Pulled Over after Drinking and Driving

[Aramike]

Heck one evening I was having 2 or 3 beers, can't remember that exactly right now, and although I surely would've been under the limit, I didn't drive, because on that day those 2 or 3 beers made me feel very drunk.

If it made you feel "very" drunk, than you were most likely over the limit. I'm a pretty big guy and 2 or 3 beers have little noticeable effect on me.

Oh, and I should point this out - I'm not a heavy drinker by any stretch. I don't touch hard alcohol EVER. Only beer. I love me some beer.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike, face it - you have sinned against your fellow man, and thus should be flogged in the street. After that, other horrible things should happen to you - all because you fail to understand that while the LAW says your ok - and the LAW was put in place by SOCIETY - apparently those on here who see things differently are the ones whose thoughts really matter.....

Instead of beating up on this guy - why don't all of you who are so blasted outraged start putting forth some efforts to change the things in society you don't like?

Its called a government "OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People" for a reason. Unfortunately - its easier apparently to get on here and fuss at one guy who did something you don't agree with, than it is to pick up the phone and call a local organization of MADD or SADD or similiar and ask what you can do to help. Its easier to berate a fellow community member WHO DID NOTHING WRONG UNDER THE LAW - that it is to write a letter to your State Congressman or Governor and be a voice to make things better.

Until you folks get a grip on respecting the law - regardless of whether or not you agree with it - you have no hope of doing anything positive. By respecting the law - which Aramike did - you can also exert influence on that law to change it to what you think is more appropriate.

Or - in other words - quit your fussin, get of your arses and act if you really give a damn.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Aramike, face it - you have sinned against your fellow man, and thus should be flogged in the street. After that, other horrible things should happen to you - all because you fail to understand that while the LAW says your ok - and the LAW was put in place by SOCIETY - apparently those on here who see things differently are the ones whose thoughts really matter.....

Instead of beating up on this guy - why don't all of you who are so blasted outraged start putting forth some efforts to change the things in society you don't like?

Its called a government "OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People" for a reason. Unfortunately - its easier apparently to get on here and fuss at one guy who did something you don't agree with, than it is to pick up the phone and call a local organization of MADD or SADD or similiar and ask what you can do to help. Its easier to berate a fellow community member WHO DID NOTHING WRONG UNDER THE LAW - that it is to write a letter to your State Congressman or Governor and be a voice to make things better.

Until you folks get a grip on respecting the law - regardless of whether or not you agree with it - you have no hope of doing anything positive. By respecting the law - which Aramike did - you can also exert influence on that law to change it to what you think is more appropriate.

Or - in other words - quit your fussin, get of your arses and act if you really give a damn.

Very succinct and right on the money. I appreciate it.

[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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Roman - welcome aboard!

Also - you have a very good point on the testing - once he got close enough to the car there was reason to test. I didn't even consider that portion. The stop itself, being "random" - probably was questionable under the law technically - but so few people care about what rights they really have that they won't question - thus allowing those rights to be slowly taken.

If your as sharp as you appear in picking up the reason to test - you will make a great addition to the GT community. Again - welcome aboard!

[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!

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

It is not YOUR highway. It belongs to the taxpayers.

Are you implying that i dont pay my taxes?

under Obama's administration i pay more than my fair share of corporate and personal taxes... i pay all of that money so drunk, crack head, pot smoking inner-city trash can afford to buy their "Twenty Twos", their alcohol, and their drugs and then proceed to drive intoxicated all over the roads - that i own as a tax payer.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

The police CAN stop you and test you if even the slightest question on your ability to safely operate the vechicle.

Zach... did you even read my post or did you just smell a right wing conservative and automatically launch into Al Gore mode and start ranting about global warming and corporate criminals and big business and tea parties?

like i said - cops have no right to stop you UNLESS you exhibit suspicion of wrong doing. (ie... dead body dragging behind the car, failure to yield, speeding, cant maintain lanes... blood all over the vehicle etc etc)

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

my view on this is simple.

1. Never drive if you have had 3 or more beers (assume 12 oz bottles)

2. The police have no right to stop you unless you prove to be suspect of some wrong doing... ie a body dragging behind your vehicle, or a trunk popped open revealing a bound and gagged hooker, or your unable to maintain lanes etc

Before Zachstar has any further aneurysm perhaps i should clarify my post just a tiny bit so that even he can understand it:

MY personal limit for myself is

1. If I have had more than 3 beers (assuming 12 oz bottles) over a period of 30 minutes per bottle - i hand the keys off to someone else. *** In many many cases... i have handed off the keys after stomaching only ONE beer. but generally 3 "6 point" Texas beers over a 90 minute period is my personal limit.

as for #2... I maintain that the police have no right to stop you UNLESS YOU PROVE TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF WRONG DOING.

sorry Zach... i have been a victim of hit and run in a head on collision by a drunk driver that caused injury to my passenger and myself... i know first hand what it is like to face life threatening danger from someone who is driving drunk.

i have never been guilty of it myself... i have far too much to lose - nor would i ever endanger others on the public highway system.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think you are misunderstanding what ZS said, GR. I think I can translate it more clearly. I speak liberalese. Translations are in bold.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Wrong on both counts.

Shutup.

Any beer recently ingested impairs your ability to drive. No matter how safe or how much you trust yourself. It is not YOUR highway. It belongs to the taxpayers. Don't like it? Pull a tea party but don't use any road to get there as that is obviously socialism! You may be under the limit but you are morally impaired in my view.

You're a greedy bastard who doesn't want to share. I'm a taxypayer, you're just one of those rich people who takes money from us. Obviously, you are against all taxes. I don't agree with you, so you have a moral deficiency*.

The police have the duty to protect folks and the courts have ruled for that time and time again. Folks who constantly complain about the constitutionality of the stops conveniently fail to note the numerous court rulings on the subject.

I hate lawyers, but I have no idea what they do or why so many are in congress. But I love lawmakers
The Constitution is written in Greek.

The police CAN stop you and test you if even the slightest question on your ability to safely operate the vechicle.

I should be the police.

And frankly I do not believe Arm was driving "Stone Cold Sober" I think his check was valid but a random bit of bad luck for the rest of us in my view that he tested under the limit at the time and was not drug away to jail to face harsh fines.

I have never read "The Gulag Archipelago", so I do not know that I would make a great NKVD agent. Or KGB agent. Or whatever. I'm a liberal so simply changing the name of something is equivalent to changing policy for me.
--------------------------------

*In Liberalese, moral has a dual meaning. When used by the religious right, it can be called any number of things (see: derogatory terms) When used by a liberal, it means: I spent ten seconds wondering about inequality in society.

[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.