DUI no refusal checkpoints.

[CabrioPunk]

Wow, really, NR? Where's your fact that PD's don't maintain their equipment exactly? Personal opinion given as fact?

I know, closely know, several officers of varied Seattle, Tacoma, South Hill, Everett PD's and trust me, they maintain their shit. They have to. Most maintenance is handled by outside agencies or companies where their sole purpose is to maintain said equipment.

To claim it isn't based on your view or opinion of... what? How you feel about it? Is ignorant blabber.

Yes. State programs with strict policy governing their upkeep, operation and reporting.

[Victell]

Breathalyzer man

If one refuses the breathalyzer AND gives no reasonable suspicion, then they have no right to forcibly draw blood.

[u3b3rg33k]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Might however seems to.

[deutschman]

Well then all law enforcement is infringement... Right?
The fact of the matter is that the police need to be able to force wrong doers to give up what they are hiding.
What drunk driver in his write mind would say yes to a blood alcohol test if he had the option to say "no" and drive away?
For that matter why would a meth making baby rapist say yes to a SWAT team coming into his house and depriving him of his crystal and his huggies models if he knew he could just say "Sorry guys. Come again on Sunday ."
Some times infringing on people is the only way to get them to admit a wrong doing.
I am not saying it is right or wrong, its just the way it is.

[joshh]

I don't get the problem here. The only difference between a regular check point and this one is they can check your blood at the seen if you refuse taking a breathalyzer, instead of having to cart you down to the station.
In the CA drivers hand book it tells you you have to no matter what take a breathalyzer test if an officer asks you to do so.
If you dont then you most likely have something to hide and take you down to the station to get some blood.
This is not an infringement on privacy like home invasion. Not even comparable.

Infringement is infringement, does it have to be comparable to be wrong?

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

all check points are the problem not just this one

[deutschman]

I don't get the problem here. The only difference between a regular check point and this one is they can check your blood at the seen if you refuse taking a breathalyzer, instead of having to cart you down to the station.
In the CA drivers hand book it tells you you have to no matter what take a breathalyzer test if an officer asks you to do so.
If you dont then you most likely have something to hide and take you down to the station to get some blood.
This is not an infringement on privacy like home invasion. Not even comparable.

[joshh]

IDK who rachel maddow is. But seriously, you DO watch glenn beck, right? I know you do! I bet you Tivo it!

I bet you have a hair cut like Rachel Maddow...no I know you do!

[joshh]

Like I said...



You give them the right to set up checkpoints for drunk driving, eventually it will turn into setting up checkpoints for... anything.

...and controlling the internet, tapping your phone, taking your property, restricting you rights in general.

[//MPower]

DUIs are a real problem. People drink and drive too much. Too many deaths are caused by drunk drivers.

For the safety of the public, we have to address DUIs. Not a surprise every civilized country has DUI checkpoints...

Like I said...

Actions taken by government/law enforcemnt that destroy individual rights, freedoms, and privacy always start with something small and reasonable. You don't support drunk driving do you??? It's to keep you safe....

Over time, it gradually expands into something far worse and much more tyrannical, and not by accident.

You give them the right to set up checkpoints for drunk driving, eventually it will turn into setting up checkpoints for... anything.

[ck_taft325is]

Wow, really, NR? Where's your fact that PD's don't maintain their equipment exactly? Personal opinion given as fact?

I know, closely know, several officers of varied Seattle, Tacoma, South Hill, Everett PD's and trust me, they maintain their shit. They have to. Most maintenance is handled by outside agencies or companies where their sole purpose is to maintain said equipment.

To claim it isn't based on your view or opinion of... what? How you feel about it? Is ignorant blabber.

[nrubenstein]

Wildly inaccurate? ORLY? Elaborate? Evidence of such?



I think you'll be hard pressed to prove that claim.

I said "can." I didn't say that they are inherently inaccurate. However, when you give a calibrated measurement device to people who do not properly maintain it (i.e. many police officers/departments), you can't guarantee good results. I'm a lot more comfortable with a blood draw. At least it's more likely to be measured accurately.

[Frog]

LOL You watch too much Rachel Maddow.

Violating the Constitution "for everyone's safety" is exactly why they wrote the Constitution. So it doesn't happen.

IDK who rachel maddow is. But seriously, you DO watch glenn beck, right? I know you do! I bet you Tivo it!

[mrsleeve]

Maybe I dont understand this 'no refusal' thing.

"The nation's highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner."

What does "reasonable suspicion" amount to at a checkpoint? Smell of alcohol? Weaving in and out of the checkpoint? Logic says a sober driver will not/can not display reasonable suspicion of intoxication. By that logic police will have no legal right to forcibly take blood. This seems like a huge hole in the police assumption for 'no refusal' blood tests. Am I missing something here? :drink:

Breathalyzer man

[Victell]

Maybe I dont understand this 'no refusal' thing.

"The nation's highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner."

What does "reasonable suspicion" amount to at a checkpoint? Smell of alcohol? Weaving in and out of the checkpoint? Logic says a sober driver will not/can not display reasonable suspicion of intoxication. By that logic police will have no legal right to forcibly take blood. This seems like a huge hole in the police assumption for 'no refusal' blood tests. Am I missing something here? :drink: