No refusal dui check points in tn.

[DaveS]

With this logic why not have TSA stationed in everyone's back yard and they can do a full blown cavity search and sobriety check before anyone gets in a car. Since after all, I just want to get to "point B" in one piece and the .gov should be allowed to do anything to ensure that.

Sir; when is the last time you got on a plane in your backyard? Huh? That was the subject. Airplanes, not cars.

With that logic, you should have to blow the tube before you leave the driveway, or get DUI checked before you get on a public street.

DaveS

Edited September 7, 2013 by DaveS

[npgunner]

Sir; when is the last time you got on a plane in your backyard? Huh? That was the subject. Airplanes, not cars.

DaveS

Your argument is that you want to "get to point B in one piece" and thus, searches at the airport are ok with you. I merely extended your logic to the automobile since I assume you have the same desire when driving?

[npgunner]

If its "ok" for the government to force you to submit to search when getting on a plane. I see no reason why you would disagree with searches before driving. After all, more people die in an average year in car accidents than do airplane crashes so if you really wanna do something about safety, lets start on the road?

[DaveS]

Your argument is that you want to "get to point B in one piece" and thus, searches at the airport are ok with you. I merely extended your logic to the automobile since I assume you have the same desire when driving?

I see your point. Since driving and flying are privileges that I enjoy, and if screenings helped keep my family safe, then so be it. I believe in my rights but not to the point where my whole life is jacked up worrying about such mundane things.

 

If searching you before you get on a plane, or take off in a car affords me the chance to get my family to point B safer, then so be it!

 

I accepted those facts the day I signed my drivers license, paid my money and put a tag on my car. Everything else is the easy part!

 

I've heard a bunch of folks whining on here about their rights ect, ect. I have yet to hear one of them say they would turn their D/L in to preserve their rights. If you don't want DUI checked, give up your license and walk every where!

 

Dave

[RobertNashville]

While the titles of this thread did specifically mention “DUI Checkpoints”, I think it worth keeping in mind that the Tennessee law in question (non-refusal of blood testing) does not apply ONLY to traffic checkpoints.

 

Anyway, while I’ve read many assertions that these checkpoints are an unconstitutional infringement of a citizen’s right to travel and an infringement of the 4^th amendment, I’ve yet to hear anyone make a convincing case for why that is actually true.  No one has even bothered to publish the rules such checkpoints must follow which per the NHTSA are:

 

(1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.

 

(2) The local district attorney's office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.

 

(3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.

 

(4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.

 

(5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations.

 

(6) As drivers approach the sobriety checkpoint, they should be able to see that the police are present. Usually, this is accomplished by starting the flashing light bars on the tops of police cruisers.

 

(7) If the police intend to send drivers to a test site for chemical testing, there must be an easy and fast route from the sobriety checkpoint to the test site.

 

(8) Police officers must be able to successfully manage the sobriety checkpoint without unreasonably halting the flow of traffic. They must use standardized procedures and follow the proper protocol for investigation.

 

(9) The public must be notified aggressively and well in advance of any sobriety checkpoint so that drivers can avoid them if necessary.

 

In addition to the above, police officers are expected to ask the drivers they stop for feedback as to the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint. Since the practice is intended as a public service, police officers are encouraged to be friendly and accommodating with drivers.

 

Others are free to disagree but as long as the above rules are followed, I fail to see how such checkpoints can reasonably be construed to be a violation of the right to be free from “unreasonable” search/seizure.  Can they be inconvenient? Yes. Are some officers not always as professional and courtious as they should be? Yes. But inconvenience or an occasional lack or courtsy (which is often just a response to a lack of respect/courtsy from the invonveniencded driver) does not, in my opinion, equal “unreasonable”.

 

It seems to me that what some of the posts in this and similar threads reflect is a general dislike and distrust (and sometimes outright hatred) of “government” and law enforcement as well as a bit of selfishness.  The distrust is profound enough that concepts such as “what is or isn’t unreasonable” don't even seem to be considered.  Selfish in that the safety of society at large seems to be completely ignored.

 

One of the basic obligations of government is to protect the citizens the government exists to serve  - as long as people chose to put others at extreme risk by driving drunk; the government has a right and a duty to act to counter that action so long as doing so isn’t a violation of individual rights…I don’t believe DUI checkpoints are a violation of those rights.
 

[Garufa]

Checkpoints bad.  Citizens do have the RIGHT, maybe not on paper but it's damn sure is a natural right,  to carry on their lives and go about from to and fro without government intervention and checking out said peoples  "just to make sure they're not doing anything bad".

 

Why is is thread still lingering?

[sigmtnman]

Drunk driving is illegal. When you are observed breaking the law the cops have PC to investigate and search. There doesn't need to be a victim.

Oh, no I get all that.  I'm just a believer that victimless crimes allow the state to infringe on our rights, with good intentions and to keep us "safe and secure".  It's a slippery slope. 

 

I'd rather something a bit more old school.  If you cause damage with your vehicle to another person, regardless of reason, you pay for the property replacement.  It would be eye for an eye for harm to another person after monetary compensation has been settled for property losses.  There really are no such things as accidents so the reason behind the "accident" is neither here nor there. 

 

I dunno.  No matter if it is a random or announced, a checkpoint is a checkpoint.  Whether to see if I'm permitted to operate my machinery on a public thoroughfare or if you've been having sexual relations with sheep, it impedes our travel and is a violation of our God given rights.  Yes, DaveS, I'm whining about those again.

 

 

 

 

God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. Captain, that is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave. ~ Stonewall Jackson

Edited September 8, 2013 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

While the titles of this thread did specifically mention “DUI Checkpoints”, I think it worth keeping in mind that the Tennessee law in question (non-refusal of blood testing) does not apply ONLY to traffic checkpoints.

 

Anyway, while I’ve read many assertions that these checkpoints are an unconstitutional infringement of a citizen’s right to travel and an infringement of the 4^th amendment, I’ve yet to hear anyone make a convincing case for why that is actually true.  No one has even bothered to publish the rules such checkpoints must follow which per the NHTSA are:

 

(1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.

 

(2) The local district attorney's office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.

 

(3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.

 

(4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.

 

(5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations.

 

(6) As drivers approach the sobriety checkpoint, they should be able to see that the police are present. Usually, this is accomplished by starting the flashing light bars on the tops of police cruisers.

 

(7) If the police intend to send drivers to a test site for chemical testing, there must be an easy and fast route from the sobriety checkpoint to the test site.

 

(8) Police officers must be able to successfully manage the sobriety checkpoint without unreasonably halting the flow of traffic. They must use standardized procedures and follow the proper protocol for investigation.

 

(9) The public must be notified aggressively and well in advance of any sobriety checkpoint so that drivers can avoid them if necessary.

 

In addition to the above, police officers are expected to ask the drivers they stop for feedback as to the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint. Since the practice is intended as a public service, police officers are encouraged to be friendly and accommodating with drivers.

 

Others are free to disagree but as long as the above rules are followed, I fail to see how such checkpoints can reasonably be construed to be a violation of the right to be free from “unreasonable” search/seizure.  Can they be inconvenient? Yes. Are some officers not always as professional and courtious as they should be? Yes. But inconvenience or an occasional lack or courtsy (which is often just a response to a lack of respect/courtsy from the invonveniencded driver) does not, in my opinion, equal “unreasonable”.

 

It seems to me that what some of the posts in this and similar threads reflect is a general dislike and distrust (and sometimes outright hatred) of “government” and law enforcement as well as a bit of selfishness.  The distrust is profound enough that concepts such as “what is or isn’t unreasonable” don't even seem to be considered.  Selfish in that the safety of society at large seems to be completely ignored.

 

One of the basic obligations of government is to protect the citizens the government exists to serve  - as long as people chose to put others at extreme risk by driving drunk; the government has a right and a duty to act to counter that action so long as doing so isn’t a violation of individual rights…I don’t believe DUI checkpoints are a violation of those rights.
 

 

No, you know me, I'm for a smaller .gov than you and that would include zero checkpoints, licenses for private purposes or permits.  I get that you are down with the nanny state that keeps you safe from bad things.  Wait till the majority decides guns are bad things.  Funny thing about rights is if you don't defend them equally, they fall together.

[sigmtnman]

Checkpoints bad.  Citizens do have the RIGHT, maybe not on paper but it's damn sure is a natural right,  to carry on their lives and go about from to and fro without government intervention and checking out said peoples  "just to make sure they're not doing anything bad".

 

Why is is thread still lingering?

 

Dang, I thought this was the thread-jack  thread. 

[npgunner]

I get that you are down with the nanny state that keeps you safe from bad things. Wait till the majority decides guns are bad things.

I agree with you. Many people on this forum are NOT small .gov and are pro-nanny state. I find it humorous the things they apply their logic too, and the things they deny that same logic too. Guns aren't the only thing to cherish over the next few decades ... large sodas, red meat, gasoline cars, the ability to homeschool, etc.
The only reason will be allowed things like tobacco and alcohol (although with higher taxes through Obamacare ...) will because its how they numb the masses.

[RobertNashville]

No, you know me, I'm for a smaller .gov than you and that would include zero checkpoints, licenses for private purposes or permits.  I get that you are down with the nanny state that keeps you safe from bad things.  Wait till the majority decides guns are bad things.  Funny thing about rights is if you don't defend them equally, they fall together.

 

So if I don't agree with you I'm "down with the nanny state"? Is it simply no longer possible to disagree with people on this forum without someone attaching unflattering, even insulting labels to others?

 

What I'm "down with" is following the Constitution and no one here has yet (or even attempted) to demonstrate how DUI checkpoints are actually unconstitutional and until someone does so and does so convincingly I see no reason to alter my position no matter what anyone calls me; all the bellyaching about "rights" notwithstanding.

 

I say again, it seems to me that what some of the posts in this and similar threads reflect is a general dislike and distrust and sometimes outright hatred of “government” and law enforcement...it has nothing to do with "rights" or the "constitutionality" of these checkpoints at all. Perhaps there are even some here who are so anti-governmetn that they aren't even comfortable with living within the Constitution the founders gave us...oh; they'll claim that they are but in reality, they truly don't care if DUI checkpoints are actually "constitutional" or not because they see even the slightes power exerted by the governmetn as evil.

 

If "compensation" is the proper way to handle such things as damage caused by a drunk driver prary tell how does a drunk driver who causes an accident and kills the driver of the other vehicle "compensate" the spouse of that driver or the driver's children or other loved ones? Can such a loss be defined in terms of coinage and if so, what's the going rate for a human life these days? Even if you reduce life to a $$$ figure, what is the chance that a drunk scumbag is going to have the financial wherewithall to pay such compensation and if he/she can't, what then?

 

It's a funny thing about rights...you can't let any one right or the rights of any one person trample the rights of others or they all become meaningless.

Edited September 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis.

[RobertNashville]

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis.

That's a good quote but I don't see how it can apply here unless someone can demonstrate that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional because if such checkpoints aren't unconstitutional then they aren't an expression of "tyranny" (sincere, soft or otherwise) no matter how many times the assertion is made (unless, I suppose, one thinks that the Constitution itself is a form of tyranny).

 

Perhaps I'm asking for too much or perhaps an inconsequential question?  Perhaps anyone attempting to demonstrate that these checkpoints are or are not constitutional is simply not possible or won't matter to anyone.  I suppose that if someone is convinced that these checkpoints are or aren't constitutional then any presentation on the matter that doesn't support the already taken position won't matter anyway.  :shrug:

Edited September 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis.

Yep. That's about the sum of it. I'd say that you nailed it perfectly with that quote.

[TMF]

Perhaps I'm asking for too much or perhaps an inconsequential question? Perhaps anyone attempting to demonstrate that these checkpoints are or are not constitutional is simply not possible or won't matter to anyone. I suppose that if someone is convinced that these checkpoints are or aren't constitutional then any presentation on the matter that doesn't support the already taken position won't matter anyway. :shrug:

No one has to demonstrate squat. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear; so easy a cave man can understand it. It doesn't matter how many times the SCOTUS disagrees. The words are clear.

[RobertNashville]

No one has to demonstrate squat. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear; so easy a cave man can understand it. It doesn't matter how many times the SCOTUS disagrees. The words are clear.

No one "has" to do anything here. However, if a discussion forum is for discussion then there is a need to do more than just stating opinions at each other. Just posting opinions is obviously the easire course to take but there can't be any real discussion about anything; at least not about anything significant if stating opinions is as far as threads ever get.

 

Words, no matter where they are written, even those and perhaps especially those of documents of laws such as the Constitution, are always subject to interpretation and must be so; most especially words like “unreasonable” found in the fourth amendment.

 

If a person can't intelligently and correctly define and understand what "unreasonable" means in the context of the fourth amendment then they have zero ability to understand the "clear" meaning of the fourth.

Edited September 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

Interpretation & purposeful misinterpretation are two different things ...

[TMF]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1029025" timestamp="1378656478"] No one "has" to do anyting here and I neve said otherwise. However, if a discussion forum is for discussion then there is a need to do more than just stating opinions at each other or there can be no real discussion about anything; at least not about anything significant. Words, no matter where they are written, even those and perhaps especially those of documents of laws such as the Constitution, are always subject to interpretation and must be so; most especially words like “reasonable” found in the fourth amendment.[/quote] Reasonable? That is in regard to suspicion of crime being committed. Being subjected to search by the government for the purpose of criminal investigation when no crime has been committed is not in the same realm as what we're talking about. Otherwise cops could just walls into your house to "make sure" you aren't breaking the law. Edited September 8, 2013 by TMF

[npgunner]

Interpretation & purposeful misinterpretation are two different things ...

I would suggest that most .gov things done in the name of "safety" are purposeful misinterpretation; drones, listening to our conversations, DUI check points, cameras everywhere (in England, coming to an America near you), etc.

unreasonable:
1.) not guided by, or based on good sense
2.) beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness

If you use the definition above for "unreasonable" (it's the google definition), I see how maybe you could say the idea of DUI checkpoint is based on good sense. I, however, believe they are beyond the limits of what I find acceptable and fair. It would be fair if everyone on the road got stopped, not just the people driving down one particular road where the checkpoint is. Also, I don't believe the effectiveness of the checkpoints meets the burden, or, "limit of acceptability" to justify the inconvenience . How many DUIs are issued at these checkpoints vs charges for other things?

Again, this whole debate centers on what some people find unreasonable. I find DUI checkpoints, TSA security searches (if done privately by airline security as has been mentioned I would feel differently perhaps), and the like to be unreasonable. Unfortunately I'm not SCOTUS and therefore my opinion doesn't mean anything. I think many people are willing to give up rights for a false sense of security offered by things like this.

You can assert that I don't trust the government and have a general dislike for LEO if you like. I certainly don't trust the government and, I do personally think that many (not all) LEO have forgotten they are public servants (evidence being the way they interact with the public). And so yes, I will forever be a small .gov guy and believe anyone of the "safety"/nanny-state is wrong in this aspect.

We can, however, continue to agree that Obama is a screw up, Obamacare will destroy our healthcare, guns are great fun; and enjoy a friendly burger and beer if we ever meet in person.

[RobertNashville]

I would suggest that most .gov things done in the name of "safety" are purposeful misinterpretation; drones, listening to our conversations, DUI check points, cameras everywhere (in England, coming to an America near you), etc.

unreasonable:
1.) not guided by, or based on good sense
2.) beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness

If you use the definition above for "unreasonable" (it's the google definition), I see how maybe you could say the idea of DUI checkpoint is based on good sense. I, however, believe they are beyond the limits of what I find acceptable and fair. It would be fair if everyone on the road got stopped, not just the people driving down one particular road where the checkpoint is. Also, I don't believe the effectiveness of the checkpoints meets the burden, or, "limit of acceptability" to justify the inconvenience . How many DUIs are issued at these checkpoints vs charges for other things?

Again, this whole debate centers on what some people find unreasonable. I find DUI checkpoints, TSA security searches (if done privately by airline security as has been mentioned I would feel differently perhaps), and the like to be unreasonable. Unfortunately I'm not SCOTUS and therefore my opinion doesn't mean anything. I think many people are willing to give up rights for a false sense of security offered by things like this.

You can assert that I don't trust the government and have a general dislike for LEO if you like. I certainly don't trust the government and, I do personally think that many (not all) LEO have forgotten they are public servants (evidence being the way they interact with the public). And so yes, I will forever be a small .gov guy and believe anyone of the "safety"/nanny-state is wrong in this aspect.

We can, however, continue to agree that Obama is a screw up, Obamacare will destroy our healthcare, guns are great fun; and enjoy a friendly burger and beer if we ever meet in person.

 

My only real point of disagreement with your post is the effectiveness of these checkpoints. It's been a while since I looked up the specific statistics from CDC and NHTSA but if memory serves, in 2010 (the latest year available when I looked), DUI driving accounted for about 10,100 deaths and 1/3 of all auto accidents that year which represents about a 50% reduction from 15 or so years before.

 

One can certainly argue about how much a part these checkpoints have played in that reduction and I doubt there is any way to truly know with any certainty. But, I doubt many could reasonably (there is that word again) argue that the overall effort, which includes DUI checkpoints, has not had a significant and positive impact on reducing DUI related death and injuries. As to how many DUI citations are issued vs other results, I don’t know but I would suspect it’s less now than it used to be.  IN any case, I’d say that it’sa  good thing if these checkpoints also find and arrest those driving without a license/under suspension or those with warrants out for their arrest.

 

I would also suggest that anyone who has been breathing for a few decades can attest to the overall change in attitude about driving under the influence - what was once thought to be a victimless crime or not a crime at all; even something for comedy skits is now seen for the danger it is – such a danger that there are probably few people on this forum who has not lost a friend, loved one or family member to a drink driver.

 

Whether these checkpoints are “fair” or not is something of another matter and certainly something we can disagree on.  The word “fair” evokes similar words such as equitable, honest, lacking favoritism, etc.  I would say that the way these checkpoints must be conducted, per SCOTUS/NHTSA rules does make them “fair” but that is just my opinion.

[tnguy]

unreasonable:
1.) not guided by, or based on good sense
2.) beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness
 

 

I suspect "unreasonable" in that context originally meant without reason to do so. I.e. "He had no reason to stop me". "The reason I'm asking you to blow into this breathalyzer is because I saw you weaving out of your lane and driving 5mph under the speed limit". A follows B kind of reasoning. Not "You are a person, people sometimes drink and drive therefore I'm stopping you and asking for ze documents" sort of reasoning. The meaning of words drift with time, unfortunately (and often not without an agenda)

Edited September 8, 2013 by tnguy

[sigmtnman]

So if I don't agree with you I'm "down with the nanny state"? Is it simply no longer possible to disagree with people on this forum without someone attaching unflattering, even insulting labels to others?

 

What I'm "down with" is following the Constitution and no one here has yet (or even attempted) to demonstrate how DUI checkpoints are actually unconstitutional and until someone does so and does so convincingly I see no reason to alter my position no matter what anyone calls me; all the bellyaching about "rights" notwithstanding.

 

I say again, it seems to me that what some of the posts in this and similar threads reflect is a general dislike and distrust and sometimes outright hatred of “government” and law enforcement...it has nothing to do with "rights" or the "constitutionality" of these checkpoints at all. Perhaps there are even some here who are so anti-governmetn that they aren't even comfortable with living within the Constitution the founders gave us...oh; they'll claim that they are but in reality, they truly don't care if DUI checkpoints are actually "constitutional" or not because they see even the slightes power exerted by the governmetn as evil.

 

If "compensation" is the proper way to handle such things as damage caused by a drunk driver prary tell how does a drunk driver who causes an accident and kills the driver of the other vehicle "compensate" the spouse of that driver or the driver's children or other loved ones? Can such a loss be defined in terms of coinage and if so, what's the going rate for a human life these days? Even if you reduce life to a $$$ figure, what is the chance that a drunk scumbag is going to have the financial wherewithall to pay such compensation and if he/she can't, what then?

 

It's a funny thing about rights...you can't let any one right or the rights of any one person trample the rights of others or they all become meaningless.

 

Well, I can't determine how you will take things.  Nanny state is a descriptor of a government and I know you have used it before in reference to what you believe is an overreaching government. 

 

It is interesting that you use a reply to me to go on a rant accusing posters of anti-government views and questioning their sincerity and integrity.  Especially after starting your reply whining about "someone attaching unflattering, even insulting labels to others".  No matter which of us, it's still funny.  I reckon our discussion is done in this thread.

Edited September 8, 2013 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

Well, I can't determine how you will take things.  Nanny state is a descriptor of a government and I know you have used it before in reference to what you believe is an overreaching government. 

 

It is interesting that you use a reply to me to go on a rant accusing posters of anti-government views and questioning their sincerity and integrity.  Especially after starting your reply whining about "someone attaching unflattering, even insulting labels to others".  No matter which of us, it's still funny.  I reckon our discussion is done in this thread.

If I misunderstood your intent then I apologize and yes, I think our discussion in this thread is done.

 

Regards,

[DaveS]

I'm out guys....

 

DaveS

[JayC]

My question to you, is what section in the TN constitution grants the legislature the power to allow DUI checkpoints?

 

That's a good quote but I don't see how it can apply here unless someone can demonstrate that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional because if such checkpoints aren't unconstitutional then they aren't an expression of "tyranny" (sincere, soft or otherwise) no matter how many times the assertion is made (unless, I suppose, one thinks that the Constitution itself is a form of tyranny).

 

Perhaps I'm asking for too much or perhaps an inconsequential question?  Perhaps anyone attempting to demonstrate that these checkpoints are or are not constitutional is simply not possible or won't matter to anyone.  I suppose that if someone is convinced that these checkpoints are or aren't constitutional then any presentation on the matter that doesn't support the already taken position won't matter anyway.  :shrug:

Edited September 9, 2013 by JayC