DUI no refusal checkpoints.

[//MPower]

This is bascially the camel's nose under the tent.

Checkpoints themselves are illegal. Police have no legal right to stop you without probable cause, but they do it anyways.

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.

[Schnitzer318is]

I hate checkpoints for any reason, not just dui. Violates the reasonable cause part of the law to me. Not to mention it wastes a ton of citizen's time. I'm sure it generates tons of $$$ for police departments/municipalities though (which is the main reason for the checkpoints I'm sure).

I don't mind "no refusals" if you are suspected of drunk driving, you know for weaving, failing to signal, etc and are pulled over. As long as a judge signs a warrant for the reasonable cause during/after the traffic stop.

[markseven]

You forgot "Think of the children"...

Which is exactly why one should refuse to take one. Especially at one of these checkpoints where there is absolutely no probable cause before one will have their bodily fluids sampled or face penalty of jail time.

But hey, with a government that can force us to carry health insurance, and tax us for drinking soda, it only seems right that they take our blood to make sure we aren't drunk. Don't be surprised when they start checking your blood for STD's, or running your DNA against the database for unsolved crimes. It all will be worth it if it saves just one life...

I guess you told me...

[wh00sh]

I don't see the problem. If you aren't over the limit, ... Imagine if one of these no-refusal checkpoints saves an innocent life?

You forgot "Think of the children"...

Of course, another issue is that breathalyzers can be wildly inaccurate.

Which is exactly why one should refuse to take one. Especially at one of these checkpoints where there is absolutely no probable cause before one will have their bodily fluids sampled or face penalty of jail time.

But hey, with a government that can force us to carry health insurance, and tax us for drinking soda, it only seems right that they take our blood to make sure we aren't drunk. Don't be surprised when they start checking your blood for STD's, or running your DNA against the database for unsolved crimes. It all will be worth it if it saves just one life...

[markseven]

BAC measurement represents a kind of pre-crime that I'm not completely comfortable with. Especially the way it gets abused at times. Worse yet, first time offenders who have committed no offense other than blowing too high a number and have not harmed anyone get hit VERY hard, while repeat offenders are not especially controllable.

Of course, another issue is that breathalyzers can be wildly inaccurate.

A lot of holes in this.

[e30e]

Shit in Arizona, they posted days in advance. Just drive around them.

[nrubenstein]

BAC measurement represents a kind of pre-crime that I'm not completely comfortable with. Especially the way it gets abused at times. Worse yet, first time offenders who have committed no offense other than blowing too high a number and have not harmed anyone get hit VERY hard, while repeat offenders are not especially controllable.

Of course, another issue is that breathalyzers can be wildly inaccurate.

[markseven]

And if they started inspecting everyone's homes on a weekly basis and pockets, imagine all the crime they would find. And all the lives that would be saved from beatings and drugs....


It's unconstitutional.

Which is it that you are against, the checkpoint, Breathalyzer or blood test?

[joshh]

I don't see the problem. If you aren't over the limit, then you probably wont get stopped, and if you do, you should be able to clear the Breathalyzer. If you are over the limit, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. Imagine if one of these no-refusal checkpoints saves an innocent life?

And if they started inspecting everyone's homes on a weekly basis and pockets, imagine all the crime they would find. And all the lives that would be saved from beatings and drugs....


It's unconstitutional.

[markseven]

Something can and should be done but this is not it.

I don't see the problem. If you aren't over the limit, then you probably wont get stopped, and if you do, you should be able to clear the Breathalyzer. If you are over the limit, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. Imagine if one of these no-refusal checkpoints saves an innocent life?

[joshh]

Something can and should be done but this is not it.

[mrsleeve]

Yeah the thing is Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right

So there for they can attach anything they want to it, and you have to abide by to continue to enjoy the privilege of driving


Just a FYI I think its Bull shit and in violation of the 4th.

[browntown]

^^ No it wouldnt, that would just increase the number of broke/uninsured drivers that will drive your rates up.

I'm surprised Idaho would go this route. They tend to be more of a libertarian state and police forced blood tests seems out of control. Gattaca/1984 is coming. Papiers bitte.

[Massive Lee]

I am all for it.

Plus loss of driving privileges and jail sentence would keep the impaired drivers off traffic.
1st time you're caught with alcohol in your blood, you loose your license for a full year. The second time is for 5 to 10 years. Third time is illimited. Go take the bus to work for the rest of your life...

[HarryPotter]

^^doubt it.