.

DUI Checkpoints

Evils of DUI Checkpoints

With various holidays approaching [and now holidays are not even the deciding factor anymore], people need to prepare themselves for those pesky DUI checkpoints, because those liberty infringement devices are increasingly the rage in local law enforcement.  They are not popular with police agencies because they are effective, since statistically they are not.  They are popular because they are funded by grant funds from Sacramento, that come from Washington, DC, that had been taken from us back here; it is a big, costly circle that your and my money has traveled to then screw over you with.

The  grant system is one of the greatest evils in policing, because grants are
essentially a political bounty for pressing certain types of cases; the merit of
the case does not matter; the filthy lucre funding its processing drives the
affair.  And nowhere is the evil more manifest than in drunk driving, DUI, DWI, or whatever label.

MADD, the lineal descendants of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of old, which gave us Prohibition and the 18th Amendment, are furious that the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition, but their neo-Prohibitionism is even more dangerous than its ancestor oppression.  They have, with phony statistics and threats of placard-laced demonstrations, conned or intimidated legislators, judges, DAs, and cops into increasing harshness regarding drunk driving, and so they all lose their soul in the evil bargain.

Of course, if the Framers’ will be done, civilian jurors would be protecting
accusees from governmental overreaching, but jurors have increasingly lost their
independence and have come to believe that their government is good, reliable,
trustworthy, and to be heeded.  Yeah, idiotic as it sounds, people on juries cannot seem to see, or do not want to believe, the corruption in their very presence. 
Perhaps their own sense of security would be lessened if they came to
understand how corrupt their government is in these things, but their lack of
institutional skepticism has dangerously undermined the very foundation of our
jury trial system, which is the ultimate protector of our liberties.

The truth of the matter is that government makes a bundle from drunk driving,
between the block grant moneys from DC, to the penalty assessments on the fines [now about 400% of the base fine, if not more], to the various fees, to the
costs of the rehabilitation programs, to the need for more DAs and judges to try
the matters and more cops to initiate them. The fiscal and evidentiary corruption underlying DUI investigation and enforcement would make Bernie Madoff look like Mother Teresa in comparison.

“But what of the dangers of drunk driving?”  Garbage!  The system, at the
insistence of the pushy harpies from MADD, have created the category of
“alcohol-related [accidents, deaths, incidents, etc.]” in place of "drunk-driver-caused [same],” because the incidence of things being actually caused by drunk drivers is miniscule, and that truth would undermine their political agenda.  But something gets into the stats as being “alcohol-related” if a sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian; if a sober driver’s drunk uncle in the back seat is thrown out when the car flips over because its tire fell off; if a drunk driver is sitting
lawfully at a light and a sober driver negligently runs into him; etc.; that
category has nothing to do with who caused what.  Yet those “alcohol-related” stats are the ones that supply the pneumatic numbers that make everyone go nuts about drunk driving.

Drunk driver caused accidents are in single digit %-ages, which would not help the MADD harpies, nor the block grant ghouls, nor the legions of government employees who profit from DUI enforcement and prosecution and conviction.

So, what of checkpoints – they are legal, are they not?  Well, it all depends on what you mean by legal.  The Framers would not have tolerated such a suspicionless invasion of privacy.  As Justice Clarence Thomas, a student of the
Constitution whose scholarship on the subject is almost as faithful and pure as mine, has opined, “I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered ‘reasonable’ a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.”  But, you see, most judges, even up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are politicians; few are scholars, and even fewer are faithful to the Founding principles.

And those politician judges have decreed that a properly erected and run[!]
checkpoint is “legal,” just as other politicians have found it beneficial to set up the scheme in the first place.  But they do have to be properly erected and run, and very few are so, even for the watered down constitutional standards of the neo-Prohibitionist judges.

But beware, if you go through them.  First off, watch, look, and listen, and if you see one ahead, turn off; that is legal, if you make a lawful turning maneuver. 
Don’t give the constabularial ghouls the opportunity to tell you to stop, tell you to wait, tell you to go, tell you to blow into their hands, command you to answer questions, etc.  See, that is part of what is going on here.  Cops like the checkpoints, whether they get any arrests out of them or not, because they then have the chance to play “we’re the Man; we’re in charge of your freedom” to the citizens thus stopped and inconvenienced.  This is an incident of police statism, not public safety.  This is power, not protection.

The fact of the matter is that communities that do not receive these grant funds do not do checkpoints on their own dime, because checkpoints return de minimis
results for the efforts expended.  There might be 500-800 citizens stopped while going about their business, and from that will come only 1-3 DUI arrests, if that many; one in Yucca Valley just stopped over 1,100 motorists, and found not one drunk driver!  Every police chief worth his stars [and some wear five, like General of the Army Douglas MacArthur!] will confess that saturation patrols are far, far more effective in apprehending drunk drivers than are checkpoints.

So, first try to avoid it by turning off.  If you are in one and get approached, hand your license and registration and proof of insurance and say you do not want to talk, period.  You don’t have to talk; you don’t have to say where you are coming from or going to or whether you have had anything to drink.  Decline to say
anything.

If they then shunt you over to the investigation line, be polite, but answer no
questions, say nothing, and do not perform any objective symptoms [field
sobriety] tests – you have a right to refuse, and politely do so on advice of
counsel, this counsel!  If you are arrested, of course, you have to submit to a breath or blood test.  Ask for breath, and then ask for a back-up urine test, which is your right.  When they say you cannot have a back-up urine test, politely request that the officer record that you have requested it.  Then say nothing else.  Anything you say to the police can and will be used against you, either in the order you said it, or in any order than helps their case.  The cops are not there to help you.  They are there to put DUI cases together.  They make money by putting cases together; they make nothing by being nice to you and letting you go, so they will not, so don’t demean yourself by asking.  Ever.

Checkpoints are tyranny, DUI arrests and convictions are the product of evil maneuvers by purposeful people, then “supported” by voodoo science that would not be admissible in any other sort of case, and all aspects of both the stop and of
the prosecution are fightable.  Do not cave in, or else evil people will thereby be emboldened to harass others.

If you do get snagged, though, there are things to be done, if you have the right
lawyer.  Call me, if it’s the Inland Empire [Palm Springs, Indio, Coachella Valley, Banning, Joshua Tree, Victorville, Needles, Blythe, Riverside, San Bernardino, Murrieta, Rancho Cucamonga, etc.].

http://kennedyforlaw.com

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Hal September 28, 2012 at 04:27 AM
With the exception of the comments about Justice Thomas, I agree with most everything here. Checkpoints are evil.
Michael Kennedy September 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Whoa, Hal, you are so anti-Thomas that even though he accurately recites that the Framers would not have tolerated this liberty-invasive scheme, a sentiment with which you appear to agree, you want to voice disagreement with only the portion referencing him? That is bizarre. Whatever one might think of Thomas, he does accurately channel Framers' sentiments on many liberty matters, especially warrantless liberty invasions and confrontation rights.
Papa Rich September 28, 2012 at 02:55 PM
Check points are great keep it up because there is over 900 different places in the valley of Coachella to buy booze.. and booze kills! over 400,000 people every year! Lets stop these drunks and get them off the streets. Please do not stop these check points. It also gets our friends from down south who drive with no papers or a license. You gotta love this country !!
Michael Kennedy September 28, 2012 at 03:01 PM
If the argument that there might be the discovery of wrongdoing if we arbitrary search and seize people or their property or residences or vehicles were sufficient to scrap constitutional rights, then there would be no need for a Constitution. There are places in the world that police conclusions about who or what you are suffices to obliterate liberty, but thankfully we are not [yet!] one of them. We are inching [some would say galloping] in that direction, but so far police state-ism has not totally evicted the Constitution. And don't fall for the phonied up stats by the neo-prohibitionists about DUIs and injuries or deaths - that is propaganda, not fact.
Hal September 28, 2012 at 05:57 PM
I disagree with the use of the word scholarship in regards to Justice Thomas and the implication that he is not a politician but a scholar. Thomas is one of our most political Justices. I'm sure we'll disagree on this issue so I won't belabor it. In all, I agreed with most of what you said and while I never drink and drive I resent checkpoints and the erosion of our liberty to be free of unwarranted searches.
Papa Rich September 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM
That's funny what do have to hide ? I always get waved right thur everytime Your just nitpicking the constitution...find a worthwhile cause you have good forward energies. Use them wisely.
Michael Kennedy September 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Hal, I never said [I don't think] that I don't think Thomas is a politician: I think virtually all judges are, and the oft'spouted suggestion that the judiciary is not a political branch is absurd, naive, or downright fraudulent. But I think that, in addition to that status, he is a scholar, although, of course, not of the level of a Brandies, Frankfurter, Holmes, or me[!], and he does have a certain perception of and dedication to originalism that is too often missing in the words and conduct of other judges. Reading his memoir "My Grandfather's Son" gives a certain insight into who he is that is richer and deeper than the "pubic hair in my Coke" garbage from his detractors during the confirmation hearings.
Michael Kennedy September 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM
Rich, the question in constitutionalism is not what one has to "hide," but whether government can show that its interests outrank those of people who don't want government sticking its nose into their affairs. If I were to walk up to your house or car and say, out of the blue, "I'd like to snoop around in your private areas to see what is there," you would rightfully tell me to take a hike - and if you would, then government similarly has no right to similarly snoop. Our rights to privacy, regardless of what they might help hide, greatly outrank the government's right to know stuff - that is what differentiates a constitutional Republic from a police state. Some don't like that former and prefer the latter - fine, they should move to Cuba.
Papa Rich September 30, 2012 at 12:13 AM
I think out in public, car whatever ...the booze situations need to be addressed , there are way too many people dying . So until maybe one of u's finds a better way check points are here to stay because 85% of the public are just plain stupid.
Michael Kennedy October 01, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Well, Rich, I can't disagree that there is an abundance of stupidity across the fruited plain, including in the judiciary, but stupidity is not the measure of constitutionality, nor is police power; privacy and liberty is! At least in this Republic. Those who think the relationship of the people to its government should be different from what the Framers envisioned here should go elsewhere.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »