DUI screening stop

[Alexb2000]

So the other night I'm out to dinner with a couple of friends (pilots). The restaurant is having drink specials, but I am drinking club soda because I am flying the next day. Anyway everyone is having drinks, maybe 4-5 over the course of 3 hours. Everyone seems fine and we leave. I went home a different route from my friends. Up ahead I see traffic stopped and what looks like a wreck. When I get closer it turns out to be a DWI checkpoint. They have a lot of cars over on the side giving them sobriety tests. I roll up and the cops start looking in the car asking questions, flood lights, dogs, the whole deal. I said, "give me a breathalyzer, whatever, I haven't had a drop". They take a long look, ask some more questions, and wave me through.

I started thinking about how dumb lucky it was that I got stopped and not my friends. It could have been the end of someone's flying just that quick. In these deals any hint of alcohol and you get the full Monty of testing. We all know that one can have control of their facilities and still test too high.

Generally I limit myself to one drink when driving, regardless of timeframe. More and more I just take a car service or cab to dinner, it just isn't worth sweating something like that.

The last one of these I saw was outside a Casino in OK about 2am. They had so many people in cuffs I lost count.

Be careful out there.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I thought such roadblocks were considered unconstitutional in Texas?

My understanding is that sobriety checks like that are considered violations of the Oregon constitution (where I live.)

 

[Jim Logajan]

I wasn't in Texas, but I wasn't aware it wasn't done in Texas. I'll have to look into that.

What state were you in? There are several sites that summarize state laws in regards to such stops; here are two:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint

 

[Jim Logajan]

I say this knowing we will probably disagree..... You are absolutely correct that before an arrest there is no legal requirement to do anything other than show your drivers license. However, I have on several occasions dealt with someone who had been drinking and was very tired who appeared impaired. It was only after they demonstrated their ability to complete the tests that I knew they were not impaired. Had they refused, I would have had no choice but to have gone on all the information I had at the time, which would have indicated they were impaired and they would have been arrested.

I know it can be a catch 22 but a lot of times, especially in my dealings, it has benefited people to do the tests.

It is interesting to note that driving fatigued can be as dangerous as driving drunk. I believe only Arkansas and New Jersey have any laws that relate at all to such driving - but they only apply if a death occurs as a result.

A heck of a lot of people drive fatigued or encounter it due to "road hypnosis".

 

[Jim Logajan]

In any case, the last time I checked driving is a privelege, and not a right, and can be taken away from you should the state desire.

You're checking the wrong sources. There are court decisions that state that driving is a right, not a privilege. Publicly funded roads are a public commons that all have a right of access to, but states are authorized to regulate their usage in the interest of public safety.

 

[Jim Logajan]

From what I have read on your own land you have the right to do whatever you want with a car, however, driving on publically funded roads and getting a license to drive a car on those roads is not a right, but is a privilege that can be taken away from you.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

Though it would not be hard to find court cases where the opposite is claimed. Suffice to say that the issue of "right" vs "privilege" is not settled. It isn't even clear to me that the courts have a remotely common meaning for "privilege" with regard to legal consequences. One can lose a right if convicted of a crime; presumably that means a "privilege" can be lost at the whim of state action. In the latter case we hardly need involve cops at all, right?