The DUI exception to the constitution

[naaman fletcher]

I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don’t think it’s from North Korea. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

[flvegan]

1. Wait, what?

[naaman fletcher]

2. read the link

right to be free from search without reasonable cause.. right to an attorney.. etc. none of those apply in a DUI. There is a DUI exception to the constitution.

[Ikonoklast]

7. Driving isn't a right, it is a privilege, delineated by each state.

And where in this country do you not have the right to legal representation for a DUI?

[naaman fletcher]

8. in just about every state..

You do not have the right to call a lawyer before you are forced to a search and interrogation, and forced to present evidence against yourself.

[Ikonoklast]

15. You do not have to respond in any manner.

You have the legal right to refuse the breathalyzer, but the state is within its rights to revoke your driving privileges for doing so.

[naaman fletcher]

16. so..

would you be cool with the police saying they are going to search your house without a warrant? You don't have to let them, but if you don't the state is going to punish you in X manner? What other crimes that you are accused of should carry such a burden of presumed guilt?

[Ikonoklast]

26. You are conflating 'rights' with 'privileges'.

You have a 'right' to ask for a search warrant for your home.

You have no 'right' to drive. That privilege is granted by the state, and any rules they dream up in order for you to attain or maintain a drivers' license, you must follow or lose that privilege.


In actuality, any state can suspend any driving license for any reason, at any time. They can even refuse to offer driver's licenses for anyone in their respective states, if they so desired.

[naaman fletcher]

30. bow to the state...

So, if driving is a privelege, do you agree that they should be allowed to stop and search you for anything? That is not unconstitutional because, hey, driving is a privelege?

[uppityperson]

45. I consider driving a privilige. So does the law. Again you are expanding.

"I think X"
"so, if you think X, then Y and Z"

[naaman fletcher]

51. do you think the founding fathers..

would have considered traveling the highways a privilege? Since it is a privilege, you think it would be legal for them to stop everyone on the roads and collect DNA for a national DNA database? After all, driving is just a privilege.

[uppityperson]

53. Are you employed making up push-polls?

DUI tests to DNA testing. Good lord.

[naaman fletcher]

56. why not?

Answer the question: Is driving is just a privilege, just how far can the gov't go? Please enlighten me.

[uppityperson]

64. Answer the question:Are you employed making up push-polls?

Any time I answer you throw out "well, then how about (expanded search, like DNA testing, or searching homes)".

Now you expand from "is driving a privilege" to "is driving just a privilege, just how far can the gvt go".

Driving is a privilege. Driving is not JUST a privilege, but also a way to get around.

[naaman fletcher]

68. No I am not..

since I answered, now you answer: How far can the gov't go since driving is just a privilege? Also, why do you accept that it is not a right? Would the founding fathers have thought that traveling the highways was not a right? I answered your question, please answer mine.

[uppityperson]

74. Which one? Are you discussing gvt rights, civil rights, total law lengths?

Or, do you want to limit it to DUI checks and whether or not they are a constitutional issue?

Edited to add, do you wish a discussion or, as you said in your OP, to convince me?

[MajorChode]

259. I'll take the challenge

Feel free to limit or expand the discussion however you like.

The law doesn't define driving as a privilege or a right, BTW. It does define it as an "entitlement" and the USSC has ruled you can't remove someone's license without due process. Bell v Burson. There's also loads of other case law on similar entitlement questions and all of them require due process before they can be removed.

So call it whatever you like, but there is no question as to whether or not the government can remove it without due process. They can't according to the USSC which is the final arbiter of such matters.

[dysfunctional press]

361. travelling the highways is a right- doing it in a motor vehicle is a privilege.

get a horse.

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

55. Probable Cause.

But, you knew that, right?

You only have a limited amount of presumed privacy operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

You can drink all you want and drive in peace, drunk as a skunk on your own private roads. You don't even need a state-issued driver's license.

[naaman fletcher]

58. No.. read the link..

they stop you even without probable cause and the supreme court said that is legal.

[Ikonoklast]

83. You read it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to police roadblocks when they stop every vehicle.

Show me where police can indiscriminately pull over any vehicle, for no reason, got challenged in court, and was upheld by the Supreme Court.




Oh, that's right, you can't.

[dsc]

84. actually your very post

Not only can they pull over any vehicle they can pull over every vehicle. I agree that these check points are barely constitutional in that they don't search the cars, but to say the Court hasn't restricted our fourth amendment rights by upholding this is a real stretch.

[cabluedem]

260. They do search the car with dogs, leading questions to allow PC and passive alcohol sensors to give

probable cause for a search and possible arrest.

[naaman fletcher]

86. what?

you proved my point. The SC says that the fourth amendment does not reply to roadblocks, as you said. They pulled someone over for no reason, were challenged, and the SC said pulling people over for no reason was ok. you proved my point.

[Atman]

108. BINGO! The "Constitutional Exception" for DUI.

That is the whole point of the article. The law has been turned on its head for DUI and DUI only. Unlawful search and seizure was upheld except for cases involving DUI.

.

[1awake]

137. no you can't

DUI doesn't recognize private property rights. If your driving a car on your own yard.. you can be arrested. I'm not on any side of this arguement.. just saying.

[madamesilverspurs]

193. This is the second time I've heard that "bow to the state" meme

referencing the procedures used in apprehending drunk drivers. The first time was about six years ago, when a neighbor was fuming about the "unfairness" of losing his license following his arrest for DUI (his third, if I remember correctly). Kind of makes me wonder if that isn't the situation here. . .

[naaman fletcher]

194. right....

because if you are not guilty, you shouldn't worry so much, right?

[madamesilverspurs]

195. Dude ...

Just man up, pay the fine, and don't drive drunk anymore, 'kay?

[cabluedem]

257. And we can allow checkpoints to check for "our papers, please" too. Hell, even MADD's founder quit.

as she saw that DUI is a big cash cow for the states and insurance companies. All done in the name of safety, of course.

[MajorChode]

156. Why the right/priviledge argument fails every time.

There are very few things specifically listed as a "right" by the constitution. So just because the constitution doesn't say specifically that you have a "right" to drive, that doesn't mean they can deprive you of the "privilege" without due process.

The US constitution doesn't say you have a right to a passport. Does that mean they can take it away from you at any time, for any reason, without due process?

The US constitution doesn't say you have a right to a business license. Does that mean they can take it away from you at any time, for any reason, without due process?

The US constitution doesn't say you have a right to fire protection. Does that mean the fire department can refuse to come to your house if it is on fire for any reason?

The US constitution doesn't say you have a right to a tax exemption. Does that mean they can deny one from you at any time, for any reason, without due process?

The US constitution doesn't say you have a right to education assistance. Does that mean they can take it away at any time, for any reason, without due process?

I could go on and on here. You do have a right to liberty. You do have a right to due process. You have a right to freedom of travel. Lots of areas of the Constitution apply here.

That doesn't mean the government can't regulate such a function, and they most certainly do through traffic laws and licensing.

Ah, so you say you are still not convinced and you still believe driving is a "privilege"?

OK, I can go that way too.

Try reading the equal protection clause found in the US and every state's constitution. The state can't arbitrarily deny you a "privilege" they grant to everyone else.

For more information, read the 4th and 14th amendments, Bell v Burson, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp, Goldberg v. Kelly, numerous state case law, etc., etc., etc.

[cabluedem]

262. Indeed, some of the framers argued against the BOR for this very reason.

which is why the 9th and 10th amendments were included.

[midnight]

214. I never knew that I never had a right to drive?

[datasuspect]

389. the act of driving should not deprive you of your civil liberties no more than riding a bicycle

should.

are you proposing that the simple act of driving a car creates a "civil rights free" bubble?

we know in practice that it does, but the constitution doesn't say that.

if you agree that driving a car automatically deprives you of your constitutional rights, you are part of the problem.

[cabluedem]

254. Exactly. This could be pushed until our rights have no meanings anymore..

and the right to travel is covered under the ninth and tenth amendments.

[uppityperson]

21. Yes, you can refuse until you call a lawyer.

Of course you can refuse.

[naaman fletcher]

25. yes.. and then they punish you..

they take away your license so you cant get to work and provide for your family.

If the police want to search your house without a warrant and you say no, they can't (or aren't supposed to) punish you. But if you refuse the breath test, they can punish you. What other crimes should you be presumed guilty for?

[uppityperson]

31. They can follow the law, indeed. The rest is a strawman.

[naaman fletcher]

34. if you follow the law, you have nothing to worry about.

If you follow the law, there is no reason not to let the police in to search your house.

[uppityperson]

39. MADD fights DUIs. You are conflating.

ed for typo

[naaman fletcher]

46. huh?

I am all for fighting drunks behind the wheel. But this is America, people should not be presumed guilty.

[uppityperson]

52. You are trying poor logic.

Rant vs MADD and DUI testing.
Reply
"If you follow the law, there is no reason not to let the police in to search your house."

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[naaman fletcher]

60. You are a master of logic and debate..

I really wish I could convince people with my wit and intellect as well as you. It is clear that you have a clear grasp of the issues that your comment on. I wish I was as smart as you.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[naaman fletcher]

91. You are very insightful

and I like your original ideas and your ability to debate in a calm and logical manner. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

[High Plains]

102. It's pretty assholish to keep posting that picture.

But you knew that already.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

109. Well, duh...........

That was the point.

And you got it!!!

Happy New Year..........

[proud2BlibKansan]

184. Wow

You must have much nicer cops where you live than I do here.

[midnight]

216. Could not disagree with you more.

[cabluedem]

263. Wow! Just wow! Ever had your house "searched"?

[MH1]

298. Er, I do believe the poster

was using sarcasm to make a point.

[uppityperson]

332. It was sarcasm rather than asking "where does it end then?"

Rather like saying marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman of the same skin color because otherwise where will it end? With people marrying their pets! :sarcasm:

Sarcasm like that. But without the sarcasm smiley icon thing.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. A drivers' license is a privilege not a right

When you go get your drivers' license you agree to the implied consent for DUI testing.

[naaman fletcher]

65. do you think the founding fathers..

would have considered traveling the highways a privilege and not a right? What other things do you think its ok for the state to do to you if you are driving a car?

[tammywammy]

82. If they considered it a right, then they could have included it in the Bill of Rights

Or any Congress since could have and in the future can amend the Constitution to include it.

[naaman fletcher]

88. its called the 4th amendment.

It's there.

[tammywammy]

95. The 4th Amendment doesn't address that at all

Nothing about unreasonable search & seizure would apply to the fact that driver's licenses are a privilege and not a right.

[naaman fletcher]

98. sorry u feel that way..

I hope the gov't doesn't convince you that other daily aspects of life are a "privilege".

[unblock]

183. why don't you actually READ the 4th amendment?

it lists, specifically, persons, houses, papers, and effects. it is not at all obvious that they would have considered automobiles (obviously nonexistent at the time) to be covered.

moreover, it only restricts UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. it is not at all unreasonable to take steps to ensure the safety of all travelers, and checking the impairment of drivers is a reasonable part of that.

it would be UNreasonable to do it in a discriminatory or harassing manner, but that's not the issue here, i don't think.


personally, i would consider the use of a vehicle on a public road to constitute consent to impairment testing. if you want to avoid that, you're welcome to restrict your driving to private roads.

[naaman fletcher]

188. The courst have ruled..

time and again that a car is an extension of the home, and subject to 4th amendment protections. Except of course for the DUI exception.

[unblock]

192. and this is a problem how?

they can't search just for their jollies, but they can set up a roadblock to ensure that everyone driving is qualified to drive.

what's the problem?

:shrug:

[naaman fletcher]

198. well..

I have a problem with that. I think that the police should not be allowed to detain you without probable cause. You don't. Happy New Year.

[unblock]

225. the police aren't coming to you, you're going to them. stay off public roads. hny.

[naaman fletcher]

189. specifically, persons,

As you said, specifically persons. That is what we are talking about here, is it not?

[Usrename]

296. I think it is a lot more obvious than you do.

If the founders had wanted to make everyone waive their rights in order to exercise the "privilege" of riding a horse, then I think they would have said so. I don't think they ever even considered such a thing because the notion would have been too absurd to waste any serious discussion on it.

The whole construct of designating certain behavior as privileges in order to carve out exceptions in which people have no rights (because they are assumed to have waived them) is what the discussion is all about.

I think calling it unAmerican is right on the money. Bullseye.

[unblock]

307. the founders did not want any rights to be absolute

the constitution is replete with rights and powers that run counter to each other in certain cases, and you can't just point to one item and assume that's the end of the story and the sum total of the founders' intent (even if the founders intent were the sum total of constitutional interpretation in matters involving situations that didn't exist at the time).

in this case, the government has provided public roads suitable for high-speed travel that would be vastly more dangerous for all should it decide to give a green light to impaired driving.

would it help if they made you sign a release at the time you register your car or get a license?


oh, and do they have a constitutional power to test your driving or vision or knowledge of the rules or of the road at all? if they have a right to regulate access to the roads in that fashion, how are alcohol roadblocks constitutionally different?

[Usrename]

311. You are making a whole lot of assumptions here.

I don't think there is any evidence that restricting our civil rights makes our roads any safer. Is there any evidence to support that?

When I go to the DMV to get a license, no one assumes that I have waived any of my civil rights. It does not give them authority or probable cause to search me. The difference is stark.

And yes, I do think that if they tried to make folks sign a waiver in order to get a license that it would be proper. I also think that it would create a HUGE backlash. That's why I believe they carved out this "priveledge" argument in the first place. A whole lot of people would refuse to get licensed.

[naaman fletcher]

320. examples?

the constitution is replete with rights and powers that run counter to each other in certain cases,

Really? Examples?

[dsc]

90. that is the exact opposite of what the founders believed

the founders believed that the Bill of Rights were not supposed to be a list of all the rights we enjoy but merely an example of them. Both sides in the Federalist debate agreed on that point. The people who insisted on a Bill of Rights did so because they feared that if no rights were listed then the government could run roughshod over us. Both the ninth and tenth amendments assume that some rights remained unlisted. In addition, the federalist side believed that listing rights could lead to the mindset which produced your statement.

[cabluedem]

265. Exactly true!

[tabasco]

111. The Constitution is a grant of limited powers to the government, not the people.

The Constitution is not a laundry list of "what we can do."

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Nobody said you needed a license to travel the highways...

Just to drive a motor vehicle. And since motor vehicles didn't exist when the founding fathers were drafting the constitution, I don't have a clue what they would've thought.

[naaman fletcher]

89. bizarre interpretation..

the internet and computers didn't exist then, so are you saying it would be constitutional for the gov't to read all internet traffic and put a keystroke logger on all computers?

[Hippo_Tron]

94. No I think it's reasonable to extrapolate from the 4th amendment

That the founding fathers had their bases cover the internet. However there is nothing about driving a horse and buggy in the constitution, it's more difficult to extrapolate.

Do you think people who are blind should be licensed to drive a motor vehicle?

[uppityperson]

96. yeah, and if "marriage" is opened up to people of different colors, next it will be

gay people and people wanting to marry their pets and cars and kids and what do you think the founding fathers would have thought of that?










:sarcasm:

[Atman]

112. Marriage requires a state-issued license. Therefore all married people can be searched at will.

I am not being flip. Posters upthread have used the state-granted license as their rationale for calling driving a privilege. So lets go slippery-sloping: Marriage requires a license. Therefore it is a privilege granted by the state. Therefore, if the state chooses to search all couples walking down the street simply because they are brandishing wedding bands, that would be okay.

See?

.

[uppityperson]

116. But I am talking about being able to GET married. Not being searched.

See? Same sort of logic leaps. If you believe X, then of course you believe Y and Z even though they are only related and you haven't addressed them at all.

[Atman]

129. No, I don't see.

I don't understand your point. My point is about the state-granted license being used by so many in this thread as the guidepost for who can be searched, be that license for driving or for marriage or for hunting or for erecting scaffolding or selling pizza on a street corner. These are all subservient to the constitution. Oops, no they are not. In the case of driving, constitutional rights are subservient to the license. No leap of logic at all, no "if you believe X..."

.

[dysfunctional press]

241. actually, many major highwayshave laws against pedestrians and bikes.

nt

[uppityperson]

93. Do you think the founding fathers predicted gas powered automobiles?

[naaman fletcher]

99. no, they also didnt predict computers..

so I guess you would not think it unconstitutional if the gov't put a keystroke logger on every computer?

[uppityperson]

101. There you go again.

Since I believe X, therefore I must also believe Y.

Fail.

[naaman fletcher]

104. no..

its a valid queston: You assert that you don't have constitutional protection in things the founding fathers didn't imagine. Therefore, you must think it would be ok to put keystroke loggers on all computers. You just refuse to answer, because I have demonstrated where your logic rationally leads.

[uppityperson]

106. Where did I assert what you accuse me of asserting?

[datasuspect]

391. no

but they had carriages, boats, barges, and other means of transport.

the logical jump isn't too difficult to make.

a conveyance or transport is just that: a conveyance or transport.

[MajorChode]

264. When did that happen?

Not even MADD has gotten that one through yet.

[Hippo_Tron]

344. Implied consent is nothing new, look it up

[MajorChode]

347. First explain how it supports your assertion

Implied consent refers to state laws that say your license can be suspended for refusing to provide evidence. It has NOTHING to do with whether your license is a privilege or a right. So in other words, you're trying to prove your point with information that is clearly misleading. If a driver's license was truly a "privilege" as you claim, why would there be a need for an implied consent laws in the first place? Why have a law that says your license can be suspended if the state can simply take away your license at their discretion because it's simply a "privilege"? Your own argument defeats your assertion.

Numerous states have tried using the "privilege" argument to deny citizens their due process right through implied consent laws and they have failed. Believe it or not, there are some valid reasons for refusing to be tested. A person has the right to challenge the state's action in court. That right has never been abridged despite numerous attempts.

[datasuspect]

390. that is one of the most specious arguments i have ever heard.

upon what basis do you make this claim of "implied consent?"

what factual basis does it have in law?

or is something you pulled out of your hat?

[dysfunctional press]

146. when you're operating a motor vehicle on public roads you agree to the laws surrounding it.

driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a "right".

how long before the stupid people realize this...? :shrug:

[naaman fletcher]

151. so..

If one of the things you agreed to was that you could be randomly stopped and have your DNA taken for a national DNA database, you would be ok with that? Do you think the founding fathers would have thought that travelling the highways was a privilege and not a right?

Why do you so readily accept that?

If the government said that to get public utilities delivered to your house you had to accept random searches of your house, would you agree to that to?

Just because the government repeats over and over that driving is a privilege, why do you accept that?

[midnight]

217. Amen. I think this is the most important argument !

"Just because the government repeats over and over that driving is a privilege, why do you accept that?"

[dysfunctional press]

238. what have they done that comes close to taking dna for a national database?

the only laws out there regarding driving a motor vehicle are for the protection of other motorists. a dna database wouldn't have anything to do with it- so that's not something to worry about as becoming law.

as for the public utilities- again a ridiculous argument, mostly because utilities aren't "public" any longer. and even if they were- have you ever heard of it happening?

[AngryAmish]

295. In DUIs, many of the normal criminal law protections are not there

I really think you should look at duiblog above.

For example, the NHSA has certified certain machines as accurate. In many states (like mine) one cannot thereafter challange the accuracy of the machines.

After huge stinks some people have been able to examine the computer code of the machines. It was garbage and created huge errors. The so-called scientific alcohol breath testing was anything but scientific.

Roadside alcohol testing is another field that is scientific garbage but one cannot challange it in court. It has been "cedrtified" as accurate. the horizontal gaze nsygamus testing, at roadside, usually at night by a police officer who wants to make an arrest? garbage.

[dysfunctional press]

314. then don't drink and drive.

pretty simple to remember.

and if you feel that the breathalyzer is in error, since you obviously haven't had any alcohol- you can request that a blood test be done.

[naaman fletcher]

322. exactly..

Don't drink and drive, and you have no reason to fear getting pulled over. Likewise, don't have any contraband in your house, and you have no reason to fear random searches. Don't launder money or discuss crimes on the phone, and you have no reason to fear wiretaps.

See how that works?

[dysfunctional press]

378. yep...and society has decided what it will tolerate from government each step of the way.

if that's not satisfactory to you, you're always free to win the majority over to your side with your arguments(not going so well, there i see) and change things via the electoral process; marshall your forces and perpetrate a military coup of the government and install yourself as dictator-for-life and institute your own rules and laws;
ignore the laws and hope you don't get caught; or move to another country. and if necessary try one of the first three steps there.

:shrug:
see how that works?

[AngryAmish]

334. Don't you see what a terrible position that is to take?

Drinking and driving is a problem. So is homicide, domestic abuse, et al. The Constitution exists for everyone, even those who drink and drive.

BTW, the police (in IL) don't have to tell you that you have the right to have blood drawn if you feel the Breathalyzer is wrong. You have to arrange for it yourself. While locked up without a lawyer.

But your bloodwork (if you can get it done) does not get the same presumption of accuracy as the state's Breathalyzer.

[dysfunctional press]

379. if you have a better solution to drunk-drivers, i'm open to suggestions.

until then, i stand pat.

[naaman fletcher]

321. "have you ever heard of it happening?"

Of course not. I'm just saying that if any service you get from the gov't is a privilege, than such happening would be constitutional, but your logic.

[dysfunctional press]

380. but you don't get utilities from the government...

and the reason such searches don't happen is that the people wouldn't stand for it.

when it comes to drunk drivers, they DO stand for it.

[Atman]

165. Please don't call people stupid just because they see it differently...here is what you're missing..

(and I don't think you're "stupid" for it)...

Once the police have you in detention, the constitutional protections should by the very nature of their constitutionality, supersede any rule, regulation or policy a police department has. I'm not even that opposed to the concept of a sobriety checkpoint, for I can see that merely operating a vehicle gives the police probable cause to assume you might be drunk while doing so. It's a stretch, but I'm willing to let that one go for the sake of argument.

Where does the detention without a phone call come in? Where does the denial of an attorney come in? I understand all your points about privilege vs. right. Fine. But that applies to the DRIVING. Once you have been accused of something by the police, and you are placed in legal jeopardy, that is when your RIGHTS come in, and they have absolutely NOTHING to do with driving. If the police suspect you of being drunk while driving, they can arrest you. No problem. They should arrest you.

But at the point at which you are in police custody for suspicion of a crime, that is when the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS take precedence over emotions. I just don't even see how these can be debatable. Your argument is really no different than Bush's re: "enemy combatants." Bush felt that the very fact that these people could possibly maybe be guilty of something gave him ultimate power to ignore constitutional legal protections and do whatever he pleased with them. That is exactly what is happening with DUI laws...the police (and you) are saying "what we suspect these people of doing is so bad, we don't think they deserve protection under the law."

Capiche?

.

[midnight]

218. Thank you.....

But at the point at which you are in police custody for suspicion of a crime, that is when the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS take precedence over emotions.

[dysfunctional press]

240. when are people denied an attorny? you can ALWAYS insist on it.

same question regarding the phone call- who has been denied a phone call once they've been processed?

the only cases i can think of would be the ones where people are TOO FUCKING DRUNK to comprehend what's happening, and are too far wasted to make a phone call or ask for a lawyer. what would you have the police do in those instances?

btw- breathalyzer tests are administered BEFORE you are arrested.

[Atman]

300. You didn't read the article.

Obviously. Nothing you posted jibes with what is written in the article. The law has been rigged so that no matter what happens to you, once the police have you it is virtually guaranteed you will be convicted. That isn't "law" and it isn't "justice." Please read the complete article.

.

[dysfunctional press]

316. it doesn't really matter- ultimately, driving is a privilege, not a right...

if people don't like the rules of the public roads, they can travel by other means.
our society has decided that we want stringent rules attached to obtaining a driver's license and operating a motor vehicle on our roads. by getting a license and operating a motor vehicle, you are giving your consent to the laws that govern it. pretty simple stuff, really.

[naaman fletcher]

324. driving is a priviliege?

So, you believe driving is a privilege and not a right because the gov't says so. OK, so if the laws were changed so that if you got pulled over a full search of your car could be done for contraband, you would have no problem with that since driving is a privilege and not a right, and you consented to that when you renewed your license?

Why do you accept that driving is a privilege and not a right? Do you think that founding fathers would have agreed with you that travelling the highways was a privilege and not a right? And that as soon as they were out on the highways that the gov't could come along and stop and search you without constitutional protections?

[dysfunctional press]

357. travelling the highways is a right- doing it in a motor vehicle is a privilege.

one that comes with set rules and laws that we as a society have agreed upon.

is that really so difficult to understand?

if you don't like it- get a horse...the founding fathers would be proud...:rofl:

[Alexander]

386. Most highways don't allow people to use anything except motor vehicles.

I would say transportation is a right and driving is not.

[dysfunctional press]

388. self-transportation is a right.

but driving definitely isn't.

[Atman]

329. It doesn't matter that you're commenting on something you haven't read???

Pretty simple stuff, really; you have no right to comment because you don't know what the rest of us who have read the article are talking about. Your personal opinion outside of the context of the article offers nothing to the discussion. READ THE FULL ARTICLE. Pretty simple stuff, really.

.

[dysfunctional press]

359. i read enough of it to know that it doesn't really matter...

driving is a privilege, with certain rules and conditions attached to it- NONE of which i have had any problem with up to this point. i only wish the drunk-driving laws could be made a bit more harsh- as it is, they don't seem to be working well enough as a deterrence for some self-centered assholes.

[naaman fletcher]

323. you obviously didn't read the link..

It explains it. Yes, they deny you the right to call an attorney when you get pulled over. For every other crime, as soon as you are detained, you can call an attorney, but there is a DUI exception to the constitution.

Please read the link.

[dysfunctional press]

360. and you agree to that exception as part of the privilege...

of being able to legally drive on the public roads.

unfortunately, it has to be that way because there are self-centered assholes who drive impaired, to the danger and detriment of us all.

we as a society have decided that we prefer it that way.

[Pithlet]

182. But they have to be able to compel some sort of test somehow, don't they?

I mean, if all a person has to do is refuse, how are they ever going to convict anyone? I think most people would prefer a simple removal of a drivers license rather than the alternative, which would be outright arrest.

Look, I do get where you're coming from. I agree; there should be no exceptions to our rights guaranteed under the constitution. I'm just not sure compelling people to test to make sure they aren't driving under the influence is one of them. Living in our homes free of search without probable cause is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Having a driver's license granted with no strings attached isn't. I think having a condition attached to a driver's license that you'll agree to a breathalyser if it's requested is a perfectly reasonable string. Because if we can't be compelled to test, the roads become that much more dangerous. MADD most definitely can be overzealous in their cause, and I don't agree with them on every point, so I won't argue with you there. But, I don't agree with you on the testing. If testing can't be compelled, then there's no point, and people are essentially free to drive drunk, knowing they can just refuse the test.

[polmaven]

299. Exactly!

If testing cannot be compelled BEFORE arrest, therefore allowing impaired drivers free reign, then that would infringe on MY right to safety on the roads.

[naaman fletcher]

325. and if wiretaps are not allowed

of suspected terrorists, that would violate my right to be free from terrorism. See how that works?

[polmaven]

335. Well, for one thing,

I don't think one is currently required to be licensed to use a telephone. As has been stated many times, when you ...voluntarily...obtain a driver's license, you are agreeing to certain rules, which will, more likely than not, depending on the state, include submitting to a breathalyzer if there is a reasonable suspicion that one is impaired. But yes, within the bounds of FISA, not wiretapping those suspects would be a violation of your right to be free from terrorism.

As to the checkpoints, may I assume that you are opposed to metal detectors in schools, courthouses, airports, etc. as well?....Sobriety check points are very much the same thing. Everyone is stopped, but only those for whom the "buzzer rings", so to speak, are searched further.

[naaman fletcher]

342. so if the gov't

decided that you needed a license for a telephone, you would be ok with it?

[polmaven]

343. Your leaps of logic

are really ridiculous. No one said anything like that!

I could just as easily ask you...Would you be OK with it if the government decided you DIDN'T need a driver's license? We could do away with the age restriction. No training or testing needed. No restrictions at all on what you can do behind the wheel....That makes as much sense as some of the questions you have been asking.

And what about the rest of my point, that, within the bounds of FISA, I have no objection to tapping the phone lines of suspected terrorists...do you object to that? What about to the metal detectors in public places? Should those be done away with too?

[dysfunctional press]

242. the breath test has to be done RIGHT AWAY to determine how drunk you are...

at the time of the offense. when you obtain a driver's license and drive on the roads, you are agreeing to submit to a breath test when asked to as a condition of having that privilege. wake up already.

[cabluedem]

258. So your lawyer is available 24/7? Since when? You refuse you go to jail and are booked for refusal.

[naaman fletcher]

326. with any other crime..

you are allowed to shut up and not give evidence against yourself, you are also allowed to call a lawyer. Not true when you are suspected of DUI. What other laws do you think should have this exception? Murder?, Rape? Terrorism? Drug Posession?

[cabluedem]

358. Exactly so. In DUI one is forced to submit to a self-incriminating test. But don't' worry, forced DN...

testing WILL be next on the list of the Nanny-Stater's, because "it will help solve crimes and protect us". After all, if you don't commit a crime, you wont have to worry about it, right?

Problem with _that_ notion is that, unlike fingerprints, false DNA "evidence" CAN be planted very easily by those who take or have it stored, and you can just bet it will be by dirty cops and prosecutors.

But we live in a country where it seems a false sense of safety and security overrides our hard-fought, Constitutional Rights, so like with DUI, no one will have much to say about it, since they will be "safer".

I am damn glad I am not a young person anymore, who will have to live in the corrupt, fascist country this is becoming very fast, for most of my lifetime, thankfully. We were taught that this only happened in Communist countries, who hated the US and wanted to destroy us and our freedoms, when I was young.

[Atman]

364. Excellent post.

And full of very valid points completely lost on so many DUers.

Thanks.

.

[cabluedem]

367. Wasn't it B. Franklin who said that those who chose safety over freedom, will seal their demise?

The man was WAY ahead of his time, IMO.

[Shardik]

18. That's what I was told by my lawyer.

He told me that the constitution does not apply with the current DUI laws fro the two examples you mention and other examples I don't recall at the moment.

[MiniMe]

3. Sorry, you don't have the right to drive drunk and kill people in an accident

[naaman fletcher]

4. nobody said you did. eom

[Atman]

47. You need to read the article, and not just respond to the subline.

No one says you have a right to drive drunk and kill people. That is NOT what the post is about.

.

[midnight]

224. I have read the responses in this discussion, and I can't find

anyone here saying that one has the right to drive drunk and kill people in an accident. Instead, what I have read is that our constitutional rights are absent when it comes to Drunk Driving, and being stopped for such a condition.

[ProfessorGAC]

268. I Think The Bigger Problem Is That Being Stopped. . .

. . .is not a function of being drunk. I've been stopped when i was still playing in a band. The only time i drank on stage in 30 years was a glass of champagne on NYE. That was it. No beer, no wine, no shots, nothing.

Yet i was stopped more than dozen times simply because i was out late.

So, i agree with your post here. It's not about being allowed to kill someone with a car. It's about being stopped when probable cause is simply a made-up excuse. I don't believe it's constitutionally conscionable to stop someone simply because they're out so late.

I don't think that's any more acceptable than stopping a black driver because they're in a white neighborhood. I don't think many here would accept that either. And that black driver doesn't have any right to burglarize the homes there, but where's the cause to believe that was his or her intent? Nowhere.

I'm offended by these laws because they presume guilt.
GAC

[cabluedem]

267. Since we are testing for one substance, lets jail people who have legal medications for diseases ..

prozac, paxil, high blood pressure meds, insulin, and all the other meds that can and do effect driving skills.

[suede1]

412. They can still convict for 'being under the influence' nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. You still have the right not to consent to any of the tests

But you lose your license. My problem is that the field sobriety tests are subjective. I got pulled over once after drinking one beer (an hour or so before I was pulled over) and I was still scared shitless that I would get arrested because the cop just happened to be pissed off.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

70. I knew a guy, a really large guy...

Who was charged with drunk driving 12 hours after he had his last beer and he had imbibed only two beers total. Believe or not, as strange as it might seem, there are cops who lie and falsify evidence.

He finally won. After years and thousands of dollars in fees and delays by the prosecutors and the courts. For verily, that is how the game is played.

[cabluedem]

270. He couldnt have been drunk at those times and amounts. Yeah, cops lie here too, then they cover each

other with the wall of blue silence when they are found doing something illegal.

[Uben]

9. If you drink and drive, all you really need is........

.....a good lawyer, a lot of money, and the flexibility of being able to spend time in jail. If you have all that, have at it, you'll need it!

[naaman fletcher]

11. ..but what if you are not drunk?

I don't care if the police arrest criminals, but what if you are not one? I don't mind if the gov't detains terrorists at gitmo, but what if they are not one? Is DUI the only crime where everyone is presumed guilty and has no rights?

[baldguy]

10. Being allowed to drive a motor vehicle is a privilege - not a right.

[naaman fletcher]

12. so they say..

What else is a privelege and not a right? If the gov't said that owning a home was a privelege and not a right, would you say "oh, ok"?. What if engaging in commerce? Or travelling betwee states? Why do you bow so easily to gov't authority?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Oh, christ almighty,

if you're going to go off on a specious rant, ignorant of all the legal history of drunk driving in this country - and you obviously are - then at least learn how to spell "privilege" correctly.

Welcome to DU. Happy New Year.

We'll miss you.

[naaman fletcher]

23. try reading the link before you comment

<IMG SRC="">

[Name removed]

50. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

24. Strawman. eom

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Oh, for fuck's sake. You don't have a right to endanger others.

I am a full blown libertarian when it comes to the rights of people to do what they choose with their own bodies, but the minute someone stinkin' drunk gets behind the wheel of a car, they are endangering everyone else around them.

I know this from way too much personal experience.

[naaman fletcher]

63. I agree 100%

You don't have that right. The issue is whether or not you are presumed guilty of endangering others. You don't have a right to rape people.. yet we still give accused rapists constitutional protections. Why not accused DUIers?

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I agree that they, like everyone else should be afforded constitutional protections.

And I think we've decimated the 4th Amendment way too much as it is, but that's less due to MADD than it is due to the overzealous drug war.

Sorry, a very good friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver. And your post wasn't about "affording those accused of a DUI constitutional protections". Unless I read it wrong, it was comparing the 'right' to get behind the wheel fucked up with the right to own a home.

[Atman]

122. Someone perpetrated a crime against your friend.

So why does THIS particular crime warrant a complete suspension of constitutional rights? That is the gist of it.

All of these responses from people who've been directly impacted by a DUI are heartfelt and emotional, to be sure. But the law isn't about emotion.

.

[Warren DeMontague]

204. I don't see anything here about a complete suspension of constitutional rights.

Nor have I suggested such a thing.

If this is about the 4th Amendment, great- the drug war- not MADD- has been responsible for the essential gutting of that amendment.

Yet the idea that states requiring, as a condition of issuing a license to operate a motor vehicle, consent to sobriety tests (which people can, and do, still refuse- at which point they generally automatically lose their driving privilege for a period of time, and again, nowhere in the constitution is there a guaranteed right to operate a motor vehicle on county, state, or interstate roads) is somehow a "complete suspension of constitutional rights" is utterly ridiculous.

[Atman]

302. Read the article.

The law has been rigged against you. Everyone keeps talking about "if you're DRUNK..." but what if you're NOT? What if you're NOT impaired? All right to challenge the state has been stripped from the law. You have NO RIGHTS. There are legitimate scientific and legal challenges which can be made. This made MADD mad...they didn't want ANYONE getting off, so they'd lobbied to eliminate even the right to challenge the state from the law.

This is the part so many of you are missing, which you might see if you read the entire article. The method for determining BAC is deeply flawed. When lawyers started challenging the science in court, MADD pushed to make it illegal to even bring such a challenge. Get the point? Sometimes people really aren't guilty. Sometimes people really aren't impaired. But MADD has seen to it that that doesn't matter, and that your lawyer cannot even discuss the possibility in court. You're PRE-DETERMINED to be guilty, then they've eliminated virtually any legal method of challenging your arrest.

Again, I have no problem (okay, not much of a problem) with the concept of submitting to a checkpoint as a term of holding your license. But that is for DRIVING. Once you are in police custody, LAW and LEGAL PRECEDENCE should prevail, not hot-headed emotions because we once lost a friend to a drunk driver. That is REVENGE against someone who had nothing do to with our loss, and it has no place in a courtroom.

.

[Warren DeMontague]

350. Eh, Whatever.

Yes, I hate the constitution.

As others have noted, there needs to be SOME way of determining BAC. I did read the article, and the arguments here seem to go round and round- "but breathalyzers don't work!... (yeah, they do) ....but it's not fair to make someone take a breathalyzer!!!... (they don't MAKE anyone take a breathalyzer, at least not in my state- but if you don't take it, you lose your license to drive- which is not, again, a constitutionally guaranteed right) ...but the limit is too low! (fine, then change the limit)"

Really, okay, since we all (most of us, at least) seem to agree that society has a legitimate interest in keeping drunks off the road, how would anyone here propose to do it without some form of determination of a driver's alcohol level? Just ask them?

Sure. Yes, if someone says they are drunk while driving, then they can be arrested... eh?

[datasuspect]

392. if you read the article

it doesn't propose a pro drunk driving argument.

no one would agree that anyone has a right to drive drunk.

the article speaks to the abrogation of fundamental constitutional rights for the sake of "expedience," "public safety," or "necessity" arguments.

[naaman fletcher]

14. so by that logic..

Since driving is a privelege and not a right, are you ok with random stops and searches for drugs? Or randomly stopping people to get fingerprints to see if they have done something else? Why not? Driving is a privelege, not a right. Or is DUI the only place where you see an exception to the constitution?

[TheKentuckian]

17. Nanny Staters will always shred the Constitution if it conflicts with their nanny instincts

They will sell out rights to protect something almost always.

[naaman fletcher]

20. thank you.. left and right both..

When the Fundamentalists and DUers agree on an issue (that you are presumed guilty and have no rights in a DUI), you know they are wrong.

[Tesha]

341. Your constitutional rights still apply when you're DUI.

You have the absolute constitutional right to not provide evidence
of your own guilt: you can legally refuse the breathalyzer test.
Your constitutional right against self-incrimination is preserved.

But because you have no absolute right to drive, the state can then
retract its permission for you to operate motor vehicles. That doesn't
violate any of your constitutionally-protected rights.

Tesha

[Uncle Joe]

42. And yet if you can't drive in some places, you can't work, if you can't work,

you can't eat, if you can't eat, you can't live.

Is living a right or a privilege?

[ColbertWatcher]

13. "a group consisting largely of American housewives"

MADD?

I thought you were going to say these people.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

41. Point of Order:

A while back, Candy Lightner, the woman who started MADD, was forced from the organization she founded? Why? A power-play by a bloc that had joined, en masse', to take over control of the organization. They succeeded. Who were these people? They were from another much more moribund organization: The Women's Christian Temperance Union.

Their goals still include stopping drunk driving, but now include what can be called the imposition of a new prohibition. They are succeeding, because aligning yourself with MADD is some of the cheapest points a politician can score, along with campaign contributions.

That article brings up some very important points. Used to be, around these parts, people actually would read articles like that, and then think about what they were saying, attempt to comprehend its points, and then post comments.

Those were halcyon days around here.

[ColbertWatcher]

77. Damn, I didn't know that.

Thank you for point this out.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

81. My knees are too old and worn...

From martial arts over-training, to jerk needlessly. So I read and find out things to keep the kneejerking to a minimum.

I might like to add that I don't have a dog in this hunt: I don't drink. I use no recreational substances at all.

[ColbertWatcher]

92. I don't drink either, but ...

... that's due to my liver being in the same condition as your knees.

However, I am old enough to remember when drinking and driving wasn't considered such a bad thing.

And I remember how MADD changed that.

The very thought that you should think about whether you can drive before you do drive is revolutionary considering where we were not 40 years ago.

[janx]

117. Some of us are still around.

;-) And some of us are familiar with Lightner, the Temperance Union, and the business that DUI arrests have become.

[dsc]

22. I read the whole blog

and he makes some valid points. I think it would be much better to use blood and not breath. I think the state should still be able to require the blood though, as driving is a priviledge. I also have problems with the check points in that I think they just don't work.

[blonndee]

32. I have problems with checkpoints, too, but for a different reason.

I agree that they don't solve the problems of DUI (at least not from my experience in a college town), but my main problem with them is that I think they are, in my lay interpretation, unconstitutional. I think they are a violation of privacy and constitute unlawful search and seizure. Lots of things piss me off, but few more than "checkpoints." I've had to deal with many of them, living here in southern NM.

[naaman fletcher]

35. yes, but, if you are not guilty, there is no problem..

at least, that is what most people on this thread thing.

[ProfessorGAC]

306. I'm With You Fletch

Actually they make me angry because I HAVEN'T BROKEN THE LAW! If i'm not a law breaker, why should i accept an investigation into something i haven't even done!

You and me both, Naaman!
GAC

[dsc]

36. I think a simple stop and talk isn't really a search or seizure

anymore than if they had to direct traffic for an emergency. I think any search should be out of bounds though. No looking in the car, trunk, etc.

[naaman fletcher]

38. how about forcing you to blow into their machine?

and punishing you if you refuse?

[dsc]

44. I think it should be blood

and they can't make you do that at check points without some probable cause (breath, unresponsiveness, etc.) I also disagree that a driving suspension constitutes punishment in the legal sense of the word. Driving is a priviledge which is why dead beat parents can have their driving licences suspended and students who do poorly in school can have theirs suspended.

[cabluedem]

277. Wow! Just wait until they restrict driving for something you did. You will sing another tune then.

[dsc]

293. actually it has happened to me

insurance. And like it or not, it is legal.

[cabluedem]

303. So should the state have the power to take drivers licenses away for any reason? nt

[blonndee]

59. I see where you're coming from, and I go back and forth on this a little,

but the problem is that the citizen really has no practical right to refuse such a "search and seizure." If you don't cooperate, you will almost certainly face some consequences, almost as though you WERE driving under the influence, whether or not you're guilty of any crime. So maybe it's another legal problem instead of "search and seizure," but it seems to me that it can start with this. When you're pulled over, suspected of DUI, you really have no rights, practically. I hope the screamers here won't accuse me of being a drunk-driver apologist, which I certainly am not.

[dsc]

67. I think a pull over is entirely different

My understanding of check points is that they stop you, ask for a licence, registration, insurance, and engage you in a little converstation. If you produce the first three items and are lucid, then off you go. I consider that barely constitutional but as I said highly wasteful of resources.

[blonndee]

73. Ok, I diverged a little from checkpoints, but don't you think checkpoints

are even worse in that they target EVERYONE, when there's no reason to suspect any wrongdoing? It always made me furious to be treated like a criminal for no reason.

[dsc]

79. I think they are wasteful and barely constitutional

sadly the constitution isn't a magic cloak to prevent all folly. I had honestly hoped their wastefulness would do them in. But since it hasn't then I guess we have to live with them.

[blonndee]

97. Well, I don't agree that we "have to live with them."

I hope that we can come up with some reasonable alternative to try to curb drunk driving. I know that in many college towns, universities are contracting cab companies to provide free services to college students Thursday-Sunday and are advertising heavily in student publications and around campus. I personally think this is good, but isn't enough. I think that if we REALLY wanted to stop drunk driving, there would be free cab services everywhere. My conservative dad argues that "we" shouldn't be responsible for "drunks," but I say that if "we" really want to spend money to help stop drunk driving, instead of ONLY punishing it, then we ought to at least try to REALLY prevent it. After all, we're not going to stop people from getting drunk at bars. And I know from personal experience how hard it can be to 1) leave a car at the bar and 2)get a ride home when you don't live in the city. It seems so easy to me. I really think that if MOST drunk/tipsy people had an alternative, they would use it (I know some drunk idiots wouldn't).

[Pithlet]

255. How common are they, though?

I have never once encountered one. When and where do they usually happen? I'm not denying that they happen. It could be that I'm very lucky, but I've never seen one.

[Ms. Toad]

179. That's what makes them barely constitutional

Strong interest in public safety and treating everyone treated equally overcomes the potential for abuse that can be associated with police subjectively choosing people to check.

Sort of like the airport screening. Everyone is inconvenienced in a "minor" way by screening even when there is no reason to suspect individual wrongdong because flying is privilege, not a right, and the potential for harm that could be inflicted is large.

I don't particularly like the screening or checkpoints - and I have some doubt as to whether the highway checkpoints are constitutional - but they are constitutionally better than leaving the choice of who to screen to the subjective judgment of the police.

[Atman]

365. True case in point: they are NOT screening "everybody."

I drove into a blues club in Hartford over the summer. Hartford has a very small club district, and it's pretty easy to set up a road block and get most of the bar-goers, coming and going. As we approached the Soldiers and Sailor Memorial arch heading toward Union Station we could see all the red and blue lights flashing. Nothing to fear, and obviously pulling a U-turn to get out of a sobriety check-point line is pretty dumb anyway. So we approached. Started getting our papers ready (like the sound of that, huh?!) but when we reached the check point, my car with four forty-something white people in it was flagged through. Not the slightest hint of a check. But in the lane next to us, a black man in an old, beat up van was screaming at the cop and pointing at us...who they just let through without stopping. "What the hell, man! This is the shit I'm talking 'bout! You let whitey over there right on through! This is BULLSHIT, man!"

Now, you can argue that the guy was a dumbass for being confrontational with the cop. But the situation underscores the potential for abuse. We say they're set up so that everyone gets screened, but clearly that is not the case. The cops are human, and human nature will always prevail; me, my wife and our guests looked "respectable" and were driving a new car. The black guy was foul-mouthed and angry and driving a beater van. He got pulled aside, we got flagged through without so much as a look. We could EASILY have been half in the bag -- white people enjoy cocktails when going out, too, you know! It just shows the arbitrary nature of these roadblocks. As I've said several times, I'm not entirely opposed to them (especially in CT, where the police have to advertise where the checkpoints will be), but to say that they're designed to screen everyone equally, well...that isn't always the case.

.

[Ms. Toad]

366. I'd have to go back and review the deciding case,

but I don't believe subjective selective screening would survive a constitutional challenge. Random selective screening might - like the random "special" screening done based on a code printed on your boarding pass.

As to the stop you described - it may be that once the stop of the car beside you became confrontational they decided it was safer to let everyone else pass until the confrontation was under control. Was anyone else being stopped while the confrontation was going on?

[CC]

124. When they do checkpoints here

they stop you, tell you what they are doing and hand you a pamphlet. No asking for a license, registration or anything. Now if you smell of alcohol they will ask for license, etc. and they will ask you to step out of you car for a sobriety check. If you fail that then they ask for a breathalyzer. Refuse or fail it and you are going to be arrested for DUI. The main reason for checkpoints around here isn't to arrest as many drunk drivers as possible but to to keep them off the roads in the first place. They do not tell where they will be setting them up but they do tell what nights they plan on it. If you are stupid,selfish or arrogant enough to decide that it is ok for you to drive under the influence of anything when you know there is going to be checkpoints you deserve to be arrested.

[dsc]

130. that just shifts the drunks around

people use scanners to find out where the check points are and then go other places.

[CC]

134. It seems to stop the average person

from taking a chance and make a lot of people think twice. Now it doesn't stop a hard core drinker but then nothing will except incarceration. I live in a rural area so it might be different. Not many ways around the checkpoints.

[Ms. Toad]

180. Around here, it is the signs announcing a checkpoint

that they put up before the last turnoff ahead of the checkpoint. Guess they're hoping the folks who are sober will notice and turn off, and those driving drunk will be too drunk to notice and will be caught.

[blonndee]

133. But there is the problem: "Refuse or fail it and you are going to be arrested for DUI."

You don't see a problem with that?

[CC]

140. If you smell of alcohol,

fail a field sobriety test and then refuse a breathalizer I have no problem at all with you being arrest for DUI. Then both you and they can fight it out in the courts.

Key thing is the smell of alcohol. Our courts consider that alone as probable cause for further investigation.

[blonndee]

141. Wow. That really doesn't answer my question, but wow.

"Smelling of alcohol." Who says? And you really don't have a problem with police pulling people over for no reason? Double wow.

[proud2BlibKansan]

187. One day I came home from work to a huge pile of dog poo next to my front door

I cleaned it up and didn't have any air freshener so I lit about 6 sticks of incense to kill the smell. A few minutes later, there was a knock at my door and it was a cop. He was looking into a burglary down the street. So I invited him in, we talked for a few minutes and he turned to leave. Right as he was going out the door he turned to me and said "You know, the smell of marijuana coming from your house is really strong." I died laughing and asked if they didn't teach the difference between incense and pot at cop school and pointed to the burning incense in my living room.

To his credit, the cop was very apologetic and I could tell he felt really stupid. But ever since then, I do not trust cops and what they think they smell.

[janx]

196. Some cops aren't trained well enough, and they certainly aren't paid well.

I've had law enforcement friends who know the difference, and we should train cops better and pay them more. Instead of some quasi-military mentality training, we should look for some people who are trained in logic. The friends I've had in law enforcement have complained that this isn't the case.

When I was growing up, cops had a great more leeway in how situations should be handled. We knew the captain cop. He could still arrest us, if we deserved it, but we knew who he was. Granted, this was small town USA, but it worked remarkably well versus the situation now. It was much less militant. No doubt there were some cops who abused situations, but I wonder now if there aren't more cops who abuse situations now because they are under the restraints of revenues and quotas.

If that guy couldn't tell the difference between pot and incense, he didn't have the proper training to be a law enforcement officer. He should have been educated--and he shouldn't have wasted time--no doubt dictated by his superiors--to even check it out. That's ridiculous.

[suede1]

413. A friend and former bar manager...

who never drank, had a keg 'explode' on him one night at work. On the way home he had to go through a road block. He stunk of beer. They pulled him aside and made him do the complete battery of field tests. When he passed them , they made him do them again. All the while he tried to get through to them why he stank like a keg of beer, and that he had been sober for over a decade at that point. Ultimately, they reluctantly let him go.

My point being, just smelling of alcohol isn't fool proof.

Also consider the similarity between the smell of mouthwash and pepperming schnapps. I am quite sure many seasoned drinkers will take a shot of schnapps 'for the road'. But I also had another friend who went through a large bottle of mouthwash in a week, a bottle he only used in his car. Imagine if he had been pulled over, sober as a judge, but the high content of alcohol in the mouthwash would have done him in.

[cabluedem]

269. A stop and talk is the cop trying to find PC. Also includes a passive search with dogs and alcohol

sensors. A checkpoint is a checkpoint and is a blatent restriction on your right of privacy.

[FloridaJudy]

149. Yup

Too many false positives with the Breathalyzer: I don't drink, but if I were pulled over for a DUI, I'd demand a BAL (blood alcohol level) instead. Unfortunately, in some states you're impaired if the cop says you are. Your blood and urine can be squeaky clean as a Mormon Elder's, but if officer Krupke says you're drunk, you're drunk. We really need to fix that.

[Hosnon]

27. You may want to consider joining DAMM.

Drivers Against Mad Mothers.

[suede1]

414. I heard of them years ago

where do I sign up?

[uppityperson]

28. Greatest single threat to our freedoms is the bush administration's taking away our rights.

Not MADD. Nope. Not even.

[naaman fletcher]

33. yes..

of course, his opening paragraph is very inflammatory. But we fight it when the Bush admin assumes people are guilty without evidence or trial. Even non-citizens caught on the battlefield. Yet we won't fight for constitutional rights for US citizens accused of DUI? Or, as the article points out.. not even accused.. they just stop everyone if they feel like it.

[uppityperson]

37. PWI?

your reply to my post makes no sense. PWI?

[naaman fletcher]

40. ???

I re-read, did I say PWI anywhere? must have meant dwi, but then again, i don't think i said that.

[uppityperson]

49. You did not reply to the body of my post there. Try again.

Do you know what PWI is?

[naaman fletcher]

71. I must be confused..

Please restate the question so I can respond clearly.. I do not know what PWI is.

[smokey nj]

113. P.W.I. = Posting While Intoxicated.

[naaman fletcher]

119. Oh! LOL

Actually, I am. Had a bottle of champagne already. I don't go out on new years, I don't want to drink and drive, and don't want to be killed by someone else doing that. Plus, I am in middle of divorce, have kids tonight, and, well, its sort of a drinking night.

[naaman fletcher]

54. ok..

so author used hyperbole. Maybe W admin is worse. U win.

[uppityperson]

69. Why must there be a "winner"? Why must I either agree or else I haven't read

the linked article? WTF is it with you?

[naaman fletcher]

75. not at all..

just most who responded clearly didn't read the article, based on them assuming that it said things it clearly didnt say. It did not say you have a right to drive drunk. It simply said that in america you should be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and presumed innocent. Why so many here have a problem with that, i dont know.

[dsc]

76. It is a very long piece

I am a fast reader, went to his link almost immediately, and posted back right after having read it, and I was post 20 something. There are several people who had to have responded without reading his link. I am not saying you are one, your earliest post is rather late, but people who posted a minute or two after the OP can't have read that link.

[leftstreet]

29. Battle Wheels Robots Fight Over My Little Pony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSVNc-bg574&feature=related

[Atman]

43. Wow.

Very, very interesting reading. MADD and DARE have always toasted my cookies...they're vigilante groups. DARE, particularly, cannot demonstrate statistically that it's "education" programs do anything. Anything except provide grants for cushy custom-painted SUVs for Officer Boozecatcher to drive around in. And MADD, for all their initial good intentions, have stepped way, way over the bounds.

The trouble is, they know they have a bullet-proof issue. What politician -- and only politicians can change these laws -- has the armor to stand before constituents and speak out against a group of "mothers" whose kids have been killed by drunk drivers?

Thanks for the post. Fascinating stuff.

.

[naaman fletcher]

48. DARE tells kids to rat out their parents..

for their own good.. then puts the parents in jail and the kids in foster homes. Thanks for reading the article.. it is clear that very few others did.

[Atman]

62. My blood is boiling reading some of the knee-jerk responses.

This guy is so spot-on. It simply isn't an issue of whether drunk driving is right or wrong. OF COURSE IT IS WRONG.

The article, for all of you knee-jerkers, is about the tactics MADD has used to change the law over and over again in order to take away all semblence of legal rights for drivers, which could easily spill over into any other area of law by virtue of our system of precedence. That is not too broad-brush a statement. There is virtually no other aspect of our system that allows police to pre-emptively stop, search, detain everyone without even a suspicion of a crime. But MADD has helped create this new avenue of law. It's crazy.

.

[cabluedem]

274. Its not just crazy. Its scary when you look at what a moneymaker this is, just like the war on drugs

[tbyg52]

331. Really! I did not know that.

But I'm not surprised. I went to a DARE meeting once, and it was just a police officer telling the kids what to say, and then they said it. Parrot the "right" answers. Most of the kids looked like they were just waiting for it to be over.

[cabluedem]

273. Funny how we let oldsters' drive who then kill other drivers & pedestrians, but frown on DWI. Whats

ironic is that most of these elderly people lived in a time when driving drunk was very common and often an infraction costing less then 50 bucks to pay. I say lets test all these people more often at the DMV and get them out of their cars too. After all, who needs rights when it comes to being safe on the roads and sidewalks, right? :sarcasm:

[polmaven]

315. You don't think

that "being safe on the roads and sidewalks" is a right? I happen to believe it is much more of a right than is having a driver's license.

[cabluedem]

318. Like being safe? Make all drivers take medical tests, keep driving logs, ect just like truckers have

to do to drive those huge beasts.

Did you know that they have to take piss tests when they are involved in ANY accident, by law? Lets make all drivers do the same thing.

How many dope smokers here on DU do you think might get busted if the cops hauled them down to get drug tested after a crash?

Also, lets not stop at drunk and doped-up drivers, nosiree.

Lets go after all IMPAIRED and *BAD* drivers too.

Driving while sleepy? Fined and jailed just like a drunk. Weave and swerve all over the road like lots of old people do? Jail and fines just like a drunk.

Fact is that only 1 out of 5 accidents involves a drunk driver, so what about all the rest?

Oh, and that figure goes for motor vehicle deaths: 1 out of 5 are alcohol related. What about all those "sober" drivers who killed somebody while driving?

[polmaven]

336. A very specious argument...

How many dope smokers here on DU do you think might get busted if the cops hauled them down to get drug tested after a crash?

Also, lets not stop at drunk and doped-up drivers, nosiree.

Lets go after all IMPAIRED and *BAD* drivers too.

Driving while sleepy? Fined and jailed just like a drunk. Weave and swerve all over the road like lots of old people do? Jail and fines just like a drunk.

If someone is a hazard on the road, that person should be REMOVED from behind the wheel of a vehicle. If that person is knowingly driving with ANY impaired condition, then yes...fined and jailed, just like a drunk.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. My best friend was killed by a drunk driver at age 26.

Neither he- nor I- were saints when we were growing up in this (or other) regards, yet the salient point is that driving under the influence is a horribly irresponsible act that endangers everyone else on the road. And it's unnecessary & selfish, too- I managed many solid years of serious drinking without ever once getting behind the wheel. They have this new, amazing thing called cabs (not to mention designated drivers)

The author of this blog can go smoke a turd.

[naaman fletcher]

78. I agre 100%

People should not drive drunk. People should not rape. We give accused rapists constitutional protections. They are free from unreasonable search and seizure, and they are presumed innocent. Why not with accused DUIers?

[Warren DeMontague]

85. As I said upthread, accused drunk drivers should have constitutional protections. However---

motor vehicle licenses are issued by the state.

If the state wishes to make submission to a breath or other test a condition of issuance of a motor vehicle license, I think that's Constitutional too. I'm sorry, but due to my personal connection to this issue, I am not going to be able to rationally debate it. I freely admit that fact.

However, I do know plenty of people who have had DUIs, who have been subjected to breathalyzers, who have refused breathalyzers, etc. I agree that it can be easy for someone to get over the limit without realizing it, but that's sort of the nature of the beast when it comes to alcohol-- too often drunks are the last ones to admit they're drunk. Of course they can drive, and of course, they've only had "a coupleshhhh...".

Everyone I know who has had one DUI found it to be an educational experience. The only people I've known who've gotten more than one ALL had significant problems with alcohol, and it's lucky the PTB helped bring it to their attention before they harmed or killed someone else.

[Atman]

110. "due to my personal connection to this issue, I am not going to be able to rationally debate it."

Bingo again. That is one of the author's points. MADD is a group whose action, however well intentioned, are not rational. The law is supposed to have some rationality to it.

.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. I'm not talkng about MADD, I'm talking about someone -me- who watched his best friend die

at age 26 after being killed by a drunk driver.

What I know about MADD- admittedly limited- is that, yes, they seem to have overstepped their 'mandate' by advocating things like prohibition. Telling people not to drink is counterproductive, IMHO, when the argument is supposed to be 'don't drink and drive'. I managed to drink for years- quite a bit- without ever getting behind the wheel.

I'm also all for the 4th Amendment but I think that it's reasonable & constitutionally permissible for the state to put some conditions on issuance of motor vehicle licenses, like "you agree to submit to a sobriety test if you want a license".

[midnight]

231. That argument of safety over our constitutional rights is just a

another backdoor way to taking our freedom away.

[Warren DeMontague]

349. Nice platitude.

How about addressing the issue. There is nothing in the constitution that says you are guaranteed the right to operate a motor vehicle on county, state, or interstate roads.

What precise "freedom" do you claim to be defending, here? Please, be specific.

[cabluedem]

319. I had a good friend that was killed by a sober driver at 27. And your point is?

[uppityperson]

100. The link in the OP was interesting, but I am not convinced by it or by your attempts at insults or

leaps of "logic" where you say "if you believe X, then you must also believe Y".

I am open for discussions, but not to have someone try to "convince" me in that way. Tata.

[naaman fletcher]

103. my insults?

1. you obviously haven't read what others have said to me.
2. It is perfectly valid to ask why you would think Gitmo detainees should have constitutional protection, but not accused DUIers. You just don't want to answer the question.

[uppityperson]

105. That word is all you got out of that reply? Wow.

First time you mentioned Gitmo to me and you say I don't want to answer the question.

Leaps of logic. Just because a poster insulted you does not mean you have not posted any insults. Just because I consider driving to be a privilege does not mean I have not answered a question about Gitmo that you just asked.

I am open for discussions, but not to have someone try to "convince" me in that way.

You still have not replied above
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4745758&mesg_id=4746059

[naaman fletcher]

107. OK..

I am sorry that you take that as an insult. The point I was trying to make is that I believe that the accused should be afforded certain constitutional protections. It stuns me that this site universally supports such rights for non-citizens captured on the battlefield, yet a number on this thread don't support such rights for citizens accused of DUI.

I find it stunning.

[uppityperson]

115. That is where you are wrong. Once you are accused of DUI you have rights.

You have the right to a trial, peers, speedy/etc.

[dsc]

118. actually if you read the article you don't have a right to a trial by peers

if the sentence is 6 mos or less in about 6 states.

[uppityperson]

120. In my state you can ask for one. Usually people don't, but you can ask for it.

It would seem to me that that right (jury trial) would be waived for other short time things also, but because of the time, not because of the specific offense. If you get a parking ticket, or if you, I don't know, are a kid and shoplift a candy bar, would you get the right to a trial by peers? (pulling examples out of the air, looking for offenses which would have short time jail time)

[dsc]

123. I think if you can go to jail, for even one second, you should have a jury trial

I have a big problem with that no matter what the offense is.

[uppityperson]

Me too.

[naaman fletcher]

121. Nope...

You are forced to give evidence against yourself before talking to a lawyer, if you don't, they take away your livelihood.

[uppityperson]

125. "they take away your livelihood"?

If I am stopped, and refuse to be checked until I have a lawyer present, they can then say I refused and law says I am then accused of being DUI. So, now that I am accused, I can have my lawyer.

Yes, they can force to me either give evidence or accuse me of being DUI. Once accused, I can get a lawyer.

My livelihood is my mind and my hands and I don't think they will take away either of those. Though my mind may already by leaving me on its own.

[naaman fletcher]

132. yes..

they take away your license, which for most people means taking away your livlihood.

[Shardik]

142. He's right. They can essentially take away your livelihood.

Consider you live in a rural area with no public transportation there are no places within walking distances to work.

You are a carpenter and paying child support.

The company you work for does home restorations and your tools require a pickup with a large toolbox.

You have no family nearby and you lose your job because you cannot always find someone to drive for you.

You then are held in contempt of court for not paying child support and subsequently jailed.

While you are in jail, your landlord evicts you and throws all your belongings out by the side of the road. By the time you get out of jail for contempt, your trial date for the DUI is up. You are given a public defendant who spends five minutes with you before seeing the judge. A jury trial is out of the question. Since you cannot pay the fine, you are sent back to jail for another 2-3 months.

You are released from jail.

You no longer have a home, money or access to a vehicle. You are on the street.

You live in fear of going back to jail on another contempt charge for non-payment of child support.

You go to a Labor-Ready type place and hang out every morning before daybreak hoping you can get a job washing dishes because it's fucking cold out there. And you might get a free meal.

The minimum wage you are paid lets you bring home about $38.00 a day. A cheap hotel is $40.00.

This lasts as long as you can do physical labor.



This can happen with a DUI. It would be easier on the driver to have been shot in the head.

[uppityperson]

147. That is quite a tale. Mine is not like that though, if I were to get DUI'd.

I do know people whose lives have been severely impacted by DUI's, including one who has a story like what you wrote. He ended up getting help from several places, including me, and then drank again and ended up in court ordered rehab. He has now been clean and sober and would not have done so had he not been picked up, then messed up again.

Edited to add that he was picked up originally for DUI, and was DUI. He didn't kill anyone, and now is grateful that he had to go through years of hell to get where he is now. His comment recently was "why didn't anyone tell him life could be good?" We did. He didn't hear.

There are good stories also.

[cabluedem]

280. No to mention your employer can fire you for commiting a "crime" in any state. nt

[Shardik]

128. I understand. A DUI stop could conceivably result in a felony

charge punishable up to 10 years in prison but when arrested:

Your rights are never read to you.
You are not allowed a lawyer to advise you on a breath test or blood test's ramifications.
You are not allowed a phone call to a lawyer for up to 12 hours.

You may be arrested if after leaving a place you realize you have had too much to drink so you climb in the back seat to sleep it off (unless you hide your keys and don't have them on your person or in the car).

There is no statute of limitations. They can go back 30-40 years to another DUI and charge you with a second or third DUI if you get one tomorrow.

[janx]

135. "It stuns me that this site universally supports..."

Nope.

[polmaven]

317. Should the person

who is reeking of alcohol, slurring words, and apparently impaired, but refuses a breathalyzer simply be allowed to drive away?

[Lisa0825]

114. Of course drinking and driving is a bad thing, but I do worry about some

of the extreme cases, and I do believe MADD is turning into a "new prohibition" party. I do not believe in checkpoints. I have also read about a man who admitted to his counselor that he drank about a six pack at a time sitting at home, and his counselor reported him based on some local or state law, and he lost his license. I also remember stories out of Dallas where cops were arresting (or ticketing?) people in a BAR... not driving, no question about designated drivers, etc.

Yes, we need to save lives and prevent tragedies, but we still need to watch out for people's rights.

Funny that the sources (reuters, ap, etc) seem to have pulled the article, but it is linked in many places...

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060323_texas_arresting_drunks/

[DebJ]

126. My mom is spending her retirement in a wheelchair thanks to a

drunk driver. I'm MADD.

[Lisa0825]

131. I'm very sorry :-(

But do you think you should be arrested in a hotel bar in the hotel in which you will be spending the night because an undercover cop determines that you are drunk? See my link above.

I would love it if there were never another drunk driving accident, but to do so, we'd have to turn into a police state.

[CC]

138. Depends on the laws of the state.

I don't know TX alcohol laws so have no idea if what they were doing was legal or not. I do know that way, way back before MADD even existed I was a bartender in Florida it was illegal for any person to be intoxicated in public (even in a bar)and illegal to drink without valid ID on your person. It was illegal for me to serve an intoxicated person, illegal for me to serve anyone with out a valid ID and illegal for me to serve anyone underage. Violating any of these could carry a 5 year prison term and/or a $5,000 fine. Now whether or not the bar owners, cops, alcohol control etc. decided to enforce the laws was a whole different story.
Sometimes you have to look deeper to find out how they are getting away with it. If you are drunk in a hotel bar in a hotel you have a room for I would find it pretty hard to see anyway you could be convicted of drunk driving. Seems stupid and wasteful to tie up resources for something like that.

[cabluedem]

375. So? Would it be different if she was harmed by a sober driver as most people are?

[dorkulon]

136. I read it and I was persuaded.

The author is right; drunk driving is a crime, but it does not merit exceptions to constitutional protection. I've seen local cops here in Buffalo use these roadblocks as public harassment in an attempt at strong-arm union negotiation tactics. And let's not forget, each traffic stop is an unconstitutional vehicle search as well.

[Bucky]

139. A car driven by a drunk is a dangerous weapon.

And thus it deserves 2nd Amendment protections. You can take away my car from me when you pry my cold dead fingers from it.

Or when I pass out.




MADD is flawed, like any other human organization, but the work they've done has helped radically reduce road fatality rates in America. Any dangerous machine needs to come under safety regulations. I think we should have discussions about what that regulation should be, but I don't think you accusations of MADDsters being dangerous to civil liberties make much sense.

[naaman fletcher]

143. so?

<i>MADD is flawed, like any other human organization, but the work they've done has helped radically reduce road fatality rates in America. Any dangerous machine needs to come under safety regulations. I think we should have discussions about what that regulation should be, but I don't think you accusations of MADDsters being dangerous to civil liberties make much sense.</I><p>
Sure, they have reduced fatalities. We could also reduce crime by searching everyone's house. The point is, a reduction in crime is not, in and of itself, a reason to allow a certain amount of gov't power.

[janx]

144. And, as your link points out, MADD really doesn't tackle the problem.

Most of the time it's the repeat offenders who wind up maiming or killing innocent people. And they're so addicted, many times, that they don't give a damn about the law.

[cabluedem]

286. Lets search everyones home for drugs and kiddie-porn. After all its for our safety, right?

makes no sense to stop at searching private property, like a vehicle. Who needs rights when we can all be safe and sound after the police, who never lie or perjure, check all of us out. :sarcasm:

[Trillo]

145. Thank you. The read was appreciated.

It is a melancholy realization. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

150. I was thinking "kid home for the holidays".

When do classes start again? Oh my head.

[naaman fletcher]

153. yes it is bizarro that i believe in the 4th amendment,

and that all suspected of a crime should be afford constitutional protections. Why you make an exception for DUI, I wish I knew.

[Starry Messenger]

168. That's my sig pic.

Not a comment.

[naaman fletcher]

169. duly noted. eom.

[naaman fletcher]

152. huh?

I am a freeper because I believe in the 4th amendment? Because I believe people shouldn't be searched without probable cause? What other crimes do you think are so bad that the cops should be allowed to detain, search, and question you without probable cause for?

[Sebastian Doyle]

157. Probable cause?

If you're driving like a drunken fucking idiot, that's probable cause, isn't it?

[naaman fletcher]

161. Sure...

But what if you are not doing that? The cops can pull you over anyway. If you read the link, you would know that is what we are talking about here.

[Sebastian Doyle]

171. I've heard every pathetic justification used for drunk drivers you can think of.

One of my closest friends unfortunately got himself three DUI's. He deserved all of them, and probably several that he didn't get arrested for. He tried to justify them in every way imaginable, and tried to get out of each and every one of them in court, unsuccessfully. There was enough time in between that he never lost his license, but the last one did earn him an ignition lock breathalyzer that he was forced to use for the rest of his life.

Ironically enough, he died a year ago tonight. Not from drunk driving or anything related to New Years celebrations, but from liver cancer. Some lessons are learned harder than others :evilfrown:

[naaman fletcher]

173. I'm against drunk drivers too..

I'm also against rapists. I don't think I should be stopped and searched WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE because I might be on my way to commit a rape. Likewise, I don't think I should be stopped and serached WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE because I might be DUI.

I don't know why there is a DUI exception to the constitution. Since you believe in it, please explain it to me.

[janx]

170. Read the column at the link s/he posted.

That's not the point. The point is that you don't have to be driving like a "drunken fucking idiot" to be not only arrested, but convicted.

As a matter of fact, you don't even have to be driving the vehicle at all. Please read it before jumping to conclusions.

[ProfessorGAC]

308. See My Post

I've been stopped more than a dozen times when i was playing in a band and the real reason was because i was out at 3:30 in the morning.

I NEVER drank onstage, with the exception giving the champagne toast at the NYE's we played.

So, i was stopped over a dozen times and had never done anything wrong.

I wasn't driving like a drunken idiot! I wasn't drunk, and i've never even had so much as a speeding ticket, so i don't drive like an idiot.

Yet, i got stopped many times.

There's something wrong with that picture. There wasn't any probable cause for stopping me. It's not a violation of the law to be out late at night.
GAC

[gollygee]

328. Yes that would be, and if that's why people were targeted there would be no issue and no thread

I know someone in MADD who believes that people shouldn't drive after having even a sip of alcohol. Actually, she's against the use of alcohol even if you aren't drinking. Anyway, I'm quite sure it isn't just about drinking and driving for her. Their fight is no longer about stopping drunk drivers, and THAT is the issue. If they wanted to stop drunk drivers, they wouldn't spend energy trying to reduce the level for DUI to ridiculous levels. She wanted me to sign a petition at one point, it's been a few years I think now, that the limit should be 0.05% or something. I asked if there were any studies that people were actually impaired at that level, because I'd have to find out if people's driving skills were affected by that before I could sign, and she got angry and said people shouldn't drink ANYTHING and drive, and that if a breathalizer found any alcohol at all - truly absolutely anything - the person should lose his/her license and go to jail. So I said, if my husband and I went to a hockey game and shared one light beer while we were there all evening, and drank nothing else, should we be arrested if we drive, and she said yes and that we would be incredibly irresponsible to do that, and it would also be irresponsible to drink half a beer each around our kid even if we weren't driving. I find this line of thinking bizarre because I don't see how it will actually save anyone from a drunk driver, which I thought was the motivation of the group. She told me her viewpoint is common at MADD, but I don't know anyone else in the group so I can't say if she's right about that or deluded.

Anyway, this particular woman has clouded my opinion of MADD to think they're all crazy. I am skeptical of them.

[janx]

162. Your post #114 may have given some reactionists that impression.

But for the record, I agree with you for the most part and find the column at the link you posted very interesting. This site, like any site--especially among the political ones--is composed of different individuals. The ideology and opinions here are very diverse.

We get in fights all the time! :rofl:

[Shardik]

154. That's cold.

The OP is not advocating driving while drinking. That is a terrible thing.

However is is suggesting that it be treated the same as other crimes. Personally, I don't see a problem with that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

155. Let's say you see Randall Terry walk into an abortion clinic with a case of dynamite

Are you gonna wait for him to push the button on the detonator before you arrest his terrorist ass? After all, he hasn't actually committed a crime yet. Aside from trespassing, maybe.

[dsc]

158. ah he would be committing several crimes

dynamite is a controlled item, you can't just go and get dynamite nor can you just take it any old place.

[Sebastian Doyle]

164. Well, ok, let's say he has a legally registered gun then.

Granted, it's a weak analogy. But the point is, there are times when criminal intent is clear, and preventing an actual crime, or at least a worse crime, is possible.

And if someone is driving drunk, then it's best to stop them before they also become a murderer.

[naaman fletcher]

166. but what about stopping someone who is not drunk?

But you want to stop everybody to see if they are drunk? What is you stopped every guy on the street because it might be randall terry on his way to bomb a clinic? That is what this link is about, but you didn't read it before commenting or you would have known that.

[naaman fletcher]

159. Of course not..

But do you let him talk to a lawyer first before you force him to testify against himself? Of course. Why does Randall Terry get more protection than a drunk driver?

BUT, that's not the real issue:

The real issue is this: Should cops be allowed to stop every person walking down the street because they might be on their way to bomb an abortion clinic? Well, why are they allowed to stop every driver because they might be drunk?

[Shardik]

163. Let's say your 65 year old mother spilled a glass of sherry on her dark wool coat

And does not possess the lung capacity to blow the breathalyzer and walks funny because of a hip replacement.

Maybe she even had a single glass of sherry with the bridge club. With the tolerances of today, that could get her a DUI even though she was in no way drunk.

Let's say she had a previous DUI when she was 19.

2nd Offense. She does time.

Is that fair?

[Sebastian Doyle]

176. If she can't walk straight sober, she probably shouldn't be driving either.

If your leg doesn't function correctly, can you accurately use an accelerator or a brake pedal (or god forbid, a clutch)?

And if that injury causes you to drive erratically, it's probably a good thing that the cop pulls you over. I wouldn't expect a DUI charge when no intoxication was present, but there is a question of whether she can safely operate a vehicle.

My 67 year old mother still drives safely, as does my 77 year old father. The day that's not the case, I'm taking their keys. Went through this one with grandpa when he was in his late 80's with deteriorating eyesight and reflexes. It's a fact of life that at some point, driving is no longer an option. For those with chronic alcohol problems, that might be sooner rather than later, and I don't have a problem with that.

[naaman fletcher]

177. you keep avoiding the quetion..

You keep assuming the driver is operating erraticlly, if you read the link you would know that they can stop you for NO REASON AT ALL. Does that change your opinion at all?

[Shardik]

178. You only need one leg for an automatic transmission.

A hip replacement is one side or the other in most cases.

Many older people rely on a cane. They may not walk steadily without it. Many people have one leg significantly shorter than the other. Many people have undiagnosed diabetes and may drive erratically. The current way the laws are written and applied might have a terribly detrimental effect on any of these people.

Are you saying that they should not be allowed to drive because there might be a mistake as to their sobriety?

[midnight]

210. No. And it speaks loundly about how a, good intention, to stop

drunk drivers has become a terrible abuse of power.

[sendero]

160. Our government scoffs at the constitution...

... and has for some time. The entire "war on some drugs" should be considered unconstitutional, but it isn't.

The populace goes along with it all because Americans are by and large big stupid sheep who will gladly trade their freedom for a little bogus-ass security.

I wouldn't get too exercised about it, there is nothing you can do about it - making dumbasses not be stupid is an impossible task.

[Witchy_Dem]

167. Oh I thought it was what I've had all election season long

Democratic Underground Influence.

[ThomWV]

172. Very good article. Thank you from a non-drinker

[gollygee]

174. I have mixed feelings

Driving is not a right. And if someone smells alcohol on your breath, that could be interpreted as probable cause. I'm not a lawyer but I see an argument. Though I also see an argument against that, so I won't argue for it personally.

On the other hand, I am very opposed to sobriety checkpoints. And I know someone in MADD who thinks it should be illegal for people to drink any amount of any alcoholic beverage at all and then drive, and also that the penalties should be higher, even for that. So like if you drink half a beer and then drive, she thinks you should have your license taken away for eternity and I think go to jail on top of that for some period of time. And according to her, that's a common viewpoint, although I can't speak for that myself. Anyway, I'm all for stopping drunk drivers, but why would anybody want to go after drives who aren't even drunk?

[cabluedem]

291. Becuase a stop can lead to anything these days. Officer friendly died long ago. Its all about money

[Hanse]

175. I'll agree that MADD is a rotten organization, ran by disgusting people.

But the Joe McCarthy style hyperbole probably won't help you further your argument much.

[Steerpike_Denver]

181. Absolutely kee-rect!

In addition to the abuses you mentioned, and the ones laid out in the link, you can be "convicted" of the "crime" of alcoholism, and "sentenced" to expensive treatment programs (for which you must pay, of course), despite the fact that one of the things they teach you in rehab is that alcoholism is a disease, not a crime, a moral failure or a matter of willpower. Funny how you can be diagnosed by a judge, rather than a doctor, huh? And part of your treatment is more than likely going to be a requirement to attend a certain number of AA meetings, with a counselor submitting a written report to the sentencing judge regarding whether you have cooperated with the program. Part of the 12-step system is acknowledging a "higher power", by the way, and if you are an atheist, and refuse to play along with that part of the game, you may be labeled "uncooperative" and required to pay for more treatment.

[unblock]

185. you do not have a constitutional right to endanger the lives of others

drive drunk on private roads if you like.

but don't i have a right to travel in some reasonable level of safety, free from impaired assholes hurtling down the wrong way of the road, e.g., because they're drunk off their ass?

or don't my rights count for anything because i'm sober?

[naaman fletcher]

186. you obviously didn't read the link..

Or you would know that nobody is arguing that anyone has the right to drive around loaded. The question is, does that fact that some people break the law mean that we are ALL stripped of basic constitutional protections?


Nobody has a right to rape, either, but most people agree that accused rapists should have constitutional protections? Why not accused DUIers.

Furthermore, we also agree that the cops can't just stop everybody on the street and inquire if they have committed a crime.

...but if you are in a car, they can just stop you even without probable cause.

[Pithlet]

190. Of course, cops shouldn't pull people over without probable cause.

That is an issue that goes beyond DUI laws. They shouldn't do it, period. But, they do. That doesn't mean we give people the right to refuse tests. Because basically that opens the road to drunks. Unfortunately, blood alcohol levels are time sensitive, so if we wait and give people the right to a jury to prove whether or not they were drunk, then we might as well legalize drunk driving. We as a society have the right to make sure our public roads are safe.

I did go to the link you provided. Right away, I had problem with one part:

I would like you to imagine for a moment that you’ve gone to a friend’s house for dinner. In the course of a very good dinner you’ve had a couple of glasses of a good Merlot and it is now time to drive home. I would like you to imagine that you are on your way home–and, I will tell you, by the way, that two glasses of wine will not, in any state, put you under the influence of alcohol or over the legal limit of .08. As you are driving along the highway, you see ahead of you some flashing lights and barricades and police cars accordioned across the highway, with flashing lights directing you into an increasingly small channel. And, as you go in, you are stopped and two police officers approach you and stick a flashlight in your face and say, "Breath on me. Have you been drinking tonight? Please step out of the car."

Yes, MADD is full of overly biased zealots who are very extreme in their views, but this guy is on the other end of the scale with extreme bias. It isn't that simple as he makes it. People vary widely in their reaction to alcohol. I absolutely would not be able to handle driving after 2 glasses of merlot. I can barely handle one. A cop would absolutely have probable cause if he saw me, or someone who similarly handles wine the way I do. I rarely drink anymore, and I couldn't handle alcohol very well even when I did drink on a more regular basis. I'm sorry, but I have no problem with cops being able to visually stop people who look like maybe they've had a few too many. I don't get the outrage, there. I'm also not exactly sure he's right on that statistic he quoted, either. ETA I see that was a barricade, and not a pullover. I'm against barricades, so I misread that part. But the part about 2 drinks still holds. If I'd been caught in the barricade after two merlots, they would have pulled me out of the car. I would have been visibly drunk, no matter what legal limits are.

MADD is quite strident and fanatical, but this guy makes it sound like they have direct and undue influence on the laws made in our country. It's absurd. They don't do anything that any of the rest of us can't do. They're an advocacy group, and they're fully within their rights. There's nothing stopping him from doing the same thing. If the laws have gone too far in this country, we have no one but ourselves to blame. We all have one vote.

[Shardik]

215. You state "We all have one vote." True, but we all don't have a PAC

Or a lobbying firm.

MADD has become a powerful entity and if you read the entire article in the link of the OP, he says it a lot better than I can.

No one here condones driving drunk. This is just questions regarding the constitutionality of the current set of DUI laws and the ways in which they are enforced.

One of the worst things about them is that if you have the money, you can pretty much beat the laws and return to driving even after numerous DUIs as long as you haven't killed anyone yet. It has turned into a money maker for municipalities and lawyers leaving a wake of destruction in more ways than one.

[Pithlet]

220. I did read the whole article.

Yes. The all powerful Madd. Bottom line is, MADD didn't make those laws. The people we voted in did. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from forming a group doing the same thing Madd is doing, to stick up for all these people wrongly convicted of DUIs. Nothing. The article also doesn't do a very good job of laying out just how and why those laws are unconstitutional. He explains why he thinks certain blood alcohol levels aren't right, and why HE thinks certain scientific methods aren't right. He certainly are doesn't think much of breathalysers. And maybe he's right. I don't know. But I'm still not real clear on how any of these laws violate anyone's constitutional rights. All I really get from it is he really really really hates Madd, he doesn't think blood alcohol level laws are right, and breathalyzers don't work. That's what I really took from it.

Look, I'm not saying that there haven't been people wrongly convicted of a DUI, ever, or that people's rights haven't ever been trampled on by overzealous cops not following the rules. I'm not even saying I'm completely on board with every single DUI law every written. There may be some crappy ones on the books. I'm not the biggest believer in our criminal justice system. But I'm not ready to throw out our DUI laws just yet after reading his article, nor am I ready to line up every single member of MADD against the wall. I was distracted by how obviously biased and slanted it was, and it wasn't really all that informative. It was all scare tactics, and "oooh, imagine what could happen to you if......" I want facts. I want "This is unconstitutional because: X", now flowery scare mongering crap. It was over the top.

[naaman fletcher]

222. "Yes. The all powerful Madd. Bottom line is, MADD didn't make those laws"

Yeah, and the people elected the repukes who have conspired to take away our rights re: wiretaps. By your logic, that's all ok, since it was ultimately the people.

[Pithlet]

229. No. It doesn't make the laws right. But, it does make the voters responsible.

I surely do hold the people who voted the repukes responsible for those awful laws. Don't you? Yes, indeed. We are responsible for the government we get. That's why it's important to vote. If we don't like the laws, we vote someone else in. Voila! That's why we have a new President come Jan 20th. That's why it's kind of ridiculous to hold MADD soleley responsible for drunk driving laws when it is in fact the people we all voted in, because they promised to cut down on drunk driving. We voted them in, because we all knew there was a problem with drunk driving deaths. It wasn't all MADD. We as a society enact laws through the people we vote in. MADD is only a piece of the puzzle. They aren't directly responsible, and the author of the article in the OP places a ludicrous amount of responsibility on them. He completely discounts the fact that our society very likely acknowledged there was a problem with drunk driving and decided to do something about it, and that is probably a huge reason behind those laws. The fact that those laws have worked and have cut down on the deaths, whatever you and he may personally think of those laws, are also a big reason why they continue to exist and strengthen. That's not all on MADD. Not even to a large degree. The fact that those work, constitutional or not, will make it very hard to fight against. So, good luck with that.

[Shardik]

228. It sounds as if we're pretty much on the same page.

the facts on the validity of the breathalyser tests are out there and have been for several years. The man has done his research and has the credentials.

I don't want DUI laws to be thrown out either. I do want all criminals to be afforded the same rights that are guaranteed by our constitution. I don't feel that he "really, really, really" hates MADD. I feel that he was giving a speech on the constitutionality of our current DUI laws. The same could be done on our current drug laws as well.

You come up saying you want facts without offering any yourself.

Drunk driving is bad. We should use laws to try and stop it. Those laws should be carried out and enforced the same way that the laws for theft, rape, murder, burglary and other crimes are carried out. The way things are now, a murderer has more rights after arrest than the 18 year old coming home from a prom after one too many.

[Pithlet]

230. Of course. Everyone has the same rights.

No matter what they're accused of. Absolutely. Yes, of course, drunk driving laws should be carried out and enforced the same way that any other law should. Totally agreed. If someone had come on DU and posted a thread about it, and linked to something conclusive, or at the very least very convincing, I'd be sharing in the outrage. But that didn't happen with this thread. I just want proof that people accused of DUI have a harder burden of proof than others and that the laws aren't being treated equally. Believe me, my mind is open to it as with anything. But, with all due respect, I'm not the one making the claim.

[Shardik]

232. Here's a bio of the writer. this is not just a blogger.

Lawrence Taylor is the most respected DUI attorney in the country today. A former Marine and graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1966) and the UCLA School of Law (1969), he served as deputy county counsel, deputy public defender and deputy district attorney in Los Angeles before entering private practice. He was the trial judge’s legal advisor in People vs Charles Manson, was Supreme Court counsel in the Onion Field murder case, and was retained by the Attorney General of Montana as an independent Special Prosecutor to conduct a one-year grand jury probe of governmental corruption.

Turning to teaching, Mr. Taylor was a member of the faculty of Gonzaga University School of Law, where in his second year he was voted “Professor of the Year”; served as Visiting Associate Professor at Pepperdine University Law School; and was appointed Fulbright Professor of Law at Osaka University in Japan.

Mr. Taylor is also the author of over thirty articles and 14 books, including the standard textbooks on DUI litigation, Drunk Driving Defense, 6th ed., and California Drunk Driving Defense, 3rd ed., and over the past 25 years has proven a popular lecturer on trial tactics and techniques at over 200 legal seminars in 38 states. He was one of the original 12 founders of the National College for DUI Defense, later serving as its Dean. On July 25, 2002, at Harvard Law School, Mr. Taylor was presented with the College’s “Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Mr. Taylor currently limits the practice of his 11-attorney California DUI Law Firm to drunk driving defense exclusively.

****

Unfortunately, I had to find out first hand the validity of many of his statements. That was one $20,000 class I wish I never had to take.

[Pithlet]

233. Okay. I still found his article very obviously heavily biased.

I'm not saying he isn't knowledgeable. I just didn't find that particular article very informative. It obviously wanted to argue from emotion. First, he refers to members of MADD as zealots. Whatever you think of the organization, that's simply an unfair broadbrush. That's like calling all members of DU kooky tinfoilers. Then he starts off with the Imagine You're in This Scenario paragraph, with Handcuffs, and Flashing Lights, and You Only Had Two Glasses of Wine, and Just Imagine! It goes on for a few paragraphs of all this stuff that could happen to you, Oh My! It put me right off. I'm simply not one to be bought with emotion like that. And then it's downhill from there. Yes, there seems to be lots of technical information he offers. He drones on and on about stuff like Mouth Alcohol Problem. And toward the end he really just gets into a ramble fest about the legal process, and he just lost me. But he was real clear and easy to understand when he was bashing MADD and with that scary story about what might happen if a cop pulls you over. Ugh. Sorry, no. Not impressed. Maybe it was just an off day for him. If there's a problem with DUI laws being unfairly prosecuted as compared to other laws, it should be easy to present that case in a way that's easy for the lay person to understand, and I know he can write clearly because he was able to do so in the beginning, when bashing MADD.

ETA so I go back to read it a second time just to make sure I wasn't being unfair, particularly the second part. It's even crappier than I thought. It's just so obvious he's twisted things in a biased way. I can't really trust anything he's said. He claims that MADD and The National Highway Traffic Safety Commission manipulate the numbers by including all alcohol levels in their statistics. First of all, he doesn't provide any numbers of his own. He also doesn't say if that's the way the numbers have always been calculated. Is he really claiming that alcohol deaths haven't been reduced at all since DUI laws have been enacted? That seems like a very suspicious claim to make. And he doesn't even really come out and claim that. He just tells us not to trust MADD's numbers, or the National Highway Traffic Safety Commissions. But, I guess it's okay to just trust his sly wink and a smile? Really. This is biased writing at its worst. And that's just one example. I could go on and on. He calls members of MADD zealots and "believers". He needs to look in the mirror. ETA again to say that of course, biased writing is a rather forgivable trait in a defense lawyer. I'd certainly look this guy up if I ever got pulled over for a DUI. I'm a fan of defense lawyers. I think they're the first line of defense in protecting our rights. This guy is invaluable in protecting the rights of the accused, I'm sure.

[MajorChode]

266. Both sides get extremely emotional about the subject

Calling members of MADD zealots is pretty accurate and fair as they seem to describe themselves as just that. They are focused on one cause and their own acronym is a strong emotion by design, so how else would you describe them if not full of zeal for their cause?

As far as being biased goes, he quite clearly established that from the very beginning. The problem with bias is when it is concealed, such as when a network claims to be "fair and balanced" when clearly they aren't. If a person lets you know they are biased, you can make your own judgments with that in mind.

Whether alcohol deaths have been reduced or not is irrelevant to what he's claiming. That would be like justifying the execution of one innocent person by saying 100 guilty ones were put to death also.

The thing about it is we all get exactly the justice system we deserve. If we collectively decide that it is worth trampling the rights of a few for the greater good of the many, then we deserve the same malicious prosecution ourselves even if we are innocent. Before any of these laws or case laws are passed, we should all ask ourselves is this the way we would want to be treated if we were falsely accused? The same attitude persists in the Bush administration which is the end always justifies the means. I choose to believe it doesn't.

[Pithlet]

305. I agree. It seemed important to point it out, though.

People in this thread are exclaiming that the article is just so wonderful. The guy wants to slam MADD and paint them as the overly emotional agenda seeking group, and it's pretty clear he is equivalent, but on the other side of the coin. Yes, he addresses rights, and of course those are important, but I think his agenda goes beyond that. Basically, his agenda is fewer DUI convictions. He is a DUI lawyer. That agenda is there and very obvious in this article, and he's very emotional and zealous in his promotion of that agenda. I could practically mirror what a MADD article could have been ("Imagine kissing your loved ones goodbye for the last time before a drunk driver kills them...") Toward the bottom of the article it's very much All the poor, poor people who've been convicted of DUI, when the REAL problem is the recidivists! We need to focus on them! You know, I don't agree. I think people who've driven drunk just one time are dangerous, too. It only takes one time. If they're guilty, they deserve it. Every single person who took to the wheel drunk last night was equally a danger, no matter how many times they've done it before. If a cop saw them weaving on the road, and their blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, I don't have a problem with them facing the consequences, recidivist or not.

Of course their legal rights should be respected as anyone else's, and I'd never defend anything else. But, just as I might not trust a MADD article to give me a true picture of the issue of whether the laws go too far or far enough, I'm not going to trust this guys either. I know an emotional plea to sway to someone's agenda when I see one. I'm not the type to insist on trampling rights for the sake of safety. I'm against the Patriot Act after all. Rights are important and I will never ever support weakening them for any reason. I'm also not going to support what may just be the flip side of the coin from MADD, here, ranting with their own agenda that isn't rooted in facts.

[MajorChode]

337. There is a lesson to be learned

I don't know that his agenda is fewer DUI convictions. He's a type of lawyer that gets paid whether his client gets convicted or not, and I doubt if even a DUI lawyer wants to see more drunk drivers on the road. The impression I got was he was simply frustrated with MADD having a finger on the scales of justice. Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

The value in what he wrote is it goes to show what can happen to your rights when a group of people that may have very good intentions start pushing an agenda too hard. So regardless of how you feel about drunk driving, it's worth giving that some consideration and seeing if there is anything to what he is saying. If you don't think anything he's written is accurate, look it up. The internet is a wonderful thing. Be careful of your own biases. Just because you may not agree with someone on principle, doesn't mean they are wrong. I've been wrongly accused by a cop before. Even though it was just for a speeding ticket, it opened my eyes to the fact that some police officers will lie or do whatever it takes just to keep from admitting they were wrong.

MADD is not the only example of this. The NRA pushes their agenda too hard also and the result is we have far too many gun deaths in this country. And despite the fact that the public overwhelmingly supports tougher gun laws, they don't have a chance because the NRA will use their lobby to either strongarm politicians or their legal team to kill or delay them indefinitely. The reason why most communities won't even consider gun laws is because they know the NRA will have a pack of lawyers descending on them in no time as well as a public relations person feeding misinformation to the media. How many small communities do you think can stand up to that kind of pressure? MADD employs a lot of the same tactics. They have grown into a powerful organization that has the power to intimidate politicians and judges. Sometimes they do very good things. Some states used to be very lax on drunk driving. However, I have never agreed with some of their methods. Not only do they need to go after repeat offenders more aggressively, they also need to go after those who are extremely drunk. Some states treat a .08 driver the same as a .16 driver and that's ridiculous. A .08 driver is impaired about as much as someone talking on a cell phone while driving, while a .16 driver is definitely going to kill someone eventually. If someone blows a .16, it should be an instant felony even on a 1st offense.

[Pithlet]

346. I have no doubt MADD pushes an agenda.

My only question is, how successful have they actually been? Have they really actually succeeded in eroding our rights as the author claims? That's the question. I think it's absolutely more than obvious that the author's agenda is fewer DUI convictions. He's a DUI lawyer, after all. And, believe me, I'm not saying that that isn't a laudable goal. I'm not anti-defense lawyers. I think they are absolutely vital to our justice system. Every single person accused is entitled to a defense, no matter what they're accused of. I'm not saying I think the guy is scum. If that's how I'm coming across, believe me, I don't mean to. I'm simply saying his bias is immediately and openly obvious. I hope this guy keeps doing what he's doing. He's obviously very good at it. I don't mean to ascribe nefarious motives. I'm simply saying that people should take that into consideration when reading the article and using it to form their own opinion on the matter. This guy is merely the flip side of the coin to MADD. If MADD is the NRA, then this guy is the anti-gun movement.

I don't think the NRA is comparable to MADD. MADD is more comparable to the anti-gun movement. But, I really think we should just drop that, and not go down that road for the sake of the flame level of this thread. ;)

[MajorChode]

353. There's nothing inherently wrong with pushing an agenda

Sometimes agendas need to be pushed. The reason I'm making the NRA comparison is not because I'm saying MADD supporters are like gun nuts, because clearly they aren't. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes your intentions can lead to a cure that is far worse than the disease. I doubt there are too many gun nuts who genuinely want to see kids being killed, but the net effect of their efforts is just that.

I have a genuine fear of drunk drivers and I feel that more should be done about them, but that doesn't mean I think that MADD's approach is the right one. Sometimes their efforts are counterproductive. Lots of people have one or two drinks at diner and then drive home. In fact, I would assume that a very large portion of the population has done so. I don't think it serves MADD's cause to lump those people into the same boat as a drunk who drinks the bar dry and then tries to drive home. It erodes public support for a cause that is genuinely good.

[Pithlet]

354. Of course there isn't.

I think the article writer's motives are good. He sounds like one of the good guys. Protecting our rights is never, ever a bad cause. I would have no qualms with picking him as a defense lawyer. I'm just not sure he's right when it comes to the actual laws themselves. I think he's seen a lot of bad things come about from very poor enforcement of law. He's probably seen good people go to jail who didn't deserve it. And he's very biased because of it, and it's very understandable. I really don't have a problem with people having an agenda. I'm just not going to jump on board with his agenda blindly and say we need to get rid of these laws, or weaken them considerably. I'm not sure that's a good idea.

[MajorChode]

356. Jumping on board blindly is never a good idea when it comes to laws

The problem is lots of people will jump on board to one side or another without giving it a lot of thought and genuinely think they are doing the right thing. The problem is when laws are passed they are very difficult to have removed even if they are bad, especially if their intent is something along the lines of taking drunk drivers off the road. What politician is going to stand up and say that law needs to be repealed? He would get murdered by his opponent in the next election who would claim he's soft on drunk drivers. There's too many people who draw their conclusions based on 15 second sound bites. In fact, that's what this entire country seems to be based on these days. If you can't explain something in a 15 second commercial, it must not be worth the attention.

[Shardik]

373. Well said.

What is surprising is that most of the posts in this thread want to assume some sort of decriminalization of DUI is being addressed in the OP while in reality all it is doing is saying that constitutional guarantees have been removed for people charged with DUI even before convicted.

[Pithlet]

403. Yes. But, where?

That's what I'm asking. I want to know where specifically some of the DUI laws where people's constitutional rights are being violated specifically because of DUI law even before they're being convicted. What is it specifically in the laws that are written that needs to be changed? All I get is "But, didn't you read the article?" and "But breathalysers don't work" No one is helping me to understand. What is it about the laws specifically that make them unconstitutional? No one will answer that question for me. The article itself really doesn't explain that either. If there are laws on the books right now that violate our constitutional rights, then hell yes they should be stricken. I think it would be pretty simple to point out those specific laws, and where it is exactly that the violate the constitution.

[Shardik]

415. Here's just a few examples:

1. A defense attorney has no access to evidence used against you (re breath)
2. No Miranda rights are needed or given.
3. No immediate right to an attorney after you have been arrested. I believe most states can keep a prisoner in the drunk tank for 12 hours if they feel like it before a phone call is allowed.

Since serious time may be given for a DUI, it would seem fitting that the Driver should be allowed the same rights as any other criminal.

[Pithlet]

402. Right. So, where's the evidence that DUI laws, as they stand now, are bad?

I'm not saying they aren't. I'm not defending DUI laws. I'm saying, give me something other than this very biased and poorly written article. If these laws really are stripping us of our rights, and are leading to lots of convictions of innocent people, it should be easy to prove. I certainly don't want that happening. I will be the first one to decry such laws. Really. I'm not defending DUI laws, here. I don't want any bad laws on the books.

[unblock]

191. except that as soon as you put it on a public road

you're agreeing to many things, including that the vehicle is registered, that it's insured, and that you're licensed and qualified to drive.


out of curiousity, would you agree to a police roadblock to systematically check all cars to ensure that they're meeting all registration, licensing, insurance, and emissions requirements?

what about trucks and weight requirements or requirements regarding transport of hazardous materials?
for the sake of argument, to eliminate the commerce aspect, let's say that my truck is privately owned and not for commercial use, i just like to move my hazardous materials around on public roads.

[Deja Q]

200. So we're forced to read the article?

Also, most cops I know of only stop people if probable cause exists. They don't just randomly pull people over for sport.

Plus, with the reputation cops get on DU...

Also, how many pedestrians have killed somebody by walking around drunk? (for any number of facets, when you're behind the steering wheel of a car, the context changes dramatically. The same rules cannot apply.)

If it's not yet midnight, I suggest you go out for a nice 40 minute drive - to the heart of the nearest big city and back. Real life isn't as neat and tidy as discussion forums.

[naaman fletcher]

221. sure..

most cops only stop those they suspect.

Most wiretaps are only issued for people who are probably up to no good.. so are you in favor of removing constitutional protections from them?

Most of the terrorist at Gitmo are guilty, are you in favor of removing protections from them?

Most murder suspects are guilty. Should they have constitutional protections removed?

Why are you for removing protections for DUI suspects? Are there any other crimes you think are not worthy of constitutional protection? Which ones?

[ThomCat]

197. I read the whole thing, and I agree that these are some very scary

precedents to take away our rights by voiding, ignoring or negating constitutional protections.

If the problem is people driving while impaired then they should have to prove that someone was driving and was impaired.

[Lisa0825]

201. Right! 99% of the posters here don't seem to get that point. nt

[Pithlet]

203. No, I think they get it fine.

The problem is, what proof? Do we want to leave that up to the cop's judgment? I sure don't. That really only leaves blood alcohol level, and that has to be tested within a certain time frame. We simply can't wait until the court of law to present proof that a person needed to be tested and/or pulled over. It can't work that way. I have no problem with testing suspected drunk drivers, and making it completely voluntary means no one ever gets tested. Just how exactly are police officers supposed to treat suspected drunk drivers? No one outraged over this issue is explaining that.

I read the article linked to the OP. I wasn't impressed. It was obviously extremely biased, and it didn't convince me that the issues convicted drunk drivers faces are any more of an issue of our constitutional rights than the normal, general run of the mill problems that we just generally face in our criminal justice system. Oh, it's the big bad MADD and their influence on the law! Please. Yes, they are a large, influential organization, but the fact that these laws have passed couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we actually do have a problem with drunk driving deaths in this country. He gives MADD way too much credit in his rabid hatred. Most of his beefs generally revolve around blood alcohol level laws and his issues with breathalyser tests. I'd hardly call such issues grave constitutional breeches, regardless of where one stands on the details of those issues. We do have to be constantly vigilant with our constitutional rights. I don't think that means we have to open up our roads to drunk drivers. I don't think that means we do away with blood alcohol testing, or passing laws determining what society deems are safe levels. Sorry.

[ThomCat]

205. IF

if the test really, truly tests blood alcohol level that is fine, but it's testing alcohol vapor that might not even be alcohol, and it's outputting a number that means very little based on a whole lot of biological factors that aren't taken into account or measured or recorded or even brought into the discussion. The sample isn't saved so that the defense can test it too. And then at the end you are stuck with taking the cop's word for it because some machine said so, and the machine isn't testing what people think it tests.

People are just so comfortable stringing up people who are accused of being guilty that they don't really care about proof. Look at the way people want "terrorists" rounded up and locked up. "Drunk drivers" is one of those boogie men. Just round people up and do whatever you want to punish them, don't worry about proof.

It's been obvious for years that confiscation laws were designed to punish people regardless of guilt or innocence just to generate revenue. Where wealth or influence or power are involved safeguards need to be scrupulously protected, and people are very quick to abandon those safeguards as "protecting the enemy."

[Pithlet]

209. I agree. But, that's arguing about testing measures

That's not a "DUI exception to the Constitution". I'm not familiar with the technology of breathalysers. I'm perfectly open minded to the possibility that they aren't as accurate as blood work. I'm not going to argue with any of your points. But I'm also not going to buy the argument that any of this is a special burden that DUI accused face alone. I think a lot of people want to string up people who are assumed guilty, and damn the evidence. I'm very familiar with that mentality. That isn't just limited people suspected of DUI; not by a longshot. I also don't buy the argument that police shouldn't be able to tell someone they suspect to take some sort of test that determines blood alcohol level, or face losing a license, and that's what's being asserted by the OP and a few others in this thread. I don't see that as a breech of constitutional rights. There HAS to be a way to somehow determine blood alcohol level on the scene, or we leave it to the cop's judgment. I surely don't want that. Way less dependable than a breathalyser, and it will do until blood work can be drawn at the station. Barring that, we simply legalize drunk driving, because we completely strip a cops right to do anything at all. People who assert that we have the constitutional right to refuse on sight testing without any consequences are essentially opening up our roads to drunk drivers. As if our cars and driver's licenses are constitutionally protected extensions of ourselves.

I do get what you're saying about that mentality of strining people up and damn guilty or innocent. I'm also familiar with biased writing, and that link in the OP is as slanted as it gets. I want better sources that point to a real problem that DUIs are over prosecuted and that their rights are actually constitutionally violated. Because that source wasn't it.

[Lisa0825]

206. My issues are with tactics which assume guilt.... roadblock checkpoints and

stings like I described happened in Dallas, without regard to driving. If you think checkpoints are fine and dandy, do you think everyone should have to blow on a breathalyzer too? Maybe they should just install them at every bar and restaurant, and if you don't pass, you don't get to leave?

[Pithlet]

213. I don't like roadblocks. I agree there.

I still don't think they're quite the constitutional grievance that some are making them out to be, but I do think the argument that they assume guilt has weight. I think they're ridiculous and ineffective, to boot. The stings are another issue. Those are obviously examples of police overstepping their bounds. That's not evidence that there's this huge problem of DUIs leading to our constitutional erosion. I think it's the other way around. I think those stings were a symptom of a larger problem that extends to all areas of criminal justice. Those stings go above and beyond normal day to day enforcement of DUI law. No. I'm sorry, but we need laws that say you can't drink and drive. There have to be set limits to blood alcohol levels, and there have to be ways for cops to enforce them on site. That isn't a breech of our constitutional rights. I'm perfectly satisfied generally with where the limits are and with how the laws are generally enforced, road blocks and ridiculously unconstitutional bar stings aside. I think it's reasonable to quibble at the various laws that determine blood levels, or to argue that breathalysers aren't accurate. But I think the argument that making people take a breathalyser is unconstitutional while out on the road driving because a cop suspects they're drunk is beyond absurd. How else do we enforce the laws and make the roads safe?

[Deja Q]

199. So it's a "right" to destroy another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

So it's a "right" to lose one's sense of self-control and risk one's self and others by behaving like a damn fool?!

People have died because of drunk drivers. Or have ended up in states where they might have preferred death. Drunk drivers deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and those they've injured or killed don't?

That's nuts.

Fair enough - you go practice what you preach. Get plastered, get behind the wheel, and pray a tree or cop finds you before a sober driver or a seat belt.

And, no, I refuse to click on that link. I'd rather drive drunk. (how's that for perspective)

[Lisa0825]

202. That is not the point at all.

Examples I gave were of stings in Dallas where undercover cops busted people for being drunk IN BARS, not driving, regardless of whether or not they had other ways home, assuming guilt. They even busted people in hotel bars who had rooms reserved at the hotels. Checkpoints unfairly assume guilt as well. Do you think that anyone who had half a beer should go to jail if they drive? That very well could happen at a checkpoint. Not everyone is all that coordinated, and when you mix that with extreme nervousness for being subjected to the test, it would be easy to fail.

NO ONE thinks drunks should drive. The question is should we all be assumed guilty until proven innocent, and should such tactics as universal roadblocks be allowed.

[naaman fletcher]

207. no.. you obviously didn't read the article

Nobody is saying you have a right to drive drunk. Just saying that you should have constitutional protections as with every law.

Should those suspected of murder have constitutional rights? People have died from that. How about rape? Robbery? Terrorism?


So why are you against those suspected of DUI having constitutional rights?

[gollygee]

312. This is completely illogical

They don't just pull over drunk drivers. If they did, that wouldn't be an issue and there would be no thread. This is about sobriety checkpoints, where they pull over every single driver and test everyone whether there is reason to believe they've been drinking or not.

[midnight]

208. Great topic. You know exactly what you are talking about.

[depakid]

211. These folks are nothing more than a vigilante group out for personal vengence

not caring one iota about anything else.

MADD represente the very worst of America- the same sort of psyche that brought the country torture.

[ismnotwasm]

212. Oh for fuck's sake

Risks and benefits Dude.

I fucking hate drunk drivers. I think every one should bypass any kind of treatment, AA, SOS, RA, puke therapy psychotherapy, whatever therapy and go straight to fucking jail for a year, first time no exceptions. 5 years second offense. Let all the pot smokers and distributors out to make room for these assholes.


Goddam lucky I don't make the rules, now isn't it? I'd make MADD sound like a libertarian organization. Folks should be careful about opinions. As you can see, mine is a bit over the top

[naaman fletcher]

219. that's nice..

Is there anybody here arguing that drunk driving is ok or that they like drunk drivers? Who are you arguing against?

If you read the link before posting, you would know the issue is about whether or not there should be a DUI exception to the constitution.

We give suspected murderers and rapists constitutional rights, why not suspected DUIers?

It actually goes beyond that.. they don't even have to suspect it in order to stop, detain, and search you, and they won't let you call a lawyer.

What other crimes should the constitution be suspended for?

Or did you just not read the link?

[ismnotwasm]

338. Yes, I read the article

In light of all the serious threats going on to our constitution, this is more of a magician's argument about which hat is the ball under-to use a poor analogy- with an manipulative emotional context.


If it was designed for discussion, I'd discuss it. It's not. It's designed for arguement. I hate that shit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

223. Fuck Drunk Drivers. Lock Em All The Fuck Up And Take Away Their Licenses.

Not sure what you're defending, but if someone is caught DUI they should rot in fucking hell as far as I'm concerned. And that article in the blog is one of the downright dumbest fucking things I've ever seen. Downright moronic.

[naaman fletcher]

226. are you arguing against someone?

Does anyone here disagree with you? If you want to know what we are arguing about, you can try reading the link.

[kiva]

227. Thanks for posting this.

Reading the thread, it's pretty easy to see who actually read the linked article and who just looked at the headline of the OP. :crazy:

[Two Americas]

234. rock solid

The author's case is absolutely solid. I am surprised that there is any controversy about it here.

To those who hate "drunk drivers" - are they all teetotalers? - and who want to prevent deaths from automobile accidents, the author says that the current program is not stopping the problem. I think he is right.

Whether or not "driving is a privilege" the Bill of Rights certainly is not. Did anyone read the article?

[Pithlet]

236. Yes. I found it extremely biased.

The author, IMO, did not present a compelling case that the current laws do not stop the problem. I didn't think it was compelling at all. It obviously argued from emotion. There were times in the article where it was obvious he omitted some facts, and twisted others. I was not impressed. I just ranted about it at lenght in another post in this thread :)

[Two Americas]

237. ok

Sorry, I can't see any controversy here, anything to debate. No matter how grand the cause, no matter how desirable the goal, it does not justify dispensing with the Bill of Rights.

Are we to believe that this problem, and only this problem, justifies suspending the Bill of Rights?

[Pithlet]

239. I think it's perfectly arguable that drunk driving laws do not suspend the bill of rights.

Don't drink alcohol, get in the car and drive. How is that a suspension of a bill of rights? Granted, no one's rights should ever be trampled on, and that includes people suspected of and being arrested for drunk driving. No argument from me there. But if you and anyone else asserts that drunk driving laws, in and of themselves, are a suspension of the bill of rights, then I say hogwash. Of course, there can be debate on what kinds of laws, how far they should go, etc. But no. I don't believe we should allow unfettered access to our roadways to drunk drivers. If that makes me on par with a MADD zealot, so be it. But suspension of Bill of Rights? Hardly.

[Two Americas]

243. sorry

I don't see anything to debate here.

Your argument defeats itself - "do or don't do this or the other and then the Bill of Rights still exists."

The Bill of Rights is not conditional on anything. If it were, it wouldn't be rights.

We "allow unfettered access" everywhere to people who may at some point in the future commit a crime.

People who have been drinking may well be more likely to assault someone while walking, to abuse their family. Why not apply the same logic you are using for driving to everything?

Why not have police stop at every home and take people to the station and book them if they seem drunk? Wouldn't that stop domestic violence?

[Pithlet]

244. You've got to be kidding me.

You actually think it's perfectly fine to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk? That there should be no law against that? That the Bill of Rights actually extends to that?

There's no discussing anything with you if I'm indeed reading you correctly.

[Two Americas]

245. say what?

Where did I say that it is perfectly fine to get behind the wheel drunk?

[Pithlet]

247. When you told me that my insisting that drunk driving laws were not a violation of the Bill of Right

were a violation of the Bill of Rights.

[Two Americas]

252. I see

You said - "You actually think it's perfectly fine to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk? That there should be no law against that? That the Bill of Rights actually extends to that?"

I replied that I had never said that I think it's perfectly fine to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk.

The Bill of Rights extends to everything.

I am not seeing the connection - that because something is wrong, therefore the Bill of Rights does not extend to it.

How are the two connected? Murder is wrong, and illegal, but that does not cause the Bill of Rights to be suspended.

[Pithlet]

253. See, and I never said the Bill of Rights doesn't extend to drunk driving.

:shrug:

[Pithlet]

246. I'm sorry, but no.

The Bill of Rights does not allow us to endanger other people. It simply doesn't. Sometimes a crime can consist of an act that might actually endanger another person without actually harming someone. It's okay to make something a crime, even if it's something that mike actually hurt another person, but doesn't. You know that, right?

[Two Americas]

248. the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights doesn't "allow" anything.

This is not about what is or isn't or should or should not be a crime.

[Pithlet]

249. Ugh.

I'm sorry I used the word "allow" It's late. Give me a break, okay? Do you actually want to discuss something with me, or do you want to belittle me?

[Two Americas]

250. oh. no, sorry

Didn't mean to belittle you. Sorry it came off that way.

[Pithlet]

251. It's okay. I didn't mean to be so touchy.

Look. I'm all about the Bill of Rights. My whole point is, is it really about the laws and are they really bad, or is it just typical misapplied justice, the way it always works regardless of the law being applied. In other words, I wonder if it isn't just cops just being cops and the justice system just being the justice system. Because I don't think laws saying don't drink so your blood alcohol level is above point whatever is a violation of anyone's rights, nor is requiring a test on site with probable cause. I don't think we need to be getting rid of those laws, and I don't think evidence of cops being jerks, or courts misapplying the evidence, or overzealous advocacy groups means the laws are bad and we need to weaken them or get rid of them. I want evidence that the actual laws are bad. So far, I just see evidence it's some problems mostly with cops, and possibly with breathalysers. I think, as always, we need to be constantly vigilant about our Bill of Rights. That protects us in so many ways. We have to make sure all laws are applied evenly, regardless of what those laws are about. We have to make sure that everyone's rights are always protected. People who are suspected and accused of drunk driving do have the same rights as everyone else, and they shouldn't be trampled on. But there do need to be some laws to protect the public and they do have to be enforced. It can be done without trampling on a person's rights. We just have to be vigilant.

[Two Americas]

330. the debate is about enforcement

This has nothing to do with whether drinking is good or bad or any of the rest of that - the dangers, etc.

The article, and the debate here are about the authorities violating the Bill of Rights.

By the way, I am not a drinker, and experienced a terrible tragedy in my family at the hands of a drunk driver, so I am not unsympathetic to the angry and vengeful attitudes people are expressing on this thread.

Lost my connection last night, didn't mean to abandon you in the midst of the discussion.

[Pithlet]

348. No. The article claims that the laws themselves have to change

The article and the OP and others defending it basically claim that the laws were pressed into existence by an overzealous group that doesn't care about our rights. The very existence of these laws are a threat to our constitutional rights. But no one has been able to show me where the actual laws themselves are a constitutional violation, here. Yes, I do think there are problems with how law is enforced in our country. We do have to be constantly mindful of our rights, and ever vigilant that our rights are being upheld. My point is that is not solely a DUI issue. The very existence of DUI laws aren't the issue, here. I don't think MADD's existence, however abhorrent some may find them, ha cresated this vortex of of rights being sucked down the drain. I think the term "DUI exception to the constitution" is just over the top hyperbole. I think people wringing their hands over the idea that DUI laws are just sucking away are rights are the flip side of MADD and have lost all perspective. Yes, MADD is a powerful special interest group that doesn't necessarily have the Bill of Rights as its most important agenda. I'm not a member of MADD for good reason. But there are a lot of groups that do.

[Two Americas]

355. yes and no

The article is talking about laws written about enforcement methods. The author does not argue against there being any laws against drunk driving.

It is not the case that we must choose between either not having any laws about drunk driving or we must accept enforcement that violates the Bill of Rights.

Here are the problems with the current enforcement model from a practical standpoint.

As I said, I have had a drunk driving tragedy hit close to home. In that case, I am convinced that the person intentionally killed the victim, using a car. Whether the person was drunk or sober is not relevant to that, in my opinion. However, since the driver was drunk, they were charged as a drunk driver, not as a murderer. As soon as it is known that the person was drunk, there is a presumption that whatever they did with their car was therefore an "accident." The crime of "being drunk" supersedes the crime of murdering someone. I think this scenario is more common than we might imagine, but in any case it illustrates the problem with the way we look at this issue.

Drunkenness makes it more likely that a person will commit a crime. Making drunkenness itself a crime diverts attention and law enforcement efforts away from stopping crime. Do the victims care whether or not the perpetrator was drunk? If you murder someone with a gun, it doesn't matter whether you were drunk or sober. The murder is the crime, not the drunkenness.

At the other end of the spectrum, the current system almost assures that people who are not actually guilty of anything, who are not legally drunk, being denied due process and suffering punishment.

The third problem is that most of the carnage is caused by a small handful of drinkers, let alone drivers. The broader the scope of investigation, the more people are viewed with suspicion, the more dispersed funds and man power are. This cripples our ability to apprehend the few who are the cause of most of the problems.

we have to ask ourselves this question - are we more interested in protecting potential innocent victims, or in punishing people we do not approve of? If we want to protect innocent victims, provide public transportation for people who have been drinking. Let the cops, or the authorities drive the drunks home one way or another. Many people would object to that, though, because they would say we are wasting tax payer money catering to a bunch of drunks. But the same people have no problem spending yet more tax payer money into dragnets and kangaroo courts, putting all drivers under suspicion, making everyone guilty until proved innocent, and shredding the Bill of Rights in the process. That reveals the true agenda. Protecting the innocent is merely an excuse for expressing an authoritarian and punitive point of view and making public policy from that, it is not really about protecting innocent people.

That punitive and authoritarian approach puts innocent people at more risk, not less.

[Pithlet]

404. Yes, he heavily implies the laws shouldn't be there.

If you read his paragraph about recidivists, and how they aren't affected by laws, his implication is that DUI laws really don't do anything to affect them, and since they're the real dangers on the road (according to him), the laws don't do anything. It's in the same part of the article where he talks about the numbers being "manipulated" about the number of deaths being reduced since the laws were enacted. More to the point though, the OP and many people in this thread are clearly interpreting it to mean that it's MADD and the laws THEY got passed that are the problem. And I think that's the impression the author meant to give. That's how he set the article up. Big bad MADD! The laws they got passed! And now we're all in danger!

Look, I've always supported public transportation. And I would support free transpiration for anyone who's had a few too many. Absolutely. But not everyone would avail themselves of such a service anyway, even if we didn't live in a world full of morons who wouldn't support such a program. They wouldn't want to leave their car in "that part of town" for instance. So, we'd still have to have some laws on the books that say "You can't drink i you're impaired". As much as you may find punitive laws distasteful, they're necessary for a functioning society. Not everyone has good intentions.

Yes, some people have no problem with the guilty until proven innocent mentality. That's why we remain vigilant and fight whenever anyone's rights are violated. When someone's rights are violated, their case should be thrown out of court. That happens just as often when the law they're accused of breaking is a perfectly good one. Enforcement often is the problem.

[Two Americas]

405. ok

So maybe the enforcement-punishment model doesn't work to reduce the threat to the public from recidivists. Let's talk about a new approach.

[Pithlet]

408. It doesn't? Where's the proof of that?

It certainly isn't in the article of the OP. For one thing, I don't buy for a second that recidivists are the only dangers on the road, or are even statistically the only ones that matter. Why would they be? If I go out right now and get trashed and drive drunk for the first time, how am I any less of a danger at the moment then someone who's done it many times? Of course, statistically speaking for the individual, the more times they drink and drive, the likelier they're going to kill someone. But each and every time an individual gets behind the wheel drunk, they're endangering themselves and others. Each and every person out on the road drunk right now is a danger, and the recidivists are no more or less dangerous at the moment than the first timers. Plenty of people who have killed someone have done it on a first offense. If the new approach is to get rid of drunk driving laws? No thanks. No sense in going back to the way things were before those laws were on the books. Drunk driving deaths were a lot more common then. Notice he didn't provide his own numbers when he claimed that The National Highway Safety Commission, that group he ridiculously lumped in with MADD, manipulated the numbers to make it look like the declined by half (half!) since the laws were enacted. Man, that's some hella manipulation on their part. Maybe they're in cahoots with MADD. It's a conspiracy! Seriously, though. He didn't provide any numbers that show that deaths haven't declined because they probably don't exist. Crack down on rogue cops, and work to make our justice system work better for all accused, not just people accused of driving under the influence. That's how we fix it.

[Two Americas]

409. whatever

Your view will no doubt prevail, since the public so loves scapegoats and unleashing law enforcement on "them" to "solve problems," and I can't see anyway to get a discussion going with you about this. There is no give in your view of this, no room for doubt. Hard to talk with someone who has their mind made up so completely and is so zealous about a cause.

I was hoping you would at least be curious about alternative ways to look at this. But you are on a crusade against drunks, and merely try to win the debate on that rather than seriously discuss the problem.

I personally would rather take my chances getting killed by a drunk driver than live in a police state. There is a far greater risk of and from the latter than there is from the former.

You say "each and every time an individual gets behind the wheel drunk, they're endangering themselves and others. Each and every person out on the road drunk right now is a danger." Stopping that problem, as you have defined the problem, will require ever-escalating monitoring and surveillance, way out of proportion to the actual risk. But hey, go for it. Go get 'em.

What you are expressing reflects the general mood among the public, a willingness to see people as guilty until proved innocent, to place the burden on the people rather than on the authorities and to bring us all under massive surveillance. It is all for our own good, of course - that has always been the excuse for supporting and accepting a police state. We know they are out there, goes the thinking, whether they are drunks or illegal aliens or whatever, and we are all at such terrible risk. We need the police to monitor the entire public and ferret out those criminals - so we can be safe.

Let me reiterate that I am a non-drinker, and my family suffered a tragedy at the hands of a drunk driver. But I do not want you, MADD or the cops protecting me. I fear you more than I do the drunks.

I need to pinch myself. People here are defending roadblocks and checkpoints? Whew. That is disturbing.

[Pithlet]

410. That's not true. I'm on no crusade. You are misunderstanding me.

You are doing what the guy who wrote that article is. You've decided I'm not on your side, so I'm automatically some radical authoritarian crusader pushing draconian law. But I haven't pushed for or defended one single law. I haven't proposed one single measure. All I've done is said that we need to defend people's rights, and go after rogue cops. Oh, how horrible of me!

Look, we have serious issues. People's rights are violated all the time. It isn't just DUI laws. In fact, DUI laws are small potatoes. You want to know what stupid, draconian laws pushed by stupid politicians just looking for votes are? Crap like those stupid three strikes laws. THAT'S the sort of stupid crap we need to be fighting. Crap like the death penalty. I'm sorry, but I don't think laws saying "You can't drive drunk" are all that bad. So sue me. Laws that end up throwing people in jail for live after they've shoplifted a pack of gum? Bad. Laws that put people to death because their defense lawyer fell asleep? Bad. Laws that put 13 year olds in prison with adults for life? Bad. Laws that say your blood alcohol level can't be above a certain level? Please. You want to make me out to be some sort of authoritarian jerk because I support something like that? Fine. Whatever. You want to think the article in the OP is some sort of brilliant cause worth fighting for? Fine. I'm going to stick to fighting for rights in general. DUI accused will benefit as well as everyone else. I stick up for every single person accused for any crime, no matter what that crime is. Because the problem IS enforcement. *NOT* MADD. *THAT* was my point. *NOT* crusading against drunk drivers. I was merely trying to point out to you how the laws themselves weren't all that bad. I WASNT trying to scapegoat drunk drivers.

[Two Americas]

411. sorry

I added to my post while you were posting.

[datasuspect]

394. if drunk driving is a crime

it is the burden of the state to prove it.

we have this small thing called the "presumption of innocence" in this country.

breathalyzer tests should not be accepted without any further thought as iron clad proof - they are often flawed.

[Pithlet]

401. Argh! I don't get why people think I'm all about the breathalyzer, here.

I'm not married to the idea of one single test. I'm fine with it being a blood test. I will just say this again. My whole point is the article above is a slanted propaganda piece that is no different than anything MADD would put out. The article's contention that MADD is some all powerful entity that is directly responsible for sucking away all our constitutional rights, and that DUI laws are exceptions to our constitutional rights are all just excessive hyperbole on a level with anything MADD would put out. I'm not saying I agree with every single DUI law on the books. I'm not saying I think breathalysers are the best thing since sliced bread. I'm just saying that reading this article and jumping to the conclusion that our rights are in jeopardy and we need to strike DUI laws from the books and round up members of MADD with our pitchforks might just be jumping the gun a little. I'm saying that the guy who wrote the article is the flip side of MADD. He represents an extreme agenda that is counter to MADDs, and I think people need to keep that in mind when forming their own opinions on this issue. My whole point.

[Blecht]

235. Nothing to argue about there

Thanks for posting. MADD is a horrible organization -- I'm glad that somebody had the guts to say it.

[gaspee]

256. Any asshole who drives after they've been drinking

Deserves everything they get. I'm for jail time for first offenders. If you drink and drive, you are a selfish fucking asshole. I wouldn't give a shit if drunk drivers only killed themselves, but driving drunk is like shooting a gun into a crowd.

Don't like it? Don't drive drunk. Period.

I was almost killed Christmas morning, 2005 when I was hit head on by a drunk, uninsured driver. That selfish fuckwad got away pretty much scot-free.

Jail time and losing your license for ten years is my idea of a perfect punishment for 1st offenders.

[tkmorris]

276. Agreed

Sort of at least. I think you are just a WEE bit angry at drunk drivers, so I'm not sure I'd agree with you on every aspect but.... agreed.

The problem is in how we treat people who have done nothing wrong.

[tkmorris]

261. Instituting draconian measures on ground of "public safety"

Is EXACTLY what the Bush administration has been doing for the last 8 years. Don't any of you otherwise good DU'ers realize this? The "exceptions" to the Constitution the article mentions are paralleled by such things as not allowing people on planes with bottles of shampoo bigger than 4 oz. Requiring them to subject themselves to cavity searches or worse when going through airport security. Confiscating laptops when returning from overseas, with no justification given. Going door to door confiscating guns during emergencies (Katrina). Free speech zones. They've been treating ALL of us as criminals for years now, aren't any of you getting sick of it?

The author has a point.

[Alexander]

271. MADD = Prohibitionists

Even the group's founder left because crazy people who want to ban alcohol took over the organization.

[dysfunctional press]

272. if you don't want to take a breathalyzer, don't drive a motor vehicle.

there's NO gaurantee of a right to drive an automobile in the constitution. when you obtain a driver's license & use it- you are agreeing to ALL of the conditions put forth by the government of the people to maintain safer roads for everyone that utilizes the privilege to be driving on them.

nodody HAS to drive to get where they are going- walk, bike, skate, jog, scoot, ride a horse, take a cab, take a bus, snowshoe, ski, whatever it takes.

BUT- if you want to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads- you gotta go by the rules.

[tkmorris]

275. If you don't want a speculum up your ass, don't fly on planes

What a silly argument.

[dysfunctional press]

283. what is so silly about the facts?

:shrug:

[taterguy]

278. nodody HAS to drive to get where they are going-

Are you posting while intoxicated?

[dysfunctional press]

281. not at all...why?

:shrug:

[taterguy]

284. Because cars are generally regarded as a necessity

It's not something I agree with but that seems to be the consensus.

[dysfunctional press]

285. people who consider that so are mistaken. cars are NOT a "necessity" by any means.

saying that cars are a necessity REALLY is a silly argument.

[taterguy]

287. I guess you've forgotten all the gas price threads from a few months ago

Or maybe you just enjoy being contrarian.

[dysfunctional press]

288. i don't read every thread, not by a long shot...

regardless- cars are NOT a necessity. human beings survived quite nicley without them for eons...and MANY people in the united states do just fine, and quite well in fact, without them...doesn't sound like much of a "necessity"...:shrug:

people who think that cars are a necessity are probably the same kinds of shit-for-brains that think that driving a car on public roads is a "right", instead of the privilege that it is.

[taterguy]

289. I guess you've never had to transport several small children to a bar using a bicycle

Not everyone can live the life you lead

[dysfunctional press]

290. why would anyone have to transport several small children to a bar?

:shrug:

[taterguy]

292. Some people can't afford babysitters

Must be nice to be so privileged.

[dysfunctional press]

294. if they can't afford a baby-sitter, they probably shouldn't be going to a bar.

and it's definitely not a necessity to do so.

[taterguy]

297. If you had several small children wouldn't you want to drink?

Try walking a mile in someone else's shoes sometime

[cabluedem]

304. Yeah, no one seems to want to bring that issue up. nt

[Alexander]

279. Sounds like someone needs to brush up on the Fourth Amendment.

Or maybe you like to pick and choose which constitutional amendments you support?

[dysfunctional press]

282. if you don't like the rules of the road- you have other options...

driving motor vehicles on public roads is a privilege granted those that that come of age, pass the test, and go by the rules.

is that REALLY that difficult for some people to understand? :shrug:

[naaman fletcher]

327. why?

Because the gov't says so? Since it is a prvilege, what if they also said that if you drive you had to submit to full searches of your car for contraband? Or that your car had to be fitted with a device that maps your every movement?

Would you be ok with that because, hey, its a prvilege, dont drive if you dont like it?

[dysfunctional press]

362. because we as a society have decided that we want safe roads.

and we have decided what rules we want applied.

[Alexander]

370. We have also decided that we have a Constitution.

And despite what you're advocating, the Fourth Amendment is not optional.

The Eighteenth Amendment died, as it deserved to.

I'm sure you prefer the Eighteenth Amendment over the Fourth.

[dysfunctional press]

374. i'm not a prohibitionist by any means...

"And despite what you're advocating, the Fourth Amendment is not optional."

it would seem that society and the supreme court disagree with that notion when it comes to dui.
the alcohol stays in the system only so long, so the breathalyzer must be used as quickly as possible to determine the bac at the time of the stop.

if you have a better solution- market it.

[Alexander]

382. Very well. I'm curious to see what you think of the ideas I proposed...

...in post #381.

The way I see it, being "tough on drunk drivers" is like being "tough on crime" or "tough on drugs". It sounds nice and catchy, but ultimately does little to solve the problem.

[Alexander]

351. I follow the rules. But tossing someone in jail for Nyquil is ridiculous.

For the record, I don't drive under the influence and I've never been arrested.

But Arizona's "zero tolerance" laws mean any BAC gets you weeks in Tent City, even .001.

Additionally, a police officer can just claim they "smelled alcohol" and you go to jail. They don't have to prove it or anything.

Are you really that anxious to give up your rights to the police?

[dysfunctional press]

363. nyquil has a lot of alcohol in it- so no, it isn't ridiculous.

if those are arizona's laws, then i'd be sure to follow them if i lived or drove there.

zero tolerance for drinkers sounds like a fine idea to me- i do not drink alcohol.

[Alexander]

369. So you think people belong in jail for a .001 BAC?

That is beyond unreasonable.

No data or study of any kind suggests anyone is impaired in the slightest with a BAC that low.

Heck, you can get a .001 BAC from the natural cholesteral and other alcohols in your body.

"zero tolerance for drinkers sounds like a fine idea to me- i do not drink alcohol."

Here's a fine example of why you're a member of the Prohibitionist wing of the Democratic Party.

[cabluedem]

372. Quite true. Some humans are alcohol factories. One man in Japan didn't drink but was constantly drun...

due to bacteria in his gut that made alcohol out of his food that his system could not combat.

[dysfunctional press]

376. i'm not a prohibitionist at all when it comes to alcohol...

i used to LOVE a nice scotch...or five. but, due to the onset of an autoimmune disorder that gave me an arthritic spine and chronic pain, i'll most likely be taking these high daily dosages of opiates for the rest of my life. it's been over ten years so far...and since i have an affinity my liver, and would like to keep it with me for the duration- alcohol is right out. my wife enjoys wine almost daily, and/or beer or a cocktail(s) if she so prefers. i don't care what or where people imbibe anything they choose- as long as they don't endanger anyone else by doing so.

as to the .001 bac thing- yes, that seems a little ridiculous- and if it's the actual law in arizona, it's just another reason why i prefer to avoid places where the southern fundy mentality is so freely applied to laws and politics.

i am generally against zero-tolerance policies- but i'm even more adamantly opposed to drunken drivers.

if you have a better solution to the problem- we'd be glad to hear it.

[Alexander]

381. Fair enough. But there are alternatives to this "zero tolerance" lunacy.

"as to the .001 bac thing- yes, that seems a little ridiculous- and if it's the actual law in arizona, it's just another reason why i prefer to avoid places where the southern fundy mentality is so freely applied to laws and politics."

I'm glad we can agree on this.

"if you have a better solution to the problem- we'd be glad to hear it."

No one thing is going to solve the problem. That itself is a big problem - Americans want one-sentence answers to complex problems, and that's simply impossible.

But here are some ideas that I think would help.

-A nationwide public transit system, including subways, trains, light rail, buses, and so forth. It needs to be affordable, it needs to connect every major city to its surrounding suburbs, and it needs to run an hour past when the bars close in every state.

-A graduated penalty system for driving under the influence, based on BAC and how dangerously the suspect is driving.

For example, someone with a low BAC who is driving normally could be taken home in a police car and made to walk to get their car the next day. Someone with a BAC over the legal limit who is swerving or breaking traffic laws, on the other hand, deserves arrest, fines, license suspension, a breathalyzer on their car, etc. Throw the book at the real offenders.

-A DUI "point system" based on this same penalty system, where if someone reaches a certain number of points, their license is revoked - for life. One accident while under the influence, even if no one is hurt, and you lose your license. Forever. The driver with the low BAC who got taken home in a police car would be penalized a point or two, with the knowledge that keeping up this behavior would result in permanent loss of his or her license.

-Raise the driving age to 18 and lower the drinking age to 18. People's motor skills are generally bad at 16-17, and I've seen too many 18-20 year olds do stupid things with alcohol because they had never been exposed to it before. Plus, the fact that it's illegal for them adds a certain "danger" element that many teenagers find appealing.

In Europe, where families often drink wine at home with their children, there aren't as many problems with binge drinking, DUIs or alcohol poisoning, because by the time most people reach adulthood, they've already had alcohol and don't see what the fuss is all about.

Those are just a few ideas on how to deal with the issue of drunk driving, and some of them have already proven to be effective.

[dysfunctional press]

384. lowering the drinking age is a bad idea. we were there once.

you said it yourself: "I've seen too many 18-20 year olds do stupid things with alcohol because they had never been exposed to it before." and yet, you want to hand them the car keys and expose them to alcohol for the first time- both on the same day...and you don't see a problem with that?

A nationwide public transit system, including subways, trains, light rail, buses, and so forth. It needs to be affordable, it needs to connect every major city to its surrounding suburbs, and it needs to run an hour past when the bars close in every state.

you really need to go into more detail on how such a system would be funded, and yet remain "affordable"? pus- i don't think that you really understand or appreciate just how big this country really is, in regard to such a nationwide system, which would take decades to put in place- if people even wanted it, which is doubtful. it does NOTHING to solve the current problem.

as far as the "point system" is concerned- there already is a system that increases the penalties for each successive dui...and it doesn't really need to be changed, unless perhaps to make it harsher.

For example, someone with a low BAC who is driving normally could be taken home in a police car and made to walk to get their car the next day.

because of course there's nothing cops would rather do than play chauffer to "tipsy" assholes...and what happens when people get stopped 20, 30, 40 miles from home? :shrug:

sorry- but it seems to me that you just want to molly-coddle the "social drinkers", to the point of turning cops into cabbies, and i don't think that too many people, and especially the police are going to be too enthusiastic about such a system.

[Alexander]

385. Europe is currently there, and they don't have our drunk driving problem.

Perhaps it's because they treat their responsible adults like responsible adults instead of children.

"and yet, you want to hand them the car keys and expose them to alcohol for the first time- both on the same day...and you don't see a problem with that?"

If they get drunk behind the wheel, punish them for that.

Not every person over 21 drives drunk, and it's silly to assume every 18 year old would.

I think the reason there's so much binge drinking among teenagers is that they aren't really educated enough about alcohol and its effects.

Education in school consists of not much more than "Alcohol is bad! Drugs are bad! Don't do them!", without stating all the facts about these things, and so when these kids grow up and experiment for the first time (and people will experiment, whether we want them to or not), they are totally unprepared for how to keep themselves and others safe while doing do.

"you really need to go into more detail on how such a system would be funded, and yet remain "affordable"?"

Okay, tax luxury cars and gas guzzlers. Use the revenue to create public transit. Charge a small fee for people who use it. Does that sound good?

"i don't think that you really understand or appreciate just how big this country really is, in regard to such a nationwide system, which would take decades to put in place- if people even wanted it, which is doubtful."

Amtrak is the closest thing we have. It's not perfect, but if it were expanded, that would help.

"it does NOTHING to solve the current problem."

Wrong. Accessible public transit helps prevent DUIs, and there is statistical data to back up this assertion.

Particularly in suburbs and rural areas where one must drive several miles to get anywhere, often driving is the only option for people.

There will always be drunk drivers, and the repeat offenders will need to be kept off the road by any means necessary, but there will be fewer of them if people can easily get a cab, catch a bus or hop on a train instead of taking the many risks that come with driving under the influence.

"as far as the "point system" is concerned- there already is a system that increases the penalties for each successive dui...and it doesn't really need to be changed, unless perhaps to make it harsher."

I think it should be both harsher to the most egregious offenders and more lenient to first-time offenders who have extremely low BACs. I don't see why this is a problem; we already agreed that a person with a .001 BAC doesn't deserve the same punishment as someone who is over the .008 "legal limit" (a term which is really meaningless in Arizona).

"because of course there's nothing cops would rather do than play chauffer to "tipsy" assholes"

There are even other options besides that. A cop could take the person's keys away for the night, call a cab service, and leave. Or something else entirely. I just think it's ridiculous to throw people in jail when in many cases they technically aren't even breaking the law, which is what happens now.

"...and what happens when people get stopped 20, 30, 40 miles from home?"

That's what public transit should be for.

"sorry- but it seems to me that you just want to molly-coddle the "social drinkers", to the point of turning cops into cabbies, and i don't think that too many people, and especially the police are going to be too enthusiastic about such a system."

Actually I think some people need to be locked up for life for repeat DUIs. There was a New Hampshire man I read about who keeps getting caught driving drunk (he's on his 15th arrest or so now), even though his license was taken away. In extreme cases like that, throw away the key.

But not all people are like that man, and you have to realize that to engage in a serious conversation here.

First of all, I suggested much more than "turning cops into cabbies", and it's a sign of poor reading skills that you would even attempt to distill my post into that absurd strawman.

Second, many who end up driving drunk or even "tipsy" don't do it because they want to, it's because they have no easily accessible or affordable alternative.

Third, in regards to what the police want, most police officers just love the War on Drugs, and they love to sweep cases of unmistakable brutality under the rug. Should we base all of our major policies on what cops want?

In the end, people who drive are responsible for their own behavior, but I think a lot of people would be persuaded to use public transit to get home if it were available in their area. And they would stay off the roads because there's now an easy way to get home and come back to get their car in the morning. Don't believe me, just look at Europe. They've implemented many of these ideas across the pond, and they similarly don't have the problems we do with drunk driving.

At least I'm offering ideas. What do you propose? More of the same? Because it's not working, and people are giving up their rights and getting nothing in return.

[dysfunctional press]

387. guess what? the majority of the people in this country favour HARSHER penalties.

if you don't like that, perhaps you should consider moving to your beloved europe. (but you might want to chose a specific country, as the laws can and do vary from one to the other)

Not every person over 21 drives drunk, and it's silly to assume every 18 year old would.

you yourself said that you've seen 18-20 year olds do stupid things when they first get exposed to alcohol- and yet you want to make driving and drinking for a teenager legal on the same day...why?

"i don't think that you really understand or appreciate just how big this country really is, in regard to such a nationwide system, which would take decades to put in place- if people even wanted it, which is doubtful."

Amtrak is the closest thing we have. It's not perfect, but if it were expanded, that would help.

"it does NOTHING to solve the current problem."

Wrong. Accessible public transit helps prevent DUIs, and there is statistical data to back up this assertion.

so- i guess that you expect someone to wave a magic wand and make this nationwide mass transit system appear overnight?
as i mentioned- the system you envision would take decades to put in place- and that's why it does NOTHING to solve the current problems.

I think it should be both harsher to the most egregious offenders and more lenient to first-time offenders who have extremely low BACs.

most states don't do anything if the bac is below .008 even though lower levels have been shown to impair driving abilities.

"I just think it's ridiculous to throw people in jail when in many cases they technically aren't even breaking the law, which is what happens now.

where does it happen, and in what ways?

First of all, I suggested much more than "turning cops into cabbies", and it's a sign of poor reading skills that you would even attempt to distill my post into that absurd strawman.

here are YOUR words: "For example, someone with a low BAC who is driving normally could be taken home in a police car and made to walk to get their car the next day."

how else is one supposed to interpret THAT? :shrug:

Second, many who end up driving drunk or even "tipsy" don't do it because they want to, it's because they have no easily accessible or affordable alternative.

i don't think that i've EVER been in a bar that didn't have a taxi service number available for a ride home...if someone can afford to drink, they can afford a cab home- if they can't, they should probably skip the drink.

Third, in regards to what the police want, most police officers just love the War on Drugs

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

police DEPARTMENTS might "love" the war on drugs for the money it brings- but MOST police officers think KNOW that it's a farce.

you. are. unreal.

thanks for the laughs...:hi:

:rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl:

[datasuspect]

398. are you proposing that the rules of the road

supersede your fundamental civil rights?

[datasuspect]

397. the constitution of the united states is the law of the land

the bill of rights are amendments to that document.

the 4th amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

that is "the rules."

being in a motor vehicle does NOT automatically place you outside of the United States where this rule doesn't apply.

although that is what has happened in practice.

[dysfunctional press]

400. it's not an unreasonable search- and the supreme court has agreed.

when you take to the public roads, you give your consent to submit to a breathalyzer as a condition for having the privilege of having a driver's license.

pretty simple stuff, really.

i would think that it would be more of a 5th amendment issue anyway- when you take a breathalyzer and fail- you are in essence being forced to "testify" against yourself.

[Pithlet]

407. Unreasonable being the key word, here.

Cop sees you weaving all over the road, then it isn't an unreasonable search to pull you over for some sort of test to determine sobriety. There's probably cause, for one thing. The fact that alcohol only stays in the blood for so long, so some sort of test has to be administered on a timely basis is another, so it can't wait for any sort of hearing, so it's reasonable that it has to be done on site. Not at all the same thing as merely knocking on your door for no reason at all and immediately demanding to search your house. That would be an unreasonable search, and would be unconstitutional.

[WolverineDG]

301. There are many exceptions to the Constitution

some of them widely approved of on DU by the very same people who whine about the PATRIOT act.

dg

[Alexander]

352. Agreed. Some of the police state defenders here are ridiculous.

I see the movement to ban alcohol completely never really went away.

[aikoaiko]

309. IMHO, Police should be able to conduct check points, but drivers should be under NO obligation

to talk with the officer or identify oneself verbally or through documents unless they have demonstrated enough wrongdoing to warrant probable cause.

edited for clarity

[Kajsa]

310. Excuse me?

When someone is driving a quarter ton of steel, that can at low speeds
take out a bus stop and everyone sitting on it,

then it damn well is everyone's business to question the sobriety of the driver.

"and, I will tell you, by the way, that two glasses of wine will not, in any state, put you under the influence of alcohol "

Not true!

Take a small framed women weighing 110 lbs.,drinking on an empty stomach,
two large sized glasses of wine and YES you will have definite mental impairment.

Two of my neighbors, young party poodles who love to whoop it up nearly every weekend
have the common sense to take taxis when they go out.

That's what responsible drivers do.

[dysfunctional press]

313. responded to wrong post

oops

[leftofthedial]

333. I agree 100% with the article.

In this country, the "justice" system behaves as though there is a DUI exception to the Constitution.

The basis of current DUI law and enforcement is totally extra-Constitutional and should be overturned completely.

Bad, careless or reckless driving is illegal. Vehicular homicide is illegal. Speeding is illegal. Those laws apply without abrogating the Constitution. Once they are broken, probable cause exists to investigate and enforce DUI laws.

[leftstreet]

339. As usual, you cut through the bs and sum it up nicely

kudos

:thumbsup:

[fishwax]

340. plenty of familiar knee-jerk logic in some of these responses

If you oppose MADD, you must support drunk driving :crazy:

[NashVegas]

345. The Pro-MADD Crowd Make The Horrific Mistake Of Thinking They're Regulating Citizen Behavior

When in reality they are de-regulating the behavior of government entities and enabling the shredding of the US constitution.

Perhaps if more of them would serve in the military, it would get beat into their heads why they are sworn to protect and defend the US constitution, and why military people put their lives on the line in that cause.

[cbc5g]

368. Some of the worst things done in America have been done with the best intentions

Prohibition etc etc etc

[cabluedem]

371. Bingo! And who was behind "Prohibition"? Wifes of male drinkers, old folks, and non-drinkers...

Of course 13 years of the Prohibition of a chemical that is easily made, even in nature and in the human body itself, was a huge mistake to begin with, and it launched a huge new division of government, after it was overturned.

They go by the name of the BFTAE these days, but they are still a Department of the Treasury, which means taking your money, as is the norm these days in the US.

[JHB]

377. Just as a side note about presenting your argument....

Considering the number of people whom you've observed probably (in some cases obviously) didn't read the article, you might want to note for future reference that your OP doesn't exactly do a good job of representing the article either.

A little better focus on the actual arguments of the article woulkd have avoided a lot of the acrimony and tangential arguments generated in this thread.

[Blue_Tires]

383. hyperbole much?

"I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD."


I missed the part where MADD was actively involved in the writing, passing, and enforcement of laws in all 50 states, so his prodigious bile is already poorly aimed...It's like blaming the church for anti-abortion laws...

a shame, because in spite of his hard-line libertarian bent on this issue, he does bring up a few good points here and there (but I'm willing to bet he sits on his hands whenever the issue of DWB or racial profiling comes up)...I shake my head because he's totally committed (and not just to the issue) and there are at least 2 dozen personal liberty cases which rank higher...

[Marrah_G]

393. what a crock of shit.

[LynneSin]

395. You have got to be fucking kidding me

:eyes:

[datasuspect]

396. the level of proud arrogant stupidity and lack of reading comprehension in this thread is astounding

jesus fucking christ.

[lonestarnot]

399. This steaming pile. See spot run. Spot pooped on the rug.

[Trillo]

406. "REPORT DRUNK DRIVERS CALL 911"

I've never before seen that particular text in such an Orwellian light.

[suede1]

416. I recently had the opportunity to talk to a DUI lawyer from IL...

for a little bit. He said, "The DUI laws in Illinois have become draconian." He went into some more specific details, but some of the highlights that I remember now are as follows: (and forgive me if I am fuzzy on the exactness, it was just a conversation and not a legal consultation)

1) You have a better chance of getting acquitted of murder in IL than of DUI

2) You can have a conviction of numerous crimes expunged from your record, but in IL, a DUI is with you FOREVER. These crimes include drug possession (even with intent), murder, battery, and child molestation. Not to mention robbery, theft, forgery, etc..

3) This applies even to a first offense, regardless of if an accident of any sort occurred.

I don't think drunks should be driving.

I do think those accused of it should have rights and be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I also think better judgment should be used by our legal system when it comes to meting out punishments.