Pbso Plans To Draw Blood At Dui Checkpoints

[cmotherofpirl]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Drunken drivers beware: If you drink and drive, especially during the last weekend of February, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and other area law enforcement will be out for blood.

PBSO deputies plan to set up driving under the influence checkpoints. If they suspect a driver is under the influence, they'll offer an on-the-spot Breathalyzer. If drivers refuse, deputies will ask to draw blood from their arms.

"I think that's really personal and I think that if you deny a Breathalyzer and you say that you don't want that, I think that's outrageous if they take blood without your consent," driver Courtney Liddle said.

Attorney David Olson said that "would only be lawful if a warrant is issued by a judge."

That's just what deputies plan to do. They'll actually drive to a judge's home for a signature and return to the checkpoint.

Olson said drawing blood from drivers is usually done in extreme cases like homicides and fatal collisions. Olson said he's not sure a judge would actually sign a warrant.

"I admire and respect the sheriff's intention to investigate driving under the influence cases, but I am glad that they apparently are going to go to judges before they independently exercise what they believe would be a valuable tool in conducting these kinds of investigations," Olson said.

The PBSO is trying to emphasize that DUI will not be tolerated. But some drivers feel it's a bit too much.

"I think it's invasive on a personal level," driver Dave Staup said. "If you're going to deny a Breathalyzer, you should definitely be able to deny getting blood taken. It's a highly more invasive thing to do."

If drivers refuse to have their blood drawn, they will be arrested and charged with DUI.
Copyright 2009 by WPBF.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Tinkerlina]

Good. I think the stricter they are on DWIs/DUIs, the better. -Katie

[CatherineM]

I wonder how long it will take before a deputy breaks a needle off in a non-cooperative drunk.

[Jesus_lol]

i dont get what people would be trying to prove by resisting either of those?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1787685' date='Feb 21 2009, 09:53 PM']I wonder how long it will take before a deputy breaks a needle off in a non-cooperative drunk.[/quote]
Knock them unconscious first.
Since they're drunk, I'll bet they'd have a hard time proving that they weren't resisting.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1788004' date='Feb 22 2009, 04:20 AM']i dont get what people would be trying to prove by resisting either of those?[/quote]
Violation of reasonable search and seizure laws?

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1788383' date='Feb 22 2009, 04:32 PM']Violation of reasonable search and seizure laws?[/quote]

But suspected intoxication would be cause for search and seizure. -Katie

[philothea]

I suspect if you're not acting at all intoxicated and refuse the Breathalyzer, they'd just let you go. Probably depends a lot on what you look like, what you're driving, and how you act.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1788388' date='Feb 22 2009, 01:36 PM']But suspected intoxication would be cause for search and seizure. -Katie[/quote]

Most states have decided that DUI checkpoints in and of themselves are unreasonable search and seizure.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1788579' date='Feb 22 2009, 06:56 PM']Most states have decided that DUI checkpoints in and of themselves are unreasonable search and seizure.[/quote]

Really? I think it's kind of necessary, though given that there are so many idiots out there that still think it's fine to drink and drive. -Katie

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1788669' date='Feb 22 2009, 05:01 PM']Really? I think it's kind of necessary, though given that there are so many idiots out there that still think it's fine to drink and drive. -Katie[/quote]

There's a difference between stopping drivers that are driving erratically, and stopping every driver on a stretch of road.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1788388' date='Feb 22 2009, 03:36 PM']But suspected intoxication would be cause for search and seizure. -Katie[/quote]

The 4th Amendment requires a warrant for a search and seizure (generally speaking, there are some circumstances where a warrant isn't necessary...)

4th Amdt. Text...

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.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1788673' date='Feb 22 2009, 06:11 PM']There's a difference between stopping drivers that are driving erratically, and stopping every driver on a stretch of road.[/quote]
I agree with Tinkerlina on this one, actually.
At the end of the day, the people following the law will only be inconvenienced by a couple minutes, and slightly annoyed and being breath-tested.
On the other hand, every single person who breaks what is a very important law who drives on that particular stretch of road is going to be taken off the roads, creating a safer environment.
Checkpoints are set up at certain places, at certain times, and those times and places are determined beforehand as being areas where drunk drivers are more likely to be. A drunk driver is irresponsible and extremely dangerous, so I don't have a problem with the checkstops.
I think it would be comparable to certain occupations requiring a security clearance/police check from all applicants.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1788702' date='Feb 22 2009, 06:18 PM']I agree with Tinkerlina on this one, actually.
At the end of the day, the people following the law will only be inconvenienced by a couple minutes, and slightly annoyed and being breath-tested.
On the other hand, every single person who breaks what is a very important law who drives on that particular stretch of road is going to be taken off the roads, creating a safer environment.
Checkpoints are set up at certain places, at certain times, and those times and places are determined beforehand as being areas where drunk drivers are more likely to be. A drunk driver is irresponsible and extremely dangerous, so I don't have a problem with the checkstops.
I think it would be comparable to certain occupations requiring a security clearance/police check from all applicants.[/quote]

If you let the little liberties be eroded, the big ones aren't far behind. Checkpoints such as these are a serious violation of freedom (which is why they are unconstitutional), and actually do very little to stop drunk driving (which is why they're a poor idea in the first place). The only thing they do is line the coffers with the money taken from the random violator.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1788708' date='Feb 22 2009, 07:24 PM']If you let the little liberties be eroded, the big ones aren't far behind. Checkpoints such as these are a serious violation of freedom (which is why they are unconstitutional), and actually do very little to stop drunk driving (which is why they're a poor idea in the first place). The only thing they do is line the coffers with the money taken from the random violator.[/quote]
Are there stats one way or another as to whether or not they can curb drunk driving?
They're perfectly legal, and fairly common in Canada, which is possibly why I have a different perspective than you.
The way I see it, making checkstops illegal is like protecting the criminals above the rest of the public.

[Nihil Obstat]

[url="http://www.google.com/search?q=checkstops+drunk+driving&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1"]Winnipeg Checkstop Blitz[/url]

[quote]Winnipeg police wrapped up their annual holiday Checkstop program Wednesday, having laid a total of 66 charges related to drunk driving.

The names of all those charged under the Checkstop program will be posted on the force's website.

Police hoped the threat of publicity would provide further deterrence to potential drunk drivers.[/quote]

[url="http://blogs.usask.ca/studentnews/archive/2006/03/checkstops_on_c.html"]Checkstops at UofS Campus[/url]

[quote]Drunk driving has dropped significantly on campus in the past couple of years, and Campus Safety plans to try to reduce it even more.

The officer in charge of the initiative, Special Constable Matt Lambe, says the numbers of alcohol-related charges against drivers on U of S roadways that lead to licence suspensions, vehicle impoundments and impaired driving charges are going down.

He attributes this to a change in attitude on the part of students, staff, faculty and visitors to campus, thanks in part to a multi-pronged effort in recent years to educate students and reward those using designated drivers.[/quote]

[rkwright]

obviously legal and illegal in Canada and the US are very different. The founding fathers of the US were very wary of any government searches or seizures. They protected us from those with the fourth amendment.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1788776' date='Feb 22 2009, 08:22 PM']obviously legal and illegal in Canada and the US are very different. The founding fathers of the US were very wary of any government searches or seizures. They protected us from those with the fourth amendment.[/quote]
That's the truth.
Probably because of how American independence from Britain was quite different from our own.
In some ways I'm sure it's a negative thing, but I don't think checkstops are one of them.

[quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against [b]unreasonable[/b] 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.[/quote] Emphasis my own.

So do you who are against checkstops see it as an *unreasonable* search? I'm not being argumentative or anything, I'm honestly asking.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1789005' date='Feb 22 2009, 11:21 PM']That's the truth.
Probably because of how American independence from Britain was quite different from our own.
In some ways I'm sure it's a negative thing, but I don't think checkstops are one of them.

Emphasis my own.

So do you who are against checkstops see it as an *unreasonable* search? I'm not being argumentative or anything, I'm honestly asking.[/quote]

I think it is unreasonable to assume that every driver that passes through a stretch of highway is drunk and must prove him/herself innocent.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1789005' date='Feb 22 2009, 11:21 PM']Emphasis my own.

So do you who are against checkstops see it as an *unreasonable* search? I'm not being argumentative or anything, I'm honestly asking.[/quote]

When the 4th was passed any search without a warrant was unreasonable and typically this is still the rule today. The unreasonable requirement is really talking about the reasonability of warrants - the warrant needs to be reasonable.

There are some exceptions to this rule; plain view, open field, exigent circumstances, a Terry frisk, consent... thats all I can think ok...

But generally any search of seizure must be done with a warrant.

A check point doesn't apply to any of these exceptions. The idea is that you should be free if you're not breaking the law to drive and go wherever you want without being hassled by the police.

Edited February 23, 2009 by rkwright