#Winning at DUI Checkpoints
- Thread starter MadMaxNine
- Start date
Very true. I'm guessing his motives are related to the encroachment/invasiveness/guilty-until-proven-innocent nature of DUI checkpoints.
By asking the question, officers are stacking the deck in their favor of some dumbass saying something to the effect of "only 3 beers" at which time, they have a stronger case of pulling them out of the car and recommending a breathalyzer test immediately.
I'm torn on DUI checkpoints. I don't drink and drive so I'm not worried about them but they are invasive and border on invading rights. But I'm sure if I had a loved one killed by a dumbfuck drunk driver I'd want them around.
I think it's he's making a point. Cops intimidate you into giving up your rights. He was standing his ground. If everyone did this, they'd probably stop doing these checks because they would no longer be effective.
One thing I do wonder though is how this is legal anywhere. I thought cops had to have reasonable suspicion to stop you in the first place.
Last edited:
I think it was mostly about the camera. You could see a change in the female cop's demeanor when he brought it out, and because he was speaking clearly and repeated her name back (don't remember what it was, but it sounded complicated) she figured he was sober, and wasn't worth pursuing it any further.
DUI checkpoints are illegal/unconstitutional in MN too. Same with red light cameras and speed cameras. :thumbsup:
I wasn't going to ask, but since you did fuck a paralegal you may know (or for that matter, maybe someone else will know)...
But, when you take a breathalyzer... and please, correct me if I'm wrong because this is no where near my area of expertise, but when a cop takes your BAC via mouth - can it even be calculated "accurately" without your weight? Is it just set to calculate based on an estimate of concentration in the exhale and converted using a ratio or something?
If a 160lb person and a 260lb person had the exact same amount (well, close enough to exact) in the same amount of time, and take the test at the same time - wouldn't they read the same?
I always assumed it was just set using a ratio but ... yeah. Just figured I'd throw the Q in here if anyone knew. I keep waiting for a cop to ask me to take one so I could bug him (and probably confuse him) about it, but it hasn't happened yet.
inb4 it's something extremely stupid that I didn't think of. Or some constant I don't know about.
I wasn't going to ask, but since you did fuck a paralegal you may know (or for that matter, maybe someone else will know)...
But, when you take a breathalyzer... and please, correct me if I'm wrong because this is no where near my area of expertise, but when a cop takes your BAC via mouth - can it even be calculated "accurately" without your weight? Is it just set to calculate based on an estimate of concentration in the exhale and converted using a ratio or something?
If a 160lb person and a 260lb person had the exact same amount (well, close enough to exact) in the same amount of time, and take the test at the same time - wouldn't they read the same?
I always assumed it was just set using a ratio but ... yeah. Just figured I'd throw the Q in here if anyone knew. I keep waiting for a cop to ask me to take one so I could bug him (and probably confuse him) about it, but it hasn't happened yet.
inb4 it's something extremely stupid that I didn't think of. Or some constant I don't know about.
Actually a good question. Since IANAL (and the paralegal didn't say anything about it during sex or after, while I was wiping my dick off on her pillowcase) I googled it for a better answer than I could give:
"...many breathalyzers assume that the tested individual is an average person and do not take into account sex, height, weight, metabolism and whether that person has just eaten. Furthermore, many breathalyzer tests assume a specific ratio (2100:1) between BAC and breath alcohol content in order to make its conversions. As this actual ratio for a particular individual may vary between 1700:1 and 2400:1, a reading of 0.08 could actually mean a blood alcohol content of between 0.65 and .09. This significant gap could be all the difference in a DUI case since a reading of 0.65 would also require evidence of impairment, often in the form of field sobriety tests"
Sauce: Breathalyzer Tests & DUI - What You Must Know at Total Lawyers!
Wish I had thought of this. I was stopped at a DUI checkpoint about a year ago. I got tired of waiting in the line of cars and busted a U-turn to head back the other way and catch another way home. They sent a cruiser after me and pulled me over about a mile down the road.
When the cop got to my window he asked why I "intentionally avoided a DUI checkpoint" I told him I'm a busy person and I don't have time to wait in line while government baby sitters "investigate" me. He then proceeded to tell me that I'm required by law to submit to random DUI checkpoints. I just laughed in his face and asked if I was free to go. Off I went.
On a side note, if you want to beat a red light camera violation just don't pay it. They will send 3 notices and threats, then send it to a collections agency. At this point you win thanks to the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act). The collection agency will send you a letter telling you that they are trying to collect. Under the FCRA you have 30 days to "dispute" this collection. Dispute it. At that point they will send you the original paperwork the state sent you (A photo of your license plate). Under the FCRA they have to send proof you agreed to this debt in the first place .. ie a signed contract. Since you never signed any contracts you send back another letter stating that this is not your debt, you are disputing it, and putting it on your credit will result in you suing them for damages under the FCRA.
At this point they have 2 options. Sue you for $100, or let it go. Since they don't have a written contract, with your signature, that states you agreed to pay the $100 it wont fly in court. Out of 3 red light tickets, I've never been sued, and it's never hit my credit.
When the cop got to my window he asked why I "intentionally avoided a DUI checkpoint" I told him I'm a busy person and I don't have time to wait in line while government baby sitters "investigate" me. He then proceeded to tell me that I'm required by law to submit to random DUI checkpoints. I just laughed in his face and asked if I was free to go. Off I went.
On a side note, if you want to beat a red light camera violation just don't pay it. They will send 3 notices and threats, then send it to a collections agency. At this point you win thanks to the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act). The collection agency will send you a letter telling you that they are trying to collect. Under the FCRA you have 30 days to "dispute" this collection. Dispute it. At that point they will send you the original paperwork the state sent you (A photo of your license plate). Under the FCRA they have to send proof you agreed to this debt in the first place .. ie a signed contract. Since you never signed any contracts you send back another letter stating that this is not your debt, you are disputing it, and putting it on your credit will result in you suing them for damages under the FCRA.
At this point they have 2 options. Sue you for $100, or let it go. Since they don't have a written contract, with your signature, that states you agreed to pay the $100 it wont fly in court. Out of 3 red light tickets, I've never been sued, and it's never hit my credit.
And this is why when push comes to shove you always do the blood test. Its the only truly accurate way of measuring BAC levels. Plus you BAC drops on the car ride to the police station.
as much as i hate to agree with the police, and i do love seeing how people stand up for themselves, but seriously - this test is essentially for the protection of everyone on and off the road, drunks should not drive because there is a good chance they kill themselves and others in the process.
of course the state uses this to get money from anyone it can, and of course this is frequently abused, but why would you refuse to take a simple test to prove you're not drunk if you're not? maybe you just like to keep on driving after drinking and take the risk that you will kill someone while doing so.
of course the state uses this to get money from anyone it can, and of course this is frequently abused, but why would you refuse to take a simple test to prove you're not drunk if you're not? maybe you just like to keep on driving after drinking and take the risk that you will kill someone while doing so.
In NY, on the flashlights that the police hit you with, they also have a sensor that tells them if there is a presence of alcohol (breath or open container) in the car when you roll down the window.
crack the window down, slide your license and registration out the crack in the window and roll the window up as quick as possible. You don't have to answer any questions.
crack the window down, slide your license and registration out the crack in the window and roll the window up as quick as possible. You don't have to answer any questions.
LOL. You don't have a clue.
<southern accent> 'Round these parts </southern accent> 'DUI checkpoints' = a game of 'Lets find the illegals.'
Good 'ole boy with a couple beers in the cupholder? "Go on thru, son."
As much as I hate to agree with the police, and i do love seeing how people stand up for themselves, but seriously, putting government owned closed circuit cameras in your home is essentially for the protection of everyone in and around society, homeowners should not have privacy because there is a good chance they kill themselves and others in the process.
of course the state uses this to get money from anyone it can, and of course this is frequently abused, but why would you refuse to put a simple camera in your home to prove your not a murdererer if you're not? maybe you just like to keep on cleaning your hunting rifles and take the risk that you will kill someone while doing so.
Would you refuse random police searches of your home if you have nothing to hide? It would essentially be for the protection of everyone.
Back in the 90s when I was in high school it was like this. A group of 4 of us were in a friend's car headed to a party at the lake.
We had a half gallon of bourbon and some weed (probably an 8th or so).
We were all white HS football players. We got scolded for the weed, had to throw it out in the ditch but they never said anything about the liquor.
We were let go and told to "be safe."
Nowadays, I don't think that'd happen even in rural SC.
he has no legal obligation to answer their questions
if that makes him a douche, sign me up for the douche party
Yes. I would.
Are you 100% sure that no one ever in your entire time of living there left something that you don't know about.
