DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
One think I've learned from this thread is that, while DUI's are a real pain, they can earn you major chickpoints. 
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
One think I've learned from this thread is that, while DUI's are a real pain, they can earn you major chickpoints.
that is beneath you and your fellow youngins should give you proper punishment
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
not at all...the key term is "unreasonable"....
i don't see it as unreasonable....you do and it was actually some of the liberal members of the court who saw the search as unreasonable, it was the cons who did not
STY, we don't disagree on overall freedoms, we just disagree here regarding unreasonable....the highest court in this land has upheld immigration check points and dui check points....congress could have amended the constitution, could have created a law banning dui checkpoints and then starting all over.....i think at least 10 states have dui check points against their constitutions....thus, those states do not conflict with scotus....congress could have done the same
Good Luck
New member
Yurt is correct on this one. It is the modern "conservative" faction which has, in the past few decades, tended to favor law enforcement over our Constitution. Liberals are more about screwing the Constitution in favor of economic security. Just more proof that when it comes to federal authority, we cannot count on either side to do right by the American people.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I actually meant to vote no, as this is clearly unconstitutional. I'm a bit drunk tonight and unintentionally selected yes. Can someone change this for me?
Changed.
..."One of the most ubiquitous forms of suspicionless checkpoints is the sobriety checkpoint.
Many folks are under the false impression that sobriety checkpoints are legal throughout the country based upon Michigan Dept. of State Police V. Sitz.
While the Supreme Court did in fact carve out a 4th Amendment exception for sobriety checkpoints in this case, legal analysis doesn't stop there.
Before a sobriety checkpoint can be considered 'legal', it must not only pass constitutional muster at the federal level, it must do so at the state level as well while abiding by all applicable statutory requirements..."
https://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkpoints/Sobriety/sobrietyCheckpoints.htm
Many folks are under the false impression that sobriety checkpoints are legal throughout the country based upon Michigan Dept. of State Police V. Sitz.
While the Supreme Court did in fact carve out a 4th Amendment exception for sobriety checkpoints in this case, legal analysis doesn't stop there.
Before a sobriety checkpoint can be considered 'legal', it must not only pass constitutional muster at the federal level, it must do so at the state level as well while abiding by all applicable statutory requirements..."
https://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkpoints/Sobriety/sobrietyCheckpoints.htm
SmarterthanYou
rebel
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2014/ks-blooddraw.pdf
"Any person who operates or attempts to operate a vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent... to submit to one or more tests of the person's blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs," Section 8-1001 states. "A law enforcement officer shall request a person to submit to a test... if the person was operating or attempting to operate a vehicle and such vehicle has been involved in an accident or collision resulting in serious injury or death of any person and the operator could be cited for any traffic offense."
Under the statute, the traffic offense is considered the probable cause for the blood draw. The three-judge appellate panel found that every case cited by the prosecution upholding the implied consent law involved incidents where police had probable cause to believe alcohol or drugs were involved.
"We are acutely aware the statute in question attempts to address the terrible toll impaired drivers inflict on our state's highways, but we are reminded of the 'truism that constitutional protections have costs,'" Judge Anthony J. Powell wrote for the court. "While the state does have a significant interest in preventing accidents involving drugs and alcohol on the road, [this law] does not further that interest. A traffic infraction plus an injury or fatality, without more, does not constitute probable cause that drugs or alcohol were involved in the accident."
"Any person who operates or attempts to operate a vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent... to submit to one or more tests of the person's blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs," Section 8-1001 states. "A law enforcement officer shall request a person to submit to a test... if the person was operating or attempting to operate a vehicle and such vehicle has been involved in an accident or collision resulting in serious injury or death of any person and the operator could be cited for any traffic offense."
Under the statute, the traffic offense is considered the probable cause for the blood draw. The three-judge appellate panel found that every case cited by the prosecution upholding the implied consent law involved incidents where police had probable cause to believe alcohol or drugs were involved.
"We are acutely aware the statute in question attempts to address the terrible toll impaired drivers inflict on our state's highways, but we are reminded of the 'truism that constitutional protections have costs,'" Judge Anthony J. Powell wrote for the court. "While the state does have a significant interest in preventing accidents involving drugs and alcohol on the road, [this law] does not further that interest. A traffic infraction plus an injury or fatality, without more, does not constitute probable cause that drugs or alcohol were involved in the accident."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The Texas Court of Appeals told local police officers last month that when the US Supreme Court says warrantless blood draws from motorists are unconstitutional, that means they need to get a warrant to perform a blood draw. Hurst Police Officer Brian Charnock did not believe the McNeely ruling applied to him as he ordered Laura Ann Swan to pull over in February 2012.
Officer Charnock had received a tip that the car belonging to Swan was swerving on the highway, so he drove to her home. Before arriving, he allegedly saw Swan fail to signal a turn. He conducted a traffic stop during which Swan refused to perform sobriety tests and denied drinking anything, leaving the officer with no concrete evidence beyond the smell of alcohol.
Officer Charnock decided to arrest Swan for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), but she refused a breathalyzer test. Under state law, police have the duty to forcibly perform a breath or blood test if the officer has reliable information that the suspect has been convicted twice before of DUI -- and Swan was a repeat offender. So without obtaining a warrant, Officer Charnock had Swan's blood forcibly taken.
The appellate panel reasoned that a state law cannot be used to overturn a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
"While section 724.012 requires the taking of a specimen in those circumstances, the section does not expressly authorize the taking to occur without a warrant," Chief Justice Terrie Livingston wrote for the appellate court. "Courts of appeals, including this court, have repeatedly applied the holding from Villarreal to likewise conclude that a warrantless search and seizure of a defendant's blood purported to be justified only by section 724.012's requirements is unconstitutional."
Prosecutors tried to save the conviction by arguing even if the warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional, the evidence so taken should be admitted in court. The purpose of suppressing evidence is to deter bad police conduct, but here, they argued, Officer Charnock was doing what he thought was the right thing to do. The argument did not work.
"In other words, the state argues that Officer Charnock's good faith in applying what he believed the law to be at the time of the search precludes suppression of the blood test results even if the search and seizure violated appellee's constitutional rights as determined by later decisions," Justice Livingston wrote. "But as the state recognizes, we have considered and rejected this argument."
A copy of the decision is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2016/tx-notakeblood.pdf
http://informationliberation.com/?id=54016
Officer Charnock had received a tip that the car belonging to Swan was swerving on the highway, so he drove to her home. Before arriving, he allegedly saw Swan fail to signal a turn. He conducted a traffic stop during which Swan refused to perform sobriety tests and denied drinking anything, leaving the officer with no concrete evidence beyond the smell of alcohol.
Officer Charnock decided to arrest Swan for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), but she refused a breathalyzer test. Under state law, police have the duty to forcibly perform a breath or blood test if the officer has reliable information that the suspect has been convicted twice before of DUI -- and Swan was a repeat offender. So without obtaining a warrant, Officer Charnock had Swan's blood forcibly taken.
The appellate panel reasoned that a state law cannot be used to overturn a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
"While section 724.012 requires the taking of a specimen in those circumstances, the section does not expressly authorize the taking to occur without a warrant," Chief Justice Terrie Livingston wrote for the appellate court. "Courts of appeals, including this court, have repeatedly applied the holding from Villarreal to likewise conclude that a warrantless search and seizure of a defendant's blood purported to be justified only by section 724.012's requirements is unconstitutional."
Prosecutors tried to save the conviction by arguing even if the warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional, the evidence so taken should be admitted in court. The purpose of suppressing evidence is to deter bad police conduct, but here, they argued, Officer Charnock was doing what he thought was the right thing to do. The argument did not work.
"In other words, the state argues that Officer Charnock's good faith in applying what he believed the law to be at the time of the search precludes suppression of the blood test results even if the search and seizure violated appellee's constitutional rights as determined by later decisions," Justice Livingston wrote. "But as the state recognizes, we have considered and rejected this argument."
A copy of the decision is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2016/tx-notakeblood.pdf
http://informationliberation.com/?id=54016
Yes, especially without probable cause, a blood draw is an unreasonable search and seizure.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Not an argument. A statement. Learn the difference.
Apparently you don't care about the rights of the innocent those drunks kill. That's why I hope WHEN one of them kills someone, it's someone you know and love and not someone I know and love. If you support their right to drive drunk as a privacy matter, it's only fitting that it happens to you.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I stated that WHEN a drunk driver kills someone, and it will happen, I hope it's someone you care about.
It is when you would tie the hands of those that can get drunk drivers off the streets by calling someone that can prevent it unreasonable. That's your fucking problem. YOU consider it unreasonable and because you and only you consider yourself the authority on things, you expect the rest of us to fall in line. Let me modify my statement. Not only do I hope WHEN it happen it's someone you love, I hope that it HAPPENS.