Pulled Over after Drinking and Driving

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by roman2440

Some statistics from the STA program:
http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/Imag...rceResults.pdf

Specifically that there were 225 traffic stops, and of those 152 citations were written.



If indeed the only reason they cited for pulling you over was as a random traffic stop, then indeed he violated your civil rights, in Wisconsin at least. Some states allow this, some don't. Those that allow such a thing do so on the basis that you know the traffic stop is there, and thusly you are knowingly heading into an area where you could randomly (or otherwise) be stopped.

As far as I can tell WI is one of those states that does not. I imagine that if you got a ticket for DUI from this (say you were wrong and were above .08 BAC) that you could've had it thrown out.

I totally agree that DUI checkpoints (and this STA program if implemented in the way you describe - that is that they pull people over without at least first observing some violation) are abominations and should be done away with. The logical macro extension of DUI checkpoints is checkpoints to check on other things in public places, and eventually leads to the police state. I cannot think of what I'd have to fear as a law-abiding citizen today, but I do not know what the future holds.

That doesn't mean you can't saturate an area with police and follow lots of cars - and pull over any that you can catch with even the minorest of violations. Thats fine - at least the initial point of contact was related to something they have established control over and agreed upon rules. Its not ok to just pull someone over because they happened to be there. We have due process for a reason.


As for the smell of alcohol in the car, you stated your wife was smashed drunk - so even if you didn't have any alcohol on your breath, the officer is sure to be able to have probable cause due to your wife. Again that wouldn't give him legal basis to conduct the traffic stop, however, if he did have a good legal basis for the traffic stop, he definately had probable cause to request BAC testing.

Good post, roman. Actually, I'd looked up those same stats the night of the incident. While the raw numbers are impressive, I believe it's a situation of whether or not the ends justify the means (which is the reason I started this thread, as I thought the discussion would be interesting. Some people, including yourself, have made it so).

The reason for the STA program is due to checkpoints not being permitted in the state. Essentially, Sheriff David Clarke (who's a Democrat sheriff, a former Republican mayoral candidate, and altogether an odd fellow and company are attempting to circumvent the restrictions on checkpoints in the state. A discussion on whether or not this was right or wrong was my goal and unfortunately some people took it as an opportunity to get personal.

As far as the car smelling like alcohol due to my wife, good hypothesis based upon details, although I still don't believe it was an issue.

Finally, like Haplo said, you're definitely a good, thoughtful addition to the GT community. Welcome aboard!

[roman2440]

Originally Posted by Aramike

The reason for the STA program is due to checkpoints not being permitted in the state. Essentially, Sheriff David Clarke (who's a Democrat sheriff, a former Republican mayoral candidate, and altogether an odd fellow and company are attempting to circumvent the restrictions on checkpoints in the state. A discussion on whether or not this was right or wrong was my goal and unfortunately some people took it as an opportunity to get personal.

Finally, like Haplo said, you're definitely a good, thoughtful addition to the GT community. Welcome aboard!

Thats the rub, even if you had been smashed drunk and above .08 BAC, the whole stop would have been illegal and wrong if the officer did not observe some violation prior to the stop. If indeed this is the way they are operating then they are wasting a lot of time - any citations they put forward would be illegal and easily thrown out.

This kind of attempt to circumvent legal process could be entirerly wrong - but it wouldn't be hard to 'fix'. Just change the MOP to include a requirement to observe some fault (no matter how minor) prior to conducting the random traffic stop. Sadly this would deepen the inefficiency of such a policy, but it is neccessary to maintain the civil rights of the people being pulled over.


Thanks for the complement, I've been a lurker for some time and just decided to weigh in recently.


As for those that make this a personal crusade, lay off. The original question is whether or not this was a violation of civil rights, and no matter how evil or vile or dangerous an action taken is, its not an excuse to throw civil rights out the door. Regardless of whether Aramike was stone cold sober or smashing drunk, or anywhere in between, the police are required to follow the law and cannot stop him without some reason.

How Aramike determines if he is sober enough to drive or not isn't really in question - it doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion. If anything it would be tangental to the issue of the validity of arbitrary legal limits in terms of the reason we have to set such limits where they are (speaking to whether or not an average person is capable of properly determining when they are sober enough to drive). Even if he had failed to properly gauge his BAC and happened to be above .08 we still could be having this same conversation about the traffic stop.