Posted on 04/08/2002 3:51:00 PM PDT by Still Thinking
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," said Lord Acton. The scholar could have been talking about the war on drinking and driving.
Driving home from a dinner in 1997, Willis Van Devanter, an academic and grandson of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, was stopped at a Washington, D.C., roadblock. An officer determined that Van Devanter had a BAC of just .03%, less than one-third of D.C.'s legal limit at the time. The police had Van Devanter handcuffed and placed under arrest, telling him that D.C. had "zero tolerance" for any drinking and driving -- even if the driver did not technically violate the District's DWI law. A Phoenix police detective said last year that "once you consume that alcohol, you are now a criminal because it's against the law to drink and drive. Period." That's dead wrong, but it's a common misperception among citizens -- and police.
Absolute power also results in abuse. In Prince William County, Virginia, not far from the scene of Van Devanter's ordeal, a state trooper has been indicted for allegedly dropping DUI charges against a 20-year-old woman in exchange for sexual favors -- which he may have done dozens of times, according to The Washington Post. "A number of motorists and state troopers" say the now-resigned trooper "routinely 'profiled' women for traffic stops," sometimes waiting outside bars and "following them as they drove away and stopping them," the Post reports.
This sort of intimidation is a direct result of the absolute power that arises from the war on drinking and driving -- a war meant, in MADD's Katherine Prescott's words, to "be a deterrent for light drinkers as well as heavy drinkers." Restaurant patrons will be petrified about drinking at all, even a single glass of wine. And MADD's new plan to roll out a nationwide arsenal of random roadblocks will essentially prohibit alcohol consumption at many places where it is now a part of life: no beer at the ballpark, no wine with an anniversary dinner, no cocktail toasts at a wedding reception.
"I fear what might happen if I continue to participate in a social activity which I believed to be a sophisticated, responsible form of entertainment," Van Devanter wrote after his arrest. "Do we now need designated drivers in order to have a glass of wine with dinner?"
Money for the state and lawyers.
No, but the ones who can afford it make up for the ones who can't.
The state comes out okay. In Ohio I believe the fine is $1500. Lots of incentive for the state to "get tough" on DWI.
Yes, drunk driving is a real problem. But consider the profile of a typical drunk driver. He/she is usually an alcoholic who drinks to get drunk. Most people involved in drunk-driving fatalities and/or injuries usually already have a string of DUI-related offenses. Some of them were even operating with suspended or revoked licenses. And in nearly all cases, the drunk driver involved in these tragic wrecks are falling-down drunk and were observed by other motorists to be operating erratically.
Most importantly, in nearly ever drunk driving fatality or injury, the drunk driver had a BAC well in excess of .10. Thus, it can be argued that lowering the legal BAC from .10 to .08 or from .08 to .05 is going to have zero effect on these dangerous drunks. The old BAC limit of .10 didn't deter them from getting hammered and then getting behind the wheel of a car. How could lowering the legal BAC even further possibly make a difference?
When the legal BAC is lowered to the point where law-abiding citizens are made into criminals for having some wine or beer with their dinners, then that is a real crime. The error is then compounded when these same motorists, who are driving along perfectly fine, are stopped at roadblocks late at night by heavily booted, flashlight-wielding police officers and asked the fateful question: "Have you had anything to drink tonight, sir?"
I have experienced this firsthand and I will never forget it. It was late at night sometime around 1986 and I was driving through South Boston after having had a few beers during the course of that evening. I was not intoxicated whatsoever and I was driving very carefully (as I always do when I have any alcohol at all in my system), keeping within posted speed limits and keeping perfectly within the lines as well as my distance from the car in front of me. Well, that particular night, I hit one of those infamous "Mike Dukakis" roadblocks, that he always made a big fuss about every holiday weekend. (He should perhaps have spent more time worrying about the drinking habits of his wife, but I digress.)
I'm driving along Morrissey Boulevard (near the Boston Globe) when around the bend, I suddenly see several dozen police cars up ahead and cops with flashlights everywhere. I am waved off to the side where in short order, a state trooper saunters up to me, shines a flashlight into my face and into my car and says "Good evening sir, are you heading home tonight?" I reply that yes, I am heading home. "May I ask you where you are coming from, sir?" was his next question. I was actually heading home from a party but I knew that was asking for trouble so I told him I was simply heading back from a friend's house. "Have you had anything to drink tonight sir" was his next question. At this point, I simply lied to the officer and told him that no, I have not had anything to drink tonight. "Very well sir," was his reply, "Have a pleasant evening." And he waved me on to continue about my business.
It has been over 15 years since that happened and still I am bothered by that incident. I am especially bothered that I lied to the police officer that night. But I knew that if I had stated that I was drinking, the next thing he would have done was to ask me to step out of the car in take a field sobriety test. It could only have gone downhill from that point. For even if I passed the field sobriety test with flying colors, the police officer would have likely found some other reason to hold me. After all, as soon as I admitted that I had been drinking, the officer would be culpable if he had let me go and I had an accident further up the road. See, a police officer, as soon as you admit drinking of any kind, is then committed to keeping you in custody, by hook or by crook. Very few police officers will admit that they might have made a mistake. Once you are asked to step out of your car in a drunk driving roadblock, you can kiss your constitutional rights goodbye. For in a drunk-driving case, thanks to these MADD Nazis, you are presumed guilty and it is nearly impossible to prove your innocence once you enter the maws of the judicial system as a DUI.
So I lied to the police officer and saved my butt. I shouldn't have to do that and I have nothing but contempt for those who support these totally ridiculous and unconstitutional drunk driving laws.
So how does one impact the drunk-driving problem? Easy. Simply take the cops off the roadblocks and put them on patrol. It is easy enough to spot the drunken jackasses weaving all over the highway and driving on the wrong side of the road and so forth. Take me out on any given Friday or Saturday night and I'll point them out to you. Forget the Breathalyzers that are notoriously unreliable. Mount a camera to the police cars and record the entire traffic stop. If the person is indeed drunk, showing the videotape in court of the suspected driver taking a field sobriety test should be all the proof the jury needs. Most cases won't even get that far. Show the accused the tape of himself being drunk and he'll plead guilty in heartbeat. Repeat drunk drivers should get serious jail time. As I said before, most of the drunk drivers causing most the problems have been arrested time and time again. Leave the law-abiding citizens out of it.
What happened to the Constitution?
Bunch of JBTs
That is a very good question. When I read the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
it tells me I have a "retained" right to consume alcohol, drive my car, especially on publically funded roads.
The Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
tells me that a random roadblock without "...probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation..." is unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.