Yes, I'm sure about it... see I was right.

You didn't answer the question.

So, are Friday and Saturday nights so special that cops have extra authority on those days? Or are the police empowered to impose on you anywhere, anytime for anything that keeps you "safe?"

Not being argumentative here, I just want to understand where you philosophically would draw the line.

^
While I assume TKO will be back to answer the question herself, having more security/checkpoints on the weekends makes sense because....yanno...more drunk fuckers are on the roads on those days.

I get your point about authoritarian cops posing possible problems, but this is one time I freely admit I don't mind some government intervention.

Eh I don't like drunk drivers, but at the same time I think it is similar in concept to the rather dangerous idea of "if you aren't guilty then you have nothing to hide" argument. Sure, a cop could check me for alcohol, and it may not be all that much of an inconvenience, but it starts a slippery slope. By that same logic it isn't that much of an inconvenience to check my car for illegal drugs, or weapons, or any number of items. And while I still have nothing to hide, and it may not be an inconvenience, it is not my job to provide the state with proof of my innocence of whatever suspicions they may have about me based on my time or location of travel.

Good? Not making that judgment here, simply saying it's nothing personal.

My thoughts on DUI checkpoints are this.
- They do a fair job of taking drunk drivers off the road
- If they are used, then that's the action they should be allowed to do
- Do not turn it into a something that becomes an excuse to harass drivers who are not drunk
- Running the license is fine
- It is not a place to conduct an investigative stop
- Should take not more than a minute or so

What I didn't like about my stop was it took much longer than it should have, the officer was making statements to me that were not true, telling me my speech was slurred, my eyes were bloodshot. I checked when I got home, they looked normal. And telling me over and over that I was lying to him about how many drinks I had. He definitely crossed the line from where it became a DUI check, and took it to where he was definitely harassing me.

If your eyes weren't blood shot, why did you tell him why your eyes were bloodshot?

I wonder what would happen if someone who hasn't been drinking got pulled over at a DUI checkpoint, the cop asked them if they've had anything to drink, and they say, yes. Twelve beers and 3 shots of tequila. so then, of course, they field sobriety/breath test them, which they pass. Would the cops have any choice but to let them go?

Someone try that and get back to us please.

Same reasons I've been told I have alcohol on my breath when I haven't had a drink in several days? This has happened to me too.

I'm on it, Shoes. Are you ok waiting until April?

I've got a friend with such ridiculous alcohol tolerance, he can have 10 shots of something in 2 hours and get a little happy from it. I imagine if he had an hour or two to recover he'd be ok to drive.

Also I'm not against DUI tests like Bailey described. I don't think it's a slippery slope to have DUI checks on the routes leading from bars on the nights that they're packed. I don't agree with harassment but I don't think DUI checks automatically lead to a police state, or we'd have had one a long time ago.

Just like when camera stoplights came up a few years ago, WordForge was up in flames about violation of privacy and abuse of police power. People in my town filed complaints with the city and now nobody can get a ticket from them. The whole situation was resolved peacefully and nothing catastrophic happened.

I know some areas the stoplight cameras were actually illegal as a form to give out citations. The was the laws were written specified than an officer must observe the violation to issue a citation, the argument for the citations amounted to "We have an officer watching the videos". But that didn't work because the proof then fell on the court to provide evidence that the person who owned the vehicle was actually driving the vehicle. And that was not easy to prove since many times the person could not be identified in the vehicle. And the 5th amendment allows the defendant to not answer on the grounds of self incrimination.

Slightly different situation though, a politician can't really get away with being seen as soft on drunk driving, the same can't really be said of red light cams. Also I think you can have a situation where it doesn't necessarily lead to a police state, but it does slowly erode certain rights. Give people an inch and they'll take a mile.

Fuck potential, look at reality.

While I am against DUI checkpoints (they are illegal in Washington), lets not pretend automobiles don't have the biggest death toll of any tool in our society.

I avoid them all the time. Never once been hassled for being drunk while walking or taking public transit.

i just farted so bad my daughter made me step outside