ALL traffic checkpoints - whether ostensibly for DUI, drugs, CBP (where permitted), seatbelt use, or whatever other constitutionally-hazy justification is dreamt up for them - are to a greater or lesser degree pretextual devices. Their actual purpose is to enable police to stop and more-closely investigate all motorists for any and all crimes.

I'm as opposed to drunk driving as anybody, but the figures alone show that these checkpoints have absolutely nothing to do with drunk driving.

And ask yourself - why does a DUI checkpoint need to have a drug-sniffing dog? I've never met a dog who can assess whether or not a person is drunk. (I've met precious-few police officers who can accurately assess that either, now I come to think of it :-))

Citizens should resist these checkpoints in every way that's lawful in their state. Remember, you're not obliged to answer any questions whatsoever, and in some states, you are not required to produce a d/l at these checkpoints. The only Constitutionally-approved activity at any DUI checkpoint is to assess whether you are DUI or not, and you're not obliged to assist the police in any way in that process.

I used to be a copper, and I dislike these things intensely. They are completely-ineffective for their alleged purposes, they make a mockery of the 4th Amendment, and they turn policing into a game of chasing Federal grant money instead of chasing bad actors.

Remember

- I don't answer any questions without an attorney present.
- Am I being detained, or am I free to go?.
- I don't consent to any searches.
- I don't participate in any FST or PBT tests.

Unfortunately, even if every single citizen resisted these checkpoints in this way, it wouldn't make any difference - nobody cares that they are ineffective for their stated purposes as it is. I wish the USSC would grow a spine and put a stop to this nonsense, but yesterday's DNA-swab decision shows clearly that they live in a world of their own when it comes to these issues. My opinion of Justice Scalia just got clicked up several notches, but he's the only one out of 9 who clearly graps show this sort of police power always ends up being abused.

llater,

llamas

Last summer, I kept track of the reports of the results of the DUI stops in Lancaster and Palmdale as reported in the Antelope Valley Press. With a total of ten sessions spread over the period from 04/20/2012 through September; here are the totals.
Minimum number of vehicles stopped: 10,499.
Total DUI arrests reported: 10
Driver's license violations: 214
Misc. traffic citations(usually for trying to evade
the stop: 122.
The paper reports that overtime funding for the checkpoints came from the state Office of Traffic Safety through the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. I have no idea of the total cost for the boondoggle, but cheap isn't likely. In contrast: results of CHP activity over the Labor day weekend in the same area: Seventeen arrests for DUI.

A little help? FST, PBT, CHP? I'm not familiar with those acronyms (or I can't access the right file in my outdated memory bank, whichever).

For the lawyerly in the group... how do we find out exactly what is/isn't allowed in our state and/or states we drive through?

My only actual comments on this are 1.) to note that, while I have never once actually been through or seen a DUI (or other) checkpoint in my life, aside from in video, when the police expect a large amount of drinking, they increase patrols - especially along highways. When am I thinking? New Years eve/day, 4th of July, Labor Day/Memorial Day weekends. We were driving on Memorial Day recently and the number of police along the highway was REALLY high, especially for late morning to early afternoon.

2.) If these things were for public safety, they'd mostly be located at highway on-ramps.

Shannon, FST = Field Sobriety Test, but I'm not sure about the other ones. llamas?

Can't figure out CHP? Erik Estrada weeps.

PBT = Portable Breathalyzer Test.

CHP = California Highway Patrol.

My state has a requirement that they announce DUI checkpoints a minimum of 12 hours ahead of time and have an escape hole between the checkpoint sign and the actual encounter with LEO. And they still catch people.

But I consider this a TSA checkpoint. You are going through life and the TSA has a checkpoint on your bus, subway, or airline.

As a private citizen you are not responsible to talk to the government ever. Even conspiracy charges have to prove that you knew and concealed your knowledge purposely to damage someone.

They often do DUI checkpoints near me on one of the one roads leading from the Jersey shore - and on a Summer Sunday evening no less - with all the shore traffic backed up already; and they make it worse!

Clearly, they are not winning any friends with this nonsense.

I beg your pardon.

FST = Field Sobriety Test, known to the police as 'Stupid Human Tricks'. The physical exercises (touch your nose, walk a line heel-to-toe, the 'horizontal-gaze nystagmus check' and so forth) that purport to identify drunkenness - or not.

These tests are wrong between 25 and 50% of the time, even when performed properly, which they seldom are. In double-blind testing, trained officers performing the tests properly identify sober persons as being drunk as much as 50% of the time. And habitual drunks can often pass them with ease.

PBT = Preliminary Breath Test, the portable hand-held breath-testing machine used in the field. Uncalibrated, inaccurate and generally so laughably inadequate that their results are not admissible at trial.

These tests are seldom, if ever, used to determine whether or not you are drunk or whether you will be arrested. By the time it gets to these tests, the officer has already decided that you will be arrested - these tests merely serve to provide more probable cause for the arrest, and to place a veneer of scientific respectability on top of what is often either the officer's hunch or the officer's prejudice.

These tests are entirely voluntary for most drivers (professional drivers on a CDL or chauffeur's license may be required under penalty to submit to them). In some places, refusing a PBT may be a civil infraction, like a traffic ticket. But most drivers should refuse to participate. You are not required to participate in a probable-cause gathering exercise against yourself.

The PBT is the source of a great deal of deliberate misdirection by police. A police officer will ask you - 'you realize, don't you, that failing to provide a sample of breath is grounds for immediate suspension of your driver's license? I can cut up your driver's license On the Spot for failure to provide a sample!' This is true - but only after you have been arrested, if you refuse to provide a sample for the calibrated, evidentiary breath-test machine that's located at the police station. (Those are often wrong, too, but that's another story). But officers will often deliberately mislead drivers into believing that those penalties apply for failure to submit to a roadside PBT, before they have been arrested.

Don't be fooled or intimidated into participating. Despite the officer's threats, you are not required to participate in any testing whatsoever prior to arrest, and your failure to do so will be (at worst) a civil infraction. Your failure to participate can also not be used against you in any subsequent trial.

Damned if I didn't do it again - CDL = Commercial Driver's License. A truck driver.

To find out the exact situation in your state, your best choice is to find the website of an attorney in your state who specializes in DUI. Most have informative materials that will tell you exactly what you should and should not do in your state to avoid becoming a helpless fish in the DUI dragnet.

llater,

llamas

All true - but this typifies the confusion about breath testing that is exploited by police officers.

The key words are 'after arrest'. Implied consent only kicks in AFTER ARREST.

If you are arrested, no matter where, and you refuse to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine (depending on state and circumstances) the consequences are dire - as they should be. To be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone refuse to submit to a breath test AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ARRESTED for DUI.

What I am suggesting that most drivers should refuse is what I referred to as the PBT - the preliminary breath test that's performed prior to arrest, at the roadside, using a handheld device. The name for this test varies from place to place. In CA, for example, it's known as a Prelimanry Alcohol Screening Test. Where I live, it's called the PBT.

Here's an excellent description of the CA law on breath tests.

http://www.bayareadefenselawyers.com/Articles/Breath-Tests-in-California-Some-Optional-Others-Mandatory.shtml

Part of the confusion appears to be that, in California, the breath test AFTER ARREST is called the Preliminary Breath Test. Go figure.

The beforeitsnews.com article linked is not wrong, in the sense that each statement made is true in certain circumstances. What it is is confusing. It is this exact confusion that police officers will exploit to intimidate drivers into submitting to a pre-arrest breath test, when it is actually voluntary - and inadvisable.

Once again, I dislike drunk driving as much as anybody. But the DUI system (as currently practised) does little or nothing to reduce or prevent drunk driving, and now more-and-more tends to trap and criminalize unipaired drivers.

llater,

llamas

If officers do take your license, that also means you can’t get in your car and drive away. All the more reason not to refuse the Breathalyzer.

That why I have several copies of my drivers licence

Well there was a recent recommendation to lower the BAC to .05 from .08. That would have done nothing for safety and just increased the amount of money the whole DUI system could extort out of people.

In most states, just because you blew a .06 doesn't mean you get to go pickup your car. They will still hold you for a few hours and then write a ticket that will pretty much run you through the same system.