Quote"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa
Tampa, Florida-- With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.
But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.
It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.
"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.
Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.
It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.
Full Article:
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250
Whatever happened to 'probable cause'?
I understand the proponents zeal to not have anyone drink and drive. But mandatory blood tests?
Yikes. Orwellian.
^^^I agree. That sounds a little outrageous. A blood test on site? To me there is no point of DUI checkpoints in the beginning. They Tell you when and where they are going to be. So If you planning on drinking, you can just go another route. I do see the element of surprise working. But when you can turn on the local news and find out about them, that seems to defeat the purpose.
As much as I'm against drunk drivers and have no problem with check points...but a mandatory blood test...not sure I'm onboard with that. I feel that if there's sufficient probable cause that arises from the stop, then take the person into custody, then perhaps a blood test if they still refuse to cooperate with a breath test. But to take blood while still at a check point...not cool with that.
Have there been any DUI checkpoints in the Jax area lately? I can't seem to recall any major instances.
I'm against "drunk" driving (hard to avoid drinking a normal amount and driving, which up to the cop's discretion could be construed as a DUI less safe anyway, even after 1 beer). However, I believe driving a car, sober or otherwise, is an adult responsibility. I'm against all DUI checkpoints, and this latest development makes my blood boil. I'm also against a cop trying to get a person to blow after a routine stop. So someone is speeding at night or fails to turn on a blinker while executing a turn. Just because it's at night does that mean the person broke the minor traffic law simply because of alcohol? That person probably speeds and fails to turn on a blinker all the time at 11 in the morning, yet if the person is even stopped, there are no alcohol assumptions.
If you drive at night (or really anytime), you must be extra vigilant and be on the lookout for aggressive drivers, intoxicated drivers, distracted drivers, sleepy drivers, and plain bad drivers. Why is alcohol any worse than being distracted, aggressive, tired, or plain bad? It's pathetic if you ask me. I'm looking for more personal responsibility and waiting for people to depend less on the Nanny state police. The MADD people are so hypocritical. So many of them want less government in our lives, yet they are the ones that push for these ridiculous measures. I am so anti-MADD it's unbelievable. (I'm also against drunk driving, but those people make my blood boil)
Quote from: Springfielder on December 30, 2010, 04:46:56 PM
As much as I'm against drunk drivers and have no problem with check points...but a mandatory blood test...not sure I'm onboard with that. I feel that if there's sufficient probable cause that arises from the stop, then take the person into custody, then perhaps a blood test if they still refuse to cooperate with a breath test. But to take blood while still at a check point...not cool with that.
Refusal is its own crime, and that itself was the legislature's response to cries from these same people 10 years ago to force mandatory blood testing. The legislature refused, and instead made refusal a separate misdemeanor. The standard for a blood test, as I'm sure you know given your profession, is the suspect's refusal or incapacitation during a DUI investigation involving death, property damage, or bodily injury. You have the right to demand one test over the other, but the state cannot force you to comply with either absent an interest beyond mere traffic enforcement.
So given the history on this issue, I'd really be interested to know under what pretense are judges signing warrants for blood tests at a roadside random stop when not only is there no death, damage, or injury, but there isn't even probable cause? Strikes me as ludicrous.
These things are done in increments, folks, Rights are lost bit by bit, and throughout the past two decades they've been chipped away at. This is really the chickens coming home now, mandatory blood tests at random roadside checkpoints without probable cause. Wow.
Probable cause is so stupid, too. Cops either accuse you of having alcohol on your breath or having a nastygma. A nastygma has been proven to be the result of so many things beside alcohol, though "a lot" of alcohol can cause a nastygma. It's been proven, as well, that most cops do not even know how to read a nastygma. Also, cops often lie about breath. You can swig mouth wash (which would increase BAC temporarily...not avisable), and the cop will still say he smells beer or whiskey (actually they never specify because they rarely actually do smell anything) on your breath.
Unfortunately, probable cause is the lowest or second lowest criteria in the law to be able to search. I guess beyond a reasonable doubt is the lowest. Unfortunately, not even the best lawyer can break the "probable cause" bullsh*t. Actual law has borderline been thrown out the door regarding DUIs.
I have never heard of such a checkpoint before. I am assuming that an on site judge is issuing a search warrant and not an arrest warrant as the story states. Seems pretty extreme, but MADD really is quite politically powerful.
Simms, DUI's aren't really that hard. Most times, they are found passed out behind the wheel or plastered against a guardrail. But while I have never worked DUI as a regular assignment, I have found the "smell" of alcoholic beverage to be pretty strong. Of course the smell alone won't result in arrest but in combination with unsteady legs, slurred speech, and stupor these arrests are not really rocket science.
I'm not really sure what your point about probable cause or reasonable doubt is. It appears that you might misunderstand what those terms mean.
Those terms basically mean that there doesn't need to be hard evidence. That's all I need to know to have a problem with current laws dealing with DUIs. And most DUIs are from routine stops, not from being "passed out at the wheel" or a car wrapped around a tree or railing. Do you know how many DUIs there are? Too many! I would say that 40-50% of people my age that I know have had to fight at least one DUI, and most of these people are decent, hard working kids who haven't even been in a wreck. They simply forgot to turn on a blinker when they merged or they were going 10 over at 11:00 at night (like the cop would have cared if it were 11:00 in the morning). Heck, Dick Cheney and George Bush both got DUIs.
The punishments for DUIs nowadays are sometimes so severe that they exceed punishments of far worse crimes and crimes by repeat offenders. DUI is the new witch-hunt of law enforcement. Have you heard all the ads on the radio and seen the commercials on TV? I mean you would think they were going after serial rapists and murderers.
I know someone who was going to be convicted of one DUI. He got 10 days, 9 months of AA (a once a week drinker we're talking about), $2,000 fine (on top of $20+K for a good lawyer, court fees, and other previously paid fines), a psychiatric evaluation that cost $210, a week long Prime for Life course that cost another $400, 190 hours community service, 18 months probation with weekly check in and drug tests (no prior history of drug use), car key ignition breathylizer which is not cheap, and 120 day license suspension with pending restrictions on use of a car afterward. He's taking it to a trial by jury.
Is a DUI with a BAC of 0.09 really that bad?? I don't think so!
Florida driving laws are really harsh across the board. I know this thread is about DUI, but I think most here would be surprised at the severity of a Driving While License Suspended ticket, and the reasons for a suspended license range from the understandable - too many points, to the inane - unpaid citations. And Duval sends thier tickets to collections as soon as they can, adding an additional 40% to the original fine - and you don't have any choice but to pay.
Pulled over for speeding and got extra tix for seatbelt and no proof of ins. - went to court, showed proof of ins. - dropped, speeding - reduced, seat belt - enforced. Didn't have all the money to pay everything and forgot about the balance. The next time I was pulled over, I spent the night in jail for DWLS. I had my license on me, but it wasn't good anymore. I tried to pay the old ticket and they referred me to a collection agency - 7 days waiting on paperwork. 7 days of driving around, knowing I could go back to jail if I get stopped for any little thing, but when you have to travel to meetings and jobsites you can't just sit at the office.
That is not what those terms mean. Many, many DUI's are derived from crashes. I'm sure that you don't mean to defend drinking and driving, and that you are saying that you believe the .08 standard to be to low, and the punishment to much. That would be a valid debate point, but I don't see how drinking and driving could be defended. Decent, hard working kids that you know might need to learn how to drink responsibly, and have a designated driver if they need transportation at the end of the night. A once a week drinker can kill someone just as fast as a hard core alcoholic.
You obviously have a problem with the DUI laws. That's OK. But Officers are not falling all over themselves to make DUI arrests. They are a pain, but part of the job. Also, perhaps you should actually check the crash statistics. And listen to some of the surviving family members of the victims of this crime. Perspective here is important. That is where the MADD organization came from.
Well I did some more reading on this.
Turns out their probable cause for having a judge issue a warrant ordering an involuntary blood test is, get this, the refusal to submit itself. They have unilaterally determined for the purposes of these stops that any refusal to submit to a mandatory breath test at this roadside checkpoint, regardless of the reason, is a sufficient showing of probable cause to justify a warrant by itself. Ludicrous, considering I'd personally refuse on moral grounds if I found myself in that situation.
Folks, this is the same thing as the cops randomly knocking on everyone's doors demanding you consent to let them search your house, and then using your declining to consent by itself as probable cause to obtain a warrant. I've never heard of anything like this, it's really shocking.
Where did you find that, Chris? I can't believe that any judge would issue a search warrant based on refusal alone. They must be adding additional observations. There has to be more to this story.
Well the MADD press release / aka "news article" goes to some lengths to make it sound better better than it is, but once I read a dozen different forums on this (judging from the kickback on this one, in the span of a single day, this is grossly unpopular) I realized I had missed the interpretation the first read through. Google this and start reading the various stuff that comes up, one forum I forget which one had an interview posted with the Hillsborough chapter president of MADD and it was horrifying.
It's also right in the original article, I just missed it the first time. The article says the checkpoints are "No Refusal" breathalyzer checkpoints, and that a judge will be onsite to issue a warrant on the spot "if you refuse." Now logically, they're not going to have any additional evidence between the initial checkpoint stop where you're requested to take a portable breathalyzer and the issuance of a warrant for a mandatory blood test if you refuse.
The only thing these people will have done by that point is be stopped without reasonable suspicion and refuse a request for a breathalyzer test that was not made with probable cause to begin with. And if they refused the breath test, they're certainly not going to in the meantime have consented to field sobriety exercises they have absolutely no obligation to perform are they? Once you slice and dice this one, it appears they are interpreting the refusal as providing sufficient probable cause to justify a blood test.
I'll go ahead and call this one, I think this is going to prove a waste of everyone's time. This turns 30 years of DUI law in this state on its ear. The duration of the random stop exceeds 3 minutes / reasonable, there is no probable cause for a breathalyzer let alone a warrant for a blood test, there is no accident involving death, injury, or property damage. I bet they lose every single DUI they get from these things, except the couple people who don't know any better and plead out.
And the number of those folks is dwindling, IME, because the fines, penalties, SR-22 insurance costs, driving courses, interlock devices, substance abuse evaluations, monitoring, and all the other money-making crap err...I mean "help" that the state has begun automatically requiring of everyone in that situation has now grown to be far more expensive than a $10k retainer to just get off the hook entirely. This is just bound to backfire, as so many people fight DUIs now because the penalties are so onerous.
I am honestly horrified by this whole thing. Will be interesting to see what happens when this makes it to court.
Also, I hope they don't plan on having any of the warrant-signing judges available to hear cases arising from these stops, I don't see how that wouldn't be a conflict, since wouldn't the judge now be a potential witness?
So...do they plan on restraining belligerent drunks? Trying to inject a hypodermic needle into someone struggling?
This to be done in a controlled area with official restraints and video surveillance... And sterile to say the least.
Notnow, I'd like to hear your opinions of DUI laws after you get pulled over for one. I, being only 22 and growing up in the era of "serial underage drinkers and DUIers" have been going to MADD meetings and put through that crap since I was 16 years old. Some people like the girl who was so drunk who drove on the wrong side of the highway and killed the family on their way to Disney are beyond comprehensible, but most of us just want to be able to go to a watering hole for a few beers without having to literally "stress" over how to get home, not because we can't drive but because the law is so overbearing. Cabbing it in a city like Jax is not probable because there aren't many cabs. I take a cab where I live when I'm with a group, and that brings the cost down, but MARTA is certainly not an option because you run the risk of assault and battery.
MADD as a private organization is valid. MADD as an entity that the government makes us take part in is a different thing. Once you get a DUI or an MIP, you go through two contradicting things. One is MADD which depicts the gory side of drinking and driving. The other is Prime for Life, which gets more into the legal aspect of it. It's a cop's discretion whether you are intoxicated. DWI was changed to DUI to allow for that discretion. If you have one glass of wine and your BAC is only 0.04 and you're at a red light that turns green and a red light runner slams into you and dies, you could be charged with vehicular manslaughter and DUI. That's what happened in one case they present. One glass of wine and the lady had the green, but she was still held responsible for the red light runner's death, particularly because she was found to have a BAC (well within legal limit BAC of 0.04).
Notnow, sure there are a lot of accidents on the road. Drinking and driving is unavoidable. Drinking too much and driving is wreckless and irresponsible. Drinking too much without driving is irresponsible. Being a bad driver is wreckless and irresponsible. Knowing you are too old to drive and yet still driving is wreckless and irresponsible. Texting and driving is wreckless and irresponsible. Knowing you're too tired to drive and nodding off yet still driving is wreckless and irresponsible. Driving immediately after your spouse cheated on you and while you are in a rage or fit is wreckless and irresponsible. What's to say any of these is worse than another? Why is one activity highly illegal under the law and others are still hardly questioned?
Look at the statistics. You are 23x as likely to wreck while texting. That's a lot higher than having a low to moderate BAC. Texting in FL is still perfectly legal. In GA it is illegal, but it is just a fine. Do I need to rattle off what people have to go through to fight a DUI? Oh, and how about that whole job issue nowadays? DUIs are real helpful with that.
IMO, if you are 60 years old and have never even been in a fender bender, you are obviously a better driver in all conditions than 99.999% of people out there and you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want to do. Too bad the law would never work that way, would never reward "model citizen" types.
I understand your frustration, and I don't entirely disagree that the punishments for first time DUI are too harsh. But it is hard to argue with groups like MADD and family members of those who have lost their lives to this. I absolutely disagree that drinking and driving are unavoidable. Both are voluntary activities. I realize that you are very young, and your life is centered around socializing right now, but that will change as you grow older. You must still be responsible for your actions. All of the activities that you listed ARE dangerous. The bottom line is that driving is a serious responsibility, and must be taken seriously by those that get behind the wheel. Dulling your senses and reducing your reaction time before driving is irresponsible.
I choose not to drink. That solves several issues for me including the DUI issue. Your choices are up to you.
The problem I have with it is that MADD has succeeded in incrementally reducing the definition of "impaired" from being actually impaired to having had essentially anything at all. Impaired is .08 in Florida, but I don't think people get how little that truly is. That can be a glass or two of wine with dinner. It's unreasonable. Anything under .10-.12 in the average person is likely less dangerous than the bagillion people driving around without enough sleep, or without the best eyesight. In most people that isn't impairment in anything other than a technical sense. And guess what, they want to lower it again.
If you listen to interviews with these MADD people, it's crazy. They have jumped the shark, and many of them regularly rant about how they wouldn't mind seeing alcohol banned entirely. These people have a neo-Prohibitionist agenda, they're just nuts. The really funny thing is when you get into the bunk statistics behind all this. In the 1980s, when the DUI enforcement bonanza began heating up, they figured a full fifth of traffic deaths were DUI-related. But as the 1990s approached and people got more careful about it, the numbers plunged.
So what did MADD and state law enforcement do? You'd think they'd chalk it upmto a successful PR campaign and call it a day, but of course they didn't. Instead they simply changed the statistics to inflate the numbers, naturally. It's now compiled using "alcohol-related incidents" of which this is the FLDHSMV's definition;
QuoteThe table above shows the total number of traffic fatalities (Tot) for the Florida, alcohol related fatalities (Alc-Rel) and fatalities in crashes where the highest BAC in the crash was 0.08 or above (0.08+).
It is important to note that the Florida drunk driving statistics, as shown above, include data from individuals who were in an alcohol-related crash, but not driving a motor vehicle at the time. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines alcohol-related deaths as "fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or non-occupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value."
Ok, so does everyone else spot all the loopholes in this thing?
1: If someone dies in a crash and wasn't even driving, their death gets included if their BAL is over .08. If a drunk guy dies when his cab crashes on the way home, the state would treat it as alcohol-related.
2: If someone is involved in a crash and well under the legal limit, but shows ANY positive test for alcohol (can be .001) then that gets included in the statistic even though they weren't DUI.
3: There is no determination of fault. If the non at-fault driver has a positive BAL level, even though they weren't DUI and didn't cause the accident, it is still treated as alcohol-related.
4: The "DUI death" doesn't even have to be in a vehicle. If a driver hits a pedestrian who had the right of way, if the pedestrian had been drinking it gets included in the statistics.
These MADD people honestly make me sick. Despite a precipitous decline in the actual number of impaired drivers over the past 20 years, they succeed time and again in having the statistics changed so that they can report year after year what a large problem this is. Except, it's not. It's nothing more than bunk statistics at this point, that are so manipulated that a dunk bum who happens to die next to a roadway is probably being counted as a DUI death.
The state jumped on the bandwagon with both feet, once they realized how much money was involved in this little cottage industry. The average fine is $2,000 by itself, and that doesn't include monitoring fees, all the various fees and charges related to the suspension and reinstatement of your driver's license, or the SR-22 insurance that our state-sponsored insurance company is the primary underwriter of, mental health / substance abuse evaluations, and on and on and on. The state probably makes somewhere between $5k-$10k off each DUI arrest.
The MADD people used to have a point, but after they accomplished their goal they simply didn't want to go away. Now, their arguments rely entirely on pathos (my brother died in that crash, etc.) and bunk statistics. Not that I'm disparaging anyone's dead relative, but we shouldn't be legislating on pathos. And more rights have been lost in the name of DUI enforcement than any other area of law, at least in this state. Mandatory roadside blood testing is really just where this has been headed all along. The whole thing is really a mess.
Actually I rarely drink. I go out once a week, and I usually cab or hitch a ride. Even so, sometimes it's unavoidable, and in Jax it is unavoidable. People who go out to eat or for a few drinks are going to end up drinking and driving at least more than a few times in that city. There are few cabs, no public transit, and ease of driving because availability of back roads (why wouldn't someone who went to the Brick take the easy 2 lane 30 mph back roads home?).
Your choices not to drink are comendable, but are rare (at least in my world). Everyone I know short of the last president drinks (I don't know the last president just making a point).
I also commend MADD, but for the government to basically use our pre-tax money to sponsor that group by getting every underage drinker and every DUI arrest to pay fees to sit in on meetings and group sessions "sponsored" by MADD is too much. The amount of private groups that basically thrive and profit because the government supports each and every one of them through their arrests makes me think that these groups have lobbyists that have won them deals with the government. How else does the government just charge a fee and some jail time and then sentence a string of punishments whereby private groups benefit?
And I guess you agree with me that anything that dulls your senses before you get behind the wheel is wreckless, but can you tell me which one is worst and which one is most deserving of a severe punishment? You are right in that driving is an adult responsibility.
Chris, your're right, and how many fees go to private companies nowadays? (and "Non-profits"). It makes me think there is a lobbying group to get the government to force everyone who is arrested to sit in on MADD, go to an AA group or rehab center, the ignition breathylizer is a chunk of change (they would not be around if it weren't for the government mandating it), the Prime for Life, the psychiatric evaluations, and the list goes on.
Also, as you go through all of this, you learn that BAC means almost nothing. Anything at or over 0.08 means automatic DUI, any refusal to blow means DUI less safe, and any BAC under 0.08 but above 0.01 in adults (which we consider 21 and up for alcohol but 18 and up for everything else...??) is up to the cop's discretion. Like I said, you have examples of a basically sober driver obeying all laws and a wreckless red light runner running into her and dying, but the basically sober driver gets charged with vehicular manslaughter/DUI because she had a BAC of 0.04.
Too many lives are ruined because idiots jumped in a car with BAC's of .15 or far far above and caused a wreck, but many more "innocent" lives are nearly ruined because they had a BAC of .05 when they were 20 or they were a couple coming home from Biscottis and either had a BAC of 0.08/0.09 or refused to blow. Just examples.
And have you ever noticed that DUI checkpoints are always on back roads or roads with stop signs and slow speed limits? Anyone who has drank at all and drives on these roads are making a safe driving choice for them and everyone else. You never see DUI check points on highways and major arterials where the majority of bad wrecks occur and speeds approach 80 mph. It's almost like promoting for people who drink and drive to hop on a highway for as much of the drive home as possible and avoid the backroads. Gee, that's smart. A policy that encourages wrecks rather than tries to prevent them.
Simms, your observations are quite true. The checkpoint locations are where they are to eliminate people seeing the checkpoint and exiting the roadway. Also, the only reason they advertise the checkpoint locations and grant drivers caught in them any semblance of civil rights is because the courts were routinely smacking them down until they reached somewhat of a balance with the invasiveness. Even then they aren't supposed to keep you longer than 3 minutes, which the courts have held is reasonable enough time to check your license and insurance.
For the state, this has become a moneymaking bonanza more than anything else, you're right there is a huge lobby of MADD and substance abuse "treatment" providers, state-approved DUI traffic school providers, and on and on who all have their snouts in the trough and a big lobby in Tallahassee.
I also think it's ludicrous that people under 21 can be and regularly are sent off to die for this country, but aren't considered "responsible" enough to have a beer. What does that say about our society? How are we not using someone's lack of experience to send them off and die for us, as long as their alleged lack of experience doesn't actually impact us if they have a beer? Good enough to die save my ass, but not good enough to have a beer? WTF. Seriously?
Stephen Dare has an even more interesting take on all this, which is rather chilling. He agrees these folks are neo-prohibitionists, but goes a step farther. He remembers in the 80s and 90s when these same MADD people started a series of zoning wars that resulted in it being virtually impossible to have a bar/lounge or liquor store in a residential area anymore.
Before the zoning battles, people would go to their neighborhood bar and have a drink or watch the game and go home. It was all walking distance and even if they drove it was only a couple blocks so there was no big harm. But these same people actively fought to zone all of this stuff out to the outskirts, which led to the distances requiring a car trip, and then set about lowering the legal limits and stepping up DUI enforcement plus slick PR campaigns that have essentially equated DUI with child molestation or murder in the public consciousness.
Except their own zoning agenda created a big chunk of the DUI problem to begin with, showing that they are more interested in de facto prohibition than in actual public safety. So you're not allowed to drink in your neighborhood anymore, and you're not allowed to drive to drink, so I guess the message is pretty clear on that one, huh? Don't drink. Interesting take on things, and highly informative.
In any event, I think the statistical manipulations these people have to go through in order to continue claiming that this thing is some huge problem really kind of demonstrates they've totally jumped the shark at this point. They accomplished their mission by the 1990s, but then simply started changing the definitions as they went along, so that they could claim that pretty much every roadway death was somehow "alcohol-related." Even then, these grossly manipulated statistics STILL show a 50% decline! Their mission has been accomplished, why are these people still around? (Hint: Follow the money)
Too right! A lot of the traffic stuff has turned into a money making machine for the city, state and the "schools", programs and lawyers. I found out the hard way.
Two months ago I got my first traffic ticket in twenty-five years. Illegal passing-$150 fine plus three points on the license. I was driving twenty yards on the shoulder of I-10 to get around a completely blocked Interstate to get to the next exit. I didn't even know it was illegal, but now it makes sense to me and the FHP guy was polite about it. My bad.
Within three days I was getting phone calls, letters and post cards from lawyers, traffic schools, etc. saying that "for a fee" they could get me off or at least keep the points off the license. I must have gotten twenty solicitations of various kinds over about three weeks. What a racket!
Took my lumps. Paid the fine. Took the points. Learned my lesson, but didn't get wrapped up in the scams. Was totally amazed.
Thank you Chris for exposing the "Dirty little secret" behind Misdemeanor DUI.
This charge caries WAY more penalties than an equivalent FELONY ARREST.
You have to go on a "Fake Probation" even if you have no probation or have taken care of all the money...and install a corporate device that draws power and kills your battery.
ALL these type fines I have referred to as "Modern Mafia" in the past.
If you are too young to remember "Protection payments" and other thug behavior..it has now been Legalized as Fines, fees,assessments and other legalized ripoffs. The FRANCHISE TAX/ FEE is a tax on a business for making money. this fee is now regularly Jacked onto JEA customers.
How much is this fee annually? How do they get off charging everyone this fee monthly?
Just when do they pay off this bogus fee?
Honestly, do they need to be sued to stop this?
The JEA franchise fee is outrageous. The intent was that they repay COJ for the billions in taxpayer investment, considering JEA is profitable. Instead JEA simply passed it straight along to the customers and continued pocketing the money.