"Sobriety Checkpoints"

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>>Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If I do happen to encounter one, and refuse to submit to the FST,
>>>>what are the consequences?
>>
>>
>>>In Virginia at least if you don't stop for the checkpoint, you get
>>>arrested for evading. If you stop and are requested to take a
>>>sobriety test and refuse, I believe that's an automatic DUI.
>>
>>
>> So what you're saying is, I encounter a checkpoint, am ordered to
>> take a FST and refuse, it's an automatic DUI? Is that what you're
>> saying?
>>
>>
>
> I mis-typed.
>
> http://www.lawyers.ca/international/...?province=VA&s
> tate=Virginia
>
> It's not a DUI, but you lose your license anyway.
>
> nate
>

In Florida,I believe one can ask for a breathalyzer or blood test,but they
have to be transported to where the blood test can be given,eating up a lot
of time.Although if one has been drinking,that's an advantage,gives the
body more time to metabolize the alcohol.Just like burping before a
breathalyzer test invalidates it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>> In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.
>
> But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
> for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.

Driving that slow _IS_ the probable cause, or at least part of it.

>> In the second
>> case they stop and check everyone they want. The difference is only in
>> the volume of people they can handle.

> No,there is no PC for stopping anyone passing by their checkpoint.They are
> just general fishing expeditions;stop a large enough group,some criminals
> are bound to turn up, that's prohibited by the Constitution.

And the constitution just doesn't matter any more. Cops go fishing, I've
been stopped a couple of times in such fishing expeditions.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>> In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.
>
> But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
> for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.

Driving that slow _IS_ the probable cause, or at least part of it.

>> In the second
>> case they stop and check everyone they want. The difference is only in
>> the volume of people they can handle.

> No,there is no PC for stopping anyone passing by their checkpoint.They are
> just general fishing expeditions;stop a large enough group,some criminals
> are bound to turn up, that's prohibited by the Constitution.

And the constitution just doesn't matter any more. Cops go fishing, I've
been stopped a couple of times in such fishing expeditions.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:44:44 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> With good reason. If anyone has a reason to drink excessively, it's a
> fast-food worker. ;

You raise a very good point.

Normally I don't even notice things like this, except I live about 25
miles from where I work, and when I'm done, I just want to go HOME.
Normally its a very pleasant almost traffic-free drive.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:44:44 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> With good reason. If anyone has a reason to drink excessively, it's a
> fast-food worker. ;

You raise a very good point.

Normally I don't even notice things like this, except I live about 25
miles from where I work, and when I'm done, I just want to go HOME.
Normally its a very pleasant almost traffic-free drive.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:43:12 -0800, John David Galt wrote:

> And checkpoints ARE unconstitutional, but that camel's nose got into the
> tent the instant driving became a "privilege", and I hope it doesn't take
> a major war to get the damn thing out again.

Thats the other biggie that sticks in my craw. If driving is a
'privilege', then if I choose not to exercise it, why should I be paying
the taxes to fund the roads?

I realize its kinda nitpicky... but when you live out in the sticks, it's
not just a privilege, its a necessity.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:43:12 -0800, John David Galt wrote:

> And checkpoints ARE unconstitutional, but that camel's nose got into the
> tent the instant driving became a "privilege", and I hope it doesn't take
> a major war to get the damn thing out again.

Thats the other biggie that sticks in my craw. If driving is a
'privilege', then if I choose not to exercise it, why should I be paying
the taxes to fund the roads?

I realize its kinda nitpicky... but when you live out in the sticks, it's
not just a privilege, its a necessity.

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>>In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.

>>But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
>>for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.

> Driving that slow _IS_ the probable cause, or at least part of it.

Actually, it's one of several factors (at least that's what claimed)
forming "reasonable suspicion." A drug dog "alerting" then changes it
to "probable cause."

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>>In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.

>>But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
>>for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.

> Driving that slow _IS_ the probable cause, or at least part of it.

Actually, it's one of several factors (at least that's what claimed)
forming "reasonable suspicion." A drug dog "alerting" then changes it
to "probable cause."

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>>> In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.
>>
>> But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people
>> just
>> for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.
>
> Driving that slow _IS_ the probable cause, or at least part of it.

This is true enough. I was stopped in Madras (central Oregon) at about 0145
for doing 35 in a 45 zone. I didn't have to take a test, though; the cop
said he could tell right away I hadn't been drinking. Something about REM,
plus he couldn't smell any alcohol when I talked to him. There was a DUI
sweep going on at the time, for which I was grateful. I didn't get mad at
them, which may have factored into my not getting a ticket or being given a
FST.

MY cop friends tell me that drivers who are DUI often drive under the speed
limit, which gives them probable cause. But just driving legally