Saliva Tests at Routine Traffic Stops

[jhmd2000]

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

Like the 18 people they arrested for DWI in the roadside stop?

 

[PhDeac]

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?

No. That's not what I'm saying. I responded to 2&2's claim that cops stop people on the roads with the most drivers. I brought up the interstate to say that they actually don't.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Like the 18 people they arrested for DWI in the roadside stop?

Sounds like a very effective tactic. Maybe they should just start stopping drivers at random to see if they have broken the law.

 

[RevDeac06]

You want to stop drunk driving (or at least, come closer)? Put a breathalyzer on every car and make it mandatory for the ignition to start. Or, very likely, self-driving cars aren't that far off. This is a question of searches, and, to me, seems very clear that it's an intrusion and illegal under the Constitution. You want to stop me (check point or just randomly) without probable cause? Just make sure you first call Nicholas Cage, get him to steal the Bill of Rights, then put it in the shredder. ETA- And I'm generally a proponent of "big government."

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

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?

Yes, one common one by my house is the on-ramp going from a 4-lane road onto the interstate.

ETA: I see other people have pointed that out as well.

 

[PhDeac]

My bad for getting on-ramp confused with off-ramp before. Dumb mistake. On-ramp makes more sense.

 

[jhmd2000]

Sounds like a very effective tactic. Maybe they should just start stopping drivers at random to see if they have broken the law.

Too much work. Better for the federal government to sniff their texts, email and phone calls and let us know when there's a problem.

 

[PhDeac]

Too much work. Better for the federal government to sniff their texts, email and phone calls and let us know when there's a problem.

I have no idea which side you're on now.

 

[8_DeacFan]

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? or understand better how to get out of it ? Listen I am no angel and I agree I don't want police to be able to harass me but if I was asked to take a saliva test and I wasn't high why would I care?

Hey, I think you're 100% right on this ! I want the police to get every drunk and potential drunk off the road . Then, there's less people for me to run into when I drank a few too many .

 

[jhmd2000]

I have no idea which side you're on now.

The side that supports lawful, effective policies that will help prevent needless deaths. We should have more DWI checkpoints.

 

[Biff Tannen]

The side that supports lawful, effective policies that will help prevent needless deaths. We should have more DWI checkpoints.

Isn't part of the law that the checkpoints to create an unreasonable burden or interruption to drivers?

 

[PhDeac]

The side that supports lawful, effective policies that will help prevent needless deaths. We should have more DWI checkpoints.

But you're against what are effectively email checkpoints.

 

[DeaconSig]

My bad for getting on-ramp confused with off-ramp before. Dumb mistake. On-ramp makes more sense.

#defeated.

 

[94Deac]

You want to stop drunk driving (or at least, come closer)? Put a breathalyzer on every car and make it mandatory for the ignition to start.

Utterly impractical. I have no problem doing this for repeat DUI offenders but it cannot work for every, single car and driver. Plus, who wants some nasty mouthpiece sticking out of the dash of their car?

 

[jhmd2000]

But you're against what are effectively email checkpoints.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

My inner pragmatist tells me that if an impaired North Carolina driver takes a life on average more frequently than once every day, we should probably take lawful steps to combat that problem. When email takes a life a day, it will start to move my personal needle.

 

[jhmd2000]

Isn't part of the law that the checkpoints to create an unreasonable burden or interruption to drivers?

When did laws start trying to minimize unreasonable burden and interruption on citizens?

 

[bym051d]

You want to stop drunk driving (or at least, come closer)? Put a breathalyzer on every car and make it mandatory for the ignition to start. Or, very likely, self-driving cars aren't that far off. This is a question of searches, and, to me, seems very clear that it's an intrusion and illegal under the Constitution. You want to stop me (check point or just randomly) without probable cause? Just make sure you first call Nicholas Cage, get him to steal the Bill of Rights, then put it in the shredder. ETA- And I'm generally a proponent of "big government."

Understand that the person who wrote this drinks on the job, multiple times each week.

 

[RevDeac06]

Utterly impractical. I have no problem doing this for repeat DUI offenders but it cannot work for every, single car and driver. Plus, who wants some nasty mouthpiece sticking out of the dash of their car?

I know it's impractical. My point though is that this issue really isn't about drunk driving, it's about unreasonable searches.

 

[RevDeac06]

Understand that the person who wrote this drinks on the job, multiple times each week.

But the alcohol content of blood is really low.

 

[jhmd2000]

I know it's impractical. My point though is that this issue really isn't about drunk driving, it's about unreasonable searches.

Should a game warden be able to go up to me on private land and ask to see my fishing license? Should the IRS be able to randomly audit me because my number "lost" the lottery? Should ABC officers be able to conduct no notice inspections of bars to see if they have the liquor stamps on their well drinks? Where's the outrage for the prevention of victimless crimes (where the government just happens to be the only actor with a financial interest in the transaction)? I say #JusticeforTickle.

Let's not save our outrage for the rare case of arbitrary government overreach that actually yields a useful benefit.