The DUI Exception to the Constitution

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

[Myrddin]

You can drive all you want on your private land without a license. You can't drive on a public highway or street without a license.B.S.

Yes. I forgot. Drunks drive all the time with suspended or revoked licenses. They just don't give a damn. The only thing that keeps them off the road is jail or death.

[Lloyd227]

Ron Jeremy
"Now, what if when you applied for a license, you had to agree to be stopped and have your DNA taken for a national DNA database?"

If that's what you agreed to, where are the grounds for objection?  DNA is no different from a blood sample or a breathalyzer test.  Not in this context at any rate

"Do you think the founding fathers would have thought traveling the highways a right and not a privilege?"

I absolutely believe exactly that....  the ability to freely travel and by the common mode of transportation would definitely be seen as a "right" by the authors of the Constitution.   I'm not advocating you try that today, but there is no doubt it would be seen as a right by those men were they alive today.

hreardon
"Matter of fact in recent years they’ve been busting folks on bicycles and riding lawn mowers for DUI."

I have read of a few of these cases, but I can't help but believe any attorney worth his bar certificate could get those cases thrown out in less than 15 minutes.

PhilosopherStones
"You can not, for example, contract yourself into involuntary servitude."

Your statement is completely logical.  Any time you "contract yourself" it is not involuntary.   You certainly CAN contract yourself into VOLUNTARY servitude should you wish.  There are several ingredients that make a valid contract, but assuming the pieces are all there,  it's perfectly legal.  Involuntary servitude is not legal, but you can contract to serve someone any time you like.  A normal job is something of a voluntary servitude contract for example

elkfersupper
"So, in order to insure our liberty, we should all surrender our "driver licenses" and decline to "request" a replacement."

Anyone who spends any time studying Constitutional law will be familiar with at least a couple such people who have done so.  Not what I recommend unless you're independently wealthy and enjoy the time spent explaining yourself, but I know of at least one person who was in court something like 22 different times over a 2 year period and was acquitted each and every instance before they decided to leave the man alone.  As I said, it's not what I would advocate, but it's not a completely foreign concept either.

[Myrddin]

The absence of probable cause and due process were the actual point.

A broken headlight, tail light, mirror or cracked windshield is probable cause for a stop. Unfortunately for drunks, they do a lot of that kind of damage to their vehicles and never bother to get it fixed. Why not just wave a big "I'm drunk" flag to attract the attention of law enforcement? Lots of other kinds of drug users get caught the same way.

[an amused spectator]

Salient point in the sentence: “Run over somebody...”

[PhilosopherStones]

Another example would be that you can not contract for sexual services. There was a case last year stemming from a craigslist.org ad from a man who wished to rent out a room in his house in compensation for sexual rather than monetary favors.

He was arrested and thrown in jail under pandering laws.

[an amused spectator]

But truth be told, its not that difficult. We have a designated driver, or celebrate at home only.

You have posted the death of the liquor-licensed evening establishment.

[Lloyd227]

"Another example would be that you can not contract for sexual services."

Understood and I was not attempting to advocate that you can contract for literally anything you wish. Although the particular example you selected would be fodder for a spirited debate with any real libertarian in the room..... point is I would not use that example and expect to remain on rock solid ground, but it wasn't my point any way. My point is that when you apply for a "license" you are voluntarily agreeing that the other party has both the authority and the power to dictate the rules under which that license is held and the procedures in play when certain circumstances are presented.

To voluntarily accept a contract and avail yourself of any associated benefits under that contract very quickly erode any legal right you may have to challenge that contract and unless there is some other factor to come into play, it's not even a Constitutional issue.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PhilosopherStones]

The difference, of course, is that under common law the courts can, do and should make a distinction between the relative powers of the contracting parties.

There is a question about whether there can be any sort of contractual relationship (in the civil sense) between a state and an individual. All states recognize that a contract signed under duress is voidable. Yet ANY contract undertaken with a state is made under duress (why else sign a contract with a state?).

And to go back to my original point, no private contractant could, under breach of contract, throw you in jail and take away your rights as a citizen. Only a state can do that.

[art_rocks]

Haven’t read all the post but didn’t the Dallas police arrest everyone in a hotel bar for DUI since they said the people would have to drive home even the ones in the hotel.

[slowhandluke]

That’s a pretty generalized statement. What specifically are you talking about? DWI in most states is .08. How is that not fair enforcement?

Well, if you read a few more of the DUI Blog entries, you notice that:

• The machines have a +-.02 range. So, you could blow a .08, but really be at .06. (or .10).
• Diabetes can blow a .08 just from diabetic ketosis.
• It doesn't work the same for men and women.
• If you blow a .00, and you twitch, blink or stumble, you can still get a DUI.
• Working around acetone can put enough acetone into your breath to blow high on the breathalyzer. The machine isn't specific to ethyl alcohol, but to anything molecule with a methyl group.
• The .08 standard is for and the machine measures alcohol on the breath. If you just used mouthwash, it will show up. It doesn't measure blood alcohol, it doesn't measure impairment.

On the face of it, he law seems fair at .08. It's the enforcement that's badly skewed away from the constitution.

[Lloyd227]

All good points and under the circumstances they've come just about as close to making a driver's license a contract executed under duress as I've ever seen, but.... fact remains the courts are treating this like a contract, at least when it suits them to do so and that allows them to ignore what might be seen as Constitutional issues that could otherwise have come into play.

To make any attempt at forcing these issues into a Constitutional question however... you first have to negate the contract. Until you do it's not a Constitutional issue so the correct place to start is in fact (as another FReeper above suggested) to decline their invitation to apply for a license, turn in the one you have and claim that right to travel freely by the common mode of the day.

It is at that point, you prove the contract is only in place under duress and then you have only to prove that travel is a right, then that the right is rather meaningless in today's society if it can not be done by driving a car on the public roadways. Quite a difficult and painful process, but I have seen it done. Just not very realistic today and in the meanwhile courts are in fact treating this as not a constitutional issue. While judges are known to lean on the states a bit to keep the "contract" slightly more fair than some states might like, there is nothing there that looks anything like the "secure in your persons and papers" or as having any right against self incrimination, etc... When in the context of driving and the driver's license, there are very clear infringements on the rights a Freeman might otherwise exercise and it's my personal believe after some considerable time spent studying the issue that they are able to do this by treating it as a simple contract situation.

[Gabz]

The breathalyzer is nothing but a rudimentary gas chromatograph.

I didn't say it wasn't --- however, the tube itself is part of the evidence. Your DNA, via saliva, is going to wind up on it...........

DNA has been collected from less "official" points of contact, and used against a suspect in a crime.

[Gabz]

You have posted the death of the liquor-licensed evening establishment.

The current goal of MADD.

[PhilosopherStones]

In short, other than a major over-throw of the current corrupt system, we have to live under rules that our founding fathers feared but never thought freemen would ever get themselves into.

Happy New Year!.

Going to celebrate the changover with my daughter in about 20 seconds.

Hope 2009 treats you well!

[rednesss]

"The Congressman has a voluminous and distinguished body of previous writings on the Free Republic that give his postings great weight. Have a care, sir..."

I don't care if he walks on water. The only voluminous commodity that I am seeing, is loads of Barbara Streisand being peddled turning our Constitution upside down. I think it is indicative of what is wrong in Washington D.C., that the Constitution somehow was penned to limit and enumerate our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, instead of what it was penned for, which was to limit the powers of a maniacal government.

Have a care yourself.

Happy New Year to you as well good sir.

[rednesss]

"BillyBob ran for Congress a few years ago. He lost, thankfully."

What a relief. Maybe he can go back to his 33 years of working at the supreme court. By all accounts, he should probably have his own office there, maybe it's next to Souter's or Ginsburg's.

[Knightmixer]

I would agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments with the possible exception of the “threefold” aspect. People should be held accountable for their actions. Individual responsibility should be at the forefront of any law. What I fail to notice is it's application to DUI cases. Or for that matter, any other victimless crime.

If someone has a drink and then is responsible for an auto accident, that person should be held accountable because someone's rights were violated. Having a glass of wine at dinner and then driving home infringes on no one's rights.

DUI, drug and prostitution laws are all analogous to gun laws. They all aim to prevent a potential crime or violation of rights. The problem is that there is no victim.

I tend to believe that this form of “justice” fosters a disrespect for the law overall. There should be an inherent understanding that the violation is wrong. Owning a gun peacefully is not wrong. Using a gun to commit a crime is wrong. Stepping outside this framework breeds not only a disrespect for, but also a distrust of the law and those that enforce it.

Liberty and individual responsibility go hand in hand.

[Don W]

nanny state is: Eric Blair 2084

Sorry Eric if you’ve already pinged this one out.

[Mojave]

Continental monarchies granted all sorts of non-heritable titles giving certain subjects “privileges” .

Driver's license? I dub thee Sir PhilosopherStones, Driver License of York? Bwahahahahaha!