Pulled Over after Drinking and Driving

[Aramike]

This is a true story, and it happened tonight.

On my way home with my wife from a friend's house (who lives about 15 minutes away), we were pulled over by a Milwaukee County deputy. Now, in the interest of full disclosure in order to properly make my point, we had been drinking throughout the evening. Julie (my wife) was clearly in the bag from her wine intake while I was quite evidently sober. In fact I had consumed a six pack of Miller Lite over the course of about four hours, with no other alcoholic beverages.

Now, Wisconsin is one of I believe 14 states which does not allow for checkpoints which can allow for law enforcement to randomly test drivers for sobriety. As such, an initiative called "Stop, Test, Arrest" has been gaining steam. Essentially, this initiative allows for law enforcement officers to practically stop any vehicle they spot merely for the purpose of testing its driver for sobriety.

This is what happened to us.

The legal limit in Wisconsin is currently .08. Now, I guarantee that I was stone-cold sober at the time, and the law would agree with me - I blew a point-oh-six. I had not been driving in any way erratically, nor was a violating any traffic laws. And yet I was forced to PROVE that I was not breaking any laws, and once I had done so, I was free to go.

So, the question is this: should ANY US law-enforcement be allowed to require drivers to PROVE that they are operating legally, without respect to any probable cause regarding an illegal activity such as Operating While Intoxicated?

My answer is below.

[Aramike]

I believe that such measures as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints are an ABSOLUTE violation of civil rights. Forget about the fact that people who are slightly over the legal limit of .08 aren't the ones killing people - what about the fact that, in this country, we shouldn't be forced to produce "papers" during our travels from one location to the next. This practice seems Stalinist, in a sense.

Also of consideration, considering that my blood alcohol content was .06 and, as such, I was completely legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle, what is the justification for saying that a mere two-one-hundreths higher I would be incapable of doing so? The limit itself seems arbitrary. The reason I mention this is the fact that not all people react the same way to all BAC levels. As a result, would it not be more pragmatic to judge the situation on how an individual is driving rather than resorting to a hard-and-fast number? In other words, if you're driving erratically and show to have a certain BAC, you'll be arrested. If you're driving normally and have a similar BAC, you won't. Obviously a limit would be created as a standard for simply being incapable of operating a vehicle.

My point is, should someone who's right at the legal limit but driving completely safely be subject to the same penalties as someone who's twice the limit and driving erractically?

Everytime I've heard of a reduction in the legal alcohol limit, I ask myself, why? What's the point? The people at .10 aren't the problem. Reducing it a couple of percentage points, therefore doesn't address the problem. I've concluded that organizations that advocate such reductions (such as MADD) aren't neccessarily against drunk driving - they are against drinking as a whole.

Why do I suggest this?

Because one would think that keeping an officer from booking a safe driver slightly over the limit at, say, .09 would be smart due to that same officer being available to help spot the dangerous drivers who sneak through.

Which leads me to my ultimate point: doesn't programs such as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints actually reduce the force available to stop dangerous drivers? True story - while I was pulled over, I saw at least three cars pass who were swerving quite erratically.

Too bad the deputy was busy checking out someone just because...

[saltysplash]

Couldnt you consider it more a case of Positive Accident Prevention rather than an infringement of your civil liberties?

[Aramike]

Good points, both. However, I do disagree.

For one, "Positive Accident Prevention" via using available resources randomly would seemingly be less effective than targetting said resources at those who demonstrate a greater likelihood of causing an accident.

And I do see it as an infringement on my civil liberties because, while I was delayed in my quest to return home, just because, there were people out there who were clearly driving drunk. However, the officer that had detained me was, as a result, unable to pursue those who were indeed dangerously drunk. As such, that puts all the other sober, legal drivers on the road at a greater risk, as far as my logic is concerned.

Also, I'm not as familiar with German law, Shroeder, but it isn't the place for American law enforcement to use detention and inspection tactics to show that they are watching. A squad car or two on the side of the road would do just fine, and if they weren't randomly pulling cars over, they'd be available to look for the signs of those who are actually breaking the law.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The cop was justified in doing so. You cant speculate as to probable cause, as you have not had the training he recieved when he became a traffic cop. This isnt a slight on you, mind. I dont doubt that you're a careful driver, but the cop doesnt know that, and I bet these Stop-Test-Arrest schemes catch alot more people than you give them credit for.

[Letum]

So long as a significant amount of random tests lead to a prosecution, I think
it is in the public interest. Say, 4%.
It is certainly in my interest that people think twice before drinking and driving.

[Schroeder]

I'm not American but I think it is o.k. . If the police tests people randomly and you know you can be picked regardless of how you are driving you will think twice about drinking/drug consuming and driving. It is also a signal that the police is there and is watching. If one never gets checked by them one might just as well start to believe that they don't care at all for the traffic and do something stupid then. Better feel their presence and drive safely than making people believe they aren't watching at all.

In Germany they are checking especially young people at Friday and Saturday nights. I 've been checked three times in about 10 years. Here they are asking you whether you have consumed alcohol. If you answer no and you seem to be sober they just have a look at you drivers license and registration and are off again. How ever if they smell alcohol you get tested (happened to me once because I had cleaned my wind shield just before they pulled me over and the washing water contained some alcohol to keep it from freezing and that was what they smelled).