DUI Check Point Constitutionality.

I wish it were true guys. I was in the career field before drug testing became law. So by reading your postings above I have to guess (as you have) one of the following are true.

1.) You are younger than me or
2.) You work in an industry that changed the rules at a different time then mine did or
3.) You did not notice when the 4th amendment got side stepped after the bleeding heart due gooders decided to "help" us out as a result of some dumb asses smoking pot while on deployment and had an explosion occur at the same time that resulted in their own death or
4.) That you don't care or
5.) ???

In any case, there was no drug testing when I started my career. I agree that I have the option to leave my job and in fact the roots of sidesteeping the 4th amendment in this case (random drug testing) are based on the fact that we are "at will employees". So, in fact, if I don't like I can leave my job. You should not however assume that I was told when I started because it's just not the case as no drug testing was being done then in the industry I work.

Regarding the DUI check points, I see it much the same way. The bleeding heart do gooders decided to "help" us by violating the Bill of Rights based on a technical ruling. And to me here's the meat and patatos of the issue. If we as a society decide this is the way want to go then we need to put some teeth in the punishment side and not just catching them but make them pay. I have a family memeber (cousin) that was involved in several drunk driving situations. He had been arrested 6 (yes, SIX times for DUI / OWI) on his 7th time (at least that they know of), he was driving drunk (other then being drunk he was legal BTW) he killed an innocent 19 year old driving home from work. He served 2.5 years in jail. Is that right? We put up all the effort for not if we choose not to follow through with effective punishment and clearly with 6 prior events the punishment did not serve as a deterrent. BTW, upon getting out of jail (within months) he was involved in a theft at a 7/11 with 2 other fine, upstanding people one of which shot my cousin in the head with a .22LR. He died a few hours later in the hospital.

Don't read me wrong, I'm a gun owning, hunting, dip spitting, red blooded, blue collar American that remembers when some of the shit pulled today was not legal in our country but as a result of the bleeding hearts that want to "help" us they've gutted part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'm all for personal responsability and a person that takes care of themselves and don't want the government stepping in for my "benifit" at the cost of giving up my freedoms.

Again and I quote James Madison:

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

 

Well you're correct, my private employer had the choice. Either drug test or we'll (the government) shut you down. I guess that's a choice...the same choice I was given AFTER I WAS EMPLOYED.

It's really too bad most of the people on here don't remember a time when this shit would not have happened. And as I'm sure you may have noted by my post above, I did not consent prior to working there as there was no drug testing in my industry.

You guys are so used to it, it seems normal to you now which is sad.

 

I work at a job where we are drug tested beginning employment, and only subsequently testing when there is an incident. Since I don't do illegal drugs, at all, ever, like last time i tried pot was in high school, I don't care. As I always say to my boss when he's looking to test someone, "Sure, I'll go sit in the med center for 3 hours and get paid to pee in a cup, just say the word."

 

What's the point? The officer is only asking questions to see if you seem intoxicated. If you refuse to answer and he suspects you are drunk, his only options are field sobriety tests, the breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

If you refuse those tests, you could face (depending on the state) fines, loss of driving privileges, and/or jail time. The prosecutor will also use that refusal as evidence of your guilt (the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of this).

In some states, refusal can also serve as an enhancement to any DUI conviction, resulting in even greater fines or longer jail terms.

 

I fucking hate the people that are doing shit like this. It's not a fucking "invasion of your rights". Answer the fucking questions and go about with your business. These sobriety checkpoints and immigration checkpoints aren't out to throw everybody in jail, they're in place to keep our streets safer and to keep people that shouldn't be on the road off of them, or out of the country. Then we get the people who support this shit with their bullshit paranoia about how the cops are going to start kicking in our doors and searching our houses and all this other bullshit. Herp derpity fucking herpy derp.

 

Refusing to answer a police officers questions in no way makes one guilty of anything, you have the right at anytime to keep silent until you've had legal council.

 

I'm with you. I've never been a drug user and only drink maybe a 12 pack a year and never when I'm away from my house. In fact, after having my last knee surgery I didn't even take the legal pain drugs prescibed to me.

I'm not at all concerned about being busted doing anything illegal but, that is not my point. My point is the continued erosion of our rights as citizens. Think about this people, only in the past 30 years or so have the drug testing programs been in place. In the past the government did not mandate certain employers to require it. It was considered against the law to do so... So for how many years did our country function before the view of our bill of rights got revised? Like I said, it's the continued erosion of our rights.

Again, I want to stress, you would be wrong to assume I am a bleeding heart do gooder, I'm not...I'm exactly the opposite. It just so happens our views on this issue align but for differing reasons.

Upon reading all these post it apparent to me that it's been going on long enough that few people see it as an issue, I'm guessing because few of you have lived long enough to remember when it was an issue and now it's just viewed as normal. Which again, I think is sad.

BTW, I always submit without issue to all check points, drug test etc without voicing my feeling even though it does irritate the shit out of me watching out Constitution and Bill of Rights being trampled own by the do gooders.

 

Never said or suggested anything to the contrary. Instead, I said refusal to take those tests could be used as evidence of guilt.

-

 

This is 100% True, I've refused to answer a cop just out of curiousity 1 night, I was thrown in the tank for the evening, lesson learned

 

It's a private employer, and they are allowed to change the rules if they want. I've never worked anywhere that didn't reserve that right. And even if they don't, you aren't required to work there if you don't like the new rules. You have the right to say no to a drug test if you don't want to take it. And your employer has the right to terminate you if you refuse.

Last summer I was working on a drilling rig and everyone on the rig was called for drug testing (given this industry and the number of people who get maimed/killed on drilling rigs, we are subject to random and non-random testing. In fact, for my job I am eligible for drug testing at the request of any of 3 companies, and I don't even work for 2 of them). Every last roughneck there walked off the rig- quit on the spot- rather than take the test. It was 100% their choice. No one is conscripted to work here. (Though realistically, I worked on that rig long enough to know those guys weren't clean and standing up for their principles.)

 

The industry I work in does NOT reserve the right to decide if they want to drug test or not. Drug testing of certain employees IS mandated through federal regulation. It's obvious that they reserve the right to change their policy towards the employee group but, that's NOT what my point is...

This is a link to the agency that regulates my job where you'll find it's not a choice for my employer.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/drug_alcohol/

BUT AGAIN, All of you are missing my point. It's not the point that I can quit my job, do you think we don't know that...my point is we are having our Constitution and Bill of Rights abused and basically restated to fit the needs of a few people that want to act like dictators. For years, prior to the testing, it was accepted that "random" was not legal and more recently, (I have to watch my words) thanks to the bleeding hearts, our system of governing is being revised. That is my point. That we as a society are sitting back and watching the basis of our country be distroyed it makes me sick. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have worked like a champ for many years and for people to turn their back on it and act like it's okay for certain people to restate the intent is mind blowing to me.

AGAIN, the sad part is people don't even understand or care that it's happening either because they are not watching, don't care, or are too young to know or are just against our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Sorry I must have read that wrong yes refusing to take the test can be enough probable cause to take you arrest you. I believe that in SC if you refuse they automatically arrest you on suspicion of being drunk and you have to give blood at the station, tiger will have to confirm this for me though.

 

In California you DO NOT have to submit to any field sobriety tests NOR a breathalyzer and that does NOT mean you are guilty. Under the law, you only have to submitt to those tests IF and WHEN you have been arrested for DUI.

The police in California almost always lie to motorists and almost every motorist in California doesnt know the law and they trust the officer who is lying to them.

1.California’s “Implied Consent” DUI Law

California DUI law, like that of most other states, contains an "implied consent" rule. This law states that if you drive a car in California, and are lawfully arrested for a California DUI, you are deemed to have given consent to the chemical testing of your:

• blood,
• breath, or
• urine (only in cases where you are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs).

Simply put, this means that you must submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol and/or drug content in your body after you have been lawfully arrested for a California DUI.
“After” is the operative word. The hand-held Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test that may be offered at the side of the road before you get arrested is not mandatory under this law. The PAS test is considered a field sobriety test (FST)…and FSTs are just tools to help the officer decide whether to arrest you for DUI.
This means that submitting to the PAS and then refusing to submit to a subsequent chemical test after your arrest will be considered a refusal.
Although the PAS test is optional for adults, it is mandatory for those under 21. If you are under 21 and suspected of DUI, you are also deemed to have given consent to the PAS and an additional blood, breath, or (where applicable) a urine test.

 

I thought only fucktards exercised their rights ? haha

 

Why the fuck are you on this forum? You just regurgitate bullshit over and over.

 

I'm not sure where random DUI checkpoints are a violation of your rights, considering that not driving under the influence is a mandatory requirement of driving in the first place.

What about the mandatory agricultural stops going into California or the mandatory toll booth stops on turnpikes, what about the mandatory weigh stations on the Interstates as you come into every state that commercial vehicles must stop at, what of the mandatory livestock checks? Are these a violation of your rights? Or are they in place to promote the health and safety of the populace? Do you want your family to be crushed beneath the wheels of a semi truck that was overloaded by 20,000 pounds because the driver considered it a violation of his rights not to be able to do anything that he wanted to do?

Also, these DUI checkpoints are not run constantly; they are run when statistics have shown that a good number of motorists are driving under the influence and thus endangering others. I think that a lot of you would change your minds about these stops if you spent a few months as firefighters, law enforcement officers or in EMS and actually saw up close and personal what DUI offenders do to people daily on our roads.

 

Tough DUI enforcement (or better put, political posturing) is a joke. The risk of jail time stops nobody from going out Friday night and having a few drinks with friends at happy hour. What it actually does is get "tough on crime" politicians voted into office by simpleton voters who believe their sound bytes. I live in AZ where there is no shortage of these weak minded voters; we have plenty of certifiably insane elected officials to prove that point. We also have the most draconian DUI laws in the nation. Too bad they don't prevent alcohol related deaths.

The way to stop drunk driving is to fund public transportation. Provide viable alternatives to driving drunk and presto - no drunk drivers. Once a functional transportation system is in place THEN go Medieval on the morons who insist on driving home drunk. Until then, turning mostly law-abiding people into criminals for consuming a legal drug in legal bars amounts to nothing more than a governmental money-grab and a windfall for politicians who prey on the weak minded.

 

These "mostly law-abiding" citizens only become criminals once they consume the "legal drug" and decide to get behind the wheel of a car.

 

I'd agree they become criminals at that point. So what. The real question is how to prevent that: tough DUI laws, or a good public transportation system. You decide.