There's no quit in that man.

Cue the "checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because I have a god-given right to drive with a 1.0 BAC any time I so choose and the drinking laws are unethical and 9/11 was an inside job and RON PAUL" crowd in 5...4...3...

floor9: Cue the "checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because I have a god-given right to drive with a 1.0 BAC any time I so choose and the drinking laws are unethical and 9/11 was an inside job and RON PAUL" crowd in 5...4...3...

LOLWUT?

floor9: checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because they're unconstitutional, presume that it's acceptable for law enforcement to treat randomly selected people like criminals, and are often an excuse to enforce other bullshiat laws totally unrelated to drunk driving I have a god-given right to drive with a 1.0 BAC any time I so choose and the drinking laws are unethical and 9/11 was an inside job and RON PAUL

FTFY

/RON PAUL!

Over the limit, under arrests.

FTA "The legal limit for those under 20 is 150mcg"

Where is this, and y didn't i live there then?

I hate when that happens.

floor9: Cue the "checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because I have a god-given right to drive with a 1.0 BAC any time I so choose and the drinking laws are unethical and 9/11 was an inside job and RON PAUL" crowd in 5...4...3...

I used to drive drunk all the time. It was, of course, very stupid and I'm very lucky I never got caught, got in an accident, or harmed anyone. In my defense, my driving drunk was a straight shot of 8 blocks in every case of this but one, but that was in Nevada and I'm pretty sure that nothing you do in Nevada actually happens.

That said, I think checkpoints are great. If they're doing checkpoints to catch drunks, that is. The second a checkpoint starts searching cars is when I get concerned.

In another incident, a car was seen travelling at high speed in the early hours Saturday morning a vehicle was observed travelling at high speed

So, if the car left Chicago heading west and the vehicle left
Denver heading east, where would they bury the survivors?

FTA:In another incident, a car was seen travelling at high speed in the early hours Saturday morning a vehicle was observed travelling at high speed.

Does this make anyone else's brain hurt?

/could just be me

kilgorn: In another incident, a car was seen travelling at high speed in the early hours Saturday morning a vehicle was observed travelling at high speed

So, if the car left Chicago heading west and the vehicle left
Denver heading east, where would they bury the survivors?

Damnit.

I bury survivors.

/Please don't tell.

bullock.: I bury survivors.

/Please don't tell.

amateur, I never have survivors, saves a lot of digging that way.

Pribar bullock.: I bury survivors.

/Please don't tell.

amateur, I never have survivors, saves a lot of digging that way.

Well, it doesn't save a lot of digging, but it does save a lot of whanging with the shovel when you're supposed to be digging.

apiarist: Pribar bullock.: I bury survivors.

/Please don't tell.

amateur, I never have survivors, saves a lot of digging that way.

Well, it doesn't save a lot of digging, but it does save a lot of whanging with the shovel when you're supposed to be digging.

point conceded.

Churchill2004: checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because they're unconstitutional, presume that it's acceptable for law enforcement to treat randomly selected people like criminals, and are often an excuse to enforce other bullshiat laws totally unrelated to drunk driving

I agree with this (aside from the "unconstitutional" bit because NZ is basically Britain and we know they don't have any rights anyway) but I will say:

People like the guy the headline is about are they type that ruin something nice for everybody.

And that's why the cops don't let anyone off with a warning anymore if they can get a ride. Because they'll run someone over, and then the cop that let him go gets in trouble.

If you get a break from a cop, please don't be a dick. The rest of the world might enjoy second chances too.

floor9: Cue the "checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because I have a god-given right to drive with a 1.0 BAC any time I so choose and the drinking laws are unethical and 9/11 was an inside job and RON PAUL" crowd in 5...4...3...

Except their arguments don't count, because it's NZ, not the US. We have real freedoms, as opposed to imaginary ones, by the way.

If the useless cops had tossed him in jail the first time, this wouldn't have happened. If the drunkard had killed someone, the cops would deserve to be sued for failing to do their jobs. Those cops should be fired.

Drunk drivers should be shot.

simpsonfan: If the useless cops had tossed him in jail the first time, this wouldn't have happened. If the drunkard had killed someone, the cops would deserve to be sued for failing to do their jobs.

Doesn't work like that in New Zealand. An internal review would be done, the cops may be fired, but there's no grounds to take them to court.

vsync: Churchill2004: checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because they're unconstitutional, presume that it's acceptable for law enforcement to treat randomly selected people like criminals, and are often an excuse to enforce other bullshiat laws totally unrelated to drunk driving

I agree with this (aside from the "unconstitutional" bit because NZ is basically Britain and we know they don't have any rights anyway) but I will say:

People like the guy the headline is about are they type that ruin something nice for everybody.

And that's why the cops don't let anyone off with a warning anymore if they can get a ride. Because they'll run someone over, and then the cop that let him go gets in trouble.

If you get a break from a cop, please don't be a dick. The rest of the world might enjoy second chances too.

The nail. Upon the head. You hit it.

Gyrfalcon 2008-08-31 02:39:47 AM
The nail. Upon the head. You hit it.

Wow, a farker actually hit something. I'm impressed.

Xenu's Giant Pink Replicock: Gyrfalcon 2008-08-31 02:39:47 AM
The nail. Upon the head. You hit it.

Wow, a farker actually hit something. I'm impressed.

It doesn't happen often, and usually it turns out to be their sister.

Churchill2004: floor9: checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because they're unconstitutional

Check Michigan v. Sitz (new window)

CruiserTwelve: Churchill2004: floor9: checkpoints are evil and illegal and immoral because they're unconstitutional

Check Michigan v. Sitz (new window)

So they determined that it isn't unconstitutional to unconstitutionally search people because there are a whole lot of drunk drivers around and you're only violating 4th amendment rights a little bit? It really sounds like they are saying that the only reason it doesn't violate the 4th because it's more convenient for law enforcement if they say that it doesn't. Is there more explanation than that in the full opinion? Good to know either way I guess.

"The Court then found that 'the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight.'"

Yeah, except when it's not slight because they start deciding to search everyone who they can intimidate into giving consent. I'm not a fan of checkpoints, but this wasn't in the US so whoopdee doo I guess.

As for the story: Even getting to your car at 4x the limit is kind of impressive if you ask me, but you really should have stopped even considering driving a loooong time ago. That shiat ain't safe and you're being a dangerous asshole doing it.

"In another incident, a car was seen travelling at high speed in the early hours Saturday morning a vehicle was observed travelling at high speed."

/spelling, okay, maybe just alternate, not wrong
//grammar wrong, very wrong. journalist drunk?
///all things apple, invoking Godwin, blahblah, SWPL jumped the shark long ago

Glad to see I wasn't the only one moved enough to call bshiatsk on this, kajtkathwera!

tekmo: Dictatorial_Flair: It really sounds like [SCOTUS is] saying that the only reason it doesn't violate the 4th because it's more convenient for law enforcement if they say that it doesn't. Is there more explanation than that in the full opinion?

Like many decisions that erode individual rights Michigan v. Sitz was not a true Constitutional analysis, but rather the majority's personal determination of whether a State policy's ends justify its means.

The Michigan court found that random, suspicionless police searches offend the Fourth Amendment (of Michigan, which is an analog of the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment).

Rehnquist, however, decided that the test is not whether it offends the Fourth Amendment, but whether it squares with (Nat'l Treas. Emp. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) (US Customs may search employee's urine without warrant for evidence of drug use because it's only used to terminate, not prosecute).

Rehnquist takes as a given that the State may intrude on the Fourth Amendment if it decides that it REALLY needs to. That makes sense under circumstances where it's impractical to obtain a search warrant because of immediate danger. (E.g. police catch a suspect in a dangerous crime, search person and area for weapons without a warrant.)

"Where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context." (emphasis mine.)

Is investigating drivers who have demonstrated no hazard a "special need" "beyond normal law enforcement," and do people in automobiles have any expectation of privacy?

Rehnquist doesn't really address that. But he says that checkpoints are okay because:

1. Media reports and experts say there is a lot of drunk driving, and officials say checkpoints are necessary and effective.

2. It is not the place of the courts to determine whether checkpoints are the most efficient way to catch drunk drivers, responsibility for this determination lies with "politically accountable officials."

3. "[T]he circumstances surrounding a checkpoint stop and search are far less intrusive than those attending a roving patrol stop...At traffic checkpoints, the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers' authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion." (citing United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 422, 894-895 (1975) (approving alien search checkpoints).

In a nutshell, it's okay, because you're not likely to be annoyed. And it's just a brief seizure, so it's no big deal.

It is worth noting the specifics of the checkpoint operation at bar. "126 vehicles passed through the checkpoint, the average delay per vehicle was 25 seconds, and two drivers were arrested for driving under the influence."

I would have looked at those figures and calculated 1.6% success, and decided that it hardly evinces a cure for a public safety epidemic that merits a departure from the Fourth Amendment's demand of a warrant based on probable cause to search and seize.

"Saturation patrols" have proven to be more effective, and are at least based on "reasonable suspicion" arising from the vehicle's operator farking up.

To me, there are other real problem with DWI laws, based on:

1. The admissibility of breath alcohol detectors whose determinations based on presumptions of population averages and other variables that may not be correct or applicable to the individual.

2. Breath alcohol detectors have similar rates of false positives as polygraphs (which are not admissible).

3. "BAC" per se violations for just being at or beyond an arbitrary number without evidence that that level of intoxication would actually pose a hazard.

So, in short, yeah? :P

Thanks for the explanation of how our Supreme Court is also rarely doing its job correctly. It's ridiculous that their position is predicated upon public officials being accountable to the public. That's a farking laugh riot if you ask me.

Dictatorial_Flair:
Yeah, except when it's not slight because they start deciding to search everyone who they can intimidate into giving consent. I'm not a fan of checkpoints, but this wasn't in the US so whoopdee doo I guess.

As for the story: Even getting to your car at 4x the limit is kind of impressive if you ask me, but you really should have stopped even considering driving a loooong time ago. That shiat ain't safe and you're being a dangerous asshole doing it.

Don't agree to the test? Then don't drive yourself home, catch a taxi. Otherwise you'll be arrested. This isn't the US where you're allowed to carry guns and drive drunk - it's NZ, where we're doing our best to be free of that nonsense.

For a thread that posted to Main about DUI checkpoints, I am sorely disappointed at the comment count here. Did everybody blow their load over on the Politics tab?

My dad always told us that, when the cops at the checkpoint ask where you're going, to say "Church." Regardless of what day or time it was.

/my dad's a little anti-authority
//some people can have a few drinks and drive a car... if I've had a few drinks, I guarantee I can't find my keys

tekmo: I would have looked at those figures and calculated 1.6% success, and decided that it hardly evinces a cure for a public safety epidemic that merits a departure from the Fourth Amendment's demand of a warrant based on probable cause to search and seize.

"Saturation patrols" have proven to be more effective, and are at least based on "reasonable suspicion" arising from the vehicle's operator farking up.

Sobriety checkpoints' effectiveness can't be judged solely by the number of arrests made. There are other purposes to sobriety checkpoints than just making arrests. They publicize the seriousness of law enforcement's efforts to curtail drunk driving. They also create a barrier to those who drink and drive, believing that their driving won't be effected and they will therfore not be detected. Checkpoints also provide a sense of confort to those who drive sober at night and fear being hit by a drunk driver.

To me, there are other real problem with DWI laws, based on:

1. The admissibility of breath alcohol detectors whose determinations based on presumptions of population averages and other variables that may not be correct or applicable to the individual.

2. Breath alcohol detectors have similar rates of false positives as polygraphs (which are not admissible).

What do you mean by "breath alcohol detectors?" Instruments used to measure breath alcohol levels do not give false positives.

3. "BAC" per se violations for just being at or beyond an arbitrary number without evidence that that level of intoxication would actually pose a hazard.

The "per se" level of .08 is not arbitrary. Study after study have shown that a person with a level of .08 is not capable of driving safely. Even experienced drinkers are affected at this level. Here's some info on that: Per Se (new window)

About 90% of people passing through checkpoints approve of checkpoints as a means of combatting drunk driving.

My link didn't take. Here's the URL:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/New-fact-sheet03/fact-sheets04/Laws-08BA C .pdf

tekmo: I bought a personal breath alcohol detector and took it to a party. About 10 of us passed it around all night. Nobody, but NOBODY felt any effect of alcohol at .08. But according to the NHTSA, they're "substantially" and "significantly" impaired. Around .12 people felt some effect, but didn't feel they'd reached the level of "drunk." Everybody passed a simulated "roadside sobriety" test at that level too. So I'd be inclined to believe that people may be impaired at +.1ish, but not below.

Two responses: First, did you wait twenty minutes after your last drink to make sure you weren't measuring mouth alcohol? Second, a person who has been drinking is the absolute last person to be able to judge their own sobriety. That's why people drive drunk. I've seen people that could barely stand up that denied being drunk. "Drunkeness" is a relative matter. Alcoholics never get drunk. What you're looking for is whether the alcohol has effected a person's ability to drive safely and studies that actually measured that specific issue found that in the vast majority of people there was a observable negative effect at .08.

Anyway, I'd suggest that EVERYBODY get a personal breath alcohol detector. The results will be shocking, I assure you.

But get one that's accurate and stop drinking for about 15 to 20 minutes to allow any mouth alcohol to dissipate before testing yourself.

Even if that's true, just because the majority "approves" of dispensing with the Fourth Amendment doesn't make it a good idea.

True, but if that majority includes the Supreme Court it really isn't "dispensing with the Fourth Amendment."