DUI checkpoint discussion

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As if getting stopped would be so much of a detriment that stopping drunk drivers would not be worth it in exchange.

If drunken driving were still a problem after more severe punishment for a very severe crime were instituted instead of the 4 times in a row slap on a wrist probation you can get in the US, it might be worth having a "national conversation" about it.

But no, I won't blow into a breathalyzer without being pulled over for driving suspiciously but rather just going about my business; and no, I won't hand over my papers for a Citizenship Check, and no, I won't let them inspect my car just for driving. If they want inspections they can occur as part of annual vehicle registration. I should not have to plan my life around direct police intervention into it when I am not breaking the law.

It's one thing to have drug and bomb dogs sniff their way down the lanes of cars waiting on the ferry--and quite another to go car to car checking them and their riders without the dogs cuing the police off first.

WMA can say "you only have something to be afraid of if you're breaking the law", but that's the language tyrants always use, as far as I'm concerned.

So you can see, maybe, why we think we have some special freedom different from European democracies that our guns defend. You may think this is unnecessary and harmful, but we don't, and that's just always going to be a difference between America and European/Commonwealth culture, not any different than Kazakhs eating horsemeat or Chinese guided democracy as far as I'm concerned.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Driving is a privilege and not a right. There is no amendment or wording in the constitution that gives you the right to drive a car. However, for firearms you have the US constitution and in addition to that many states have their own constitution and firearm ownership is listed as a civil right in these constitutions.

It'd be interesting if the Constitution was re/drafted in the 50's when the car boom, interstate highway program, and suburbia were becoming a huge thing wherein owning and driving a car is a right.

In other words, the Second Amendment among others (slave vote for instance) are a product of their time and could very well be a privilege like the car is instead of a right.

I agree. It would be interesting to see how the founding fathers would take modern technology into consideration. Did they consider the possibility of murders with firearms. Sure. Did they understand the scope of death modern firearms can bring. Probably didn't have a clue.

However, while we're on the subject it would be interesting to hear what they'd have to say on matters such as DUI checkpoints. Cars are dangerous but they also provide people the mobility to move illegal items and weapons around. I'd be interested to how they'd write the fourth amendment when considering those factors.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The average contact time for a RBT checkpoint in Australia is 45 seconds. Most I've waited to get to that contact was about 2 minutes and that was when I made the mistake of driving near a major horse racing event where police had set up to get everyone leaving.

Usually its pull straight in, blow into a breatho and away you go. Only rarely are they more rigorous, but but I have encountered them.

And why is this so disconcerting?

You're on a public road, driving a vehicle that requires a licence to operate and comes with many restrictions on its operation... Why is it not acceptable to stop and ensure compliance?

It's not like they're impeding freedom of movement by detaining you for a week or anything. It's literally a minute of your time. Unless of course you happen to be breaking the law.

I'll try to explain this better.

You see in the US when the police stop you and detain you even for a minute it is considered seizure of your person. Well, the fourth amendment states" 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."

So, like I explained before in order for police to stop you they must have cause of a violation. Inspection is not cause. DUI checkpoints are controversial and the matter has been left up to the states. Some state courts say that the commitment to public safety and the ruling that you have less expectation of privacy in your vehicle mean checkpoints are constitutional. Obviously, other states do not agree with this.

To reiterate - This is disconcerting to some because to them in flies in the face of the police requiring cause to stop you.

[Gandalf]

So how does that work with regards to the whole airport scanners controversy?

[SCRawl]

I suppose I'll never understand the kind of things some people consider to be essential freedoms, because they seem to me to be so frivolous.

Simon pointed out fairly clearly the three types of roadside stops, and DUI checkpoints would clearly fall into the third category. They are an inconvenience, yes, and by a strict interpretation a seizure of one's person. But when someone is driving on a public road, which is built and maintained with public funds, and populated by their fellow citizens, they owe a duty of care to maintain themselves and their vehicle to a reasonable standard. And it is the job of the police (or equivalent) to enforce this standard, and if that causes a temporary seizure of one's person, then that's the price one pays for the privilege of operating a vehicle on a public road.

I'll add my own anecdote about how things work in my part of Canada. At various times of year -- usually at the times most likely to result in people drinking -- police may institute a roadside sobriety checkpoint. They can do it anywhere, though I think they're announced a little in advance. Anyway, cars must pass through this checkpoint one at a time, with the officers stopping maybe one in three or four cars to ask the driver a couple of questions (of the "Have you been drinking this evening?" variety) and then (if they feel it necessary) ask the driver for a breath sample. (Refusing to provide a sample carries the same penalty as blowing over the legal limit. This might seem draconian, but it's the only way to guarantee compliance.) I've been stopped about half a dozen times at such checkpoints, but I've never been asked to provide a sample; I must have seemed sober enough (and I was).

As a driver, I appreciate that these checkpoints exist. They provide a disincentive for other drivers to drive home after one too many, which makes my ability to drive a little safer. They also catch a few people now and then, but for me the fear of getting caught is of greater value.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

But no, I won't blow into a breathalyzer without being pulled over for driving suspiciously but rather just going about my business; and no, I won't hand over my papers for a Citizenship Check, and no, I won't let them inspect my car just for driving.

[...]

So you can see, maybe, why we think we have some special freedom different from European democracies that our guns defend.

And how does all of this match up with the fact that Arizona has zero restriction on gun ownership (including state laws prohibiting local gun regulation to be enacted) yet it's the state where you actually can be required to literally produce your citizenship papers?

[Mr Bean]

So how does that work with regards to the whole airport scanners controversy?

Fuck you get on the magical nekked picture maker or submit to some groping, this is airports so the rules don't apply, we can do whatever we want here.

That is ape law.

[SCRawl]

So how does that work with regards to the whole airport scanners controversy?

No one has the right to fly on an airplane. In most circumstances, you can say "fuck that" to the scanner (or whatever) and just walk away. You won't get on your flight, but you also don't have to go through the scanner. I've heard of people getting some unwanted attention for ducking out of the line to get scanned, but in general the ability to simply opt out of the flight is always there if you don't feel like being scanned/probed/patted down is in your best interest.

[Mr Bean]

I'll add, a key part of American "rights" is the idea that rights are there to protect you from the government and mandatory things. Technically speaking any McDonalds could install the same body scanners and put up the same security regiment as the TSA and it would be legal because you agreed to it the instant you got in line to go through security.

Airports are tricky as it's a government providing security to a mass of private businesses, but the fact that fuck you we are the TSA has gotten them to this point. That and as SCRawl noted that flights are optional.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So how does that work with regards to the whole airport scanners controversy?

In my opinion, it doesn't. You are choosing to go there. Just like if you choose to come inside the secured area of a police station or drive onto a military base you are consenting to being searched.

The mindset is also supported in the court decision US vs. Davis back in 1973.

The court said this "“noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”"

and

"“[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”"

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And how does all of this match up with the fact that Arizona has zero restriction on gun ownership (including state laws prohibiting local gun regulation to be enacted) yet it's the state where you actually can be required to literally produce your citizenship papers?

Only if you're stopped for reasonable cause or suspicion first! These citizenship checkpoints worked the same way except they were worse, strangely nobody complained about them, it was only when a Republican state government instituted them as a part of an existing reasonable cause or suspicion stop that people exploded. But somehow, the fact that the Border Patrol is allowed to do the exact same thing in a checkpoint WITHOUT reasonable cause or suspicion, but merely because you are within 100 miles of the ocean or a land border, attracted no complaint at all except from rural dwellers in Washington State who stood up for what is right.

[Alkaloid]

In my opinion, it doesn't. You are choosing to go there. Just like if you choose to come inside the secured area of a police station or drive onto a military base you are consenting to being searched.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to driving then? You don't have to drive, you are choosing to so you consent to potentially being stopped and breathalysed when you start driving on public roads.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In my opinion, it doesn't. You are choosing to go there. Just like if you choose to come inside the secured area of a police station or drive onto a military base you are consenting to being searched.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to driving then? You don't have to drive, you are choosing to so you consent to potentially being stopped and breathalysed when you start driving on public roads.

I wouldn't have a problem with this interpretation. However, that isn't how the courts have ruled.

[Thanas]

Like I said, it is stupid beyond belief.

"Don't let people check for DUI with unscheduled checkpoints for that would infringe upon my freedom." - Duchess.

[Mr Bean]

Well there's your problem Thanas... your German and the concept that a police office can set up internal checkpoints as a fishing expedition is abhorrent to the American mindset. Stopping an American's freedom of movement for any reason is un-natural to our mindset. In fact this might be a cultural blindspot of yours but ever watch the American show Cops? 9/10 Drunk people will protest that this is not Germany and you can't do that sort of thing in America.

[Grumman]

So how does that work with regards to the whole airport scanners controversy?

That's simple: the average American's IQ now drops by twenty points when you say the word "terrorist".

[Thanas]

Well there's your problem Thanas... your German and the concept that a police office can set up internal checkpoints as a fishing expedition is abhorrent to the American mindset. Stopping an American's freedom of movement for any reason is un-natural to our mindset. In fact this might be a cultural blindspot of yours but ever watch the American show Cops? 9/10 Drunk people will protest that this is not Germany and you can't do that sort of thing in America.

Pray tell me how a road stop to make sure people are obeying the law is a serious threat to the american FREEDOM. Oh noes, police are stopping people and checking if they do not pose a serious risk to the lives of others. I mean, the mere concept of the police doing their job within the boundaries of the law being a heinous threat to FREEDOM....how is this in any way logical?

[Aaron MkII]

Except it isn't within the bounds of American law. Concept or otherwise.

We can argue all we want that it's stupid, because it is. But that doesn't make doing it less illegal. You need to change the law first.

[Thanas]

Yeah, I think I am just going to stop here and bow out. I won't understand it ever but that apparently is how the USA decides to do things. I'm not going to argue about this concept anymore.

[Lusankya]

At risk of bringing myself into a gun debate:

Does anyone else think that the US antipathy towards licence compliance inspections might be one of the reasons why the anti-gun crowd goes for weapon and magazine bans, rather than things like proper licensing and storage laws?

Cause I'm all for laws ensuring that people lock their guns up, rather than just banning whole classes of weapons, but if people get up in arms about DUI checkpoints, then there's no way there will be any effective policing of gun storage laws. So the choice stops being between "sensible regulation and enforce existing laws" and "ban all gunz", but is instead between "shit that won't get enforced anyway" and "ban all gunz". Sure, I guess you could add extra penalties for crimes and injuries that result from improper storage, but that's a very reactive approach, and harsh punishment is a far less effective deterrent than consistent policing. By disallowing the more effective law enforcement tools, you're making the option of a blanket ban much more appealing.

[Grumman]

Does anyone else think that the US antipathy towards licence compliance inspections might be one of the reasons why the anti-gun crowd goes for weapon and magazine bans, rather than things like proper licensing and storage laws?

No. Even if we take it as axiomatic that licence compliance inspections are a good law, not being able to pass a good law is no excuse for passing a bad law. Using part of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban as an example, if someone believes that restricting rifles with pistol grips makes people safer, they are stupid. If someone doesn't believe that restricting rifles with pistol grips makes people safer but they support the law anyway, they are corrupt. In either case, it's entirely their own fault that they support a bad law, and not their opponents'.

[Simon_Jester]

In my opinion, it doesn't. You are choosing to go there. Just like if you choose to come inside the secured area of a police station or drive onto a military base you are consenting to being searched.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to driving then? You don't have to drive, you are choosing to so you consent to potentially being stopped and breathalysed when you start driving on public roads.

This brings up a question of whether Americans really do choose to drive. If you don't drive, your life is greatly inhibited. Many economic opportunities are lost to you, your freedom of movement is reduced. To survive at all, you are practically forced to live in certain ways and places, and to give up large slices of your free time on public transportation.

"Don't like it? Don't drive" reduces the people who 'don't like it' to second-class citizens. We should not do it lightly.
________________

Moreover, whenever the state says "you consented to [search] when you entered [area]," I EXPECT argument from some voters who say "um, no we didn't." This is exactly the sort of thing we're supposed to be allowed to have discussions about: are these searches constitutional? Are they an undue infringement on our rights, or not?

There's ongoing public discussion about that on the roads, and I'm glad of it. It worries me and disturbs me that we don't have so much of that kind of discussion about airlines. So the idea that the state's right to do this should not even be questioned strikes me as bad. I don't want government security checkpoints popping up without a fight, even if I ultimately accept that the checkpoints are necessary.
_________________

At risk of bringing myself into a gun debate:

Does anyone else think that the US antipathy towards licence compliance inspections might be one of the reasons why the anti-gun crowd goes for weapon and magazine bans, rather than things like proper licensing and storage laws?

[Raises hand]

Yep.

Does that mean the gun-ban laws which get supported are good? No, not necessarily. But I think you're onto something here. The desire for freedom from being interfered with when I'm not under specific suspicion is good. But it makes it hard to enforce routine licenses and regulations on me, as you say. Which changes the kind of laws the state needs just to control the situation.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that we can say that it's penalty-free to have constant regulatory checking and rechecking of whether I'm complying with laws. So I'm ambiguous about whether we're better off this way in the US, or not. It's not clear-cut to me.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Does anyone else think that the US antipathy towards licence compliance inspections might be one of the reasons why the anti-gun crowd goes for weapon and magazine bans, rather than things like proper licensing and storage laws?

Makes sense. Every American is influenced by the FREEDOMFREEDOMFREEDOM mentality, simply because it is so prevalent in the country they were born and raised in. For example, I can't for the life of me understand why it is so abhorrent for someone to come and check whether you handle your murder-death-kill contraption properly (be it your gun or car, to preempt the persistent argumentators). The Duchess of Zeon, on the other hand, couldn't understand why should anybody do this or anything similar.

[Gandalf]

This brings up a question of whether Americans really do choose to drive. If you don't drive, your life is greatly inhibited. Many economic opportunities are lost to you, your freedom of movement is reduced. To survive at all, you are practically forced to live in certain ways and places, and to give up large slices of your free time on public transportation.

"Don't like it? Don't drive" reduces the people who 'don't like it' to second-class citizens. We should not do it lightly.

I would think that if cars are so integral to being a First Class American, it makes more sense for RBTs and such to be instituted as a means of protecting people who apparently have little choice in driving.

[Simon_Jester]

Does anyone else think that the US antipathy towards licence compliance inspections might be one of the reasons why the anti-gun crowd goes for weapon and magazine bans, rather than things like proper licensing and storage laws?

Makes sense. Every American is influenced by the FREEDOMFREEDOMFREEDOM mentality, simply because it is so prevalent in the country they were born and raised in. For example, I can't for the life of me understand why it is so abhorrent for someone to come and check whether you handle your murder-death-kill contraption properly (be it your gun or car, to preempt the persistent argumentators). The Duchess of Zeon, on the other hand, couldn't understand why should anybody do this or anything similar.

Duchess is working under the presumption that she is trustworthy until proven otherwise. That unless someone has cause to believe that she's specifically screwing up, there's no reason she should have to spend time and energy dealing with complications in the form of regular inspections and checkups.

My own past experiences with this mindset- as I see it, it comes out of an extension of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." If I'm not guilty of something, the argument goes, I shouldn't be punished- and having to sacrifice time and money is seen as a punishment.

If someone takes the opposite mindset- I am not trusted until proven reliable- it's a whole different story. And the two attitudes are very hard to merge or reconcile, because they differ on that deep level.