"No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

[JimC]

It was light hearted, and posted in the morning fog. Try to ignore it. Harping on about it like this will make me feel bad.

I humbly apologize before your immense being for intruding upon your precious thread with invaluable input you didn't approve of.

Awwwww, poor bub.

...and it's actually Coito's precious thread. My own opinion about it is quite akin to yours.

Dammit, it's quite a nice little thread when you get to know it!

[Robert_S]

It was light hearted, and posted in the morning fog. Try to ignore it. Harping on about it like this will make me feel bad.

I humbly apologize before your immense being for intruding upon your precious thread with invaluable input you didn't approve of.

Awwwww, poor bub.

...and it's actually Coito's precious thread. My own opinion about it is quite akin to yours.

Dammit, it's quite a nice little thread when you get to know it!

You have to buy it a few drinks to get it loosened up though.

[normal]

[Hermit]

Dammit, it's quite a nice little thread when you get to know it!

It could have been, but our resident libertarians gave it no chance. The topic has been one of their soapboxes right from the opening post.

[mistermack]

However, the fact that these are serious risk factors does not alter the clear danger from driving under the influence. (And by the way, your last sentence is a little strange; do you imply that "a few points over" is somehow different when not tested, or not tested at random?)

I prefer to restrict as much as possible the numbers of drivers whose reflexes have been clearly shown to be impaired by numerous scientific tests...

If you can't say how you know that, you are no less gullible than the religious.
Have you seen the result of scientific tests? I'm willing to bet no. You're just blindly repeating what you've been fed.
What the fuck kind of clear danger let's you drive 45 years without an accident?
I think you are massively overstating your case, without any resource to evidence whatsoever.

You get all this fucking preaching, but where are the scientific tests that show clear danger? The accident figures are massaged, and yes, it's a kind of conspiracy. A sort of sanctimonious concensus where people readily include just about anything in the drink-driving figures, because they think the end justifies the means.

Years ago, there was a game arcade opposite a pub I used to frequent. It had an addictive driving machine which was very realistic for the time.
You had to get round a course without hitting things or running off the course, in as low time as possible, for a free replay.
I could NEVER get a replay before going into the pub. Coming out a few hours later, I could consistently get scores and replays that were beyond me when I hadn't had a drink. So I personally don't accept the impairment argument, just because people repeat it without evidence in a rather trusting religious way.
Show me the studies, and how they were done. Don't just expect me to take your word for it, because you took someone else's word for it. I know how deceitful people can be when they think they're doing good. Another similarity to religion.
.

[Trolldor]

Here's a start, try reading some of them.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q= ... i=scholart

[Hermit]

You had to get round a course without hitting things or running off the course, in as low time as possible, for a free replay.
I could NEVER get a replay before going into the pub. Coming out a few hours later, I could consistently get scores and replays that were beyond me when I hadn't had a drink.

Now you are telling us that the alcohol level in your blood improves your driving? Mhhhhhh.

As for the scientific tests that show clear danger, there are thousands of them. Look at this summary, for instance. It cites dozens of studies done on the matter.

Apart from that, the statistical fact remains that drivers with alcohol in their blood are significantly over-represented in traffic accidents. The proof of the pudding...

[Coito ergo sum]

Dammit, it's quite a nice little thread when you get to know it!

It could have been, but our resident libertarians gave it no chance. The topic has been one of their soapboxes right from the opening post.

It's rather myopic to think of this as a "libertarian" vs. everyone else topic.

For example, the dissenting US Supreme Court Justices in Michigan v Sitz, Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens and William Brennan, were not "libertarians." Yet, those liberal justices opposed the conservative majority opinion written by arch-conservative, Nixon appointee, William Rhenquist. It was the conservatives who made all the arguments the "liberals" are making on this thread. It was the liberal justices who wrote the following, urging against allowing these kinds of sobriety checkpoints:

A sobriety checkpoint is usually operated at night at an unannounced location. Surprise is crucial to its method. The test operation conducted by the Michigan State Police and the Saginaw County Sheriff's Department began shortly after midnight and lasted until about 1 a.m. During that period, the 19 officers participating in the operation made two arrests and stopped and questioned 124 other unsuspecting and innocent drivers.1 It is, of course, not known how many arrests would have been made during that period if those officers had been engaged in normal patrol activities. However, the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative.

That's kind of noteworthy - the trial court found, based on the extensive record - and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is INFINITESIMAL and possibly negative.

The dissenting justices go on:

Indeed, the record in this case makes clear that a decision holding these suspicionless seizures unconstitutional would not impede the law enforcement community's remarkable progress in reducing the death toll on our highways.2 Because [496 U.S. 444, 461] the Michigan program was patterned after an older program in Maryland, the trial judge gave special attention to that State's experience. Over a period of several years, Maryland operated 125 checkpoints; of the 41,000 motorists passing through those checkpoints, only 143 persons (0.3%) were arrested.3 The number of man-hours devoted to these [496 U.S. 444, 462] operations is not in the record, but it seems inconceivable that a higher arrest rate could not have been achieved by more conventional means.4 Yet, even if the 143 checkpoint arrests were assumed to involve a net increase in the number of drunken driving arrests per year, the figure would still be insignificant by comparison to the 71,000 such arrests made by Michigan State Police without checkpoints in 1984 alone. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 97a.

Any relationship between sobriety checkpoints and an actual reduction in highway fatalities is even less substantial than the minimal impact on arrest rates. As the Michigan Court of Appeals pointed out: "Maryland had conducted a study comparing traffic statistics between a county using checkpoints and a control county. The results of the study showed that alcohol-related accidents in the checkpoint county decreased by ten percent, whereas the control county saw an eleven percent decrease; and while fatal accidents in the control county fell from sixteen to three, fatal accidents in the checkpoint county actually doubled from the prior year." 170 Mich. App. 433, 443, 429 N. W. 2d 180, 184 (1988).

In light of these considerations, it seems evident that the Court today misapplies the balancing test announced in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50-51 (1979). The Court overvalues the law enforcement interest in using sobriety checkpoints, undervalues the citizen's interest in freedom from random, announced investigatory seizures, and mistakenly assumes that there is "virtually no difference" between a routine stop at a permanent, fixed checkpoint and a [496 U.S. 444, 463] surprise stop at a sobriety checkpoint. I believe this case is controlled by our several precedents condemning suspicionless random stops of motorists for investigatory purposes. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975); United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973); cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-154 (1925).

And, the dissent goes on to explain a key difference between fixed checkpoints at borders (which would include airports - airports are considered "borders" - that's why you have immigration checks at airports):

There is a critical difference between a seizure that is preceded by fair notice and one that is effected by surprise. See Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 320-321 (1971); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 559 (1976); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 513-514 (1978) (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). That is one reason why a border search, or indeed any search at a permanent and fixed checkpoint, is much less intrusive than a random stop. A motorist with advance notice of the location of a permanent checkpoint has an opportunity to avoid the search entirely, or at least to prepare for, and limit, the intrusion on her privacy.

No such opportunity is available in the case of a random stop or a temporary checkpoint, which both depend for their effectiveness on the element of surprise. A driver who discovers an unexpected checkpoint on a familiar local road will be startled and distressed. She may infer, correctly, that the checkpoint is not simply "business as usual," and may likewise infer, again correctly, that the police have made a discretionary decision to focus their law enforcement efforts upon her and others who pass the chosen point.

Other poignant quotes, that reveal no "libertarian" bent include:

The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless unannounced investigatory seizures. Although the author of the opinion does not reiterate his description of that interest as "diaphanous," see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S., at 666 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting), the Court's opinion implicitly adopts that characterization. On the other hand, the Court places a heavy thumb on the law enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits.

http://www.getmadd.com/MICHIGANvsSITZdissent.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

CES wrote:

I don't get why you would think this. You are fine with major penalties for refusing a breathalyzer. Why would you be against having the breath test refusal constituting probable cause to take a blood test for alcohol? Are you against blood tests for alcohol even if there is probable cause?

And, if refusal to take breath test is not sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to demand a blood test, then what is sufficient probable cause for a blood test?

Perhaps I am misunderstood here. I think it would be very sensible for anyone to take the breath test, and if it showed failure, allow a blood test which may well show your innocence. I certainly would... In Australia this is usually immediately available, but it is voluntary. If, having failed the breath test, you refuse the free, immediate blood test, you will be convicted on the breath test results.

I would think that a defendant should be allowed to challenge the administration of the breathalyzer test. Was the device properly maintained? Was the test properly administered? Was there some reason for a false positive?

What if a person is sober - hasn't had a drink - and the breath test shows positive - now, mistrustful of the police (as he should be, since they are his adversary at that point), she decides that it's not a good idea to agree to a blood test because she already knows that one test came up false-positive?

The only thing I would object to is the Florida insistence on a forceable and compulsory blood test in the event of refusing a breath test first. Firstly, it is a much more serious intrusion into one's liberties than simply having to blow into a bag. Secondly, if the penalties for refusing to take a breath test are the same as the penalties for having a high alcohol reading, and are consistently used, then no law enforcement purposes are served by a compulsory blood test - the guy is going down anyway...

I think we differ here.

I would suggest that if there is "probable cause" the police should be able to get a quick warrant to do a breath and a blood test. If there is no cause, though, then I would object to any test at all, because I would object to any detention without cause. In other words, I believe the stop itself is unconstitutional - not just the seizure. For a cop to pull someone over for no reason is, IMHO, an "unreasonable seizure." It seems to me to be definitional. If the constitution (in the US) or other rule (elsewhere) prohibits "unreasonable" seizures, then an any seizure for "no reason" is by definition "unreasonable."

[mistermack]

Now you are telling us that the alcohol level in your blood improves your driving? Mhhhhhh.

In my case, I most certainly would tell you that. Because I think that ATTITUDE is far more important than ability, when it comes to driving safely. And I deliberately drive far more carefully if I've had anything to drink.

The facts bear me out. The very young have the best motor skills. You don't get many pensioners driving formula 1 cars. They choose young men in their early twenties, the very people who cause most accidents.

Insurance companies know the facts. The older people with the lower motor skill pay the lowest premiums, not because their abilities are greater, but because they have a better ATTITUDE to safety.

Alcohol may not improve my driving abilities, but it DOES improve my driving. I don't take risks.
As for your "evidence", you illustrate my point nicely. You don't quote facts. You don't quote studies. You quote people with a message, who quote other people, who are probably quoting other people.
I'm going on personal experience, things I know and have experienced, not third or fourth hand opinions.

The driving simulator experience I recounted is true. I got the same result many times over many months. I wouldn't put it to the test on a road. But it certainly gave me reason to look behind the unsupported headlines for facts, which never seem to be supplied.

Apart from that, the statistical fact remains that drivers with alcohol in their blood are significantly over-represented in traffic accidents. The proof of the pudding...

The proof of the pudding seems to be the biased statistics we are fed, for you.
If you ever bothered to look at the statistics with a moderately critical eye, you might be able to distinguish propaganda from fact.

.

[Trolldor]

"Personal experience"

And once again Mistermack fails to understand the term 'standards of evidence'.

Join us again next week in another exciting installment of "Scientific Illiteracy"

[Hermit]

Coito, I do respect - even admire - the energy and endurance with which you look things up and cite them, more often than not complete with links, but I am less than impressed with what you make of the material you find. The minority opinion of the judges is one such example. The judges may not be libertarians in your conception, and I am not sufficiently familiar with their background to tell if they are in mine, but their opinion (in as far as the objection is not based on doubts about the efficacy of random breath testing) is pure libertarianism. It is an opinion that I expect typically, though not exclusively from libertarians such as you, Mistermack and Warren Dew, and none of you have disappointed me in this regard. If anything surprised me along those lines, it is your support for airport checks.

[mistermack]

"Personal experience"

And once again Mistermack fails to understand the term 'standards of evidence'.

Join us again next week in another exciting installment of "Scientific Illiteracy"

Trolldor, I don't know who you are, but your avatar reminds me of a dumb fucker called the mad hatter who used to make me laugh.
Hope you are related.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I do respect - even admire - the energy and endurance with which you look things up and cite them, more often than not complete with links, but I am less than impressed with what you make of the material you find. The minority opinion of the judges is one such example. The judges may not be libertarians in your conception, and I am not sufficiently familiar with their background to tell if they are in mine, but their opinion (in as far as the objection is not based on doubts about the efficacy of random breath testing) is pure libertarianism. It is an opinion that I expect typically, though not exclusively from libertarians such as you, Mistermack and Warren Dew, and none of you have disappointed me in this regard. If anything surprised me along those lines, it is your support for airport checks.

Not based on doubts about efficacy??? First paragraph of the dissenting opinion:

However, the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative.

Moreover, Thurgood Marshall was one of the dissenting Justices who joined in that opinion. Here is this so-called "libertarian":



In his early career he was Chief Counsel for the NAACP. His most famous case as a lawyer was "Brown vs. Board of Education," in which he won the argument ending discrimination in schools. He was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by John F. Kennedy, and to the US Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson. He is best remembered for his jurisprudence on civil rights and criminal procedure.

William Brennan was on the Court from 1956 to 1990 - During his term on the Supreme Court, he was known for being a leader of the judicially liberal wing of the Court. He was known for his outspoken progressive views, including opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion rights. He authored several landmark case opinions, including Baker v. Carr, establishing the "one person, one vote" principle, and New York Times v. Sullivan, which required "actual malice" in a libel suit against those deemed "public figures".

The dissenting opinion in Michigan v Sitz was not written by "Libertarians," - it is a LIBERAL opinion - written by the most progressive Justices on the Supreme Court in the last 60 years!

You want to whitewash it with some fingerpointing that it is a "libertarian" opinion, because it allows you to just dismiss it out of hand - hand-wave it away as if the opinion is just some unreasonable libertarian screed. It isn't. Read it.

And for the same reason - being opposed to surprise sobriety checkpoints does not mean one is doing so from a "libertarian" perspective. I'm not even sure all libertarians would be against it. Libertarians tend to be quite pro-law enforcement - it's one of the few areas they suggest the State should have legitimate power.

But, one can certainly approach the issue of sobriety check points from the standpoint of (a) interpretation of constitutional law, or (b) civil liberties and civil rights, or (c) the rights of criminal defendants, etc. and not merely some "libertarian" view.

Now - you're in favor of the checkpoints - I assume you agree with the conservative view on the subject - right? You think it's no big deal, and a de minimus intrusion on civil rights - you think that the effectiveness (supposedly, according to law enforcement) of these suspicionless stops is enough to warrant stopping people for no reason and searching them, right? You're in good company .... William Rhenquist -- Antonin Scalia -- Sandra Day O'Connor - Byron White.....good liberals those, ay? They agree with you! LOL

[GreyICE]

Oh, I wish someone would take a good hard look at the Supreme Court sometime when they state that the Supreme court thinks a certain way and the judges who ruled ruled a certain way because of political ideals.

The Supreme Court justices are, at the moment, composed entirely of geniuses. I feel no shame in stating that many of them are smarter than me, which is praise I retain for very, very few. Clarance Thomas is the 'dumb justice' and would merely be considered 'very bright' or 'exceptional' elsewhere. They wander the spectrum. May I hate Scalia? I could. I don't, but I could. May I hate Thomas? YES. DO I understand that when nine genius level legal scholars with a battery of research asnts makes a statement, it's more complex than their 30 second soundbyte has lead them to believe.