MO county plans to hold "no refusal" DUI checkpoint

Story is from St. Charles County, near St. Louis. Here's how it will work: Any driver who refuses to take a Breathalyzer test will automatically have their blood drawn on the spot.

The authorities will have judges on scene to immediately issue court orders to get the blood. The Post-Dispatch checked, and as far as they can tell, this is the first time anyone's done a checkpoint like this is Missouri.

(LEOs can get blood draws in other DUI cases. It's just that it's usually a pain in the behind to track down a judge at 2 a.m. on a Saturday morning.)

Comments

[Stifled Freedom]

Dont you love the "constitutional rights" we have today?

[Sasquach]

I'm so happy the supreme court created a beautiful loophole that local police and prosecutors have been able to expand like a new prison inmates rectum.

[Johns]

It's not a loophole. The judge is there to determine probable cause. Hell, I'd rather have a judge there in person to see the probable cause evidence than to have a cop submit trumped-up probable cause statements to a judge who can't observe the situation himself.

Here's a simple plan to avoid these things: don't drink and drive.

[EsqEB]

This is awesome!! If you are still so stupid to drink and drive, you are an idiot.

[kp]

We should implement the "Judge Ride Along" program. Each police officer will be assigned a Judge - when the accused is pulled over, the police can write the ticket, the judge can announce a guilty verdict & the previously accused, now a convicted offender, can pay with their Visa or Mastercard. If you don't carry a credit card then you can use the ATM that each police car will start carrying - of course there's a $3 convenience fee.

[Sasquach]

Not referring to the judges being there as a loophole. Referring to sobriety checkpoints in general. The original ruling laid out some procedures that were supposed to lead to a minimally invasive process for condcuting checkpoints (although they completely ignored that there are less invasive and more effective means of dui enforcement; i.e. saturation patrols) when they created the 4th Amendment exception that allows for sobriety checkpoints. It seems like every year now the cops and prosecutors try to push the 4th Amendment just a little bit further back (being more vague in announcements, using attempted avoidance of the checkpoint as reasonable suspicion for a stop, blood draws on the scene, etc...). I guess when your rights are being whittled away slowly rather than in big chunks, people tend to notice, and thus care, less.

[Sasquach]

kp:

I think there was a comic book and a movie very similar to that idea.

Oh yeah, "I am the Law."

[JewwellsP]

"If those arrested on suspicion of driving drunk refuse an officer's request for a breath test, police plan to get on-the-spot court orders for blood tests from a nearby on-call prosecutor and circuit judge."

So you must already be arrested.
Experts say it's legal to require blood tests from drivers arrested for DWI. Most states, including Missouri and Illinois, have implied consent laws that mandate breath, blood, saliva or urine samples if asked by a police officer.

the tactic appears to be catching on locally, with a checkpoint similar to the one in St. Charles planned this weekend in Franklin County, and two more in St. Charles County next month.

[Kevin]

I have to agree with some of these posts that our rights are slowly being taken away under the disguise of public safety. Its bad enough that we have to be subject to these check points, but to now allow on scene blood test when a person refuses is outragous. If a officer confronts a suspect impaired driver, and after developing probable cause, requests a test and the person says no then let the refusal be handled like any other refusal with an automatic suspension of the person't driver's license. Let the person have his day in court and see if the officer can prove his case. We are innocent until proven guilty. But to force evidence out of someone is crazy and is a slippery slope that we don't want to go down.

[Sasquach]

The problem that you run into is that the only evidence that a defendant is specifically constitutionally allowed to withhold is testimonial evidence against themself (right against self incrimination). Physical evidence including blood, DNA and other bodily fluids/tissues, aren't testimonial and, thus cannot be unequivically withheld (although a warrant may still be required for collection). The best argument anyone really has in refusing a blood draw is medical privacy, but a court order trumps that. It isn't really the judges on the scene that I have a problem with. It's the whole sobriety checkpoint process prior to them getting involved. If the process by which the evidence is collected, that lead to the judges ruling is flawed, isn't the ruling inherently flawed as well.

[Mikeybackwards]

JewwellsP -

The implied consent only applies if the officer has a valid reason to believe that you are over the limit. Somebody needs to get suing for an injunction on 4th Amendment grounds immediately.

This type of invasive measure goes far beyond any that was envisioned in the precedent setting decision permitting sobriety checkpoints, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz.

[Cops are Terrorists]

One-stop corruption...cops and judges. Our freedoms are the victim.

[Chuck Rizzo]

Everyone yells about rights until a drunk driver in an SUV runs over them and their family. Then they yell where are the cops.

Very Corrupting to stop drunk drivers. I hate when the cops corrupt drunk drivers. I bet it was the officers that made them drink in the first place right?

[Mikeybackwards]

Chuck,

No I don't agree with your last (sarcastic) statement.

However, I believe there are more effective was, that don't violate our rights, to apprehend and prosecute drunk drivers.

[Mikeybackwards]

typing on a smart phone is killing me today. The last sentence above should read:

However, I believe there are more effective WAYS, that don't violate our rights, to apprehend and prosecute drunk drivers.

[Chuck Rizzo]

Haha nice Mikey, I understood what you meant though.

I personally don't care if there are check points what so ever. The more the merrier. I don't feel my rights being violated when I pass through one. When I pass through one I'm more releaved knowing that if there is a drunk behind me he's not making it through the check point.

I guess when your in a field that daily you hear at least one person say after a drunk driving accident "we're lucky no one was killed" kinda changes your perspective.

[FOG52]

Mikeybackwards, just WHAT ways do YOU suggest to get these killers of innocent people off the road? I don't think it's an invasion of my privacy to drive through one of these, and I'm not stupid enough to drink and drive. So what is the problem? How are we going to fix drunks killing people. Constatly whining about our "rights" doesn't make any positive steps. Tell us Mikey, please, what should we do?

[Sasquach]

FOG52:

Look up "saturation patrols." They typically have about 2-3 times the arrest rate for the number of drivers stopped without any constitutional questions. The problem I see is that you are welcome to consent to giving up any of your rights, but not to give up mine. When you are trying to balance liberty against safety, or trying to stop drunk drivers, does it make sense to use a less effective but more invasive form of inforcement?

[Truth]

I know, let's just allow the cops to check us everytime we leave the house, or even better, just post an armed guard to tell us what to do and think. Chuck, you are an idiot who is blinded like most other lemmings with your mind set.

[Drew]

The Constitution granted our rights, which empowered the Courts with the ability to interpret those rights. The Supreme Court has determined that, when properly administered, checkpoints are not a violation of your rights. Holyjeezuzf-ingcriminy!!!!!!!
The remainder falls within the implied consent on your MO DL, and every other state for that matter.

Sas repeatedly mentioned a while back (until I opened my thick skull to what he/she was saying) that these checkpoints were "otherwise unconstitutional".
Every search w/o a search warrant is "otherwise unconstitutional", but people don't continually bitch about plain view, open fields, PC, etc. searches. This is no different. Please stop.

[Drew]

Additionally, FOG52 raises a very good point in that all the attacks on sobriety checkpoints and their constitutionality ask, "What does this do to me?", when instead the element of potential victimization is forgotten--we should be asking, "Why shouldn't we do it for the scores of potential DWI crash victims out there?"

Please piss out some erosion of rights argument, now.

[Chuck Rizzo]

Truth actually a lemming is something that follows it's leader and the rest of its group off a cliff. I'm the lemming that sits and eats grass while all the other lemmings run around like idiots.

I watch the group of lemmings that dies from heart related stress anytime someone attempts to "take away" one of their lemming rights.

I watch the other group OD and gorge themselves on everything and everything BECAUSE NO ONE CAN TELL THOSE LEMMINGS WHAT TO DO.

Me I'm the lemming by himself in his own little world. If I was a terrorist lemming or drug dealer lemming sure I wouldn't want anyone to listen to my conversations but I'm not so I don't care. I'm a lemming who's while he's happily going along his way doesn't want a drunk or stoned or OD'ing lemming to run into him.

If you want to pick on or call out someone for following a long thats fine, but you better make sure you know what your talking about first.

[Lawx]

What's next, anal probes?

My overall view is that DUI laws are "feel good" punishments of anticipatory crimes. The pols get the teary-eyed vote and a human face is put on their tyranny. That wrong-headedness then spirals out of control into warrantless kidnapping off the public streets (checkpoints) and fiat destruction of the 4th Amendment (implied consent laws). Blood testing, based upon a warrant, is not that bad an idea, on the other hand, since it injects the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment back into a process that has long had to live without it. Part of the officer's evidence would certainly have to be that the subject was peacefully and legally driving down the public highway, without any indicia of intoxication. After first contact, what and when the officer learned it would have to all go into the calculus of probable cause. Any judge not a toad of the government might refuse to find p.c.. Too, the manner and place of the testing raises chain-of-custody and reliability issues for court later. Lastly, I don't see judges standing for the intrusion very long or local governments standing for the expense very long. The burden of proof is, indeed, a burden and the more hoops the storm troopers have to go through to sustain it, the better.

[Chuck Rizzo]

"Public" is a relative term, the state maintains the streets with state and federal funds. I understand most if not all the funds are tax dollars, but the state since it is the one who has to provide safety for these roadways can set up a check point. If you don't like it don't drive that way.

You pay taxes I pay taxes in this idea of public road, I own as much of the road as you do so I say YAY TO CHECK POINTS. Who's voice is more important yours or mine?

[Ruth]

Don't drive and drink and you won't have to worry. !!

[Mikeybackwards]

Chuck and FOG52 -

Good for you that you have no use for your rights and will not fight for them. In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin:

He who is willing to sell essential freedoms for the illusion of safety is deserving of neither freedom nor safety and lose both.

FOG52 - Sasquach already pointed out that saturation patrols are more effective. This is a point that even Drew will agree to (and did as recently as Saturday).

Chuck - the fact that the streets and roads are public and you 'own' them as much as anyone else does not give you the authority to throw out another's constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable, suspicion-less searches and seizures. YAY TO RIGHTS!.

Drew, unlike the checkpoints authorized in Michigan Department of State Police v Sitz or other controlling case law, This is not just stopping people and then searching and/or arresting those who exhibit behavior to give officers a probable cause.

Here everyone, without any individual suspicion is forced to submit to a search and seizure that is normally only reserved for those individuals who are under arrest for investigation/suspicion of the commission of a crime - driving while intoxicated.

This is why I am arguing this checkpoint from a different perspective than a typical checkpoint.

[Chuck Rizzo]

Mikey your argument makes no sense. Because I am exercising my rights. My right as a citizen to agree with a certain type of law enforcement I'm giving up my rights? Give me a break dude.

I guess had I had a DUI or even and MIP I would be against this da$% me for following the rules. That's a right also correct? Following the rules? So if I Chose to follow the rules I don't have consequences wow its amazing how that works.

Per the article, they have to be arrested under the suspicion of DUI then they can their blood removed if they refuse the test. Which by all experts accounts is legal.

What makes me angry about your argument is you view YOUR rights as more important than MINE. YOU don't like it so anything anyone says against YOU is wrong, even if other tax payers agree with it. Here is a good piece of advise to all you people who have pine-cones in your briches over this. Don't drive near the check points. Welp there ya go problem solved no one is going to do anything to you.

[Rusty Trombone]

"Don't drive and drink and you won't have to worry. !!"

aren't the rest of the lemmings jumping off of the cliff? Go join them.

[Chuck Rizzo]

Rusty you want people to drink and drive? I'm a lemming because drinking and driving leads to fatalities and I feel thats a bad thing?

[Drew]

Mikey, unless I misread, this only applies to those who are under arrest for DWI and refuse to supply a B.A.C.
In order to reach this point in the process, the arrestee must have already given PC to arrest. This issue is only post-arrest.

Hell, if anything else, this is a brilliant prosecutorial move because it fast-tracks due process to more readily available on-call prosecutors and judges. It's no different than any other time a blood draw, post-BAC refusal is requested. This just gives the LEOs a quicker response to get a more accurate BAC at the time they were witnessed operating the vehicle. This could work out better for a driver whose BAC was on its way up, nearing .08. It usually works out against LEOs when they have to wait an hour or two for court orders of this nature. At an average elimination rate of .015 per hour, that kind of wait can alter the final results up to .30, which is incredibly significant in the sense of lost evidence.

"That anyone who happens to be driving through St. Charles could be stopped and have their blood forcibly removed from them does seem to me like the government is overreaching," he said (some dum-dum baby from the ACLU). Brilliant, idiot. Yu mean, anyone driving through St. Charles who happens to go through this particular checkpoint at this particular time and gives officers probable cause to arrest him for DWI, right? Thought I'd clarify for you.

Good for St. Chuck.

[Tom K]

I do realize that the concept of "diminishing returns" is as alien a concept to a lot of people as the idea that our rights are more important than law enforcement goals or even our lives, but some people here could crack a book once in a while.

[Drasil]

I wonder what would happen if someone being "arrested" made the statement, "I wish to consult my attorney." Wouldn't due process require the attorney to be present or that the suspect be allowed to consult with his attorney before the law?

[save me]

Chuck Rizzo, do you think only drunks drive SUVs? I think it would be easier to just declare them guilty if they refuse and save the Judge the time. Before long it will be illegal to drink and smoke cigarettes and if things keep up the way they are going, you will only be able to buy gas to drive to work and back. Where is William Wallace when you need him to shout "Freedom"....

[Truth]

Good ole Chuck, willing to submit to whatever the state tells him because it is unable to think for itself...

[Bill]

"Those who would sacrifice freedoms in the name of security deserve neither"!

[StoneColdSober]

What a bunch of losers. If you refuse a breathalyzer test you automatically lose your drivers license for a year. Why do they need to draw blood? To show what a bunch of Nazi's they are.

[KC]

I lost a member of my family in a DUI accident.But this is communism.I still believe it is a violation of your civil rights to take your blood if you refuse to blow. Are you kidding me this is America? Land of the "free".No matter how many people they arrest it does not bring the person back? When it is your time to go it is your time to go. Right? These are solely done to generate more revenue. Bottom line!!!

[Chuck Rizzo]

No I think for myself plenty, I just don't care that much to lose sleep over it. My thought is hey life is short have fun. I don't want to be caught in any situation that diminishes the amount of fun I have at any given time. Being arrested not fun, being prosecuted not fun, going to jail not fun.

You know what fine call me a lemming call me whatever, just email me when your in jail and I'm not, maybe I'll bring you some cookies. I'll be out having fun obeying the law and not being in jail. Hey I could bring you some soap on a rope to.

Yes KC I'm sure it's cheap to have a judge on site and someone who knows how to correctly draw blood. Not to mention the other equipment that it takes to set these up. I'm sure they rake in the money. Don't they say the average DUI costs a person around $2500ish? Thats with lawyer fee's fine's etc etc. I doubt unless they arrested 15-20 people it would even cover the cost of holding the checkpoint.

[Sasquach]

Chuck,

Your voice stops being relevant at all when you switch from makeing decisions regarding your own rights to making decisions regarding mine. If you want to consent to a search of yourself, that's fine. But you are the only one you can consent for. It isn't a matter of a majority saying "I think this law is for the best," if the law violates the rights of even one person. That was the purpose of the bill of rights: to prevent subjegation of the rights of the minorty (or anybody) by the will of the majoirty. So when it comes to fundamental rights, no, your voice doesn't matter.

Drew,

Yes the SCOTUS has the authority to interpret laws under the Constitution, but that doesn't make them infallable. Were they right when prior to Brown v. Board of Education they held that seperate but equal is equal? More than a few people believe that the SCOTUS screwed up royally in Roe v. Wade. I (and other people as well) believe that the reasoning used to support Sitz v. Mich. was faulty, and that their decision was incorrect. I believe that they do have authority to make exceptions to fundamental rights (such as the 4th Amendment Search and Seizure protections) when there is a compelling govt. interest (i.e. Drunk Driving). However, that balance should be considered in light of whether or not this is the least intrusive means of addressing the problem and whether other equally effective means can be used that do not require an exception to otherwise guaranteed rights. The court did not do this in Sitz v. Michigan. Instead, they merely stated that sobriety checkpoints have proven effective in detecting drunk drivers (while glossing over the fact that they are only minimally effective - not much more so than regular patrols), and then erroniously compared them to boarder checkpoints and airport security checks (which really are the only means of addressing the public interests at stake in those circumstances). My opinion may not matter much, but it isn't invalid just because the court says something is ok.

[Mikeybackwards]

Chuck -

I think you don't use or protect your rights because this is a violation of the 4th Amendment guaranteed right to be free from a suspicion-less (unreasonable) search and seizure. It doesn't matter that you or I have nothing to hide. The government has no right or lawful authority to force anyone to submit to this warrant-less, baseless search and seizure.

Also, I have never had a DUI and I don't drive drunk - just because one is willing to defend a right including the rights of those who break laws doesn't mean one is a law breaker oneself. Your assumption demeans you and degrades your argument. I generally have thought you to be a fairly intelligent individual, however, when you make such baseless innuendo as to my motive in defending my (and your rights) and are unable to understand the applicability of the Franklin quote to yourself, you undermine any sense of intelligence in your argument.

Let me lay it out explicitly for you since you don't seem able to get it. You have the essential freedom to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (searches of yourself, your property, and your effects without a warrant or a specific suspicion based upon observed facts or behaviors). You are willing to sell that essential freedom for the illusion of safety from drunk drivers (it is an illusion because checkpoints are not the most effective way of apprehending drunk drivers, and because the chance of any individual drunk driver being caught is so low, checkpoints do not work as an effective deterrent to people driving drunk). Being such a person you will lose both your freedom and your safety, because once you cede unlawful authority to the government you cannot get it back and then are either forced to comply with ever greater unlawful seizure of authority and its restrictions on your actions or face imprisonment, violence, or both.

But instead of defending your right, you are willing to jump off the cliff of 'it doesn't matter because I am not doing anything wrong so it doesn't affect me. Of course, that only applies to now and how the government uses this power you are willing to give them now. As the right-wingers have found out when they cheered on the government as it went after those who they disagreed with, but are now outraged that the same unconstitutional tools are being turned on them and those who they see as allies.

Happy cliff-diving, lemming.

[Chuck Rizzo]

Mikey I wasn't meaning you went or are going to prison for being a criminal, I was just making a generalization about law breakers. Sorry about that.

Question then I understands your points about un-warranted search and siezuers. Does me driving through a KNOWN check point area change that? For example I know when I go to the Chiefs game I'm going to get searched, I know that prior to going so does that diminish my rights? If someone knows hey checkpoint up a head and says okay lets go, aren't they saying okay well I know whats going to happen here.

I guess when you say giving up your rights, I don't feel I'm giving anything up, if I dind't want to drive through a check point I wouldn't. I wouldn't drive intoxicated but still.

[Chuck Rizzo]

And I'm Irish/Scandinavian even if I were wrong(not admitting it at this point), I'm to stubborn to admit it.

[Mikeybackwards]

If the checkpoint itself is unconstitutional, then it doesn't matter whether you knew or know about the checkpoint.

We have carved out certain constitutional exceptions for those circumstances where the state has a vested interest that exceeds the individual right and where such searches and seizures are the least invasive, and most efficient means possible (e.g. security checks at airports, passing through a metal detector before entry into a courthouse or school).

In specific response to your question regarding a Chiefs game, that is a publicly owned venue that has been leased to a private entity (the Chiefs) for a closed event (you must be invited to the event, and provide proof of acceptability for admittance, in this case the ticket which is a purchased invitation). The Chiefs make a condition of admittance that the ticket holder subject to a security check by the private security force hired by and acting on behalf of the Chiefs (a term of service, when one buys the ticket is that one consents to the Chiefs or their assigned agents to conduct this search). This is not a state or government action, but is governed by the private party agreement between one and the Chiefs.

Again, the police have the right to request your consent to a search (i.e. ask you to submit to a breathalyzer at a checkpoint, with or without cause) but without an articulable basis for reasonable suspicion or warrant the police should not be able to require you to submit to a breathalyer or to use your refusal to submit as the sole grounds to force you to submit to a blood being drawn and tested. If, however, as part of a permissible stop (including standard checkpoints) you exhibit signs of impairment (slurred speech, glazed eyes, strong odor of alcohol or other intoxicant, weaving or failing to maintain a consistent speed while driving) that forms a reasonable suspicion to require one to submit to a breathalyer or other test to verify if an individual is over the legal limit of BAC for operating a motor vehicle.

You are always free to waive your individual right, and submit to a test. However, you are not free, as Sasquach said earlier, to waive my (or another's) right to be free from such warrant-less search and seizure.

What makes this case objectionable is the intent to require all drivers to submit to a breathalyzer and if one defends one's right against a warrant-less search, that will form the basis for issuing a warrant for immediate drawing of blood. I understand why the police want to do this. A frequent tactic of drunk drivers is to refuse a field test but agree to a test at the station or a later blood test in the hopes that by the time such a later test is conducted, the individual's BAC has dropped below the legal limit, thus preventing a DWI charge.

However, that is not such a frequent event as to impair or detract from the rights of those who are not violating the law. Also, it is possible to use established science on the absorption and/or metablolization of alcohol to show at what time the officer stopped the individual, and what time the sample was collected to determine what the individual's BAC was at the time of initial contact. The only case where this cannot work, is if so much time has elapsed by the time the sample is collected that the sample shows a zero BAC. Again, there are processes and procedures such that the police can protect the public interest (apprehension and prosecution of drunk drivers) without infringing upon the rights of innocent individuals. Because such methods exists, the individual right trumps the state/public interest.