DUI checkpoint discussion

[Stark]

What's particularly amusing about this (funnier than apparently equating torture under Obama or illegal detention with RBTs) is that RBTs exert a cultural pressure through enforcement which has beneficial effects. My perspective is RBTs really spearheaded the change in Australian cultural attitudes towards drinking and drink driving, by removing the anonymity and 'other people' element (and basically worthless enforcement).

I mean there's no getting through to some people, but even if RBTs were a concession of basic rights (which is p strange) it'd be worth it anyway.

[Wing Commander MAD]

SCRawl, something to consider in the radar gun vs DUI checkpoint argument is that the radar gun most likely constitutes something similar to Plain view doctrine, whereas the stop constitutes a search of your person.

[Thanas]

And you are a hypocrite for criticizing the US government over issues such as Habeus Corpus, indefinite detention, etc.

Are you that stupid to think that checking for drunk drivers equals illegal assassinations based on secret evidence? If so, I bet you won't mind me burrowing 1000 dollars from you and paying you one back. After all, scale and weight does not matter, right?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I actually wouldn't mind universal breathalyzers as a requirement on all cars, but I do still object to police stop and checks. One of these is just part of how you start your car, no different to turning a key. The other is giving the police the power to intrude on your daily routine.

[Stark]

One of them costs everyone and is probably useless, and the other has demonstrable benefits and pays for itself... and you'd choose the first one?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

One of them costs everyone and is probably useless, and the other has demonstrable benefits and pays for itself... and you'd choose the first one?

If it's useless, why are there mandatory on the cars of habitual drink drivers, exactly? Oh right, they're actually highly effective. The issue is one of rights, and intrusion onto the individual by the State, and I'm willing to pay a lot more money out before I accept a greater level of control over my life by cops.

[SCRawl]

SCRawl, something to consider in the radar gun vs DUI checkpoint argument is that the radar gun most likely constitutes something similar to Plain view doctrine, whereas the stop constitutes a search of your person.

I have not argued that the two types of events are the same, or even similar, but rather that they occupy points on a spectrum which ranges from "not at all invasive or intrusive" to "completely invasive or intrusive". Everyone will place their own marker on that spectrum which represents the dividing line between "tolerable" and "intolerable". How one judges the necessity of the policy which requires such events would, I assume, inform where we place our marker.

[Zwinmar]

In my experience around this podunk town I live in the cops just wait outside the bars (all four are within a couple blocks of each other, not counting the VFW that is across town) for anyone to screw up, of course this is a town of like 15k so not many people.

Anyways, I am more worried about the many more deaths by vehicle a year than by the vastly lower number of gun homicides. At least anecdotally this seems to be the case.

[SCRawl]

In my experience around this podunk town I live in the cops just wait outside the bars (all four are within a couple blocks of each other, not counting the VFW that is across town) for anyone to screw up, of course this is a town of like 15k so not many people.

I have seen similar things where I live, in a smallish city of a little over 100k. I play in a softball league for old people (i.e. over 35), and the habit is to go to the bar after the game. Checkpoints (or just a couple of cruisers) have been known to spring up at the times when players need to be going home from the apres-softball booze sampling, and so this provides a reason for drinkers to severely limit their intake if they do not live within walking distance (as I do). I view this as a good thing, since I don't want my fellow ball players to drive home tipsy.

[Stark]

If it's useless, why are there mandatory on the cars of habitual drink drivers, exactly? Oh right, they're actually highly effective. The issue is one of rights, and intrusion onto the individual by the State, and I'm willing to pay a lot more money out before I accept a greater level of control over my life by cops.

So... paranoia? And something has utility in a few cases = everyone should have to pay for and do it all the time to protect your sacred rights to not be held responsible?

PS being stopped by an RBT isn't a 'greater level of control over my life by cops'. If the cops say pull over, you have to, the end. So... paranoia?

[Alyeska]

And you are a hypocrite for criticizing the US government over issues such as Habeus Corpus, indefinite detention, etc.

Are you that stupid to think that checking for drunk drivers equals illegal assassinations based on secret evidence? If so, I bet you won't mind me burrowing 1000 dollars from you and paying you one back. After all, scale and weight does not matter, right?

Checking for drunk drivers by violating privacy without probable cause.

That it has to do with drunk driving is irrelevant. It is the violation of personal privacy without any probable cause and absolutely no due process. You cannot opt out and say no. Your choice is violate your privacy, or go to jail. Actual guilt or innocence be damned.

Why not let the government wire tape every phone without a warrant? Who gets hurt if the government can randomly wiretape anyone without a warrant or probable cause?

Privacy is important. Except when we are searching for terrorists.
Privacy is important. Except when we are protecting you from pedophiles.
Privacy is important. Except when we are protecting you from drunk drivers.

Privacy, a fundamental right. And apparently one of the most expendable by simply making an argument "But its safer if we violate your privacy!"

[Alyeska]

One of them costs everyone and is probably useless, and the other has demonstrable benefits and pays for itself... and you'd choose the first one?

Just because it has demonstrable benefits doesn't make it right.

Allowing police to collect evidence without a warrant would make them more effective. Taking away double jeopardy would make it easier to get convictions.

That demonstrable benefit comes at a cost. The cost of privacy.

[SCRawl]

Do you drive with a license plate on your car? Then you have given up some of your privacy in order to drive on a public road. We have license plates which help to identify the cars (and therefore their drivers) in order to make us all a little safer. Forcing people to (very occasionally) provide a breath sample at a checkpoint is also surrendering a little privacy in order to make everyone a little safer. These are just two points on that spectrum I keep going on about. Benjamin Franklin's famous line about those who would surrender essential liberties in exchange for safety deserving neither does inform my thinking here, but I just can't believe that not being stopped once in a while is an essential liberty.

Just because it has demonstrable benefits doesn't make it right.

That's right, it also has to be not intrusive enough to outweigh those benefits. Sometimes the end does justify the means.

[Alyeska]

Do you drive with a license plate on your car? Then you have given up some of your privacy in order to drive on a public road. We have license plates which help to identify the cars (and therefore their drivers) in order to make us all a little safer. Forcing people to (very occasionally) provide a breath sample at a checkpoint is also surrendering a little privacy in order to make everyone a little safer. These are just two points on that spectrum I keep going on about. Benjamin Franklin's famous line about those who would surrender essential liberties in exchange for safety deserving neither does inform my thinking here, but I just can't believe that not being stopped once in a while is an essential liberty.

Just because it has demonstrable benefits doesn't make it right.

That's right, it also has to be not intrusive enough to outweigh those benefits. Sometimes the end does justify the means.

I consider it reasonable for the police to be able to check you for competence to drive. A sobriety test.

If you fail a sobriety test, that's probable cause. And with probable cause, a breathalyzer test becomes reasonable.

[Rogue 9]

See, even you are falling into the same mindset, even if you don't realise it. You discuss it in terms of being judged and being asked to justify one's innocence - except for people in other societies (say Germany, Australia, etc.) we don't see it as judgement at all.

Well then you're wrong, because it by definition is. That the judgment will unfailingly be in your favor because you don't drive drunk doesn't make it not judgment.

We're no more being asked to prove our innocence than a hotel guest who is asked to pay in advance is being asked to prove that they won't run out on the bill.

But that's exactly what's happening when you're asked to pay in advance. When gasoline prices spiked in 2007-2008, gas stations here pretty much universally adopted the practice of making patrons pay in advance, precisely to stop them from driving off. It's bloody inconvenient if you don't have/don't feel like using a credit card, but there it is.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It is not acceptable to allow the government to run checkpoints without a specific overriding cause, i.e., hunting for a specific fugitive from justice known to be in the immediate vicinity, etc. it is an excessive level of control in life, and I maintain that, call me paranoid if you like. These checkpoints can lead to unreasonable search and seizure, whereas a breathalyzer on your car, simply won't let your car start. These are very different levels of government intrusion.

[Thanas]

And you are a hypocrite for criticizing the US government over issues such as Habeus Corpus, indefinite detention, etc.

Are you that stupid to think that checking for drunk drivers equals illegal assassinations based on secret evidence? If so, I bet you won't mind me burrowing 1000 dollars from you and paying you one back. After all, scale and weight does not matter, right?

Checking for drunk drivers by violating privacy without probable cause.

That it has to do with drunk driving is irrelevant. It is the violation of personal privacy without any probable cause and absolutely no due process. You cannot opt out and say no. Your choice is violate your privacy, or go to jail. Actual guilt or innocence be damned.

Why not let the government wire tape every phone without a warrant? Who gets hurt if the government can randomly wiretape anyone without a warrant or probable cause?

Privacy is important. Except when we are searching for terrorists.
Privacy is important. Except when we are protecting you from pedophiles.
Privacy is important. Except when we are protecting you from drunk drivers.

Privacy, a fundamental right. And apparently one of the most expendable by simply making an argument "But its safer if we violate your privacy!"

The above is so far removed from reality that there really is no point in replying.

[Alyeska]

The above is so far removed from reality that there really is no point in replying.

And yet you did.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That it has to do with drunk driving is irrelevant. It is the violation of personal privacy without any probable cause and absolutely no due process. You cannot opt out and say no. Your choice is violate your privacy, or go to jail. Actual guilt or innocence be damned.

Actually, this is not accurate. The most that would happen, assuming that you weren't intoxicated, is you may face a drivers license hearing. We still can't arrest people without probable cause. Even at a DUI checkpoint probable cause needs to be established.

[Stark]

Allowing police to collect evidence without a warrant would make them more effective. Taking away double jeopardy would make it easier to get convictions.

That demonstrable benefit comes at a cost. The cost of privacy.

Not doing it comes at a cost - the cost of drunk drivers killing people because a cop couldn't make them fail a retarded 'walk in a straight line' 'test' before delivering an actual real science test.

Is this another one of those other people's lives or safety less important than MY PRECIOUS RIGHTS things?

The above is so far removed from reality that there really is no point in replying.

And yet you did.

Are you nine?

[weemadando]

I consider it reasonable for the police to be able to check you for competence to drive. A sobriety test.

If you fail a sobriety test, that's probable cause. And with probable cause, a breathalyzer test becomes reasonable.

I think I had a mini stroke reading this.

In a debate about intrusive behaviour and restriction of freedom, you somehow think being taken out of your car and being forced to hop about and play Simon Says for a few minutes is somehow LESS of an intrusion than simply rolling down a window and breathing into a straw? An interaction, which takes on average takes 45 seconds (QLD police stats) from stopping to departing?

[Stark]

I've never had an RBT take anywhere near 45s. Maybe they include queue time in the average. It takes longer to exchange pleasantries with the officer than do the test.

But then, I'm not afraid the officer will kill me, so...

[weemadando]

I'd believe 45s for:
Stop.
Window down if you haven't already.
Small talk "have you had anything to drink? Have you had a breathalyzer test before?"
Blow into tube for 5secs or whatever.
Wait a few more seconds for the results.
Thanks and have a nice day.
Start your car again and leave.

Shit. I forgot the "trample my civil liberties and shoot my dog" step. That's another few minutes....

[Mr Bean]

I'd believe 45s for:
Stop.
Window down if you haven't already.
Small talk "have you had anything to drink? Have you had a breathalyzer test before?"
Blow into tube for 5secs or whatever.
Wait a few more seconds for the results.
Thanks and have a nice day.
Start your car again and leave.

Shit. I forgot the "trample my civil liberties and shoot my dog" step. That's another few minutes....

Yep it is just a few more minutes
And this is why.
Someone who lives in a country where there is no such thing as being guilty of driving while black should think twice about thinking Americans are crazy for not wanting to live in a country where a police officer can detain you at will without probable cause.

[weemadando]

You're crazy.

They aren't detaining you at will.

You are driving a vehicle which you must register with the government and are licensed to operate within certain parameters on a public road.

They are stopping you for under a minute to confirm compliance with the most easily determined of these conditions.

And don't act like your police and government are somehow better at oppressing brown people than us. This is STRAYA we're talking about.