• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Legal Loophole to Get Through DUI Checkpoints

If you aren't in the habit of driving drunk, why on earth would you want to share this?

Lowering drink driving lowers deaths. If you feel that the current test isn't accurate enough, then do something to support bringing in roadside breath testing.

(Some) Americans are crazy.
 
IQhTkUd.png


I have a feeling that if the Floridian holding up that sign were black, Middle Eastern, or Hispanic, we'd be seeing a different outcome. It's much easier to suggest stuff like this when you're a rich white attorney in an Acura.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgWX591DODE[/yt]
 
Thanks, jazamul, for the edit!

Here's what the Orlando Sentinel had to say earlier this year, about a viral video of someone applying Redlich's "Fair DUI" flier at a DUI checkpoint on New Year's Eve in Levy County, Florida [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-dui-checkpoint-loophole-20150120-story.html#].

The video suggests the tactic worked at the checkpoint in Levy County, but according to Levy County Undersheriff Brett Beauchamp, deputies had been tipped off that the driver in the video was coming.

"It was a joint checkpoint with the Florida Highway Patrol, and they had seen this happen before," Beauchamp said.

He said deputies anticipated the driver was "trying to instigate a confrontation" for his video. So they checked his documents, observed him through his window and — seeing no violations or signs of intoxication — sent him on his way.

In other words, the video doesn't really show you what to expect. :lol:

Since the "Fair DUI" flier is on MADD's radar, I'd say its days are numbered, even if it would be able to survive legal challenges. There is no right to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
 
Last edited:
Has this person ever heard of 'implied consent'?

If you aren't in the habit of driving drunk, why on earth would you want to share this?

Lowering drink driving lowers deaths. If you feel that the current test isn't accurate enough, then do something to support bringing in roadside breath testing.

This.
 
How is that even supposed to work? In Finland, if the police stops you, they'll usually check your license and the vehicle's papers and ask you to submit to a breathalyzer test. You can refuse the test, but that means they'll drag you to a blood test and most likely search you as well. It's less bother for all parties to take the damn test in the first place.
 
Forgetting the emotive issue of DUI for a minute, there is no legal loophole here it's just the straight forward application of constitutional law - They have just turned into a flyer the standard tactic of saying "am I being arrested/Am I being detained?" over and over until they arrest you or let you go.

How is that even supposed to work? In Finland, if the police stops you, they'll usually check your license and the vehicle's papers and ask you to submit to a breathalyzer test. You can refuse the test, but that means they'll drag you to a blood test and most likely search you as well. It's less bother for all parties to take the damn test in the first place.

A couple of things (I don't know about Finnish law) - US car check laws vary from state to state -

http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/implied-consent-laws.html

then it gets more complex because of constitutional rights.
 
Forgetting the emotive issue of DUI for a minute, there is no legal loophole here it's just the straight forward application of constitutional law - They have just turned into a flyer the standard tactic of saying "am I being arrested/Am I being detained?" over and over until they arrest you or let you go.

How is that even supposed to work? In Finland, if the police stops you, they'll usually check your license and the vehicle's papers and ask you to submit to a breathalyzer test. You can refuse the test, but that means they'll drag you to a blood test and most likely search you as well. It's less bother for all parties to take the damn test in the first place.

A couple of things (I don't know about Finnish law) - US car check laws vary from state to state -

http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/implied-consent-laws.html

then it gets more complex because of constitutional rights.

Finnish law is pretty similar to the Californian one in the examples you provided, except that refusing a field test doesn't carry a penalty in itself. If you categorally refuse all tests, then the police officer can charge you for "disobeying a lawful order from a police officer", which earns you a fine or 3 months in prison.

As for why police can do all this is, because, if a crime carries a maximum penalty minimum of 6 months in prison, then police officer can pretty much use his own judgement in searching a person, vehicle or even an apartment. The section on DUI isn't part of the traffic law, but is found under criminal law and carries a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison.
 
How is that even supposed to work? In Finland, if the police stops you, they'll usually check your license and the vehicle's papers and ask you to submit to a breathalyzer test. You can refuse the test, but that means they'll drag you to a blood test and most likely search you as well. It's less bother for all parties to take the damn test in the first place.

Not unexpectendly but Finnish law is similar to UK law, sure you can refuse a roadside breathalyser test, but expect to be Arrested taken to the Police station to be tested on an Intoxilyzier refuse that and the courts will treat it as more or less the same as if you were drink driving. Of course a blood sample might be taken in lieu of a breath test.

But is perhaps he difference that in the EU and other countries tend to use a breathlyser test rather than a sobririty test. So it's a quick blow into a machine and you should d be on your way.

If you haven't been drinking what have you got to worry about. Surely the primary aim of roadside testing is not to catch people but to prevent them from even drink driving in the first place. After all if you could be randomly tested at any time do you take the risk or think better of it?

But as someone has quoted figures for road related deaths

Per 100 000 people (2012 figures)

US: 11.6
Canada: 6
Australia: 5.6
Finland: 4.7
Germany: 4.3
UK: 3.5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
 
I'm curious actually, the number of road deaths in the USA held steady at 40,000 a year-ish for many decades (representing a gradual real terms decrease considering population growth) but suddenly in 2008 the number dropped by a quarter over the space of just 2 years, and has held steady at about 30,000 a year since.

What did the USA do in those years to cause this?
 
Could be a number of factors

Cars becomming safer

Attitudes towards drink/drug driving changing to make it even more socially unacceptable

Better enforcement of road laws

Better training of new drivers


But there is still remove for improvement everywhere, for example why is the US fatality rate 3 times that of the UK, just under twice that of Canada?
 
In the United States, the police are allowed to briefly stop everyone for a checkpoint and get their license. However, they aren't allowed to force you to submit to a breath test, to my knowledge. Even implied consent laws usually require probable cause to arrest someone before they're triggered. States that require individuals to perform field sobriety tests almost certainly must require at least reasonable suspicion. Forcing people to engage in lengthy testing just because an officer feels like making them do it is likely unconstitutional and certainly ripe for abuse.

Of course, field sobriety tests themselves primarily test for ability to follow instructions (which can be impaired by alcohol, of course, but can also be messed up because you're nervous). If a police officer tells you to stand in a position until he finishes giving instructions and then starts to demonstrate the test, if you're overeager to start right away even though he hasn't finished, you're pretty close to failing the test. All you have to do is not stand in the proper starting position or make one mistake on the test (for example, counting silently instead of outloud, not fully touching heel to toe on one step, lifting your arms out to the side instead of keeping them on your side). The tests themselves can actually be pretty overinclusive in creating evidence sufficient to prove DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.

Am I saying this card is a good idea? Probably not. I think distrust of the police in gaming the system is natural (I think they'll exaggerate the smell of alcohol, the presence of glassy, bloodshot eyes), but it's still only for those who have doubts as to whether their BAC is above or below .08 (alcohol effects everyone differently, so .08 for one person is different from another, but society has picked a clear line to make it easier to enforce). And, frankly, if you have any doubts at all, you shouldn't be driving. But I do think anyone can make a mistake and not realize they're above that legal limit, which is why ideas like this exist.
 
But I do think anyone can make a mistake and not realize they're above that legal limit, which is why ideas like this exist.

There is an easy way to avoid any such mistake, don't drink if you plan to drive. In theory you could still be over the morning after.

The rough guide is it takes 1 hour for for your body to clear 1 unit of alcohol, of course Age/Weight/gender etc.. all play a part so as I said it's only a guideline figure.
 
The problem I see with that sign is if you hold it up, you're immediately telling the officer this is going to be a confrontation instead of a peaceful stop, and he's going treat you like a potentially hostile suspect.
 
I'm curious actually, the number of road deaths in the USA held steady at 40,000 a year-ish for many decades (representing a gradual real terms decrease considering population growth) but suddenly in 2008 the number dropped by a quarter over the space of just 2 years, and has held steady at about 30,000 a year since.

What did the USA do in those years to cause this?

Given the timing, my guess would be that that's a result of the "Great Recession" of December 2007-June 2009 (and its lingering effects). Higher unemployment, people getting their cars repossessed, people unable to afford the cost of gas so they used more public transport, etc. all combining to give you much fewer drivers on the road.
 
In the United States, the police are allowed to briefly stop everyone for a checkpoint and get their license. However, they aren't allowed to force you to submit to a breath test, to my knowledge. Even implied consent laws usually require probable cause to arrest someone before they're triggered. States that require individuals to perform field sobriety tests almost certainly must require at least reasonable suspicion. Forcing people to engage in lengthy testing just because an officer feels like making them do it is likely unconstitutional and certainly ripe for abuse.

Of course, field sobriety tests themselves primarily test for ability to follow instructions (which can be impaired by alcohol, of course, but can also be messed up because you're nervous). If a police officer tells you to stand in a position until he finishes giving instructions and then starts to demonstrate the test, if you're overeager to start right away even though he hasn't finished, you're pretty close to failing the test. All you have to do is not stand in the proper starting position or make one mistake on the test (for example, counting silently instead of outloud, not fully touching heel to toe on one step, lifting your arms out to the side instead of keeping them on your side). The tests themselves can actually be pretty overinclusive in creating evidence sufficient to prove DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.

^This.

In the U.S., we have a constitutional right not to consent to searches without probable cause. All that is required at a sobriety check point (in the U.S.) is that you show your driver's license. You can avoid doing this with your window down via the flyer. Someone who is clearly drunk (which I was not) can still produce probable cause for the officers despite the flyer.
 
The problem I see with that sign is if you hold it up, you're immediately telling the officer this is going to be a confrontation instead of a peaceful stop, and he's going treat you like a potentially hostile suspect.

There are other viral videos on the internet of people using this successfully. The attorney who created it recommends that you always follow law enforcements' instructions, and that you record the event, so you have any evidence if law enforcement breaks the law.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top