No refusal checkpoints over labor day weekend...
http://www.wbir.com/story/news/local/2014/08/24/thp-holding-no-refusal-checkpoints-over-labor-day-weekend/14535179/

I understand they want to cut down on drunk driving, and I'm cool with that, but it's a rubber stamp search warrant.  I think we've been over this before, but it just doesn't sound right to me.  

They also said only 6 of the 16 traffic deaths last labor day were due to drunk driving.  It seems to me they should be focusing on the stupid drivers that are recklessly driving every single day. Who knows, they might even catch more drunks that way.

Search warrants for blood samples is what the article states. Go back and re-read it.

This has been state law for at least a year or two. All it means is that if you refuse to be tested if you appear to be impaired, the police will obtain a search warrant in order to have your blood drawn.

In the past, one could refuse the test so as to avoid DUI. You did lose your license, but technically you were not DUI. The state legislator changed the law in order to get a forced blood sample. There has been a huge debate as to the constitutionality of this, but as of yet no one has challenged it. Until someone of means or fame gets busted, it probably will stay like it is.

DUI check points may have been ruled constitutional, but I do not remember seeing "public safety" in the constitution. Total BS. I want drunks off the road, but check points are JBT tactics.

I have no problem for a search warrant for blood. As long as the search warrant request is properly vetted by the judge. The vetting part is the problem.

I thought it was DL/ID check points that were ruled constitutional. Not DUI or seat belt or anything else. Drivers stopped at one of these checkpoints must only show a valid DL. They don't even have to roll down their window. Of course the cops at the checkpoints will tell you to roll down your window and if you refuse they will get all butt hurt at having their authority challenged. Then they "take charge" of the situation training kicks in and they go all JBT/respect mah authoritah! on you. They will say it's reasonable suspicion to search now or they will bring out a dog that may or may not have actual training and say it alerted on something in the vehicle weather it did or not.

Due to the strong likelihood of and actual rampant abuse of citizen's rights at these checkpoints, they should be outlawed.

And the forced compliance law should be unconstitutional on its face. You are being compelled to give testimony/evidence against yourself. It has long been held that this was unconstitutional everywhere else in the US. That is why they have the implied consent laws where you agree to lose your license if you refuse blood alcohol testing.

Yes I hate DUI as much as anyone, but trampling everyone's rights is not the solution. Stronger sentencing is the key. People face no real punishment for DUI now. Not enough to be a deterrent. They get a suspended license and just keep on driving anyway. If found driving on a revoked or suspended license, the vehicle should be seized, and the drive should serve out the remainder of the revocation or suspension in jail. Or just get jail time for the DUI.

my understanding is the "no refusal" part is that they are paying overtime for an actual judge to be at the checkpoint.  so he will write warrants on the spot.

You can't "Blanket" society like this, and IMO it's BS. They're going about it completely wrong!

Actually they use the phone because this law is in effect for all drivers, not just the checkpoints.

Also, one of the other parts to this is the LEO's are required to publish in advance when and where the checkpoints are.

That's all pretty much standard for these. Lots of rules like they must provide a turn off and have so much signage. You don't have to go through the checkpoint, you can choose not too and go around the thing.

How many times do they send someone after a turn around? I bet most do.

In Memphis? Never. More avoid the checkpoints than go through.

The courts are pretty strict on these things. Anything questionable and they throw it out.

lol. I've seen the cops take off after a car that turned around. Just a year or two back.

It doesn't matter. It is just wrong.

So what's the law say about U turns?  Also, at what point is it evading?

That's the meat of the matter, and a whole lot more.

One can argue the legality of some action till they're blue in the face, while ignoring the plain-spoken fact of whether it's wrong or not.

It's blatantly unconstitutional regardless of whatever signage, notices, etc they give. Last time I checked a warrant can not forcibly violate your Vth ammendment rights, which a DUI blood test does. A warrant for blood/dna samples should only be issued in cases where there is a victim, they have a sample left at the scene to compare it to, and they have probable cause to issue it against the suspect.
This is a completely assbackwards way of going about cutting down on DUI's. Simply make the punishment for repeat offenders so high that even in a drunken stupor you'd have to be a stone cold retard to risk it and you'll fix most of the problem.

Until someone challenges it in court and takes it through the court of appeals and possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, it is in effect. I do NOT agree with it so don't take it I am against your statement. Until someone with deep pockets or someone famous gets a DUI and all, I don't see anyone challenging it.

Even when the law was enacted, many said it was unconstitutional......thats a crappy way to enact a law.

I was simply responding to the question is it constitutional or not. You're analysis of the realities of the situation is spot on. Looks like we're in complete agreement then, cheers

When I was growing up there was a DUI checkpoint a couple hundred feet past our driveway.  My dad turned in the driveway, parked, walked in the house.  2 mins later a cop from the checkpoint knocked on the door asking for license, registration, etc.  Officer said he wanted proof that he lived there and wasn't avoiding a DUI by turning into a friends place.

I was young at the time but had a on my face.

I would have closed the door in the cop's face while laughing. Kiss my ass, Farva..

I would hope that's exactly what he did, but I'm going to guess he complied, along with many others throughout the years, and that's why we find ourselves in the position we are currently in.  

Sadly he complied.  The only reason I remember is the officer left his gloves on our front porch.  

I am a cop in West Tennessee. I totally agree with yall on the roadblock issue. Probable cause should be established before any contact with the driver of a vehicle. Going through a roadblock reeks of show me your papers mentality of a police state. Another thing of concern is an officer can seize your car for DUI II or DORL if
the revocation is for a DUI. This is before any court proceedings. You have to go to court and and work out a price to buy back your own property. While this is legal it is morally wrong. I will not seize a man's property without due process. DUI drivers must be stopped...But do it properly.


By the the way...All this roadblock overtime comes from GHSO...Governors Highway Safety Office. Spending your tax dollars to violate your rights. Write the governors office. Give him hell.

Well,
back when I did this for a living, the problem we had was this:

You'd stop a guy, he'd have pissed himself, squinting, no clue where he was. Load him, then at the jail, would blow a hair under the minimum. Turns out he washed down a few pills with a couple of beers. Pills don't register on the breathalyzer.

So, you'd have someone with a 6th or 7th conviction DUI history and basically turn them loose because even with video and officer testimony, you didn't have chemical evidence supporting your probable cause.

On a few occasions, we would take them to the hospital and have blood pulled. This is because we operated under the mechanism that we can seize evidence of a crime if we fear it may be lost by the time a warrant for it could be procured. Now, we couldn't send it off as evidence without the judge signing off on it the next business day, but we had it. And, if they didn't agree with us, we were prepared to destroy the tube.

Having said that, I only did it a couple of times, then quit, because even though I could articulate my actions, there was something fundamentally, on a gut level, that felt wrong about the procedure. (shrugs)

This never happened to 99% of the public. Most people never get stopped. Then of the small percentage that do, some are frequent flyers. Of that percentage, a couple you let go because even though you know they don't have a license, you know exactly where they've been slaving their balls off all day nailing shingles on a roof, and they are going straight home.

It's that percentage of a percent. They... they lose control of who they are. They don't give a fuck about you or anyone else on the path they drive. They know its wrong to wake up at a green light with cars honking, but they can't help themselves. They have hard luck stories, and I guess a normal person would feel for them, but I just exercised every letter of the law I could as hard as I could to keep them behind bars every time I could find one of them.

That is where this new no refusal thing came from. It doesn't sound like it's being reasonably applied, but I promise you, if there was a way to defeat it, one lawyer woulda done done it, and told the rest how he did it on one of their forums.

People keep saying that it will continue until a rich, famous, or connected person gets the needle. Don't any of you understand in Tennessee, those people don't get stopped? Lawyers won't fight it, either, because they feed their families on DUI defense. None of them are going to oppose anything to loosen a DUI law that's not commercial motor vehicle related. That's just how it is here.

Having said that, here's the part where some would expect me to say, but, if they ever pulled that on me... The thing is, I don't drink and drive. They would have to stack the lies very, very deep to do anything but a cursory glance at my license and wave me on.

Shawn

did it happen?

We went to TN this past weekend, but as I suspected there wasn't anything set up on the route we took.  I figure it was too early in the day for it... and they don't usually fuck with the highways anyway

State highway or interstate?

You will not see these on the interstates.

On some state highways? You could. But, the locations are required to be disclosed in advance.

Interstate mostly, but then again even when we were on regular roads it was during the mid-morning on Saturday.  Not exactly prime-time for catching drunk drivers anyway