It’s That Time Of Year Again…
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
Holiday shopping — and holiday traffic checkpoints — are sure signs it’s Christmas. Randomly stopping motorists to look for drunk drivers has been common practice in many states for years now, but enforcement efforts tend to step up around the Christmas/New Year’s holidays.
What should you do if you happen to roll up on one of these checkpoints?
1) Be sober.
The legal threshold defining Driving Under the Influence (DUI) can be as little as .06 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content), a level that can be reached after having consumed just two cocktails at the office Christmas party. This is well below the typical .08 BAC threshold defining Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), but in many states you can be arrested for DUI at the lower .06 threshold — and the potential punishment upon conviction for DUI is often nearly identical to the punishment imposed for DWI.
Either way, the consequences that attend a DUI or DWI conviction are not worth the risk of driving with any significant amount of booze in your system. If you plan to drive, the best policy is to avoid drinking any alcohol before you do.
2) Be polite.
Many people understandably chafe at having to submit to what amounts to a random (and probable cause-less) roadside interrogation and interruption of their travel. They’re right to be annoyed, but it’s common sense not to show it. Don’t raise your voice or become argumentative. These days, people have been Tazed merely for being “uncooperative.” Try to smile and behave normally.
The object is to get it over with and drive on without further problems.
3) Be prepared.
You should always carry your driver’s license with you and have the vehicle’s registration and insurance card (both current) in the car someplace. These roadside checkpoints are not just for catching drunk drivers; they’re also a dragnet for any possible source of “revenue” for the local/state government that can be raised via a ticket for other charges you may be open to — such as failing to have a valid registration or an out-of-date state inspection sticker. Same goes for stuff like burned out headlights, cracked windshields and so on. Anything that could be cause for a ticket you should deal with before you fall into the Venus Flytrap of a holiday checkpoint. Otherwise it’s a good bet your Christmas present will be a piece of “payin’ paper.”
Related: If you have a concealed weapons permit, it’s smart to advise the cop you have one as soon as possible, especially if you are carrying a handgun (loaded or not) with you. Do so in a calm voice and while keeping both hands in plain view. If the cop asks whether you are armed, tell him yes or no. If he asks where the weapon is, tell him it is on your hip (or wherever) but do not reach for it and if he asks to see it, tell him you prefer that he remove it from your person in that case.
We live in jumpy times and it’s unwise to put yourself in the position of reaching for a loaded handgun — permit or no permit and no matter how innocent your intentions. Tell the cop you’d like to exit the vehicle and have him take the weapon off your person if he wishes to inspect it. Never allow your hands to go anywhere near your gun.
4) Be aware of your rights.
While the law says you have to stop at the checkpoint and submit to being questioned, you don’t have to answer any question the cop asks, especially if it’s a leading question designed to get you to make a potentially incriminating statement. The laws requires you identify yourself, provide registration and proof of insurance — and nothing more. You are not required to tell the cop where you’re headed — or why you’re “out so late.” If you have been drinking, even if it’s just a single glass of wine, you are not required to incriminate yourself by telling him how much, or when, or what (although if you haven’t touched a drop that night, it’s common sense to tell him “no” when he asks whether you’ve been drinking, even though you’re not legally required to answer that question, either).
As a practical/legal matter, if the cop begins to question you seriously, any good lawyer would advise you to politely decline to answer and to advise the cop that if you are to be arrested or detained further that you will only answer questions after having spoken with an attorney. Never forget: Cops are not your friend. They are looking for people to ticket and arrest and will do so whenever possible and will use any statement you make against you as evidence later on.
Related: Never give consent to search your vehicle, either. If they ask, tell them not unless they have a warrant. It’s not just the principle of the thing. Innocent people have been ensnared after having given consent to have their vehicles searched — not knowing that (for example) a previous owner smoked pot in the car and there are still some seeds buried in the carpet, which were subsequently sniffed out by a narcotics dog and as a result, found themselves charged with dope possession and their vehicle seized under asset forfeiture laws.
It’s not paranoid to insist on your rights. It’s prudent.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
[...] It’s That Time Of Year Again… [...]
Randy,
Everybody blows in the tube at these stops. The department running them has been criticized for it, but they still do it. Until last year they used to have everybody in the vehicle take a breathalyzer. A local judge finally made them stop.
As far as the painting goes, I was wearing a respirator and coveralls. It is my understanding that you can absorb these chemicals through the skin. While they may not raise the readings that much, they can mean the difference between a .06 and a .08. When these checkpoints were making everybody take a brethalyzer there were several incidents of arrests being made for underage drinking. Immediately after his son was arrested for underage drinking a doctor took a blood sample and had it tested. There was no alcohol in his system, there were other chemicals that created a false positive.
The question about “do you have a weapon”? is also so open ended as to put you in legal liability. The officer must define “weapon” and “arms” in order for me to answer the question.
Baja Joes you forgot one thing Baja Joes. After the officer asks you a question I am sure you would say “Are you talking to me?” “Are you talking to me?”
Get a life Baja Joes. If everyone has to bring a lawyer along with them to talk to you then I think you have the problem. “Do you have a weapon” to 99.9999999% of the people stopped on the highway would know that they are asking if you have a weapon with you or in the car. I think every court in the land would say the same thing. “Do you have a weapon” does not mean that you own one or there is one at your house hundreds of miles away. A kitchen knife can also be a weapon so I suppose you would say yes you do have a weapon even when you are on an airplane and your kitchen knife is at home.
A couple years ago I was stopped at a checkpoint. I wasn’t worried because I was coming from working on a job for somebody and hadn’t been drinking. I was asked to take a breathalyzer and was suprised when I blew a .03. I was asked to move my car into a nearby parking lot and to get out of it. When I was removing my license from my wallet, the officer saw my Conceled Carry Permit, shoved me against my car and handcuffed me. Then he asked if I was carrying a weapon? I replied “No”, and he proceeded to search me and my car. When I complained about the search of my car, I was told that my CCP gave them the right to search my vehicle. When nothing was found, I was placed in the back of a police car and taken to the station. There I recieved another breathalyzer and blew a .01. The Chief of Police for that township has a policy that he will not let anybody who has a measurable alcohol level get behind the wheel of a car. I had to call my brother-in-law to come pick me up and take me home. The next day I had to have him take me back to the station to get the keys to my car. I had to take another breathalyzer before they gave me my keys. I later found out what caused all of this. Breathalyzers do NOT measure the amount of alcohol in your system. They measure the level of certain Methyl chemical groups in your system. Gasoline, isopropyl alcohol and most solvents are members of this group. I had been painting an airplane that day and had absorbed some of the chemicals from the paint through my skin. These chemicals leave the body through the lungs and probably caused the false reading. Breathlyzers are known to be inaccurate. The manufacturers of breathalyzers will NOT issue a warranty on their ability to measure alcohol on a person’s breath. There are several court cases going on right now to get the manufacturers to release the computer code that these machines operate with so that it can be checked for accuracy. The DUI blog site that has been mentiond here has dozens of articles on their inaccuracy. My favorite one is the guy in Austrailia who claimed that an ice cream sundae caused him to have a false reading, and then proved it in court. By the way, when I renewed my CCP, I found that by signing the paperwork, I did give consent to have my vehicle searched during a police stop.
JIMC5499 you are the first I have heard of and possibly the only person ever that has been given a breathalyzer test without any other indications of DUI or that you had been drinking. Sounds fishy to me. Was you wearing some type of air supply so that you were not inhaling those paint fumes? I have a hard time believing that you could obsorb that much in through your skin although it might be possible. It is far easier getting fumes into your bloodstream through your lungs.
JIMC,
Your article makes interesting reading.
I wonder what the readings might be if you gassed your car and in doing so stepped in someone else’s spilled gasolne? Chance a guess?
How about some study’s regarding this?
Thanks about the tip that signing forfeits your right to be free from search without cause.
A question asking a motorist “are you armed”? seems to be very open ended. To be a reasonable question it should be phrased as “do you carry firearms”?
The vague question of “are you armed”? could immediately put you at risk for lying to a law enforcrment officer. Personally the only way I could reasonably answer the question is to ask the officer to define “arms”?
Here is a quote from an article on that page, I last posted:
“I’ve posted repeatedly that DUI roadblocks, aka “sobriety checkpoints”, are ineffective at apprehending drunk drivers. See, for example, Do DUI Roadblocks Work? and Do DUI Roadblocks Work? (part 2). Faced with irrefutable facts, police agencies simply switch horses and say that they are effective as deterrents. In other words, “Ok, they don’t work but they scare people”.”
In other word police lie about Sobriety Check Points (SCPs). If it was about safety they would use saturation patrols and catch many more drunk drivers (not any more people with 0.08 % Blood Alcohol Content (BAC)), because 0.08 BAC does not necessarily mean drunk or even impaired. A person who is a drunk is not impaired at all with this very low BAC, while a person who rarely drinks may be. This drunk can drive perfect with 0.08 BAC while someone who rarely drinks will not be able to, thus the drunk keeps on driving while the slightly impaired teetotaler gets their life ruined.
As always remember do not respond to idiotic troll responses.
Mack believes that since they do not apprehending a lot of drunk drivers at checkpoints they are useless. If everyone agrees that they are a deterant for people getting on the road in the first place if they have been drinking then why would NMA or anyone that believes what NMA stands for be against it? The idea is not to have drunk drivers on the road and since no tickets or few are given that should be what NMA is all about.
I now understand why Mack does not want to have checkpoints. He thinks he can drive perfectly well with a BAC of .08 or higher and having checkpoints would catch him. Mack does not understand that every test given has shown that any person that has a BAC of .08 is not as good of a driver with that BAC.
I understand him now. He wants to get by with being illegal. He thinks he can driive with a higher BAC and get by with it just by not speeding or weaving all over the road. He does not realize that he still is a far worse driver with that high of a BAC with slower reaction times and poorer decisions.
http://www.duifoundation.org/drunkdriving/impairment/
Here is a good site to view and get info on.
http://www.duiblog.com/
As always remember do not respond to idiotic troll responses.
Thanks mack for backing up my statements. This was in the article that you posted:
“If you know there’s a crackdown for DUI, then you’re most likely not going to do it,”
That is where preannounced checkpoints come in. If people know there are going to be checkpoints in the area at various locations then people do not drink and drive. That is exactly opposite of your first post that you complained about me responding to.
I have to disagree with the closing of the 2nd point “The object is to get it over with and drive on without further problems.”
The real object is to get check points stopped! As long as they exist there will be further problems.
Many times it has been pointed out that Sobriety Check Points are ineffective as compared saturation patrols, so even if a weak SCOTUS ruling said they are legal, they are still useless. SCOTUS has said that check points for any other general crime prevention are illegal, so again the object is to get the check points stopped.
MacK in my opinion check points are usefull. They do find drivers with DUI and other things. Even if checkpoints do not find any violations they still are effective in showing that the police are present and when people see them they tend to obey the laws the next time. Often during holidays there are checkpoints and people often know that so they tend not to drink and drive because there is a greater chance of being stopped. If you get a greater number that do not drive after drinking then it does not matter if police do not find any violations because the check point served the purpose. That is a fact!!
Randy, the same could be said for house-to-house searches for child porn.
Would you be OK with that?
They might find evidence of other crimes being committed. People would be much more apt to comply with the law, and it would certainly establish a police presence.
And if they didn’t find any child porn, it would be clear evidence that the searches served their purpose.
I’m going to include the one point you forgot. If it prevents just one occurrence of the crime being targeted, then it was worth it.
Hubcap I do not care if they search houses if they show probable cause. I have been stopped at a roadblock or two. They do not search your car unless they find a probable cause. They have found truck loads of drugs on the highway and had them searched because they had probable cause. I guess you would say that we should leave truck loads of drugs go by along with explosives and military weapons.
The fact is during the holidays roadblocks stops drunks from getting on the road. You are stupid enough to think that is a good idea for them to get on the road. Roadblocks are not an invasion of privacy and if you can keep dangerous people off our roadways with only minor inconvenience of other people it is a good thing. Do you have something to hide if you are stopped and asked to open your window? How does that hurt you? Would you rather have dead people on the highway?
Randy please do not respond to any of my posts again.
I enjoy enlightened, intelligent, thoughtful, and even opposing conversation.
Since it is obvious from viewing your previous comments you are nothing but a troll, I would request you not adjoining my individual posts.
Since that will not be possible from you, as trolls are thoughtless ignorant beasts, I’ll not respond to any more of your thoughtless ramblings whether you join in my thoughts or, somehow come up with your own.
To prove my point, I’m sure you will spout some idiotic reply to this. Just know that I will not respond, and I encourage others to take the same course of action.
MacK good response. Siince you can not come up with anything to back up your statements not even common sense logic, why not try to trash a person that makes factual statements and backed up with personal observation from what others have said. I have talked to people that drink and said that they do not go onto the roads when there are checkpoints. I used to go to bars a lot and listen to the music mostly but not as much lately. I was the designated driver.
Keep making up things. Sounds good.
Randy has effectively made any reasonable discussion here impossible.
Hubcap show me where I was wrong in my statements. The only thing that you will believe is something that backs up your anger against the government. The only thing that you come back with is your nonsensical statements.
I want to know if it is illegal somply to avoid a DUI checkpoint?
In other words are laws being broken by avoiding a DUI checkpoint?? I realize that if the cops see that you are avoiding them they may go after you but have you broken any laws by avoiding them? (Assuming by doing so you have made NO moving violations.)
Baja Joes
This site will tell you. Look to the final question.
http://www.roadblock.org/faq.htm
If you do turn off legally (legal U-turn, a side road, a drive way) they will follow you; however they can only stop you if you break the law as in not using a turn signal, or speeding. Remember they need probable cause except at the check point. A good idea is to have a camera, and record they stop. I would also suggest using QIK so they can’t destroy the evidence of an illegal stop.
http://qik.com/
Baja Joes it is perfectly legal to try to bypass/avoid a checkpoint. Like you said, do not break any traffic laws doing it.
As George Carlin said, You have no Rights – only privleges which can be taken away when the Government sees fit – just ask any US Citizen of Japanese decent who lived during the 1940′s.
During the 40′s, the Government was concerned about a World War. Today, it’s concerned about money. Your Rights (privleges) have been and are being taken away so that the Government can make a profit on whatever laws bring in cash – a sort of corrupt form of Capitalism.
Small sectors of the American Public complain a little but as their Rulers beat on the Bible and equate Freedom to cheap gasoline and the right to own a gun, the majority will ignore or make excuses for any sleezy action the Government dreams up.
Doug, do you have the right to drive when you are drunk? Do you have the right to run through stop signs? Do you have the right to drive so you endanger many other people?
I would guess not. Good thing you have all the rights you need in Germany. I guess they let you do all those things.
My state must not need the money that bad because they did not get any from me and most of the people I know. Are they slipping or just have plenty of money. Or is it some people know how to drive.
Breaking news continues as Randy, frequent contrarian poster the NMA blog continues to not get it.
After claiming the last report “went over his head” Randy most recently conflated Doug’s post regarding an overall decline in respect for individual rights in the US with some rights apparently granted to drivers in Europe. These rights, which according to Randy, exist in Germany include the right to drive drunk and ignore traffic signals.
An unnamed source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said “those… rights actually do exist, but only in Randy’s mind.”
We will continue to monitor the situation and bring you the latest updates.
Hubcap I was wrong. Your previous statement did not go over my head. It was beneath me. I temperarily got my ups and downs mixed up.
Better yet, it just did not make sense to anyone.
Randy says: A police state is a happy state. NMA members should remember that the primary function of government is to provide a risk-free environment in which to enjoy your freedom as Americans without regard to how much of the Constitution has to be sacrificed to provide that freedom.
Freedom isn’t free; we must all sacrifice some rights to be free. It’s always best to sacrifice someone else’s rights, but sometimes we have to give up our own, to be free. And brave. Since America is the Home of the Brave, it is very important to be brave. In order to be brave people have to be completely safe and that requires many, many laws all of which must obeyed.
Laws are flawless and perfect and were created by people who care only about freedom and bravery to keep Americans free and brave, but they only work if they are followed without question.
Hubcap, I do not care if you get rid of all laws. Just get people to drive responsibly. That includes not driving drunk, not driving too fast, not running through red lights seconds after they are red, not texting while driving etc. You find a way to get people not to do those types of things and you can get rid of all laws.
Let us know how you are going to do that unless you approve of all of those kind of things.
I think most here do approve of bad driving habits and dangerous type of driving that kills others.
Breaking News!! Randy Completely Misses Point.
Randy, responding to Hubcap’s post made a leap of illogic in which he completely ignored the content of the post and asserted that Hubcap approves of driving habits that kill and wants to “get rid of all laws”.
Hubcap’s post was intended to lampoon Randy’s inability to distinguish between questioning the law and justifying the action.
More on this story as it develops.
Hubcap you went completly over my head. Just answer my questions in my previous post.
Randy, you didn’t ask any questions. “Let us know how you are going to do that unless you approve of all of those kind of things” is not a question; it is a rhetorical trap similar to “when did you stop beating your wife?”
Hubcap you are right it was not a question. I am sorry. It was a statement telling you to do something.
If you do not believe in the laws that we have then you either have to agree that it is ok behavior or that you have an alternate solution to laws. Which is it and if you have another solution let us know what it is?
Fair enough, Randy.
You approach this with black and white, all or nothing thinking; that is not what we are about. Speaking for myself but probably also for many NMA members we are not out to abolish traffic laws.
No one here thinks that drunk driving, going fifty in a school zone, or ignoring stop lights is okay. There are laws against those things and for good reason.
What we have issues with is how these laws are enforced, how they are perverted to the point where they are no longer about public safety or the orderly movement of traffic and become simply revenue generators or another law enforcement “tool” to stop and search vehicles.
We acknowledge that the laws must exist, but they should be fairly enforced with all the due process afforded every citizen by the Constitution. They should be sensible and based in real science and engineering principles, not some politician’s feel-good idea of what should be.
Does that clear it up for you?
Hubcap I think most laws are as they should be. YOu think they are not. You like to complain so what are you complaining about? You say that laws are good so what should the laws be then? You and others here never propose a solution to what you are complaining about except increase limits and do not ticket us for going through red lights. I have yet to see any current speed limits that are set where anyone is not able to get through life with the speeds that are set. Actually the truth is that if all speed zones were increased 5 mph, I mean actual travel speed then there would be more deaths and accidents. You and others her say that is an acceptable risk. I say it is usually not worth the risk when it saves you seconds a day.
Even after you have your traffic survey most here would go over the limit that is set so what does it matter? You and others say that you want to let the 85% rule as the traffic speed limit. True traffic surveys also consider a lot of other variables than just what the fastest 15% of the drivers drive at.
Hubcap: Excellent story! I look forward to future updates to the unfolding saga!
Be careful, though… don’t fall into the senseless trap I usually do… some people’s lack of logic knows no bounds!
As the Trying to Make Randy Understand Standoff moves into its second day, Randy remains deliberately obtuse.
Rejecting Hubcap’s concise explanation of his own and the NMA’s position, Randy continues to assert that NMA’s “Driving Freedom” means the freedom to drive through stoplights at grossly unsafe speeds.
Randy, admitting that he doesn’t know which end is up, said in an earlier interview, “I temperarily got my ups and downs mixed up.”
In this reporter’s opinion, the situation here is like teaching a pig to sing, frustrating one and annoying the other.
Hubcap I completley understand yours and NMA’s positions. You say that laws are good you just do not believe that they should be enforced. NMA’s position is that drinking and driving is fine as long as you are still able to stand up somewhat. They say that anything under .15 should be like a seatbelt violation. NMA major position is “we want you to break the law and we will help you get away with it”. They have a site that tries to give the position where police give out speeding tickets, they pay for your ticket if you go to court, they advertise radar detectors it goes on and on. Like I have said before, this should be the law breakers club.
The idea behind this organization may be good at a higher level because it is meant to find and correct bad laws and bad police practices. They do not do that though. They say it is fine to break all laws. This organizaion should be about changing bad laws but it is about breaking all laws if they are correct or not.
In some states, it’s actually .05%. (Such as NJ)