Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

reply to post by Schaden

You're not getting a needle shoved in your arm UNLESS an LEO believes with probable cause that you are DUI, AND you refuse to blow into a tube.

Don't make this a bigger deal than it is.

This is a

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

I DO NOT DRINK. I WILL NOT SUBMIT TO A F$%#King TEST! BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

I will not submit to pee in the bottle either so I am now self employed. You may be a sheep but I am not!

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

I wonder how many of those 4thers have been hit by a drunk driver. Getting hit in the rear with the guy doing seventy, and you're now currently drifting on your door. I wonder just how many of these people who claim that this is a constitutional infringement know exactly what it's like to watch your life be put on a rope by some kid who barely turned twenty one.

Once you've been through it, it changes you. Pretty severely, too. You actually realize how dangerous it is to drive drunk, and realize no one should ever do it, ever.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Fact: drinking and driving KILLS people.

Incorrect.

Bad driving kills people, the act of drinking has no long term effects other than a desire to urinate.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
You may be a sheep but I am not!

ad hominem.

Originally posted by kozmo
And SC decisions have been over-turned by subsequent Justices when a new challenge arises.

But it has not been overturned. In the legal sense it is 100% constitutional.
You're free to disagree, but that is merely your opinion, not a matter of law.

I got stopped today in Florida, have to say they were a little over cautious testing me. Came up 0.02083 and they sent me on my way. No complaints here if the testing saves lives.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Sorry, I couldn't pass up commenting on your comment.

I find it discomforting that you call someone who has faith in God a freak.

Look around.

Most of the people you share terra firma with are freaks.

Getting lonely being so perfect?

The removal of drunks from the road is a moral obligation. I don't think drunks realize how d*** pi**** off the rest of us can be who read about the fatalities and ruined lives caused by their irresponsibility. As far as I'm concerned, they can stop selling alcohol in this country.

You guys seriuos? TKDRL? In California,if you have a medical pot pass,cops wont bug you. You drive Drunk, or have a warrent? Your GOING to jail. Everybody here in Cali knows the rules here.. DON"T Drink and Drive. Don't drive with a warrent if your in a populated area. If theres a field sobriety checkpoint? Your stupid for not knowing where it's at. Cops announce in the paper in advance. They don't WANT to arrest you.(OK depends on which county,I stand corrected. Mono County WANTS your ass,different story)
They don't want deaths froms drunks on their roads.
Hey,guy with the parrot? Don't let him bite a cops finger..They HATE that.

reply to post by GovtFlu

...It would take you 15+ years of street / court / investigative experience to see just how twisted the game has become and fully understand how far 'authorities' have deviated from "the spirit of the law(s)"....

Nope all it took was a couple years of living in the "Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts" and having the Government knocking on the door every couple of weeks for idiotic things like a squirrel dying in my front yard

I escaped to the south and now live on a back country dirt road, a quarter mile back from that road and I STILL get the frecken' government doing check points at the end of the dirt road, a helicopter/swat team raiding next door and some idiotic government agent knocking on the front door periodically.

Time to get some BIG nasty African Grey geese. A large flock is a heck of a lot harder to shoot that a dog.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Interestingly enough, the idiot woman from MADD who came up with this idea is also an employee of the local sheriffs office.

I feel safer just reading this article. This will completely stop people from drinking and driving. The danger of wrecking a car and being killed due to intoxication is not enough to prevent people from drinking and driving. A mandatory blood test, citation, and fine is what is needed. If the threat of death won't do it then the threat of fine and jail time will.

He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. Atrib - B. Franklin

reply to post by Gnarly


I'm not disagreeing with you. It shouldn't be done. It does affect more people than one would think. But to allow oppression of this sort is not worth it. To put everyone through interrogation to find a select few is not what this country was founded on.


Back to the topic at hand...

Whatever. Thanks OP for a great discussion! I've had enough of the "sheep" saying we need to live in fear of a few "terrorists" on the road. If you* can't see the possibilities of mis-abuse....much like GovtFlu has been saying.....you* would be a little more alarmed, and start thinking with the grey matter that you* were given.
*subject pronoun usage emphasized. (i.e. easier grouping individuals (sheep) into one). Also

reply to post by Dilligaf28

Are these roadblock style checkpoints...

From what we can tell it is a roadblock style check were EVERYONE is subjected to a search. They get around the search without a warrant by having a judge on site to issue a warrant. This of course violates the intent of the Constitutional prohibition against search with out warrant AND PROBABLE CAUSE.

Please note if you are drunk and driving too slow or erratically then you deserver to be pulled over and checked. However I for one do not like the precedent being set that the government has the RIGHT to set up check point wherever they wish and search citizen at will.

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by crimvelvet
I will say it again I do not drink. So why the heck should I allow some bozo to shove a needle into me, Just because I want to travel on the highway my taxes paid for?

You're not getting a needle shoved in your arm UNLESS an LEO believes with probable cause that you are DUI, AND you refuse to blow into a tube.

Don't make this a bigger deal than it is.

Wrong.

Checkpoint officers can legally, allegedly, contact / deny freedom of movement to "random" drivers absent PC.

Which is NOT the same as forming PC after a consensual contact, so called.. two entirely different things.

And guess what?.. accepting and signing for drivers license is entering into an administrative agreement with the DMV.. part of that agreement is that upon request of an officer you will submit a "chemical sample".. failure to do so is a breech of contract, of sorts, that results in "administrative" punishment of license revocation.

So I can refuse knowing full well I agreed to lose my license for a year (look up "admin per se").. which is fine with me... since a DUI criminal charge (note: NOT administrative) would result in revocation any way.

The police forcing a chemical sample serves 1 purpose: collecting additional fees for the state.

Currently in Bexar County - San Antonio Texas all weekend is 'no refusal' weekend.

reply to post by Schaden

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz

Read it.

Thanks I did. The Supreme Court was splitting hairs on that one. Unfortunately this is the way our rights are eroded inch by inch.

The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government. en.wikipedia.org...

The Police are going to do the blood tests?

Isn't this a medical practice?
Do the police have the training and qualifications and a medical license to do this?

If they don't want people to drink and drive, they could cut most of the problem by closing up all the "watering holes". Also they cut up their scores by putting their check points a few blocks from drinking establishments.
I think they tried that once and the bar owners screamed and they quit doing it.
Nothing like a little $$$$ to keep the wheels turning.

I certainly don't condone driving while impaired, but think this sets a dangerous precedent in that if you refuse to allow an "unreasonable search of person of property" they will do it anyway, ignoring the Constitution once again. OK.... then...let's make this real. How about also having mandatory tests for TWD (texting while driving) or PMO (Putting Makeup On) or CDS (Can't Drive for $hit) or DMC (Dropped My Cigarette) or TUR (Turn Up the Radio) or BPD (Backseat Person Distraction) or BMA (Big Mac Attack) or EGB (Eyes Going Bad) or TDO (Too Damn Old) or WSL (Whatta Setta Legs) or TMP (Too Many Prescriptions) or MTT (Much Too Tired) or MLT (Missed the Last Turn) or WTY (Way Too Young) or DST (Did you See That) or MTX (Missed The Exit) or MBL (Must Be Lost) or ITI (Is That Ice) or PTJ (Pass That Joint) or GAP (Go Ahead and Punch-it) or the the THOUSANDS of other reasons drive carelessly? I think if they can do that, we, as the public, ought to be able to rummage through the cops' houses and cars looking for anything we want and dig into the Judges' personal habits and then publish, by name, their specific histories of allowing dangerous offenders to go free because they hire a lawyer. But have a nice day!

reply to post by ldyserenity
I live in Florida and would like to know where you got your figures. You guess that 80% of the population here does crack, meth or smoke weed? What part of thin air did you pull that figure from?

That's like my saying that a lot of the people here are retired and their all notorious drug users and dealers supplementing their social security . You make me laugh. By the way, do you even have a daughter or did you pull that out of thin air too?

reply to post by Schaden

The constitution says the SC is the arbiter of what laws are constitutional. Ergo checkpoints are constitutional.

YEAH sure and the Supreme Court has been playing fast and loose with the Constitution ever since FDR threatened to increase the number of Judges and pack the court with his hand picked puppets.

Actually the Supreme Court has been packed with the Bankers hand picked puppets since then.

Dall, who was married to Franklin Roosevelt's daughter Anna, spent many nights at the White House and often guided FDR around in his wheelchair. He was also a partner at a Wall Street brokerage.

Dall maintained a family loyalty but could not avoid several disheartening conclusions in his book. He portrays the legendary president not as a leader but as a "quarterback" with little actual power. The "coaching staff" consisted of a coterie of handlers ("advisers" like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international banking cartel. For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by "World Money" and motivated by conceit and personal ambition....
hubpages.com...

They should post checkpoints at everyone's front door. People abuse their kids, and wives all the time. We need to make sure that they are safe...

It's for the children, what have you got to hide?