Pbso Plans To Draw Blood At Dui Checkpoints

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1789823' date='Feb 23 2009, 11:14 PM']Why stop at DUIs? Why not have checks for any illegal activity?[/quote]

Drunk driving is a lot worse than many other illegal activities. And there are instances where people are indiscriminately searched, i.e for weapons before entering high security places, school lockers are randomly searched for drugs, weapons etc.



[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1789823' date='Feb 23 2009, 11:14 PM']Those who would give up a little liberty for a bit of temporary security deserve and will receive neither.[/quote]

Preventing death and injury is not "temporary security" and driving is not a right. I don't [i]like [/i]it per se but if it comes to something as simple as taking a breathalizer, I'd do it. -Katie

Edited February 24, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1789835' date='Feb 23 2009, 08:21 PM']Drunk driving is a lot worse than many other illegal activities. And there are instances where people are indiscriminately searched, i.e for weapons before entering high security places, school lockers are randomly searched for drugs, weapons etc.[/quote]

High security places are not public thoroughfares, and school lockers are not considered to be "private". Your car and your person are not subject to wanton searches by the government.


[quote]Preventing death and injury is not "temporary security" and driving is not a right.[/quote]

That same argument could be said about any sort of unreasonable search for any reason. Governmental officials illegally searching random houses for weapons can prevent death and injury, would you support that?

[quote]I don't [i]like [/i]it per se but if it comes to something as simple as taking a breathalizer, I'd do it. -Katie[/quote]

I loathe drunken driving, but what I abhor is the removal of our rights at the hands of the government, even if it's as "simple" as taking a breathalyser.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1789864' date='Feb 23 2009, 11:36 PM']High security places are not public thoroughfares, and school lockers are not considered to be "private". Your car and your person are not subject to wanton searches by the government.



That same argument could be said about any sort of unreasonable search for any reason. Governmental officials illegally searching random houses for weapons can prevent death and injury, would you support that?



I loathe drunken driving, but what I abhor is the removal of our rights at the hands of the government, even if it's as "simple" as taking a breathalyser.[/quote]

Again, driving is not a constitutional right. One who accepts the privilege of driving also accepts that some liberties normally endowed citizens at home or in the world at large don't necessarily apply to those driving. I don't think it's unreasonable. I don't support searching houses randomly for weapons BUT if, hypothetically there was a situation where a certain neighborhood was having ongoing incidents of, say kidnapping people off of the street and shooting them I would not be opposed to searching all of the homes in that vicinity for evidence of hostages and weapons and I'd be willing to have my home be searched. That said, do I think a situation like this would ever happen? No, I'm not a big believer in hypothetical arguments. Do I think a lot of drunk drivers kill and hurt a lot of people and that it's reasonable to have checkpoints at locations where drunk driving is prevelant? Yes. -Katie

EDIT: I do understand your concerns and I think your concern is not unwarranted (no pun intended). I just think checkpoints might potentially save lives.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[rkwright]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1789878' date='Feb 23 2009, 10:45 PM']Again, driving is not a constitutional right. One who accepts the privilege of driving also accepts that some liberties normally endowed citizens at home or in the world at large don't necessarily apply to those driving. I don't think it's unreasonable. I don't support searching houses randomly for weapons BUT if, hypothetically there was a situation where a certain neighborhood was having ongoing incidents of, say kidnapping people off of the street and shooting them I would not be opposed to searching all of the homes in that vicinity for evidence of hostages and weapons and I'd be willing to have my home be searched. That said, do I think a situation like this would ever happen? No, I'm not a big believer in hypothetical arguments. Do I think a lot of drunk drivers kill and hurt a lot of people and that it's reasonable to have checkpoints at locations where drunk driving is prevelant? Yes. -Katie

EDIT: I do understand your concerns and I think your concern is not unwarranted (no pun intended). I just think checkpoints might potentially save lives.[/quote]

Just wondering why isn't driving a constitutional right? The constitution protects a right to travel.

Secondly even if driving isn't a constitutional right, the right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures is a right. Whether driving, walking, or doing whatever.

Third, there are a lot of high crime areas in the US. Why not let the cops just do a sweep in every house in the area just hoping to turn up weapons\drugs you name it? This is not a hypothetical situation, its very real and could happen in every major city.

Last, I see your point about saving lives. But the line T-Bone quotes is very much right... Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. The 4th Amdt was a big reason for the American Revolution. The police at the time would freely search homes to check for untaxed goods and general contraband.

Edited February 24, 2009 by rkwright

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1789905' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:27 AM']Just wondering why isn't driving a constitutional right? The constitution protects a right to travel.[/quote]

Sure it does, but that involves a different set of rights-the government can't tell you where to and where not to go (within reason, of course) but, while the right to privacy is a seminal part of our government, public safety does take precedence. Driving is definitely not a right, though. Public transportation? Maybe.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1789905' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:27 AM']Secondly even if driving isn't a constitutional right, the right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures is a right. Whether driving, walking, or doing whatever.[/quote]

True, but one could make the argument that driving in times/places of significantly elevated history of drunk driving is somewhat incriminating. Of course I don't think anyone should make personal assumptions, but a safety checkpoint doesn't seem unreasonable to me in this context. I do think there are necessary exemptions (though they should be rare) to norms.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1789905' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:27 AM']Third, there are a lot of high crime areas in the US. Why not let the cops just do a sweep in every house in the area just hoping to turn up weapons\drugs you name it? This is not a hypothetical situation, its very real and could happen in every major city.[/quote]

The situation I conjured up was ludicrous as hypothetical situations are. For a search to be warranted it would have to be very specific and involve people leaving their homes in the first place.I maintain that there is a difference between being in one's home and choosing to leave your home and enter the public forum. You can do a lot of things in your house that you can't do out in society.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1789905' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:27 AM']Last, I see your point about saving lives. But the line T-Bone quotes is very much right... Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. The 4th Amdt was a big reason for the American Revolution. The police at the time would freely search homes to check for untaxed goods and general contraband.[/quote]

I'd use a stronger word than "security" to describe what I mean. Having untaxed goods and driving while impaired with vast potential for destroying life are very different situations. I'd rather have to take a breathalizer at a checkpoint than be potentially hit by a drunk driver that might have been prevented from killing/injuring me in a checkpoint. -Katie

[rkwright]

BTW the US Supreme Court in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, said that random sobriety checkpoints were ok. This dealt with a random police checkpoint, but no blood tests.

Can't say I agree with this... but I would hope that random blood tests would be out of the question.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1788708' date='Feb 22 2009, 07:24 PM']If you let the little liberties be eroded, the big ones aren't far behind. Checkpoints such as these are a serious violation of freedom (which is why they are unconstitutional), and actually do very little to stop drunk driving (which is why they're a poor idea in the first place). The only thing they do is line the coffers with the money taken from the random violator.[/quote]

agreed

[Guest MikeHardly]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Drunken drivers beware: If you drink and drive, especially during the last weekend of February, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and other area law enforcement will be out for blood.

PBSO deputies plan to set up driving under the influence checkpoints. If they suspect a driver is under the influence, they'll offer an on-the-spot Breathalyzer. If drivers refuse, deputies will ask to draw blood from their arms.

"I think that's really personal and I think that if you deny a Breathalyzer and you say that you don't want that, I think that's outrageous if they take blood without your consent," driver Courtney Liddle said.

Attorney David Olson said that "would only be lawful if a warrant is issued by a judge."

That's just what deputies plan to do. They'll actually drive to a judge's home for a signature and return to the checkpoint.

Olson said drawing blood from drivers is usually done in extreme cases like homicides and fatal collisions. Olson said he's not sure a judge would actually sign a warrant.

"I admire and respect the sheriff's intention to investigate driving under the influence cases, but I am glad that they apparently are going to go to judges before they independently exercise what they believe would be a valuable tool in conducting these kinds of investigations," Olson said.

The PBSO is trying to emphasize that DUI will not be tolerated. But some drivers feel it's a bit too much.

"I think it's invasive on a personal level," driver Dave Staup said. "If you're going to deny a Breathalyzer, you should definitely be able to deny getting blood taken. It's a highly more invasive thing to do."

If drivers refuse to have their blood drawn, they will be arrested and charged with DUI.

[url="http://www.legalx.net/blog/category/dui"]dui[/url]

[Winchester]

It's not unreasonable search and seizure to require an operator of machinery to submit to a test. We're not talking about people walking down the road or doing ordinary things, we are talking about people operating heavy machinery that is dangerous. It's not a human right to operate a car--it's a particular exercise of the right to move about. The officers aren't testing everyone, only those they suspect. You will be stopped at the checkpoint. If you're suspected of being under the influence, you will be further tested. It's a different sort of evaluation, but it's not unreasonable for a cop to require the test if he suspects dui.

There is a certain fear of inaccuracy with breathalyzers. I think I would rather take a blood test.