Saliva Tests at Routine Traffic Stops

[RacerDeac]

Is it fair to say that if someone was high or drunk driving on the road you would want them to be taken off the road?

Absolutely, but I'm not willing to give up my freedoms and the freedoms of the vast majority of the innocent people to lock up a few more folks or potentially save a few lives. I don't buy into the "if one life is saved" line of reasoning used to justify everything from the Patriot Act to gun control to illegal traffic searches. Taken to the extreme, we end up with things like the TSA or the NSA recording and data mining every conversation you and I have ever had.

As for your example, DeaconSig's response pretty much covers it.

 

[jhmd2000]

I figured as much...

but can you expound upon this? I mean, there are a lot of things that would make us safer that don't pass muster, so that hardly seems like a sufficient justification.

DinB,

The way I have always understood it, the roadside checkpoint sweep is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because voluntary use of the public roads involve what amounts to implied consent to limited search of your operability of vehicles (that you are in possession of your state issued license to do so). As we all know, this requires the officer to ask you these questions at very close range whilst inhaling deeply. Either way, driving is a "licensed" behavior much like many others. E.g., I can be hunting on private land and be required to produce a license to hunt in North Carolina.

A roadside stop is not a true 'search' of my vehicle. I have the right to keep my compartments in my vehicle closed. Gets a little iffy when the drug sniffing canine just happened to be present at the stop and alerts on vehicle #6 through the line. At that point, the loopholes start linking to each other and I'm pretty sure you're going to jail on something that amounts to a planetary aligning of your F'd.

 

[ONW]

Canines at DWI check points are bullshit. I've had a LEO tell me he can get a police dog to trigger for "probable cause" whenever he wants.

They have a command that triggers a positive response regardless of detecting anything.

 

[RacerDeac]

It is virtually impossible for them to follow every car that drives down the road to note erratic behavior. You'd need a cop for every driver. It is much more encompassing and more efficient to stay in one major location that a good number of drivers are funneling through.

Yeah, obviously the answer to police overstepping their bounds would be a police state where every citizen is followed by their own personal officer. Facepalm

 

[RacerDeac]

They have a command that triggers a positive response regardless of detecting anything.

He told me it wasn't a specific command, but rather the way he handled the dog. With the right amount of gesturing and the right tone of voice, he could excite the dog and get him to point out a false positive.

He was a pretty libertarian dude. He ended up giving up his K9 because he refused to use his dog in the way the leadership expected him to.

 

[ONW]

He told me it wasn't a specific command, but rather the way he handled the dog. With the right amount of gesturing and the right tone of voice, he could excite the dog and get him to point out a false positive.

He was a pretty libertarian dude. He ended up giving up his K9 because he refused to use his dog in the way the leadership expected him to.

True, it's not a verbal command. I should have stated that differently. And that sucks for your friend.

 

[PhDeac]

It is virtually impossible for them to follow every car that drives down the road to note erratic behavior. You'd need a cop for every driver. It is much more encompassing and more efficient to stay in one major location that a good number of drivers are funneling through.

Any location that drivers are funneling though that cops can effectively stop the flow of traffic is a location that a drunk driver couldn't do much damage anyway. Do police conduct traffic stops on interstates or a 4-lane roads?

 

[jhmd2000]

Any location that drivers are funneling though that cops can effectively stop the flow of traffic is a location that a drunk driver couldn't do much damage anyway. Do police conduct traffic stops on interstates or a 4-lane roads?

Off ramps, usually. Nowhere to run.

 

[PhDeac]

Off ramps, usually. Nowhere to run.

That's not the interstate and they're getting people who have chosen to leave the place they could do the most damage, most likely because they're close to their destination.

 

[jhmd2000]

That's not the interstate and they're getting people who have chosen to leave the place they could do the most damage, most likely because they're close to their destination.

Semantics, in my view. As you point out, a literal restriction to "interstate" probably creates more danger than it would interdict (stopping cars going 70+ at night; who knows how many on phone, texting, buzzed/drunk, temptation to have someone cross the Rubicon to dodge the checkpoint, etc.).

I'm not following your point, in any event. I'm sure they do them at on-ramps, too. I just haven't had that pleasure yet.

 

[PhDeac]

It's not a difficult point.

2&2 said that police stop people at one major location that a good number of drivers are funneling through. I point out for reasons that you also clarify that it's impossible or at least a very bad idea to stop people at the locations the largest number of drivers are funneling through and were they could cause the most damage, interstates.

Stops at on-ramps seem like a waste of resources because people have willingly taken themselves off the highway where they could cause the most damage and are probably near their homes.

It's more efficient for cops to simply drive on the interstate and spot reckless drivers and pull them over than to camp out on an on-ramp and stop everybody.

 

[jhmd2000]

It's not a difficult point.

2&2 said that police stop people at one major location that a good number of drivers are funneling through. I point out for reasons that you also clarify that it's impossible or at least a very bad idea to stop people at the locations the largest number of drivers are funneling through and were they could cause the most damage, interstates.

Stops at on-ramps seem like a waste of resources because people have willingly taken themselves off the highway where they could cause the most damage and are probably near their homes.

It's more efficient for cops to simply drive on the interstate and spot reckless drivers and pull them over than to camp out on an on-ramp and stop everybody.

 

[DeacinBama]

DinB,

The way I have always understood it, the roadside checkpoint sweep is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because voluntary use of the public roads involve what amounts to implied consent to limited search of your operability of vehicles (that you are in possession of your state issued license to do so). As we all know, this requires the officer to ask you these questions at very close range whilst inhaling deeply. Either way, driving is a "licensed" behavior much like many others. E.g., I can be hunting on private land and be required to produce a license to hunt in North Carolina.

A roadside stop is not a true 'search' of my vehicle. I have the right to keep my compartments in my vehicle closed. Gets a little iffy when the drug sniffing canine just happened to be present at the stop and alerts on vehicle #6 through the line. At that point, the loopholes start linking to each other and I'm pretty sure you're going to jail on something that amounts to a planetary aligning of your F'd.

Thanks. This is pretty much what I thought, although I doubt I possess the legal verbiage to have it make sense to lawyers.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

It is virtually impossible for them to follow every car that drives down the road to note erratic behavior. You'd need a cop for every driver. It is much more encompassing and more efficient to stay in one major location that a good number of drivers are funneling through.

It would be very easy to mandate the installation of a GPS tracker on every car that would set off alerts if a car was driven recklessly. Do you think that's a good idea too?

 

[RacerDeac]

It would be very easy to mandate the installation of a GPS tracker on every car that would set off alerts if a car was driven recklessly. Do you think that's a good idea too?

If it saves one life....

 

[jhmd2000]

Ph, as luck would have it, these are two of the four stories up on our local news website:

http://abc11.com/news/police-make-18-dwi-arrests-at-weekend-checkpoint/479239/ For background for the non-locals, Wade Avenue is a major road (divided-highway type set up with a median) in Raleigh, that connects I-40 and the Beltline. 18 DWIs and 5 Narc charges in three hours.

48 hours and one major thoroughfare to the Northwest later...http://abc11.com/news/woman-charged-after-motorcyclist-killed-in-crash/481038/ Driver fled the scene. Four hours after the crash, her blood-alcohol level was measured at .13. The legal limit in North Carolina is .08.

Police say she was traveling an estimated 115 mph before the collision.

Sprouse is charged with felony death by vehicle, felony hit and run, DWI, no license, expired tag, and no insurance.

Bond was initially set at $26,000, but raised Tuesday to $1.1 million.

 

[PhDeac]

So the cops should have been testing saliva at Wade and Glenwood?

 

[jhmd2000]

So the cops should have been testing saliva at Wade and Glenwood?

I don't understand the resistance to doing actual police work that will keep people safe. I get annoyed when police officers hide on private property to see who doesn't come to a complete stop at residential stop signs in the middle of the day while alone at an intersection, but scaring drunk drivers into taking a cab instead of a life is cool with this small government wingnut. Impaired driving killed 371 in North Carolina in 2014; representing 28.8% of all total traffic deaths.

 

[PhDeac]

Actual police work is seeing people commit a crime and catching them.

 

[Biff Tannen]

I'm not sure what Ph is saying wrt drunk driving on the interstate v. not on the interstate. Is it no big deal to be driving around drunk on a two-lane road or a four-lane road with a center turn lane, but if you're on the interstate, all the sudden its a big problem?