The DUI Exception to the Constitution

DUI Blog ^ | 2005 | Lawrence Taylor (not the Linebacker)

[Seven plus One]

Many states also have laws which require you to submit to testing if law enforcement has probable cause to believe you are DUI. If you don't like the provision, return the license and stop driving.

I disagree with nothing here. The roadblock approach to establishing probable cause still torques my jaws severely. In my area they call them 'safety checks', and drivers are detained randomly. Sometimes they find no impaired drivers, but arrests for no license, weapons, bogus plates, open container, outstanding warrants on other charges,etc are common along with administrative violations like seat belt, insurance and what have you. Violations all, but the mass examination method used reminds me of Central America. And like much of Central America it just smells funny.

[Ron Jeremy]

What driving related behavior would constitute probable cause for a DNA sample?

None. But you said that driving is a privilege, not a right, and I can be stopped any time for a DUI test because I agreed to that when I got my license. I simply asked you, since it is a privilege, if the gov't said, well, to get a license you must agree to be stopped any time for a DNA test, would you be ok with that?

After all, as you say, driving is just a privilege and the gov't can attach conditions to it, so why not that condition?

[hreardon]

Congressman Billybob: "Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. The Constitution guarantees NO ONE the right to get behind the wheel."

So the police have the right to detain and jail you at any time just for suspicion of driving under the influence?????

Sounds like a totalitarian police state to me.

As some of the other commenters pointed out, they can do this if you're not even driving. Just think that you might.

[elkfersupper]

I have posted this at least ten times.

Thank you for bringing it to the forefront again.

[elkfersupper]

two glasses of wine will not, in any state, put you under the influence of alcohol or over the legal limit of .08" is BS.

The "legal" limit doesn't matter, sport.

You will be prosecuted and convicted if you attract the attention of the LEO's.

[Myrddin]

Apply it to my State Constituition then. Anyone who claims that cannot be the intent of the founders is unfit for debate. BTW I do have a healthy case of flu. Thanks for asking.

Adding vitamin D3 to your diet during the winter can help avoid a flu infection. Lack of sunlight generated D3 appears to be a reason for flu susceptibility in winter. Hope you feed better soon.

[Gabz]

Happy New Year, FRiend!!!!!

[BufordP]

Car accidents on the road everyday where neither driver had any alcohol. Why the accident? Then we have accidents where one or more of the drivers had a drink or two and suddenly the accident was due to alcohol and the driver's a felon. Or, as the writer describes, no accident is required. All that is required is being stopped at a checkpoint and under the officer's discretion, or an inaccurate machine, you're busted sans the usual Constitutional protections. Impaired? Who's to say? Again, not required.

Sure, there are many accidents caused on the highway by truly impaired drunken drivers. But I don't know what that has to do with all the people getting screwed for being pulled over at a checkpoint after a few drinks.

[Myrddin]

I simply asked you, since it is a privilege, if the gov't said, well, to get a license you must agree to be stopped any time for a DNA test, would you be ok with that?

No, because such a stop would have no valid reason. A stop for DUI occurs when you are visibly incapable of safely operating the vehicle. The field sobriety check and BAC are supporting evidence for the observed unsafe driving behavior.

States have seat belt laws too. In Idaho, that doesn't constitute PC for a stop. It can only be considered if a stop occurred for another valid reason.

[happinesswithoutpeace]

/mark

[eyedigress]

I’m sure I’ll be feeding fine in a couple days. Thanks :P)

[Zevonismymuse]

I am no libertarian, but I hate the way these laws (and the dead beat parent laws) are used to centralize what should be state decisions.

The DOT has all 50 states over a barrel in this way. States must either do what the fed wants or be denied DOT funds.

[elkfersupper]

Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

Where did you get that idea?

Driving on American Roads is a Constitutional Right, not a State-Granted 'Privelege'

[Congressman Billybob]

Boy, the crazies are out tonight.

I hope that everyone who thinks he has a constitutional right to drink and drive is arrested as promptly as possible and loses his license. The good ol’ boys in my corner of the Appalachian Mountains are brighter than that. Around here, they have designated drivers if they want to go have a snootful.

[Myrddin]

At least we don't operate with Peruvian laws. They don't have repeat DUI offenders. The drunk driver is executed at the stop. A tow truck and coroner's van follow up. It doesn't happen too often.

[elkfersupper]

I think any drunk driver who hurts or kills another should have their crime viewed as “premeditated” or have the exact same damage done to their body that they did to others, including death if they killed an innocent.

Define "Drunk".

[muawiyah]

You try walking down an Interstate Highway the cops are going to stop you Fur Shur.

Did you ever wonder why that was?

[buccaneer81]

The good ol’ boys in my corner of the Appalachian Mountains are brighter than that.

They had the good sense not to send you to Washington.

[elkfersupper]

Thank you for posting this.

[DLfromthedesert]

Happy New Year to you, too, Bucko.