re: Supreme Court hears oral arguments over warrantless breathalyzers

quote:

---

So wait a minute. We should protect drunk driver's which you readily acknowledge will lead to an increase in impaired driving accidents and deaths but I mean that's the "only downside" so no big deal I guess? Unbelievable.

---

They can still arrest you for suspicion of DUI. They can still get a warrant to force you to take a breathalyzer. DUI checkpoints will still be legal.

The only thing this ruling will do is make it unconstitutional (it already was) for the police to arrest you ONLY for refusing a breathalyzer test.

quote:

---

They are going to take it a step further if they lose this case saying you agree to "random" breathalyzer screenings when you renew your drivers license. If you don't agree to it you will not be issued a drivers license

---

Thats the exact question before the court now. These 14 States have implied consent laws that say it's illegal to decline a breathalyzer and you go to jail if you do. Period. End of story. Regardless of whether they have a warrant.

Besides, your proposal is essentially an ignition lock device that would have to be mandated to all drivers across your state. I seriously doubt that the ensuing legislature firestorm would get it passed. MADD is trying to get it passed now and can't.

quote:

---

Checkpoints? I see these discussed often. Where are these a "thing"?

---

I've seen them, or driven through them, in many cities. Tulsa, Memphis, Shreveport all have had checkpoints. I think Kansas City, KS had them too. They do NOT set up on the interstate, rather on major city thoroughfares though from like 10pm-2am.

Hell, in Memphis the cop that drove the DWI Van when I was in Jr. High and High school had 3 of the best looking daughters in the city. Talking girls so hot looking that while dressed conservatively, the youngest at 13-14, had middle aged guys in suits offering hundreds for "favors" in random convenience stores and burger joints (I witnessed 3 times it happening).

quote:

---

There are exceptions, however; I mean in terms of needing Probable Cause, but not needing to get the warrant. For instance, you could argue for the dispensing of the warrant requirement, in this case, under a public safety exigency exception. That way if police had PC that the driver was drunk (probably through smell, alcohol being physically present, erratic driving), they could justify the warrantless search in the name of imminent danger to the public. To argue "it would burden the government" is absolutely moronic.

---

That would be a justification for the stop. It would not be a justification for the search. There is no longer an exigency when you've stopped the driver.

quote:

---

Can you show us where we sign this agreement? I don't recall ever signing anything when I got my license other than the license itself.

---

Signing your license IS signing the contract with the state. Puts driving squarely under contract law AND you just agreed by signing to abide by all the rules and regs the state puts in place.

In contrast, unlicensed drivers are only committing a violation of driving w/out a contract with the state. By driving w/out a license they are not under contract to follow the rules and regs. The more they enact regulating costs of driving the more inclined I am to just say screw the license, be cheaper to drive w/out.

quote:

---

saying you agreed to the breathalyzer, which they now have

---

I get what you're saying, but it would never happen. The administration of the state can't unilaterally grant the police te authority to arrest someone because they fail to comply with a document they signed with the state's dmv. Likewise, the courts would never uphold any administrative or legislative order that forces someone to shed a constitutional right like that.


By this logic, any type of government assisted housing (Sect. 8 vouchers for example), could be issued contingent upon the tenant forfeiting their 4th amendment rights--the police could show up and do an warrantless search at any time.

Also, the police would have to be granted the authority through legislation to arrest someone for violating their agreement. The DMV (administration) has no power to simply allow the police to arrest someone for violating an agreement with them. They only have the power to revoke someone's license.

quote:

---

Signing your license IS signing the contract with the state. Puts driving squarely under contract law AND you just agreed by signing to abide by all the rules and regs the state puts in place.

In contrast, unlicensed drivers are only committing a violation of driving w/out a contract with the state. By driving w/out a license they are not under contract to follow the rules and regs. The more they enact regulating costs of driving the more inclined I am to just say screw the license, be cheaper to drive w/out.

---

This analysis assumes that the government can coerce you into short-circuiting the 4th amendment. That's what the entire dispute is over. Can the government claim implied consent in the driving context to criminalize a failure to take a test that could incriminate someone.

quote:

---

The stop is already justified constitutionally under administrative needs.

---

You're talking about checkpoints, I suppose. I'm assuming the stop is justified on probable cause grounds in an individual context. No exigency exists in terms of public safety once the stop is made. It isn't a bomb. The threat is gone when someone who is suspected of DUI is stopped. Would not pass constitutional muster.

With regard to checkpoints, frick Michigan for foisting them on the rest of us. Even Michigan realizes that they are an absolute farce. They are now illegal under the State Constitution there.

quote:

---

Take a hard left and "get gas?" shite I think I'd sleep in a flea bag motel if one was nearby.

---

Oh no. It was very well positioned so there was no where to bail once you saw it. As a matter of fact they had a couple cruisers placed at the exit that went to the checkpoint to prevent anyone from turning around on the exit ramp. They were the first indication of the stop but you didn't know it.

quote:

---

The threat is gone when someone who is suspected of DUI is stopped.

---

I think this is a tad more nuanced. Just saying, I could see an argument where the exigency still exists, regardless of a stop, because stops by their nature are temporary, and the public danger is still in fact on the public roadway.

I'm personally with you, though. Stop them, develop your probable cause, if you can efficiently get a warrant detain them until that time. The reason why I first posted was to mainly highlight the incompetence of the North Dakota attorney. They had a much better argument than "derr, the 4th amendment makes it hard on us".