millerboycott.com

In recent times, I’ve detected a growing backlash against the excesses of the hysterical "War on Drunk Driving" — and even of politicians willing to question "The DUI Exception to the Constitution" and thereby risk MADD’s wrath come election time.  See, for example, Backlash, Forced Blood Draws: Citizen Backlash? and Catheter Forced Up Penis After DUI Arrest,  

One of the most egregious examples of the damage to our constitutional rights is exemplified by DUI roadblocks, aka "sobriety checkpoints".  I’ve posted often in the past about the inherent unconstitutionality of this clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  See Are DUI Roadblocks Constitutional?.  And I’ve explained how roadblocks are ineffective and the only real reason these roadblocks continue to be used is that they are "cash cows" — they generate a lot of revenue for local municipalities from citations and car towing (usually for license, registration, insurance or equipment violations).  See Do DUI Roadblocks Work?, DUI Roadblocks for Fun and Profit and The True Purpose of DUI Roadblocks.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld sobriety checkpoints (Michigan v. Sitz), Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the 5-4 majority that although stopping drivers at a checkpoint without probable cause was an apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment, it was only a "minimal intrusion" on the rights of citizens — outweighed by the greater interest of the government in ensuring safety on the highways.  The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme court to revise its previous decision reversing the DUI conviction.  

The Michigan Supreme Court refused to reverse its decision, again throwing out the conviction — on the new grounds that if DUI roadblocks are not a violation of the U.S. Constitution, they are certainly a violation of the Michigan state constitution.  In other words, the court said to Washington, "If you won’t protect our citizens, then we will".

Since then, 9 other states have joined Michigan in relying upon their own constitutions or laws to ban "sobriety checkpoints" (Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Oregon and Minnesota), and 2 (Texas and Alaska) prohibit them for other legal reasons.

In today’s news, another state is on the road to joining this growing backlash….

House Passes Bill That Would Get Rid of DUI Checkpoints


Salt Lake City, UT.  Feb. 24 —  Citing protection of personal rights and upholding the Constitution, Utah’s House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill that would ban DUI checkpoints in Utah.

Under House Bill 140, which was approved 41-33, checkpoints for fugitives, Amber Alerts and invasive species would still be allowed. But the practice of having officers stopping every car at a specific location for a period of several hours — looking for drunken drivers — would be banned.

"This doesn’t seem very consistent with the very unique idea of American government and law enforcement that we have," said Rep. David Butterfield, R-Logan, the sponsor of the legislation, about DUI checkpoints…

Butterfield said that the data he has found in researching this bill shows that of the 11 states that do not use DUI checkpoints, about half are in the top half of traffic safety in the nation, while the other half are in the bottom half of states in regard to traffic safety.

"The data shows no correlation between safety with those that do practice checkpoints and those that don’t," Butterfield said…

Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove, spoke in favor of the bill. Frank talked about his experience of being involved in a DUI checkpoint and stated that he felt his rights were being infringed upon while officers shone flashlights into his car searching for any questionable items, even though he gave no reason for police to suspect him of any crime.

"I was uncomfortable with that," Frank said.

Frank said he felt the practice of DUI checkpoints was well-intentioned but said that he felt that passing this legislation would help bring Utah back to upholding the Constitution and protecting people’s rights…

Butterfield’s proposal will now move on to the state Senate…

There would appear to be light at the end of this long, dark tunnel….
 

DUI BLOG

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows how I feel about the efficacy and constitutionality of DUI roadblocks (aka "sobriety checkpoints").  See, for example, Do DUI Roadblocks Work?, Do DUI Roadblocks Work? (Part II), DUI Logic: Roadblocks Effective Because They’re Ineffective, and Are DUI Roadblocks Constitutional?.  

Recently, I’ve read some news articles and editorials that lead me to believe there is a growing backlash against these police-state procedures.  The following is from the Editorial Board of  the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Opinion: Cops Detain 1,407 Innocent Drivers

Colorado Springs, CO.  Sept. 6 – Colorado Springs police detained 1,420 drivers last Saturday in yet another ineffective effort to catch drunken drivers. As a result of detaining thousands of drivers and countless passengers, police cited eight — a whopping .56 percent — on suspicion they had driven under the influence. Meanwhile, cops working the checkpoints were not on the roads providing legitimate public safety.

This part is weird: Five others were cited for open containers. Imagine driving through a swarm of police, who are stopping vehicles and looking into them, with an open beer.

Drunk drivers kill. Those who drink, even a little, have no business getting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle for the rest of the day. Just don’t do it for any reason.

Society needs to eradicate drunken driving, but sobriety checkpoints are not the answer. They violate the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unlawful searches and seizures. They are permissible under the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, a case in which the majority decided to allow an erosion of liberty to facilitate a compelling interest in reducing fatalities. Checkpoints would be easier to accept if they actually improved public safety.

“The net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative,” wrote Justices Paul Stevens, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall in their Michigan v. Sitz dissent.

Most public safety experts acknowledge that traditional policing, in which officers look for drunken drivers while patrolling, is more effective. Law enforcement brass like checkpoints because they create overtime pay. An investigation by the University California found that checkpoints generate million in annual overtime pay in California alone. Checkpoints, which are funded with transportation grants, are public relations stunts…

Our police are supposed to protect and serve the public, not detain individuals to generate publicity and overtime pay. Please take a pass on future checkpoint grants in Colorado Springs and use traditional methods to catch drunk drivers.

The fact is that most roadblocks are increasingly a means of illegally using DUI roadblocks as an excuse for stopping vehicles to find minor violations such as equipment violations, expired car registrations and drivers licenses not in possession.  See my posts, DUI Roadblock: 1131 Stops, 114 Tickets, 0 DUI Arrests, Another "Successful" DUI Roadblock: 3000 Drivers Stopped, 0 DUIs, DUI Roadblocks for Fun and Profit and The True Purpose of DUI Roadblocks. 

As long as local governments continue to rake in desperately-needed revenues from these fraudulent police practices, "DUI" roadblocks will continue.
 

DUI BLOG

I mentioned in a post a couple of days ago that there appeared to be the beginnings of a backlash against DUI roadblocks (aka "sobriety checkpoints").  See Law Proposed to Ban DUI Roadblocks, objecting to them as trappings of a "police state".  Interestingly, the following article appearing a few days earlier also challenged roadblocks — but on the grounds of inefficiency: 

Some Valid Questions About Lodi’s DUI Checkpoints

Lodi, CA.  Apr. 2 – Are DUI checkpoints worth the time and money? Our recent front page story asked that question, and it is a fair one.

Lodi police have been running the checkpoints through a grant from the state Office of Traffic Safety. Lodi gets 2,000 to operate the checkpoints and so-called saturation patrols.

The goal is worthy: Get drunken drivers off the streets of Lodi.

The reality, though, has raised several issues, including:

The checkpoints are expensive, drawing 14 officers, all on overtime, for an estimated cost of ,400 per checkpoint.

The results are rather unimpressive. The checkpoints have produced an average of 2.8 DUI arrests each — about ,500 per arrest. (That may be in part because many local bar owners learn quickly of the checkpoints and alert their customers.)

In contrast, the checkpoints have caused many cars to be towed and impounded because their drivers are unlicensed. The average has been 20 cars per checkpoint. Most of these drivers aren’t inebriated, just unlucky. They have to cough up big bucks — one local car owner paid ,600 — to get their vehicle back. And they have to wait 30 days for that privilege. No doubt some have lost not just a car, but a job. A young car owner told reporter Fernando Gallo that she and her boyfriend had to walk home because the police denied her use of a cell phone to call for a ride after her Honda was towed away. That doesn’t strike us as the most courteous reaction.

So-called saturation patrols are more efficient at catching DUI drivers than checkpoints, but Lodi police have to run the checkpoints as part of the deal with the state safety office.

Is this a well-intended program that’s too expensive and intrusive? Are taxpayers getting their money’s worth with this? Are the checkpoints a sledgehammer slaying flies?

We’ve learned since our story appeared that Lodi police do not, in fact, have to request driver’s licenses of those who go through the checkpoints. Maybe changing that policy is worth exploring. After all, the aim is to arrest intoxicated motorists, not deprive Lodians of their cars, right? The impoundments seem like a sort of collateral damage.

Beyond that, perhaps the traffic safety office should look at shifting resources toward the saturation patrols that Lodi police say are more effective.

Maybe folks are beginning to notice that the Emperor is wearing no clothes…
 

DUI BLOG

While we’ve made great strides in fighting drunk driving, there remains an incalcitrant number of hardcore drunk drivers responsible for a large number of the total alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities. The National Traffic Safety Board has recommitted its efforts to focusing on these drivers, with the goal of greatly reducing the number of deaths each year due to drunk driving.

Drunk driving continues to be a serious safety and social problem, with hardcore drunk drivers accounting for seven out of ten alcohol-impaired fatal crashes. Furthermore, drivers with a BAC of .15 or higher are 380 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than the average non-drinking driver and when involved in a fatal crash these hardcore drunk drivers are nine times more likely to have a prior DWI conviction in the past three years than non-drinking drivers.

For almost two decades, The Century Council, funded by America’s leading distillers, has been dedicated to developing and implementing innovative programs and public awareness campaigns that fight drunk driving and underage drinking.

As part of its effort to eliminate drunk driving The Century Council commissioned research on the implementation of interlocks for first offenders, including a roadmap for jurisdictions considering and/or implementing alcohol interlock programs, as well as a series of reports on addressing hardcore drunk driving in the various areas of the justice system.

We applaud the NTSB for their work in reducing the number of deaths caused by drunk driving.

Century Council Blog