TheAgitator.com
More MADD-lash.
Tuesday, December 10th, 2002Thanks to Sasha Castel for the heads-up that my MADD piece got a favorable mention in the New York Press.
Excerpt:
While itâ??s old hat for hip, rebellious New Yorkers to bemoan the impending smoking ban in bars, most of America faces another casual threat to their personal freedom: the pleasure of social drinking. Radley Balko wrote a brave opinion piece in yesterdayâ??s LA Times pointing out that recent measures by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers are so stringent that, according to Balko, a blood-alcohol level of .08, which many states are proposing in lieu of the previous .1 level, could be attained by a 120-pound person having two glasses of wine over a two-hour period. Balko rightly points out that speeders, cellphone users and the inattentive pose just as great a menace on the roads.This is neither here nor there, as far as Iâ??m concerned. What concerns me is an experience Iâ??ve had twice in the past year while on the road in Pennsylvania: random roadblocks set up by local authorities to nab drunk drivers. Never mind that the act of stopping drivers on no pretense is legally questionable and profoundly un-American. It was my experience with the local police that they wanted to know where I was going and where I had been. My natural responseâ??none of your businessâ??didnâ??t seem to go over well, but since they could tell I was stone sober by shoving a flashlight in my face while interrogating me, and since there was a long line of cars with other equally irate and sober drivers behind me, they let me go. I felt like I had Anne Frank hidden in my trunk.
Funny.
This guy compares a DUI check point with Nazi occupied Amsterdam. Now that’s funny.
I’ve been through dozens of DUI check points in PA and Delaware. There just really isn’t that much inconvenience. I’m here to tell you that the GeStaPo isn’t lurking in the dark trying to jail me for failing emissions standards. What’s a cop going to find in the 15 seconds he’s talking to me and looking in my car? Yeah I know this sounds like the ol’ “If you got nothing to hide…” . But be reasonable about expectations of privacy. You’re in a box that’s 5 feet tall completely ringed in windows. There ain’t no privacy. So, if you have something to hide, hide it.
Do these DUI check points work? That’s hard to say. How many folks avoid them. How many get caught at them? Most importantly, how many folks don’t ever get caught because they didn’t drink and drive for fear of the check points.
I wish all those who oppose Mothers Against Dudes Drinking the best of luck in smearing them a good bit. I just ask that you rethink reasonable, cost effective, efforts by legislatures and law enforcement to keep drunks off the roads.
I didn’t read your article, Radley, because I objected (read: was too lazy) to the sign-up process for the LA Times, but I suspect I would agree with most of your points. Having said that, as a native of hick Pennsylvania, I should point out that drunk driving is a massive problem. And we’re not talking about people who had two glasses of wine in two hours, and decided to nose their Camry back across town. We’re talking blind drunk rednecks bailing down highways at illegal speeds in F-150s, endangering the lives and property of all and sundry. It’s a frightening problem, to be sure. I’ve read statistics that, in rural America after midnight on weekend nights, something like 60% of all drivers on the road are legally intoxicated. And I believe it.
Now having been a slack-ass teenager (and, err, twentysomething) in a nowhere town, I’ve done my fair share of cruising around late at night, not always under the most responsible of circumstances (though never drunk), and I’ve seen a lot of scary ass holes out and about. I’ve also gone through a couple sobriety checkpoints. Obviously, any time you’re forced into dealing with police officers, it’s a little tense. But it also wasn’t a blazing threat to my civil liberties; I hadn’t been drinking, and they knew that, and I was sent on my way with no questions asked. That may not be the universal experience, and I’m sorry if you got hassled excessively by our fair commonwealth’s finest, but I just don’t think it’s out of line. If you can think of another way of getting these people off the roads — and sobriety checkpoints, while not perfect, do round up a lot of dangerous folk and are at least as good of a deterrence to crime as the electric chair — then I’d be interested in hearing it.
Hey Radley,
That was a nice article you wrote for the LA times – I agree with Sasha. The first time I had that thought about MADD was about 10 years back. I recall from the TV news that that group was making a big stink about college kids doing a lot (I mean, A LOT) of drinking over at Myrtle Beach during spring break and all. I started wondering why MADD gave a DAMM, seeing as how no driving was involved. These kids almost all stay at motels for a week or so. It seemed like MADD had a sinister purpose beyond caring about car wrecks.
And as for Jim M.’s comment above, actually it’s not a joke to compare drunk driving checkpoints to NAZI checkpoints in Amsterdam. I really don’t see a big difference Jim. Now, granted in Holland during WW2 era, as well as now, they don’t have to abide by that dang pesky US Constitution. We do here. It’s a major impediment to Federal government power, as long as people follow up on what they swore to upon entering into a Fed. Government job.
So, where is this gonna stop, Jim? The 4th amemdment calls for unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe the random check points violate this. Maybe the whole gun thing (2nd amendment) can be blown off too, huh? What about free speech as specified in the 1st amendment, Jim – that’s already being blown off (see “Campaign incumbent protection reform”, campus speech codes, etc.)
You tell me Jim, where you want this to stop. You the man.
Oops. I meant to also state that the U.S. Constitution also specifies limits on any other government power within the Union. i.e. the State of Massachusetts can be as left wing as they wanna be, so long as they (or Mass. local governments) do not pass laws contrary to the Bill of Rights and other Amendments.
I ain’t no law perfessor, but I can read the Constitution and understand it. Beats the hell out of 90% of the American public, unfortunately.
Evan,
I’d actually say that you answered your own question when you wrote:
“We’re talking blind drunk rednecks bailing down highways at illegal speeds in F-150s, endangering the lives and property of all and sundry.”
If you are drunk enough to be posing a real threat to others around you, your behavior will be an obvious sign of that danger, just as in your description above.
The efforts (checkpoints, breathalizing anyone who even smells vaguely of a beer) made to search out every chump who had 4 beers over the 3 or 4 hours take away from resources that could be spent simply nabbing the obviously drunk.
If you need to stop someone, speak to them one on one, and run them through a complex test to determine whether they are “drunk”, I submit that they aren’t very drunk.
Excellent article, as usual…even if I did have to sign up to read it. Unfortunately, I’ve knuckled to the pressure and I very rarely ever drink anymore when I know I’m going to drive. That’s real unfortunate, because I like a Sam Adams with my meal…kind of ironic. MADDs headquarters is here in the DFW area. You can’t miss it as you drive along 114, because they have their own Federally funded highway sign that tells you which exit to take. First they came for the cigarettes…then the alcohol…watch it, because after that, they’re going after red meat.
Jimmy,
I’ll ensure all the black helicopters are grounded if you promise to recycle your tin foil hat.
First the police do have the authority to question you. There’s no constitutional right or freedom against being asked questions although you don’t have to answer. I just don’t see the huge legal leap from stopping you on the sidewalk or stopping you in the street whether you’re in a car, on a horse, bike or skateboard.
As for an unreasonable search. Man, I don’t know what to tell you. On your best day you might be able to convince me that the police stopping a car is unconstitutional but I sure as hell don’t think it’s unconstitutional to actually see things in plain sight.
Assume that the stop would meet your much harder standard of what should be legal. Dude is driving in a way that would cause a reasonable person to beleive he’s shitfaced. Cop pulls him over. If there’s a big bag of dope on the front seat what can the cop do, given that the drunk has not consented to a search? Is the cop supposed to ignore the big bag of dope in plain sight because the drunk driver has not given the cop any reasonable suspicion that the big bag of dope is actually there?
The comparison of NAZI occupied amsterdam and a DUI checkpoint is just absurd. You should push the tin foil hat up and out from in front of your eyes if you can’t see the difference. And save your comments about the RKBA or the freedom of speach, neither of those are at issue here.
Sorry Jim, you can talk all you want about the tin hats and your black helicopters – doesn’t change the fact that you need to go read the U.S. Constitution. I can send you a link if you reply again.
You have only 1/2 of a paragraph that actually shows an attempt at arguing your point (this is out of 5 paragraphs total, 10% argument, 90% name calling, OK?! – not a good average so far).
There is no leap from being questioned on the sidewalk to being questioned in your car. I am not saying there is anything particularly special in the 4th Amendment for drivers. However, the Law must have probably cause to stop you. You are right that if a cop asks you something on the street, that’s perfectly fine, and that you also don’t have to answer.
You talk about someone who is obviously shitfaced drunk getting pulled over. There is reasonable suspicion there. Yes, if there’s a big bag of dope there, too bad for him (although I don’t agree with the drug war, it’s also unconstitutional). Why are you arguing for my side anyway, Jim? You argue for your side, I’ll argue for mine. What the f__k?
Jim, if you would read your last post, you would see that you agree with me. However, the basis for my and your argument against arbitrary road blocks is the US Constitution, to repeat myself.
Since we agree, are you ready for a ride in one of the choppers? How bout a nice glossy black twin-jet-ranger. I only have a few rotor-wing hours, but trust me Jim, I know what I’m doing.
OK, reality check Rufus, we’re talking about backwoods places, not downtown Pittsburgh or wherever here. Your chances of someone in power taking note of you is pretty thin, unless you’ve driven into a tree or a Taurus. Road-blocks set up in strategic (though, of course, also predictable, spots) are a far more efficient use of police resources than ranging about endless miles of weird backroad looking for enebriated ne’er-do-wells. (Safer too; enebriated ne’er-do-wells are often armed.) They’re far from perfect of course, but they’re more effective than the alternatives, and on an average weekend night can be expected, even in the thinly populated area around where I live, to pull in a few people. I hate to be an apologist for the popo here, but I just don’t see this as fascism in the making.
Another point: not everyone who has been drinking is going to get busted, “driving under the influece” or no. I know many people who have had a night of responsible social drinking and been caught by a drunk patrol and gone away with no difficulties. It happens. Second of all, if you do get busted, you’re not sent straight to the MADD Gulag for reprogramming. Your name will probably be in the paper, but most of the people who get busted are, let’s face it, not the type to get embarassed by these small matteres. And in court, where they are entitled to a jury trial filled with jurors who are likley not to be prudes, they have a bit less than an even chance of getting out of it. There’s a lawyer in town who does virtually nothing but DWI defenses, and he’s quite successful.
Now obviously, strictness varies from place to place; in Texas and in my current temporary home, Quebec, for instance. But PA (and rural NY as well which is more or less the same demographically) makes more use of checkpoints than about anywhere, and it’s how the discussion got started, so I’ll confine my comments to my immediate realm of knowledge.
Not quite sure who Evan is responding to, but I’ll reply to be polite.
Evan, my point is not that I’m worried about a DUI – I thought my point was clear. I don’t drink a whole lot anymore, as I very recently found out what a hangover was (Seriously, I never experienced that before age 28). I have zero chance of getting a DUI or whatever you call it up in Yankeeland.
It’s the principle of random or unreasonable search and seizure of property that violates the 4th Amendment. Just read the damn thing, for crying out loud, both of y’all!
The things the founders of the country fought for were not like cost/benefit analyses. It’s about God-given rights, limitations of Federal power and right vs. wrong.
If you can’t understand that, you don’t understand what America is really about. The State of Penn. and the State of New York cannot institute arbitrary road blocks under the U.S. Constitution, which, as you may recall, they signed up to back in ’89 or so. If you don’t want to abide by it, get out of the Union. (BTW, the Supreme Court’s job is to straighten these things out, but 6 out of 9 are lamos, unfortunately)
You want the straight scoop – Mr. Balko is right on, but the real Libertarian and re-incarnation of the founding fathers is Mr. Vin Suprynowitz (check my spelling). His writes for the Las Vegas Newspaper:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columnists/suprynowicz.html
Vin does not fly rotor-wing aircraft nor does he wear headgear, in case the other Jim is interested in that stuff, heh, heh. ;-}
Well, whether you think “six of nine” of the Supremos are lamerz or not, they have interpreted the constitution to allow for DUI checkpoints, and according to the constitution itself, that that makes them constitutional. Now you can argue — and I would — that the 4th amendment has been excessively emascualted (esp. vis a vis the drug war) but compared to some of the appalling police abuses of it (which I don’t think I have to enumerate to this crowd), this is small potatoes. Let’s have some perspective: in addition to having gone through these sorts of checkpoints, I’ve also been pulled over by cops on little to no pretext, just out driving around late at night. Most people I know also have been. To my mind, this is a greater constitutional abuse than a checkpoint, but it’s been going on forever, happens all the time, and there’s absolutely no way stop it. Fact of life, cops are dicks.
In their basic execution, I just don’t see checkpoints as some gestapo in the making. Of course, the devil is in the details. PA cops are notoriously (ask truckers) overbearing, and there’s a big potential for abuse. But properly done, and I think they generally are, I can’t get too upset about it. I think keeping drunks off the road is absolutely a legitimate function of even a minimalist state. If anyone else can suggest a better way to deal with the problem, I’d love to hear it (and so would the pigs I’m sure; DUI checkpoints aren’t a glamour detail). But, facing the enormity of the problem, I think it’s legit. (Hey, would you rather they set up the checkpoints in front of bars, or force Detroit to put booze sniffers in all our cars?)
(BTW, Jimmy, if “If you don’t want to abide by it, get out of the Union” is going to be the prevailing standard of forensics here, which I hope it will not be, might I suggest with equal unfairness you just keep out of our state.)
Hey Radley, I think you hit a hot topic here. Have you thought about a RB yahoo groupd where folks can textually joust?
As far as the discussion goes, we’re talking about our “rats.” (If you don’t get it, watch Gettysburg and pay attention to when the younger Chamberlain talks to the Confederate POW… hey, I’m from Texas.) The fact is that the checkpoints fall into a greay area, as they are not an outright “search and seizure”, unless they have you open your glovebox or trunk. Once concern here is that folks are becoming afraid of doing anything, whether it’s having a beer or glass of wine with a meal, or even opening ones mouth. We are slowly but surely becoming a police state, and that should worry folks. I spent 20 years in the Armed Forces, and I got a first hand look at a police state in East Germany, and it isn’t pretty. MADD needs to get out of politics, or they need to lose their tax exempt status, and we the People have to come up with a responsible way of dealing with the real drunk drivers that cause real problems on the road, like “zero tolerance.” Of course, if MADD is successful in their campaign to bring the BAC number down lower, there will many more people who will unfairly put into that category, and that is not right. Their goal is the elimination of drinking alcohol, social or otherwise, and in that they go too far.
Evan, I think you’re dead on.
Jimmy, We can both afford to lay off the name calling. I just don’t believe we have the same definition of what a “unreasonable search…” means. This doesn’t make you a defender of the constitution while I try to wipe my rear with it.
I think stopping a car at a check point is reasonable so long as the stop is for a short duration (30 seconds or less). There are 2 things that I feel justify this. The first is the Supreme Court decision, that’s covered already. The other is the process for legally operating a vehicle. You need a license and registration, effectively getting permission to operate a vehicle on a state road. If the state gives permission to drive I don’t see how it’s unconstitutional for the state to give police the authority to temporarily suspend that permission to drive.
I don’t see a DUI check point as being an assault on civil liberties. At least no more than forbidding yelling “Fire” in a theater, is an assault on my 1st Amendment rights.
I’m not sure what’s got you so exercised Evan.
Reality check?
Your point about “rural areas” is completely irrelevant, as any point you raise against what I said on that basis applies equally well to your “solution” of having a road block.
Here’s a reality check. Instead of a roadblock where every single car is stopped and questioned regardless of whether they’ve done anything wrong. Take those same 6 cops cars, put them in pairs of twos at 3 different intersections and have them sit there and look for people driving erratically.
3 times the enforcement, and constitutional to boot.
I agree, the DUI checkpoints are unconstituional. I have a general distrust for the law enforcement communtity in this nation. I concur with Jeff that we are slowly, but surely, catching ourselves slipping into a police state. The more we subscribe to this “if you have nothing to hide, why worry” theory, the more we fail ourselves and the constition. I think it was Ben Franklin that said something to the effect that, anyone who would give up a little freedom for the sake of security, deserves neither freedom nor security.
I agree that if you’re stopped at one of these checkpoints mostlikely you will come out ok as long as you are a half way responsible individual. But, the problem is probable cause can be as little as a whiff of something, ie. the Guiness you just had and/or that bowl of dank you smoked a little bit ago. After the “probable cause” is established, the driver is now at the whim of the police dept. and this can become the tricky part. At least, in the name of the “drug war” police have the unbelievable latitude to do what they see fit to get the “drugs” off the street, as we all know they are not to righteous to resort to a good old fashioned lie.
As for the arguement that driving is a privaledge, and not a right, so this gives the state the right to check up on it’s privaledged people. I know my paycheck is about a 25% less than I actually make, for those who don’t know, these garnishments are called taxes. With these “taxes” my state has the ability to build roads, bridges, etc. So to say the state owns these and can watch what people do on them is absurd. The people of this country are who make things happen through our wage taxes, not the government itself. Without the taxes the gov’t doesn’t exist. We need to remember the people of America came first, then after the struggle the government was formed. It didn’t happen the other way. You can’t have gov’t without people, but you can be human without a gov’t. I know I am little off topic, but I think people need to gain control of our lively hood, and I think the checkpoints are one of those ways. We need to send a resounding message that police are not an authority figure to be used to push moral law upon subservant peoples.
xenical Xen-770009122-345566