cards everyone...makes me feel young again  ;)

Or what happened to my wife and I.  We went to the movies a few weeks ago and the kid ringing up our tickets said "Senior rate, right?".  Oops.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: EHall on January 04, 2011, 06:18:05 PM
I guess the true sign you are getting old is when you are no longer asked for ID anymore...one of the local sports facilities cards everyone...makes me feel young again  ;)

I girl at the grocery store asked for my ID recently and then said, "just kidding!"
A good way to make me feel bad.....

Clerk: can I see your ID please? just kidding!
Me: Hey, you're kinda cute! just kidding!
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 04, 2011, 06:19:51 PM
Clerk: (slaps your wiseass face).....

;)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: dirk_mclargehuge on January 04, 2011, 07:31:11 PM
and even if I were to walk to the bar, get drunk and plan on walking home... I could still get arrested...

Currently, under Texas Law, if you are sitting in your yard and you are intoxicated, you can be arrested for Public Intoxication, because the public can see you.  In reality, you'd have to be doing something to attract their attention, say, shouting at the top of your lungs, before they would arrest you.  But the possibility exists that on a slow night, if a police officer sees you walking a not so straight line across your lawn, you could be arrested.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: gisbrewmaster on January 04, 2011, 09:19:23 PM
The following seems to be reasons given for why checkpoints are allowable: (Please note, not my opinions, but what I've found from looking at past Supreme Court decisions relating to the subject. I know, nerdy, but hours of research is how I got through college -- my professors would rip you a new one if you failed to back up a paper with legiimate research and valid citing sources)

1. A checkpoint involves checking everyone that passes a specific point on a road; no one is singled out at the discretion of an officer. It’s not random with respect to who is checked, as all that pass are checked – even if but very briefly

2. The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your right to use the road is not being disallowed – you still have access – but there are conditions that you must meet to be allowed to operate a vehicle on public roads. Your ability to meet the conditions of that privilege can be assessed.

3. If probable cause is present, then an officer is not violating your fourth amendment rights if he/she assesses your ability to operate a motor vehicle, i.e., if you present signs of being intoxicated, it is not an “unreasonable search and seizure,” which the fourth amendment protects you against.

4. If you refuse a breathalyzer, and there is a judge present at the checkpoint, and probable cause exists, then yes, he can issue, right there and then, a warrant, supported by oath and affirmation, and which describe the “place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now granted, the Supreme Court may someday hear a case before it that prompts them to decide that checkpoints do somehow infringe upon personal freedoms or rights, but so far their rulings have not cast any light of unconstitutionality on the practice. Note however: one key point that has held them to support it is findings that show checkpoints are effective; the findings may prove to be wrong, or the numbers may drop to where the lack of effectiveness is outweighed by the inconveiience to motorists.


" The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right."

Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.

Major interstates and roads weren't built for your driving pleasure.  They were build to be able to move the military around.  We could say they are nice to let us use them.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: corkybstewart on January 04, 2011, 09:44:11 PM
and even if I were to walk to the bar, get drunk and plan on walking home... I could still get arrested...

Currently, under Texas Law, if you are sitting in your yard and you are intoxicated, you can be arrested for Public Intoxication, because the public can see you.  In reality, you'd have to be doing something to attract their attention, say, shouting at the top of your lungs, before they would arrest you.  But the possibility exists that on a slow night, if a police officer sees you walking a not so straight line across your lawn, you could be arrested.
I had an employee a few years ago who decided it was better to walk the 6 blocks from the bar to his house and got arrested for being drunk in public.  But at least he didn't lose his license or kill anybody.
In NM I believe it's also technically illegal to be drunk in your own yard, or even to have a visible alcohol container like a beer can, but I've never heard of anybody getting busted for it.  I've had cops(off-duty) sitting in my yard drinking homebrew and they didn't seem concerned
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: hopfenundmalz on January 04, 2011, 09:58:28 PM


Major interstates and roads weren't built for your driving pleasure.  They were build to be able to move the military around.  We could say they are nice to let us use them.
[/quote]

They were built for commerce and defense.  Eisenhower had a terrible time traveling cross country as a young Army Officer.  He was impressed with the Autobahns, which were also built for commerce and to move the troops and material around.  The funding for this is known as the  "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956".  Note the "and".
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 04, 2011, 10:14:31 PM


Major interstates and roads weren't built for your driving pleasure.  They were build to be able to move the military around.  We could say they are nice to let us use them.

They were built for commerce and defense.  Eisenhower had a terrible time traveling cross country as a young Army Officer.  He was impressed with the Autobahns, which were also built for commerce and to move the troops and material around.  The funding for this is known as the  "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956".  Note the "and".
[/quote]

It sure is nice that our homebrew supplies move quicker from supplier to us with interstate roads around!
Thanks Eisenhower! Now I just gotta brew an "IkePA" as a tribute!  ;D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: oscarvan on January 05, 2011, 03:56:49 AM
I went to a party last year where the "guards" were ordered to card everyone. I showed them my AARP card.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 05, 2011, 05:48:51 AM
One aspect, that may contribute to drunk driving in the US, is the fact that the personal car is for many the only means of transportation to and from their watering hole. In Europe settlements tend to be less spread out and public transportation is much more widely available.

This is one thing I noticed when I came to the US. Getting drunk away from home meant that I have to make arrangements for someone to drive me or plan to sober up on the hosts couch.

Kai

Yah, Sure was nice to just hop on the Zug and ride to the gasthoff.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: uthristy on January 05, 2011, 01:45:37 PM
What's the EU method?.


European Union

* Austria: 0.05% and 0.01% for drivers who have held a licence for less than 2 years and drivers of vehicles over 7.5 tonnes
* Belgium: 0.05%
* Bulgaria: 0.05%
* Czech Republic: Zero
* Denmark: 0.05%, imprisonment if over 0.08%, zero if involved in an accident
* Estonia: 0.02%
* Finland: 0.05%
* France: 0.05%
* Germany: zero for beginners (less than 2 years' experience and drivers under the age of 21) as well as drivers making commercial transportation of passengers; 0.03% in conjunction with any other traffic offense or accident; 0.05% without evidence of alcoholic impact; penalty for 0.11% is driver licence withdrawn for about one year; for 0.16% regranting of the licence requires a successful medical-psychological driver assessment
* Greece: 0.05% (BrAC 0.25 mg/L)% and 0.02% for drivers who have held a license for less than 2 years, motor cycle and professional drivers
* Hungary: Zero
* Ireland: 0.08% to be reduced to 0.05% or 0.02% for learner and professional drivers.
* Italy: 0.05%
* Latvia: 0.02% for drivers with less than 2 years of experience and 0.05% for those with more than 2 years of experience
* Lithuania: 0.02% for drivers with less than 2 years of experience and 0.04% for those with more than 2 years of experience
* Luxembourg: 0.05% and 0.02% for professional drivers and drivers with less than 2 years of experience
* Malta: 0.08%
* Netherlands: 0.05%, 0.02% for drivers with less than 5 years' experience
* Poland: 0.02%
* Portugal: 0.05%
* Romania: Zero
* Slovakia: Zero
* Slovenia: Zero for drivers with 2 years or less experience and professional drivers, 0.24 mg/l (0.05%) for all others.
* Spain: 0.05% and 0.03% for drivers with less than 2 years experience and drivers of freight vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, and of passenger vehicles with more than 9 seats.
* Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years)
* United Kingdom: 0.08%
--
This is part two of the "EU method"
 

In the UK, its the same 0.08 BAC limit.  Its the same in that officers cannot pull you over simply to check your licence.  They require probable cause or suspicion of intoxication. But, get convicted, and its automatic loss of licence for 12 months, jail time and fines.  After that you have to re-sit your driving test (extended, harder test) and good luck finding an insurance company that will take you on.  Its also much less socially accepted, and people will not hesitate to take the keys from someone who's been drinking..

My friends in NL-Be. will not get behind the wheel after drinking as the cost is too much to risk. But here in the states theres plenty of loopholes to wiggle your way out of even if your guilty as hell- $$$$$ or who you know.

If you get busted I think it should be 1yr no- if`s or buts, second time 5yrs, hurt or kill somebody 25 to life, no early release.
Far too many times does a drunk with a proven record get his/her DL back only to go on and kill sombody,


But treating everybody as "guilty till proven innocent" is wrong plain & simple.

---------
Anybody want to defend cell phones or texting while driving??  Both have been shown to be major threat to drivers, but its treated with a nod & wink.

Its socially acceptable behavior ::)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 05, 2011, 02:24:39 PM
I think texting while driving is at least as dangerous than driving drunk, personally. I'm certainly not going to defend it at all, and lots of places are cracking down. But  its really hard to enforce.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Kaiser on January 05, 2011, 02:47:12 PM
* Germany: zero for beginners (less than 2 years' experience and drivers under the age of 21) as well as drivers making commercial transportation of passengers; 0.03% in conjunction with any other traffic offense or accident; 0.05% without evidence of alcoholic impact; penalty for 0.11% is driver licence withdrawn for about one year; for 0.16% regranting of the licence requires a successful medical-psychological driver assessment
 

What you are seeing here is the push and pull between various interests that have a stake in this. Largely the German brewing industry opposes any law that wants to set a 0 alcohol limit. That’s true for pretty much any Country but it seems in Germany this has led to a fairly complicated law.

Kai
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: nicneufeld on January 05, 2011, 02:51:31 PM
Dangit if I want to brush my teeth while driving, that's my right!  Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was 'Mercuh, not communist China!

Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: dirk_mclargehuge on January 05, 2011, 02:57:07 PM
I think texting while driving is at least as dangerous than driving drunk, personally. I'm certainly not going to defend it at all, and lots of places are cracking down. But  its really hard to enforce.
That's why Austin Police Chief Art Arcevedo wants to eliminate the blood alcohol limit laws, and replace them with "Driving Impaired" laws.  The police would have to see the crime being committed, rather than stopping everyone, taking police away from other duties.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 05, 2011, 04:34:00 PM
I went to a party last year where the "guards" were ordered to card everyone. I showed them my AARP card.

Nice!  Now I know what mine is good for!
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: majorvices on January 05, 2011, 10:13:17 PM
I went to a party last year where the "guards" were ordered to card everyone. I showed them my AARP card.

Nice!  Now I know what mine is good for!

That and 15% off a 20 pack of Preperation H.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: denny on January 05, 2011, 10:13:57 PM
Hey, at least that's something I can use!  ;)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 05, 2011, 10:40:58 PM
Hey, at least that's something I can use!  ;)

We've gone from DUI to TMI...
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 06, 2011, 12:00:18 AM
What's the EU method?.



But treating everybody as "guilty till proven innocent" is wrong plain & simple.


Which raises a question for me. When are the police treating people as guilty until proven innocent? I think there are sobriety road blocks all over Europe, more than here I bet. that's no doubt why your friends wont think of driving after drinking I bet. Cause even if your driving ok you may get caught at a check point.

They use the breathalyzer in Europe also dont they? Some people even saud here that the the breathalyzer is unconstitutional because they will be tried by a "machine" instead of a jury.

I just cant seem to imagine that the cops are out there in road blocks just picking people out randomly to test their blood or breath. They are gonna get the people who are stinking of pot or alcohol, maybe crack. The road blocks are also used to get people for bad inspection stickers, bad registration, NO INSURANCE, unsafe vehicles and loads, etc,.right?
 

Do people feel as though these means (breathalizer,/blood test) of acquiring evidence from someone who is clearly intoxicated is wrong entirely? or only wrong at a road block? Ya know as opposed to pulling someone over for weaving or running a red light.

I have never been through a check point ever. Im not even sure they are real. They are kinda like bigfoot to me. Havent been pulled over in about 20 years either. Well actually once about five years ago cause I had a taillight out.

One day they will have some sort of alcohol sensor they can aim right at you and it will give them a reading from a distance. They will use that for the people that dont submit to the chip. cause the chip will tell them how much you drank. Maybe it will even call the police.   


 
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tschmidlin on January 06, 2011, 06:54:49 AM
I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 
innocent until proven guilty....gone
right to not self incriminate....gone
illegal search and seizure.....gone

and if you physically resist the blood draw, they just write you up as resisting an officer which carries a similar penalty - and FINE I would imagine. Since they only do this occasionally, could it be less about public safety and more about $$$?

I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 
US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wow, get busy for a few days . . . :)

I haven't read all of the posts, all of the sudden there's 11 pages of them, so someone may have covered this.  And I am not a lawyer, but here is my take . . .

Innocent until proven guilty.  If the law says refusing is an admission of guilt, then that let's them arrest you for it.  You are still entitled to a trial, not immediately sentenced, therefore you are still innocent until proven guilty.  And if the law says that refusal is probable cause, then that is all they need for a warrant.

Right to not self-incriminate.  Court ordered biological samples have surely been challenged and found to be constitutional by SCOTUS, right?  bouef.

Illegal search and seizure.  If the judge issues a warrant based on probable cause, there is nothing illegal about it.

As for the probable cause, no driving around at night is not probable cause.  But smelling like alcohol is.  It's not like they're going to be giving breath tests to every single person they stop at these checkpoints, just the ones they think are drunk.  If the officer is trained in detecting someone who has been drinking, and they all are, then they are an expert as far as a court is concerned and their opinion is all they need to establish probable cause.

My brother was NJSP for 8 or 10 years, and I rode along with him once.  He stopped a guy for speeding, he smelled like alcohol, the guy passed every field sobriety test except the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  Took him back for the breathalyzer, his BAC was something over .2%.   Crazy.

Anyway, like I said, I find the whole thing objectionable because I don't believe refusal should be enough for probable cause.  Why refuse if you're sober?  For the same reason I object to warrantless wire taps or the government reading my email.  "If you have nothing to hide then why do you care?".  Right to privacy.  I think you have the expectation of privacy when you're on the phone or sending email, so these are clearly protected.  But driving is a privilege and all that, so it is less clear to me if you can expect the same protections.  If I missed a better argument please point it out to me, I just find these unconvincing :)

I think google just needs to start selling the self-driving car already so we can stop worrying about it.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/google-car-video/
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: euge on January 06, 2011, 07:04:08 AM
Hell yeah!  Drive my ass to work or anywhere I want to go. Problem solved.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tschmidlin on January 06, 2011, 07:07:53 AM
Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back ;)

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: euge on January 06, 2011, 07:19:24 AM
Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back ;)

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D

Now preventing a PUI would go against the spirit don't ya  think? Guilty as charged sir! No I won't get off my couch! Move along.

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tschmidlin on January 06, 2011, 07:23:36 AM
Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back ;)

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D

Now preventing a PUI would go against the spirit don't ya  think? Guilty as charged sir! No I won't get off my couch! Move along.
I was originally thinking drunk dialing or emailing ex-girlfriends, but that's not nearly as relevant to the board.  Or maybe it is? ;)

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?
Pretty sure google is responsible. ;D

I really hope this gets done relatively soon.  Just think - improved mpg, better traffic flow, fewer accidents, less (no?) road rage, no need for a DD for bachelor parties . . .
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: euge on January 06, 2011, 07:45:28 AM
Ha this reminds me of one of my Vietnam Vet supervisors.  He followed his gps a little too closely going cross-state about six months ago; ended up on some strange gravel road and flipped his truck- totaling it.

I was like "didn't you think leaving the pavement was a warning sign?" He said he trusted the gps maybe a little too much. Now he has a new truck.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 06, 2011, 08:26:48 AM

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?

The Federal government would be, for mandating the blending of ethanol in gasoline! (10.00% ! )
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: phillamb168 on January 06, 2011, 09:26:53 AM
I was going to respond to this but tschmidlin said basically everything I wanted to say. But I've already typed all this up so I'm going to post anyway! Nyah!

Re Cap's EU roadblock thing:
I've never, ever seen a roadblock with Gendarmes testing for anything here. Note however that I am never driving at night unless we're on a road trip, and I like to be in bed by 8:30 because if I'm up too late my after-dinner prunes don't sit well with my stomach.

My wife is actually working on getting her driver's license here so I can ask her what the rules are. I know they got REALLY strict about a decade ago - before that it was pretty lenient and France had the highest mortality rate in Europe due to drunk driving.

Re Everything else:
After following this thread and all the "unconstitutional to be breathalyzed" stuff, I have one question: if you're up on murder charges and have had DNA testing done to prove that your bodily fluids were present at the scene, does that make the DNA test "trial by machine?" No, because you still have to go before a judge.

As far as I am aware, when you are arrested after failing a breathalyzer, you're being put into custody pending a trial by a real judge, the same way someone accused of murder is put into custody to prevent them from fleeing. Your breathalyzer results will be put before the judge as evidence of your crime, in the same way that DNA evidence will be used against you.

It is absolutely your right to argue in court that the breathalyzer was unconstitutional, or that it was inaccurate, etc. But you have to do it in court.

Refusing to do something mandated by law when you disagree with said law is called CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. It is a wonderful, beautiful method of change, but part of civil disobedience is understanding that it's super annoying and can take a lot of work. The courts system takes a long time to go through because EVERYONE deserves a fair trial and that can take a LOT of time. If you want to fight this, then go to court. Of course it costs money and time. Don't have money and time? Don't engage in civil disobedience. Don't want to sit still and allow things that you disagree with to happen? Find anybody that agrees with you and either hire a lawyer for a class action suit or petition the government for a change in the law or go political and work to elect people who agree with you. "I have a job and family responsibilities" is not a reason for inaction if your convictions are strong enough...

I'm trying REALLY hard not to be political on this forumg. But I still want to say this: it seems to me that these days a lot of Americans across the political spectrum - Conservative, Liberal, Green, Libertarian, and Wacko - want to complain about how things are but they're too lazy to do what is necessary to fix them. I'm not talking about overthrowing government or something, that's a lazy way out, too. You want to fix something, you have to use the system. It takes time, and money, and courage and conviction. Too many people are more concerned with how so-and-so is doing on The Biggest Loser than they are with where the country is headed. Jefferson said, famously, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." He said that during a time of revolution in America, before our democratic systems were in place. Were he alive today, I think he would say instead, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the sweat of patriots."

--

Also of note, it's apparently illegal to refuse a search in France (so says my wife). Not sure how I feel about that.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: beerocd on January 06, 2011, 01:19:53 PM
no need for a DD for bachelor parties . . .

that should be the minimum requirement for a bachelor party.... Double D's.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: Hokerer on January 06, 2011, 02:58:39 PM
Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back ;)

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D

Now preventing a PUI would go against the spirit don't ya  think? Guilty as charged sir! No I won't get off my couch! Move along.

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?

No idea who would be responsible but one thing's for sure.  MADD and their ilk would put this in their stats as an "alcohol related accident"
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: 1vertical on January 06, 2011, 04:02:39 PM
As for the probable cause, no driving around at night is not probable cause.  But smelling like alcohol is. 

Interesting because my WINDOW WASHER SOLVENT contains rubbing alcohol that I put in to alter the freezing point
and when I wash the windshield, it smells strongly just like alcohol and I have not had a drop to drink.....
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 06, 2011, 05:24:02 PM


The Federal government would be, for mandating the blending of ethanol in gasoline! (10.00% ! )

So punatic...cars can consume ethanol while on the road? Unfair!!!
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: bluefoxicy on January 06, 2011, 05:55:48 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Unholy_three_cropped.png)

Quick, somebody doctor this pic to read for these modern times.

Funny enough, the major theories I've heard for where HIV came from fall into three categories:


Also I think at the time they believed they could "cure" homosexuality by "therapy," which basically ended in mental health work that (get this) caused a suppression problem (self-denial, pushing down the bad gay thoughts).  Modern mental health science, even at that time, should know that such non-acceptance of the self leads to internal stress and eventual violence, either self-directed or externalized.

Today we have the same problem with pedophiles being sent to counseling "to cure them," in which we try to convince them they don't like children sexually... the suppression and self-rejection leads to either mental trauma (where they suddenly wind up raping/murdering someone due to mental stress issues) or a jekyl-and-hyde symptom (cycles of abuse and then receding and pretending nothing happened).  The correct way to handle this is to teach self-acceptance and integration with society:  these people have to accept that they have certain urges and impulses, and make the decision to walk away from them.  It's like not cheating on your wife; do you honestly mean to tell me you don't want to bang all sixteen college cheerleaders jumping around at your kid's football game?  It doesn't happen; but there are guys that will just show a HUGE grin and walk away.

Nobody ever stops this stuff, or notices when things actually come to bear.  We quite rather like to hide the ugly part of society, and we like to do things more on principle of what we can accept:  stricter laws because we can't accept letting people get away with things, but don't talk about loss of liberty.  We don't want to follow anything that looks like a kook-job conspiracy theory, like fluoridated water or aspartame toxicity... we just accept that these people are crazy and stop looking for evidence, just find one single paper that says they're nuts and be done with it, don't ever look again.  Of course we're going to say, well, drunk drivers are bad so we should have a police state to stop them from killing people with their cars.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: bluefoxicy on January 06, 2011, 06:09:07 PM
My problem is this. Nothing is working and people are just driving around totally s*** faced. Im sure you all have seen it. Try telling someone that has had a few that they cant drive.They get defensive. Alcohol makes you think you can do anything.


I assure you NOTHING will let you beat me in a fight, no matter how much you think you can.  If I say you can't drive, you can't drive.

I've seen people like this.  They hit the curb 6 times, then pull into the next lane cruising next to the yellow line so they can go careening into opposing traffic.  If my car didn't weigh 2800 pounds, I'd probably use it to stop their car by force; somebody driving slow and wobbling around is one thing, but when they can't stay in their lane for more than one whole second something needs doing.

Most people recognize a lot of stuff as crazy and extreme, and we've started to see this coming as people decide "violence is bad."  Violence is the single most important problem solving tool the human race has ever had, and I'd like to stare down the judge that's going to throw an assault charge at me for getting in a fist fight with someone who can barely get IN their car because they're intent on driving home.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: maxieboy on January 06, 2011, 07:31:51 PM
My problem is this. Nothing is working and people are just driving around totally s*** faced. Im sure you all have seen it. Try telling someone that has had a few that they cant drive.They get defensive. Alcohol makes you think you can do anything.


I assure you NOTHING will let you beat me in a fight, no matter how much you think you can.  If I say you can't drive, you can't drive.

I've seen people like this.  They hit the curb 6 times, then pull into the next lane cruising next to the yellow line so they can go careening into opposing traffic.  If my car didn't weigh 2800 pounds, I'd probably use it to stop their car by force; somebody driving slow and wobbling around is one thing, but when they can't stay in their lane for more than one whole second something needs doing.

Most people recognize a lot of stuff as crazy and extreme, and we've started to see this coming as people decide "violence is bad."  Violence is the single most important problem solving tool the human race has ever had, and I'd like to stare down the judge that's going to throw an assault charge at me for getting in a fist fight with someone who can barely get IN their car because they're intent on driving home.

Stay out of it. Call the cops...
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: bluefoxicy on January 06, 2011, 09:14:21 PM

Stay out of it. Call the cops...

The police can't get there fast enough and somebody dies.  It's happened.  Police have been called, and turns out it wasn't necessary because they would have shown up after the fatal collisions with other cars or walking/biking pedestrians anyway.

I had someone in my college class that heard some woman screaming outside at night, but decided to stay out of it.. found out she'd been violently raped the next day, the cops were out asking people questions.  One woman in the past had bled to death for an hour after being fatally stabbed in two separate attacks within several minutes of each other; everyone heard her, but decided to stay out of it.

The bystander effect is the single biggest threat to civil society we have, and we've culturally taken to magnifying it via the concept of a nanny state.  Nothing is your problem and the police will handle it.  People may die, but it's better than risking getting hurt, killed, or worse--fined or sued.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tschmidlin on January 06, 2011, 09:42:28 PM
As for the probable cause, no driving around at night is not probable cause.  But smelling like alcohol is.

Interesting because my WINDOW WASHER SOLVENT contains rubbing alcohol that I put in to alter the freezing point
and when I wash the windshield, it smells strongly just like alcohol and I have not had a drop to drink.....
Oh come on, isopropyl alcohol smells nothing like ethanol, and if you have it on your breath then you should be taken into protective custody anyway.

But if you're really concerned, don't wash your windshield as you approach a checkpoint. ;)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: hopfenundmalz on January 06, 2011, 10:02:34 PM


The Federal government would be, for mandating the blending of ethanol in gasoline! (10.00% ! )

So punatic...cars can consume ethanol while on the road? Unfair!!!

One of the reasons that you can get E85 and not E100 is that the 15% that is gasoline renders it unfit for human consumption.  It also makes the flames visible, if there is a fire. 
Brazil has (had) 100% ethonal fuel for a long time.  Sugar cane is the source.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: blatz on January 06, 2011, 10:08:13 PM
Sugar cane is the source.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women"
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 06, 2011, 10:56:38 PM
Sugar cane is the source.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women"

LOL...reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes: "The juice, the precious juice."
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: a10t2 on January 06, 2011, 11:14:21 PM
Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D

Ask and ye shall receive: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-stop-sending-mail-you-later.html
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: tschmidlin on January 06, 2011, 11:42:25 PM
Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D

Ask and ye shall receive: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-stop-sending-mail-you-later.html
That's hilarious!
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: bluesman on January 07, 2011, 02:06:30 AM
Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D

Ask and ye shall receive: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-stop-sending-mail-you-later.html

I must admit that I could've used this a few times in my life. Great stuff.  8)
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 07, 2011, 02:38:56 AM
Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . . ;D

Ask and ye shall receive: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-stop-sending-mail-you-later.html

Not good enough - I got through 4 levels of engineering calculus, differential equations and linear algebra homework - late at night powered by homebrew...
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: phillamb168 on January 07, 2011, 09:24:47 AM


The Federal government would be, for mandating the blending of ethanol in gasoline! (10.00% ! )

So punatic...cars can consume ethanol while on the road? Unfair!!!

One of the reasons that you can get E85 and not E100 is that the 15% that is gasoline renders it unfit for human consumption.  It also makes the flames visible, if there is a fire. 
Brazil has (had) 100% ethonal fuel for a long time.  Sugar cane is the source.

Speaking of unfit for human consumption AND fueling cars with alcohol: http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2011/01/four_loko_is_being_used_to_fue.html
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: phillamb168 on January 07, 2011, 09:28:13 AM

Stay out of it. Call the cops...

The police can't get there fast enough and somebody dies.  It's happened.  Police have been called, and turns out it wasn't necessary because they would have shown up after the fatal collisions with other cars or walking/biking pedestrians anyway.

I had someone in my college class that heard some woman screaming outside at night, but decided to stay out of it.. found out she'd been violently raped the next day, the cops were out asking people questions.  One woman in the past had bled to death for an hour after being fatally stabbed in two separate attacks within several minutes of each other; everyone heard her, but decided to stay out of it.

The bystander effect is the single biggest threat to civil society we have, and we've culturally taken to magnifying it via the concept of a nanny state.  Nothing is your problem and the police will handle it.  People may die, but it's better than risking getting hurt, killed, or worse--fined or sued.

Most countries have laws that state, effectively, if you are witnessing a crime, and you have the ability to help and do not, you're charged with 'failure to act' or 'aiding and abetting' or something like that. The penalties are pretty hefty - jail time in most cases.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: beerocd on January 07, 2011, 12:55:13 PM

Most countries have laws that state, effectively, if you are witnessing a crime, and you have the ability to help and do not, you're charged with 'failure to act' or 'aiding and abetting' or something like that. The penalties are pretty hefty - jail time in most cases.

What about the (hot) damsel in distress you try to save, only to meet her four thug friends who were hiding in the shadows? Or that crazy girl when you try to beat up the boyfriend who was smacking the s*** out of her - she jumps on you and claws you up cuz you are hurting her boyfriend! I'm sure some of you live in a neighborhood like in "my blue heaven", "groundhogs day" or "the truman show". But the bigger cities you gotta be suspicious about everything.  :(
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: phillamb168 on January 07, 2011, 02:40:01 PM

Most countries have laws that state, effectively, if you are witnessing a crime, and you have the ability to help and do not, you're charged with 'failure to act' or 'aiding and abetting' or something like that. The penalties are pretty hefty - jail time in most cases.

What about the (hot) damsel in distress you try to save, only to meet her four thug friends who were hiding in the shadows? Or that crazy girl when you try to beat up the boyfriend who was smacking the s*** out of her - she jumps on you and claws you up cuz you are hurting her boyfriend! I'm sure some of you live in a neighborhood like in "my blue heaven", "groundhogs day" or "the truman show". But the bigger cities you gotta be suspicious about everything.  :(

Eh.. I've lived in major metropolitan areas for most of my life. Bed Stuy and Brooklyn heights in Brooklyn, Mott Haven in the South Bronx, various parts of Chicago, and now the suburbs of Paris. Truman Show they ain't, and I gotta say the idea that you have to always be suspicious in the "bigger cities" is bunk. Bad things can happen (I've been mugged before - two teenage punks knocked me over and tried to steal my iphone, but little did they know that I've been boxing for 5 years. I got my phone back), but Jiminy H Cricket, the chances of one of the above situations you mention actually happening are extraordinary. Maybe in the movies, but not in real life.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: blatz on January 07, 2011, 03:00:19 PM
Speaking of unfit for human consumption AND fueling cars with alcohol: http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2011/01/four_loko_is_being_used_to_fue.html


reminds me of yet another great Simpsons quote:

"One for you, one for me" - Homer, in a dream, as he fills up his car at the beer station.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: beerocd on January 07, 2011, 04:05:35 PM
I gotta say the idea that you have to always be suspicious in the "bigger cities" is bunk. Bad things can happen (I've been mugged before -

I must have a heck of an imagination to come up with those totally fictional scenarios all on my own. And besides, you WEREN'T suspicious and you got mugged. Just like I said. Luckily you were able to fend for yourself - many cannot.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: phillamb168 on January 07, 2011, 04:38:03 PM
Speaking of unfit for human consumption AND fueling cars with alcohol: http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2011/01/four_loko_is_being_used_to_fue.html


reminds me of yet another great Simpsons quote:

"One for you, one for me" - Homer, in a dream, as he fills up his car at the beer station.


Ha! Exactly.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: phillamb168 on January 07, 2011, 04:54:48 PM
I gotta say the idea that you have to always be suspicious in the "bigger cities" is bunk. Bad things can happen (I've been mugged before -

I must have a heck of an imagination to come up with those totally fictional scenarios all on my own. And besides, you WEREN'T suspicious and you got mugged. Just like I said. Luckily you were able to fend for yourself - many cannot.

I'm not sure I understand about the suspicious part. My point is that if you're able to do something, you should. I could certainly defend myself, but if I saw an old lady in the same situation, I'd think it was my duty to try and do something. Not everybody SHOULD do this, of course.

FWIW, the law in France, for example, says that if by your inaction you deliberately caused something bad to happen, you're responsible. Mugging or other violence is not a good example here... A better example: you'd be liable if you were walking down the street and saw a woman lying in the road bleeding to death and did nothing to help her. Going back to the original sub-topic, if you see somebody obviously drunk trying to start a car, it's your -duty- to stop them, and if you don't do anything (as opposed to trying and then he kicks you in the nuts and drives off) I think you should be liable for anything that he does as a result of you not trying to prevent him from doing something obviously stupid. There's of course a lot of grey area here and this shouldn't apply all the time. Extenuating circumstances and all that.

There's a super interesting podcast from WNYC's Radiolab about Morality and why we make the decisions we do (http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/) I haven't finished it yet, but they cover some of this stuff, like what makes people react the way they do in different situations.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: bluefoxicy on January 07, 2011, 06:08:56 PM
Luckily you were able to fend for yourself - many cannot.

This is the problem.

In my school, they told us if you are being attacked, cover your head and wait for a teacher.

They said absolutely do NOT intervene if you see someone being beaten, go get a teacher.

This is the new "self defense."  That's the problem.  What we need is a class in ass-kicking.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: maxieboy on January 07, 2011, 09:12:17 PM

Stay out of it. Call the cops...

The police can't get there fast enough and somebody dies.  It's happened.  Police have been called, and turns out it wasn't necessary because they would have shown up after the fatal collisions with other cars or walking/biking pedestrians anyway.

I had someone in my college class that heard some woman screaming outside at night, but decided to stay out of it.. found out she'd been violently raped the next day, the cops were out asking people questions.  One woman in the past had bled to death for an hour after being fatally stabbed in two separate attacks within several minutes of each other; everyone heard her, but decided to stay out of it.

The bystander effect is the single biggest threat to civil society we have, and we've culturally taken to magnifying it via the concept of a nanny state.  Nothing is your problem and the police will handle it.  People may die, but it's better than risking getting hurt, killed, or worse--fined or sued.

Most countries have laws that state, effectively, if you are witnessing a crime, and you have the ability to help and do not, you're charged with 'failure to act' or 'aiding and abetting' or something like that. The penalties are pretty hefty - jail time in most cases.

Not physically restraining someone and then calling 911 is not "not doing anything". You have no obligation to risk injury or death by physically restraining an intoxicated, possibly dangerous individual.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: punatic on January 07, 2011, 10:05:05 PM
1)  A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2)  A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3)  A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: capozzoli on January 08, 2011, 12:33:35 AM
Maybe another good question would be, how much can you drink in a given time period and then drive without being over the limit. I imagine it is pretty low amounts. Is it a beer an hour? Cause I have had two in an hour and driven, bet I was over the limit.

Now-a-days, if im driving, its "no thank you".
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: a10t2 on January 08, 2011, 02:20:30 AM
Maybe another good question would be, how much can you drink in a given time period and then drive without being over the limit. I imagine it is pretty low amounts. Is it a beer an hour? Cause I have had two in an hour and driven, bet I was over the limit.

A healthy adult of average weight can metabolize about 15-20 mL of ethanol an hour. That's roughly 12 oz of average-gravity beer, one shot of 80 proof liquor, one 5 oz glass of wine, etc. To get to a 0.08, though, you'd have to have about 3-4 drinks in an hour. There are a ton of calculators online that will try to estimate your BAC based on amount of alcohol, time, sex, and weight.

Now-a-days, if im driving, its "no thank you".

On behalf of everyone who's ever lost a loved one to a drunk driver, let me just say thank you.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: kerneldustjacket on January 08, 2011, 03:09:43 AM
There are a ton of calculators online that will try to estimate your BAC based on amount of alcohol, time, sex, and weight.

So, does having sex increase or decrease one's BAC? ;D


I've seen several forms of BAC estimators; what is surprising is how long it can take a high BAC to taper down to below the legal limit. I think someone said it earlier in this post...some folks are above the limit the next morning, and they drive home then.
Title: Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
Post by: travistowe on June 16, 2014, 11:35:26 PM
A person has a fifth amendment right to remain silent, so a "no refusal" checkpoint is unconstitutional.  You can find more about DUI law at my website, http://www.travistowe.com