--- The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America states:
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 siezed.
Now, after that pleasant little refresher course in the constitution, please inform me as to how this does not violate an individual's right to be spared unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause?
So, here we have an individual in the New Mexico House of Representatives that is, pretty much, assuming that all New Mexicans are all guilty of drunk driving, hence we'd better stop them before they do it, eh?
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, eh? When are
these people going to learn? It's not the social drinkers, who make up
the majority of the population, that are the perpetrators of repeated
drunk driving, it's the heavy drinkers---the ones who literally cannot
quit drinking after they've started. Need proof? Go read this.
"Two thirds of the drivers in alcohol-related fatal accidents have a
BAC (blood alcohol content) of .14 or higher. The average BAC in fatal
accidents involving alcohol is .17."
"Looking abroad. Sweden has a BAC threshold of .02, yet the average BAC
in alcohol related fatal accidents there is still .15."
Never mind the atrocious legality issues involved with this proposed
law. That's not really relevant---yet. What is relevant, however, is
the fact that this law probably won't cut down on drunk driving anyway,
or is that it's intended purpose to begin with? Hmmmm. That's a good
question. I think there's another reason lurking under the relative
political safe haven of "getting tough on drunk driving." And I think
it's that, like the author of the Cato Institute Study, Radley Balko,
claims: it's that people want to have another go round at prohibition.
Balko makes the rather convincing claim that alcohol, a legal substance
for those over the age of twenty-one, is seen, by some people, as the
root of all evil and the only way to root out
that evil is to ban it entirely. He says at one point in his findings
that (paraphrasing badly) it's the behavior and the lifestyles
associated with alcohol that these people are going after. And I think
he's got a point---look at the evidence. We've gotten to the point in
this society where a law like this can be proposed and has been
approved by one half of a state legislature and the ACLU is only doing
its concerned watching act. Which is a major contrast to what they
usually do when the Constitution is under threat: firing up all the
cylinders about the fact that the entire citzenry of a state has the
potential to be subjected to unreasonable searches held without
probable cause. Alcohol, and anything associated with it, like drunk
driving laws, have become the new Third Rail of politics. It used to be
Social Security that no one wanted to touch with a ten foot pole, now
it's all about coming down on the "right" side of the issue of booze.
But what is the right side of the issue? And the better
question is when is the insanity going to stop? Where is the friggin'
line? And when are the legislators going to realize that they've
stepped one pace too far? I have a lot of personal experience with this
issue. My objectivity might be skewed here, but you don't come here to
read about objectivity---you come here to read my thoughts. So strap in
kids---it's going to be a bumpy ride. The husband is an alcoholic. We
just celebrated his one year sobriety anniversary last week. And he's
doing pretty damn good, but at this time last year our lives were
completely thrown into a salad spinner because of his actions. He drove
drunk, as you might have guessed, and this last incident was the one
that finally woke him up to what he was doing with his life. I thank
God he got busted for this: it was the catalyst that finally made him
realize he just couldn't handle booze and that there was no shame in
the act of not drinking. A very hard lesson to learn, and one I will go
into another day, but I honestly think most people don't know the
extent that the legal system has gone to to deal with the problem of
drunken driving. Most people wouldn't know---they don't drive drunk.
Hence, they don't realize how very few rights you have when you're
accused of drunken driving---and make no mistake about it---your rights
go out the window the very minute those sirens and flashers start
blaring. So picture the situation. You're sitting in your car. You've
been pulled over. Traffic is flying by to your left and you are
terrified. Suddenly, the music that wasn't loud enough a few moments
ago, when you were carefree and screaming down the highway, is way
entirely too loud and you move to turn off the stereo, but you do so in
a manner that won't attract the cops attention, lest his pull his
weapon on you, thinking you're going for a gun. You start thinking
about what you should do. You curse. You try and pull yourself together
and do the mental math on just how long you were out and how much
alcohol you ingested. You think it may not be the best idea to take
your chances with a sobriety test. That you've heard they're rigged.
You might even look helplessly around for a penny to put under your
tongue, because you'd heard that the copper sends faulty signals to the
breathalyzer. You jolt as the cop knocks on your window and as you pull
it down, the cop starts sniffing and looking to see what your eyes look
like. You say, "Good evening, officer," whilst praying you're not
slurring your words and you don't realize it, and then the dance
begins.
I've never been pulled over for drunken driving. I've been pulled over
once for speeding, and I was let off with a warning. That's the extent
of my experience with cops. But I have to think this is what it's like.
Being scared out of your wits that two glasses of wine might have
ruined your life. This is why most people never have an issue with this
sort of thing ever again. They're scared straight, as the cons call
that particular experience. But this also means most people don't have
any idea of the consequences of protecting yourself. Any time someone
is arrested, they're Mirandized. We've all heard the little diddy on
TV, so we know it by heart, but did you know that police in most states
can collect evidence that will be used against you in a DWI case and
you cannot protect yourself without paying a price for that right? In
Minnesota, and plenty of other states, if you refuse to blow into a
breathalyzer, they will automatically suspend your license for up to a year. Just for thinking you had the right not to incriminate yourself guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
How do they get around this? Administrative rules. It's not on the
books anywhere other than at your local DMV. It's not an actual
law---it's a rule. And, as we all know from those fabulous driver's ed
classes they made us take in high school, driving is a privilege, not a
right, so they can take away your license just for refusing to test.
So, with this thought firmly in mind, and the knowledge running around
the back of your head that hey, I only had a couple of glasses of wine, with dinner, I should be fine, I should probably just blow and get it over with
you think about your options. At this point, the scales are already
tipping in favor of the police and away from the individual. You think
of all the hassle that will happen if you don't blow: your license will
be suspended, you won't be able to drive to that very important meeting
you have the next day, you'll probably be arrested on suspicion of
drunk driving anyway or for some other reason, your car will be towed
and you'll have to go through the interminable nightmare of the impound
lot to get your car back. You should be fine, you repeat to yourself, working up your confidence for the procedure,After all, I stayed on the line and I could touch my nose. I'll be fine. And...you blow.
WHAMMO!
This is where you find yourself handcuffed and on your way to jail,
watching in stupefied disbelief through the rear window of the cruiser
as your car fades into the distance. Depending upon which jail they
take you to, an hour later you could find yourself locked up in a cushy
cell with cable or in with the homicidal madmen at the badass county
jail. Then comes the phone call you will have to make to have yourself
out by morning, so you can get to work on time. The call to the spouse
or the close friend to come and bail you out. And that's when the nice
people at the jail inform you that your bail wasn't set when you were
booked; that the judge will set it for you when you're arraigned. This
is when you realize you have taken a trip into the ninth level of hell
usually only reserved for lawyers. And all because you wanted to keep
your license to drive. Fun, huh? Rights are always fun. Particularly
the violation of said rights. To be continued...