Huh? That is patently false.

I concur. For clarification of the original post, it would appear that JH would support the enforcement of existing laws such as those saying you have to stop at a stop sign. Not to put words in his mouth, but this thread actually is about enforcing the "reasonable" laws on the books and not creating additional laws.

There is a saying I once heard that stated something to affect in regards to LEOs. It went something like "don't alleanate those you are there to protect, someday you may need them to protect you." I think you get my drift.

I am in Jeff's camp on this issue, and many others. In my humble view, folks like Sammy are still viewing complex issues as if they are exceedingly simple. Railing against gubmit interference, pretending to espouse freedom and liberty, and not thinking about either issue long enough to see how they relate to DUI roadblocks. Just not understanding the world in which they say they would like to live.

+1

I agree with the superhero.

Yep. You can't call yourself a defender of liberty if you're content to see the civil rights of others trampled.

They are good and bad, but more bad than good.

NO, you specifically do NOT refuse.

"I am not refusing the breathalyzer/field sobriety test etc. Before I consent to this I wish to speak to my attorney."

If you refuse, you can lose your license for a year, depending on the local laws.

No sir, 100% true. These checkpoints are often announced in advance, so you can choose a different route. On the roadside smog check I mentioned earlier, when I went home for lunch, I just turned right a block before it. This allowed me to avoid the possibility that I would be in the position where I would have to tell the Highway Patrolman to pound sand when he asked me to submit to the random harrasment.

Okay, I read JH's beloved post on Page 2 which is the latest in a nearly unbroken string of lucid and insightful observations. He says revenue-generating enforcement of victimless crime laws does nothing to make society more secure and that's true. I would further assert that this kind of enforcement does more than fail to promote security. It increases danger. It erodes citizens' ability to connect dangerous decisions with legal sanctions. Take Interstate driving, for example. Drivers have figured out that virtually the only way to get a citation on an Interstate is to speed (which everyone does anyway). This makes drivers feel that, since everyone is speeding, citations are issued at random, and not for unsafe behavior. The connection between safety and citations is not made. Further, infractions other than speeding are not important, so as long as there are no radar guns around, driving is a free-for-all. Lane changes without signaling, camping at a slow speed in the passing lane is perfectly fine and creates an empty lane in front of you, which is relaxing. Et cetera. While the focus continues to be drawn away from public safety toward revenue generation, anarchy is promoted.

The perceived random enforcement of what are seen as arbitrary laws erodes respect for laws that actually do have some basis in reality and discourage unsafe behavior.

Sobriety checkpoints in general may be announced, but not necessarily with specifics as to their exact location. If you turn off the road with a sobriety checkpoint on a side street a block before, don't be surprised if an LEO comes after you and pulls you over (in his mind you've just given him probable cause by trying to avoid the checkpoint, even if you turned off the block before because that's the street on which you live). That's why I don't think the statement that you can avoid a checkpoint is true. I'm not saying they're Constitutional. I don't think they are. But to say that you can easily avoid them (as the supreme court article claims) isn't true.

They are different things. The breathalyser/urine/blood test consent is implied and failure to comply may result in license suspension/revocation.

This is NOT the case with a field sobriety test. Those are ALWAYS voluntary. Interpretation is entirely subjective. You may not be compelled to perform a roadside sobriety test under any circumstances. I'm 100% certain on this.

I was asked to perform a roadside sobriety test once by a young, inexperienced officer. I had not been drinking at all. BAC would have been 0.00%. The officer thought my cooperation was compulsory. I politely refused and demanded to speak with his watch commander. The young officer learned a valuable lesson that day.

Absolutely true. I refused a breathalyzer once too. In AZ they can strap you down and forcibly draw your blood. But I don't think that works in most other states. Besides, the penalty for refusal is slightly worse than getting a DUI conviction, depending on your state's laws. In AZ we have "extreme" DUI, which is for really high BAC's. But if you're just buzzed, you're better off getting a DUI than a refusal conviction. Refusal is an automatic one year suspension with no restricted license and you still get the whole SR-22 and insurance treatment afterwards. With a DUI, you can sometimes beat it in court and get a six month suspension with restricted privileges. My refusal only worked for me because I was not in my home state and I got real lucky at court.

That is why on a breathalyzer, you do not refuse, you want to speak to your attorney first.

I have no doubt the rules on field sobriety test vary from state to state. One cold evening in Nebraska, Dad got pulled over and they wanted him to stand on one foot and touch his nose. He told them, "I have a bad knee, the sidewalk is icy and I am an attorney. If I were to fall and be injured, not only would I hold the Police Dept responsible, I would hold you personally responsible. Do you really want me to attempt this?" The shift supervisor shows up, happened to play HS football with Dad, apologized and we went on our way.

One time, my wife got pulled over, probably legally drunk. He asked her to walk the white line. She took a few steps, did a flip with a full twist, landing back on the white line, turned and asked if he wanted her to do any other tests, he declined.

Beautiful!

I want to throw another situation into the mix just to see what you all think:

Last week I'm driving into St. Louis on a stretch of I44, in between towns, still outside of St. Louis County in a rural area. I see the big orange signs on the side of the road- 2 of them, a few hundred feet apart. At first I thought they were 'mowers ahead' signs or something. The I got close enough to read the first one:

"POLICE HIGHWAY CHECKPOINT AHEAD. 1/2 MILE"

This is on I44 mind you. In midday traffic. W T F...
Then the next sign read:

"DRUG ENFORCEMENT DOGS ARE IN USE. BE PREPARED TO STOP"

And I'm thinking dear lord WTF is this about. Seriously, they are stopping traffic on THE HIGHWAY? How long is this gonna take?

This was on a windy part of the highway so you could not see 1/2 mile ahead. But conveniently a few hundred feet after that last sign was an exit off to some country road. As I passed, I noted two police cars sitting slightly out of view down the road at the exit.

1/2 mile went by, nothing there. No checkpoint.

You see now what was going on here obviously.



I don't know what the word for that style of 'law enforcement' is, or if there is one... but the term 'entrapment' comes to mine.

you having nothing to worry about went straight...
those that did..
took the exit...
think the Leo's are thinking..
instead of bugging you on the Hwy.

Rika

When a driver gets a ticket, seldom do they not talk about it just like getting a meal bad enough to cause sickness. The word spreads. You could think of it as a marketing thing to enforce a particular stretch of road.

I didn't say I disagree with you, just pointing out the awareness.