DUI Checkpoint Refusal

who have sworn an oath to defend the constitution, knowingly, with malice and contempt, repeatedly break their oath in the process of violating your God given rights while actually endangering your safety, tells us everything we need to know about most cops, judges, politicians etc.

"The mere evidence rule was solidified in the case Gouled v. United States. In Gouled, the Court found a Fourth Amendment violation when a warrant was used to obtain the defendant's documents that were later used at trial. Gouled also suggested that more than just papers were categorically protected by the Fourth Amendment.[3] This led to the classic articulation of the mere evidence rule, which stated that the Fourth Amendment allowed only search and seizure of instrumentalities, fruits of the crime, and contraband, and that mere evidence could not be searched or seized." If you think about today's decisions the court gives the government the power to search for anything. Even the IRS would be out of business if we followed the Constitution. "General searches" were one of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence. Our Constitution forbade "general searches" and yet that is what our Supreme Court sanctions today. It is all unconstitutional, but we have been asleep at the wheel.

If you are driving poorly and a cop sees you, it is a legitimate reason to pull you over. It is reckless driving. Why do we need specific DUI laws and DUI checkpoints that violate the Fourth Amendment? Everyone knows that it is more dangerous to drive when you are sleep deprived than to drive after a few drinks. We are being conditioned for the police state that we now live in. Cops are no longer "officer friendly" they are often on steroids and are hostile to everyone they stop. My little brother (22) was pulled out of his car and thrown up against the side of it twice while driving late at night in Miami. Fortunately he was out late because he is a musician and does not drink or do drugs. There was no reason to stop him, just an abuse of power. In the small town where I now live they are not as bad, when stopped at least they call me "Miss Kerry" and are always polite. If stopped by a DUI check point I think it is a mistake to admit to any consumption of alcohol. It will always escalate the situation.

There are very few things I hate more that these DUI checkpoints. What that driver did was in his right but this tactic will not work in every instance or in every jurisdiction.

I also hate the idea that some stranger wants to force me to give my breath (my breath is my property). I know a jurisdiction where a refusal to take a roadside breathalyzer gives you an automatic DUI conviction (car impounded for 1 month, DL suspended for 3 months, fines and fees over $4,000).

The thing to note about these breathalyzers is that they do not measure blood alcohol content but they measure breath alcohol content and make and estimate of what’s in your blood based on that. The problem is if you gargle with mouthwash and blow into a breathalyzer you’ll be over 4 times the legal limit of .08.

Also there are places where they had to recall thousands of breathalyzers because they were not accurate.

I know a jurisdiction where if you blow between .05 and ..07999 (just under the legal limit) they charge you with a warning by impounding your car, suspending your DL with fines and fees around $600… and that’s just for the first time… penalty is more severe with each additional "warning". Keep in mind, below .08 according to their rules you’re not impaired to drive a vehicle but they still punish you anyway.

Bottom line: you give governments an inch they take your property, liberty then your life.

Officers who know some of the law and didn't resort to violence because they were challenged? I'm honestly shocked.

First off, there's next to no evidence that these checkpoints have ANY effect on the amount of alcohol related incidents. The way they cook the statistics is ridiculous. They changed the term they use to measure some of these things to "alchohol-related incidents", meaning if you're 100% sober and run over a drunk person on the sidewalk, you are both now put in the same statistical category as your standard drunk driver. This can extend even if the passenger in the accident is drunk, but the driver is sober, and they are hit by another sober driver through no fault of their own. It's ridiculous the way they twist these figres to make it seem like a national epidemic. But I guess it's not that crazy considering that we're currently fighting a multi-trillion dollar war on terror, when you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning seven times than being killed by a scarrrrrry muslimmmm terrorist.

People have been given DUI's while riding their bike, riding their lawnmower, riding their horse, even in their wheelchair. Tens of thousands of people are being murdered and beheaded on our southern border, but thank goodness law enforcement is a targeting parapalegic with a buzz. I sure feel safer.

Don't get me wrong, I think drunk driving is disgusting and irresponsible. I think we all have plenty of stories about the tragedies that can result from this. But we need to separate the intent of the law from the effect. This is a money-making venture for local politicians and has little to do with safety. Is there any line we won't swallow in the name of "safety"? Drunk driving is a problem without a doubt. But there is no evidence that scrapping the 4th Amendment is beneficial to anything or anyone other than the politicians who profit.