No Refusal DUI Checkpoints

My old state we used to force blood if they refused. If their was any indications of drug use no option for breath was given. Only blood. This was after we developed our PC and made the arrest. It made things alot easier.

I'm torn on this one. I think ultimately though, I am okay with it because it sounds like its just an expedited version of a process already in place. If the person shows signs of impairment and refuses a breath sample, and its legal to draw blood with a court order, I don't have a problem with expediting it.

Checkpoints don't catch drunks the way targeted patrols do.

The question then becomes how much of your liberty do you wish to surrender to obtain the security if you are not in fact obtaining the security?

DUI kills people, and we return DUI drivers to the road with regularity. If getting a warrant and obtaining blood isn't working, then why do we want to try more of it?

Take the car. We could so dramatically reduce DUI's if we simply treated it as a civil forfeiture and tweaked implied consent a little.

You get stopped, you blow or refuse. If you blow over the limit or refuse, we take the car. You get to have a little civil hearing for due process.

Then the next time you drink and drive, it will be a bicycle. No finance company will sell you a car again.

I agree with the above. The fact that I am tied up longer on a DUI than most drug trafficking cases I've made is why. It should be much simplier.

ETA:

MacLean's way cuts out money from the courts system because it is simplier.

Quote:

---

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. ~~ Ben Franklin

---

~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLean

Checkpoints don't catch drunks the way targeted patrols do.

The question then becomes how much of your liberty do you wish to surrender to obtain the security if you are not in fact obtaining the security?

DUI kills people, and we return DUI drivers to the road with regularity. If getting a warrant and obtaining blood isn't working, then why do we want to try more of it?

Take the car. We could so dramatically reduce DUI's if we simply treated it as a civil forfeiture and tweaked implied consent a little.

You get stopped, you blow or refuse. If you blow over the limit or refuse, we take the car. You get to have a little civil hearing for due process.

Then the next time you drink and drive, it will be a bicycle. No finance company will sell you a car again.

---

Well, I am not a big fan of DUI checkpoints, but was only commenting on the expedited process for obtaining blood. I like your alternative to the checkpoints though, it sounds much more affective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLean

Checkpoints don't catch drunks the way targeted patrols do.

The question then becomes how much of your liberty do you wish to surrender to obtain the security if you are not in fact obtaining the security?

DUI kills people, and we return DUI drivers to the road with regularity. If getting a warrant and obtaining blood isn't working, then why do we want to try more of it?

Take the car. We could so dramatically reduce DUI's if we simply treated it as a civil forfeiture and tweaked implied consent a little.

You get stopped, you blow or refuse. If you blow over the limit or refuse, we take the car. You get to have a little civil hearing for due process.

Then the next time you drink and drive, it will be a bicycle. No finance company will sell you a car again.

---

I like this.

I've been involved in one actual checkpoint and it didn't produce anything. It was a deterrent at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pudge

Ok, playing devil's advocate here....

The blood itself is evidence of a crime. Keep in mind, with implied consent, you've already given up your right to refuse a breath test without consequence. And driving in and of itself is not a given right.

That said, at what point is the line drawn for such a search? OVI here is a Misdemeanor of the first degree up until the 4th within 6 years when it becomes a felony.

Say Jo Schmoe gets 3 OVI's in a span of 4 years simply driving home from the bar, his buddy's house, and the company Christmas party, he's probably a .12 each time. No injury to anyone, no crash, nothing. All 3 are misdemeanors. But, he gets one more in similar circumstances, making it a felony. He refuses to blow all four times. Do you support the warrant draw for the 4th, but not first 3? Or do you not support it at all unless there is injury?

Furthermore, refusing a test and concealing the results would make a difference in the ehancement of the offense and possible penalities.

---

I absolutely agree that the blood itself is evidence of the crime, and the situation that we're talking about here is one where indicia of intoxication is present to the degree that a chem test is warranted. It is beneficial to the prosecution ro have that evidence ro ensure that the offender receives his reckoning in court. I don't believe, however, that the chem test should be 100% essential to the case, or that the failure to secure the blood sample would consitute a grave disservice to the cause of justice. But the argument about Express or Implied Consent has no bearing on the constitutional issues of forcing a blood draw to use against someone in criminal court. Here in CO, as I suspect in other places, a chemical test is an administrative requirement for the privilege of driving. Hence, when you refuse or fail a chem test, your license privileges are restrained regardless of the outcome of the court case. Here in Colorado, if you want to fight that Restraint, you do so through an administrative hearing at DMV, not through a judge in your court case.

That being said, I would have less of a problem with this if the offense were a felony, either basen on the number of previous DUI arrests, or based on their current driving status. Here in Colorado, if you're revoked as a habitual offender, and you're driving while plowed, it's a felony too. My original thought on this subject is that the reason for the intrusion be weighed against the liberty that's being sacrificed. If you're habitual, or a felonious DUI offender, there's more exigence to get you off the street and prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Returning to the misdemeanor offenses though, I don't believe we should be able to force someone to provide evidence contained within their body for a run-of-the-mill misdemeanor DUI. Where do we draw the line? Do we have on-call judges to sign the warrant on non-checkpoint DUI arrests made in the course of a regular shift?

Yes, DUI's kill people, and yes they should be hunted and prosecuted as aggressively as possible. I can and have made cases against DUIs without a chemical test. It is important evidence, but should never be 100% essential. Here in Colorado, the charge for DUI and driving with a BAC of 0.08+ (formerly called 'DUI Per Se') are actually two seperate offenses...they are mutually exclusive from one another, and both are charged when a chemical test is failed. If they refused, only the DUI is charged. All I have to prove is impairment to the slightest degree...that can be accomplished through articulation of difficulty in hand dexterity, slurred speech, poor balance upon exiting the vehicle, etc. Let's not forget the driving actions in the first place. And if I can't prove the DUI? So be it...maybe he skates on a court date. I would rather skip charging someone if I don't have PC other than a chemical test, rather than conduct what I see as an unreasonable intrusion into someone's highest area of constitutional privacy.

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be more administrative penalties for a refusal and I think Mac's idea of a civil forfeiture would go a long way.

you drink, you drive, you busted

plain and simple

you drink, you drive, you lose your rights..PERIOD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Five-0

Yeah, I'm starting to think we may not all be reading from the same sheet of music. The way I saw this is there is a checkpoint. Contact with the driver and the odor of alcohol is coming from the driver and/or other indicators of impairment. Either FSTs are failed or refused. I have had several "professional" DUI types that will not even take FSTs. They know that they get arrested anyway, and they don't care. This is where a judge steps in on the scene having not read about the PC for a warrant but has witnessed the PC first hand.

I certainly am not for a checkpoint where random people are asked and then demanded to give a blood sample. This don't blow and don't submit to field sobriety test advice that some lawyers are giving out is why there is a need for this. For lawyers it is about beating the case and getting paid. For me, as a LEO, it is about getting drunks off the road. Driving is not a right. If the punishments for failures to submit a breath sample were stiffer there would not be a need for this.

---

If this amounts to having a judge/magistrate on hand to sign a search warrant on the scene, based on a quick (probably template) affidavit... I can see it, though I question whether or not it's overkill. Otherwise, I've got some concerns. We're moving from adding a charge and mandatory suspension to suddenly making a pretty invasive seizure of the person.

In VA, refusal is a separate charge. The way I generally explain it before reading the page of small print legalese to a drunk (it's hard enough to understand sober; I don't get how a drunk is supposed to understand it!) is that, by choosing to drive in VA, they've said they'll take a breath test (blood is only an option if breath is unavailable or if DUID is suspected) if they're arrested on suspicion of DUI. If they choose not to do the breath test -- it's a separate offense, with a separate punishment. I suppose I could try to get a search warrant for breath -- but I don't see a way to collect the sample if they don't cooperate. I could seek a search warrant for blood, if they don't cooperate -- but it's not real timely (figure an hour minimum to prep and get signed), but it'd probably be overkill unless I was working some major case like a vehicular homicide. I'd need to lay out PC... which would probably also be enough to prove the case at trial... Don't know. Like I said -- probably overkill. Especially since the typical outcome of a DUI+refusal is the refusal gets dropped, and a plea to the DUI... (Personally, I'd like to see that change...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLean

Checkpoints don't catch drunks the way targeted patrols do.

The question then becomes how much of your liberty do you wish to surrender to obtain the security if you are not in fact obtaining the security?

DUI kills people, and we return DUI drivers to the road with regularity. If getting a warrant and obtaining blood isn't working, then why do we want to try more of it?

Take the car. We could so dramatically reduce DUI's if we simply treated it as a civil forfeiture and tweaked implied consent a little.

You get stopped, you blow or refuse. If you blow over the limit or refuse, we take the car. You get to have a little civil hearing for due process.

Then the next time you drink and drive, it will be a bicycle. No finance company will sell you a car again.

---

I like this idea! In VA, we do something similar IF you're caught driving on a DUI related suspension. If you're caught driving while suspended for DUI or related offenses -- the car is impounded for 30 days. Doesn't matter whose car it is either... and the courts are not generally sympathetic about releasing the car on those impounds. (I guess rentals are released... but I know of cases where a third party's car was NOT released!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLean

Checkpoints don't catch drunks the way targeted patrols do.

.

---

I think you are spot on Maclean. I also think the the checkpoints cost a lot more money to operate from advertising it in the paper to shutting down the road ect... If they want to combat DUI's then put the boots on the streets. In my OPINION the checkpoints are political and they make the higher ups feel good about themselves. "Look at what I did" It is not affective but they get a lot of press ~~

If I came to a check point. I'd roll my window down and say nothing. LEO is on a blind crusade to make the public prove their innocence. Check points are a fishing trip. RAS should be obtained before the Terry Stop. My refusal to answer questions is a certainty. My level of cooperation will be silent. For this I may be drug to the hospital and get poked? My non consent may be deemed reason to investigate further. My silence would most certainly be called a "refusal" or "obstruction". Check points must be stopped.


Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.

I don't have a problem with checkpoints, mainly because I don't drive after drinking and I make sure my stuff is in order. I've had very positive contacts on checkpoints, with a couple being downright funny.

I recently read a story about 20 cars being stopped in an intersection in Colorado due to supposed intel. Stopping every car in a given area seems unreasonable to me. If you cast a net large enough you can find things but on a larger scale if a felon ran into a baseball stadium do we detain the entire stadium in case we find the bad guy? Large scale detentions should be deemed unreasonable. This violates the 4th just like a check point.
I won't drink and drive either. My refusal to prove I'm sober does not equate to guilt.


Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.

That story in CO was talked about on here. There was a good reason for it, but I'm not going into it on the public side.

http://apbweb.com/forums/news/49458-...k-robbery.html

Thanks 5-0!
I'll stir up trouble over there!
LOL.


Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.

You talking about tigerdroppings? If so, it don't take much. When I jump in the political talk over there I usually use both feet.:laugh:

I don't approve of this, I don't approve that... What then is acceptable? Apparently just let drunk drivers continue to drive and as we always do, we'll just clean up the mess. It doesn't take that long to get the brains and guts of innocent kids off the roadway with a firehose.

We aren't allowed to carry out random breath tests here. But....We can require a test if we stop a driver and a traffic offence has been committed or if no offence the officer suspects alcohol.
Threfore you set a roadside checkpoint to check the roadworthiness or documents of drivers.
Then if you catch a wiff of alcohol or they state they have consumed alcohol recently you can administer a test. If refused that is an offence and gets you arrested if alcohol is suspected. Back to the station for two further breath tests. Refusal here results in a charge and madatory ban of 12 months. Here you only get the choice of blood if you blow between certain parameters on the breath test. Over the limit charge again results in mandatory ban of at least 12 months.
I know that Australia also have random breath testing checkpoints.
At any checkpoint you always put a car down the nearest turn off point to catch the ones trying to avoid the said checkpoint. these are always the best ones to catch.
DUI here is the only offence for which you cannot delay the procedures before being allowed to consult with free legal advice(even by phone) In other words as soon as the sgt in the lock up has authorised detention you go straight on the breath test machine.
Ah I miss my days as a jackbooted tool of big brother.