ARE "NO REFUSAL" DUI CHECKPOINTS COMING TO YOUR TOWN

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just days prior to New Year's Eve announced that they expected that the 2011 New Year's Eve could be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the road.

In response to this declaration, Linda Unfried, from "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" of Hillsboro County, Florida  declared that the new weapon "NO REFUSAL" checkpoints is a "great deterrent for people".

Florida is among several states which has added this change in DUI Inspections. It will  more than likely lead to more convictions.

To be more specific the term "Non Refusal" indicates that if you REFUSE a BREATH TEST during a traffic stop, a judge will be at the site and immediately issue  a "SEARCH WARRANT" which authorizes police to administer a mandatory "BLOOD TEST".

The mandatory blood test may pose a Constitutional question. Does the government have the right to forcefully issue an order to put a needle into your body, draw your blood, then use the gathered evidence in a Misdemeanor or Felony charge to secure a conviction.

While Ms. Unfried sees this as a good move to reduce drunk driving accidents, a reduction of death on the roadways, others see this as a violation of illegal search and seizure through duress.

DUI violators should be prosecuted to the strongest punishment possible under the law. However, there is more than a Constitutional question. The suggested method being used fails to allow the accused access to legal counsel. At the same time it may be that the judge has crossed over into the posture as a law enforcement officer. Positioning and trusting that the police officer who made the stop, did so under circumstances that were within proper legal limits. It may be a questionable decision, as to whether the accused is actually driving drunk or, it may be a medical condition in need of medical attention. It's not just the odor of alcohol, but the pre-determined test method which includes; interview, walk the straight line and breath analyzer. Often these are ruled against for faulty procedure, improper and inaccurate testing equipment.

If the individual is drunk, then how could that person understand his rights being presented by the police officer. Now here comes the judge, who makes a determination based on on-site evaluation and the testimony of the police officer and issues a search warrant. Where's defense counsel?  Should we all travel, go out with our attorney, or have him/her follow us home at night, just in case the driver is pulled over and a judge is riding with the police.

This is not to say that law enforcement should not continue the DUI Checkpoints. The Counties across America which are doing this should cease the judge's actions as an enforcement agent on the scene. The purpose of having a judge and justice to be BLIND then determine that probable cause has been reached to meet the threshold of enforcement and criminal charges. A telephone call to the judge, with an explanation of the officers determination of the circumstances for the stop and arrest should be independent of the judges participation at the scene. Then, have the judge issue an order for the police to have the accused brought to a detention facility, where a certified medical technician can properly draw the blood and have the police lab test for alcohol or drug content.  This would not intrude upon or trample on your Constitutional Rights against illegal search and seizure.

If this continues, it will wind it's way up the chain of the judicial system to the U.S, Supreme Court. Years of financial waste and marking an individual prior to a fair trial with a conviction.

There are many other methods to reduce DUI actions. Just look at the night club activities, over sales of alcoholic products, not knowing when to cut off, longer operating hours and even having off-duty police officers assigned outside the clubs allowing those wobbly patrons to leave and jump behind the wheel to only drive away and maybe kill someone down the road.

More community involvement, more designated friend drivers, and even having the clubs and bars held libel for allowing a drunk to leave and get in a car and drive. (The DRAM ACT) Social workers and counselors at high schools, and even volunteer's walking in the community to prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel and driving off- What about the Valet companies who park the cars at clubs and hotels, then hours later, for a few dollar tip, run and get the cars, turn over the keys to the drunk driver and allow him/her to drive off. How about requiring clubs and bars and hotel alcoholic beverage dispenses to have assigned "Safe Driver" employees to drive the drunk patron home, or have a taxi service contracted at the customers expense to be driven home.

Better than giving up your Constitutional rights of illegal search and seizure. Some in law enforcement  argue that "DRIVING" is a privledge, not a RIGHT.. They are right, but other methods as suggested in this blog may also reduce drunk driving, before the drunk gets behind the wheel, not after the fact.