DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

mandatory blood draws, are they constitutional?

  • No, it violates my rights as a person

    Votes: 24 88.9%

  • yes, they are clearly constitutional

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • Total voters
    27
S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
With the new years kicking in, it looks like more counties are going to implement 'no refusal' checkpoints, meaning that if you refuse a breathalyzer, then they can force you to submit to a blood draw.

Is this a violation of your rights?
 
Yurt said:
i remember reading about the state of WA and the issue went all the way to their sct...and forced blood draws, with a warrant, are constitutional
Click to expand...

so blood draws are an instance where you will indeed side with the courts, got it.

are the courts always right?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so blood draws are an instance where you will indeed side with the courts, got it.

are the courts always right?
Click to expand...

i did not say the court was right...

i believe it is an invasion, however, the courts believe our blood lawfully obtained evidence...imo, it is unnecessary invasion because you could still try the case w/o the blood sample, the testimony of the officer and other witnesses could make a case and your refusal to take the breathalyzer should be held against you
 
Yurt said:
i did not say the court was right...

i believe it is an invasion, however, the courts believe our blood lawfully obtained evidence...imo, it is unnecessary invasion because you could still try the case w/o the blood sample, the testimony of the officer and other witnesses could make a case and your refusal to take the breathalyzer should be held against you
Click to expand...

so the 5th Amendment no longer applies? for a refusal to incriminate one's self?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so the 5th Amendment no longer applies? for a refusal to incriminate one's self?
Click to expand...

testimony and evidence are two different things

you can refuse to testify, but, they can use evidence against you and here, the courts have said blood is proper evidence when obtained with a warrant, i don't know if all states follow this....

i just looked up some info and apparently the SCOTUS has ruled that generally forced blood draws do not violate your rights and rejected your two arguments above

SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
 
We are losing our rights, bit by bit, every day.....like its death from a thousand cuts
Even issues presented as an extension of rights (usually for a few) is, in reality a contraction of rights for the majority.....
 
Yurt said:
testimony and evidence are two different things

you can refuse to testify, but, they can use evidence against you and here, the courts have said blood is proper evidence when obtained with a warrant, i don't know if all states follow this....

i just looked up some info and apparently the SCOTUS has ruled that generally forced blood draws do not violate your rights and rejected your two arguments above

SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Click to expand...

so then the courts are always right. public safety trumps individual rights.

BREITHAUPT V. ABRAM, 352 U. S. 432 (1957)

(c) The right of the individual to immunity from such invasion of the body as is involved in a properly safeguarded blood test is far outweighed by the value of its deterrent effect due to public realization that the issue of driving while under the influence of alcohol can often by this method be taken out of the confusion of conflicting contentions. Pp. 352 U. S. 439-440.

I find this quite pathetic, that rights can be judicially eliminated due to public pressure over some pressing societal need. we are no longer a free country, unless the courts say it is so.
 
Last edited:
There was a time I'd have agreed with the courts, no longer. We see how this went onto now TSA, cooperate or be arrested. They will be on trains and buses next. Then museums, athletic arenas, etc.
 
Yurt said:
i remember reading about the state of WA and the issue went all the way to their sct...and forced blood draws, with a warrant, are constitutional
Click to expand...
The key phrase there is "with a warrant"

Want to explain how they plan to get valid warrants for mandatory blood draws at "no refusal" checkpoints?
 
..."The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn't make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion... The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."

Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/921.asp
 
"...The United States Supreme Court has found that sobriety checkpoints can be constitutional if they meet certain requirements. The Court has found that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on a driver’s constitutional rights.

In order for the checkpoints to be constitutional there must be clear guidelines that are carefully followed by the legal authorities. The U.S. Supreme Court has left it up to each individual state to develop these guidelines. In California, for example, the state supreme court has held that the decisions about where to set up sobriety checkpoints and about which cars to stop (i.e. every car, every sixth car, etc) must be made by supervisors prior to officers setting up the checkpoints. The sites selected should be in areas that have a high incidence of drunk driving. Further, the site should be publicized and the length of each stop should be minimized, in addition to other requirements that the court developed to protect the rights of each driver as well as the general public.

The U.S. Supreme Court had dissenting opinions that disagree with the ruling that sobriety checkpoints can be constitutional. Likewise, several states including Michigan and Texas have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their state constitutions.

Do You Have to Comply with Sobriety Checkpoints?

If the police ask you to stop your car at a sobriety checkpoint, or anywhere else, then you must comply. However, some states, such as Connecticut, have found that drivers do not have to answer questions such as, “Have you been drinking?” because to force drivers to do so would violate their Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self incrimination. Similarly, a driver might not have to comply with a field sobriety test (FST). However, in Connecticut and other states, the driver would have to comply with the request to take a breathalyzer test since, by law, drivers licenses are conditioned upon drivers’ cooperation with taking a breathalyzer test when requested by law enforcement..."


http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Art...onstitutionality-of-sobriety-checkpoints.html
 
"...CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
No. 88-1897
Feb. 27, 1990
June 14, 1990

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case poses the question whether a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

We hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan..."

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz01.html
 
Mojo said:
However, in Connecticut and other states, the driver would have to comply with the request to take a breathalyzer test since, by law, drivers licenses are conditioned upon drivers’ cooperation with taking a breathalyzer test when requested by law enforcement..."
Click to expand...

I created a thread awhile back about 'implied consent', meaning that in order to accomplish something, the state would require you to submit to some sort of action by law enforcement upon demand. There is no constitutional authority granted to do so, except through judicial decree, as in the michigan v. sitz case you cited.
 
Yurt said:
i did not say the court was right...

i believe it is an invasion, however, the courts believe our blood lawfully obtained evidence...imo, it is unnecessary invasion because you could still try the case w/o the blood sample, the testimony of the officer and other witnesses could make a case and your refusal to take the breathalyzer should be held against you
Click to expand...

Exactly. I used some advise from my atty when I was pulled over after having just a couple of drinks. I refused to do the field sobriety test but volunteered to do the breathalizer (Told the officer I had worked a 12 hour shift and was to tired to do the test). I blew under (.082 but the limit then was 0.1). Since they had no other evidence but the breathalizer they offered me a plea bargain to reduce it to a wreckless op. Since I was pulled over initially for a tail light being out I had my atty counter offer for a 2 point moving violation and they took it.

The advice from my atty was, never take a field sobriety test. It can only hurt you and it can never help you. If your stone cold drunk, refuse a breathalizer and/or blood test too. You'll get nailed with implied consent but at least your atty still has something to work with. If you've had a few drinks and think your on the bubble, refuse the field sobriety test and take the breathalizer. Same if you've had nothing to drink. The logic being is that in court the police officers evaluation of the field sobriety test will carry more weight then the breathelizer. So even if you blow under or zero if the police officer gives the opinion that he thinks you were stoned on something....they can get you on that. So never, ever do the field sobriety test.
 
Good Luck said:
The key phrase there is "with a warrant"

Want to explain how they plan to get valid warrants for mandatory blood draws at "no refusal" checkpoints?
Click to expand...

judges are on stand by for that...easier than you think

also, in SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, scotus said it is permissible to take a forced blood draw without a warrant if there is probable cause
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top