#Winning at DUI Checkpoints
- Thread starter MadMaxNine
- Start date
Not really. There are all kinds of statistics that prove DUI checkpoints don't do much to actually deter drunk driving.
What they do a great job of is revenue generation and wearing the public down to increasing encroachment on their rights.
Do it again and again and again for years and it becomes commonplace, when its legality is questionable to begin with.
DUIs are goldmines for the cities/counties that operate them. All under the guise of "public safety."
This is a must-watch. Lecture from a law professor WITH comments from a police officer about why you should NEVER say a word to the police.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc]Dont Talk to Police - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc]Dont Talk to Police - YouTube[/ame]
I love watching "The First 48 Hours".
Luckily murder is such a terrible crime that the weight of conscious causes these murderers to fess up to the crime because like in 80% of the the episodes i've seen....
If they'd just keep their mouths shut... they'd literally get away with murder.
Ha, I love that shit too. I watched the whole series on Netflix. It's amazing how rare it is that they have enough to press charges without a confession. Also pretty amazing how they track back these crimes to one person, sometimes with nothing more than a body.
Take a step back and really think about whether DUI checkpoints deter drunk drivers. They don't. So it's not essential at all, instead it's a nuisance and invasive.
Here's some data:
There's around 15,000 DUI-related fatalities a year, only around 5,000 are sober victims. The other 10,000 are the drunk drivers themselves and people in their car (if you hop in a car with a drunk person, you are taking a risk).
Distracted-Driving (texting/on the phone) accounts for over 3,000 deaths per year.
Both types of accidents are due to negligence and have a similar impact on driving safety, but DUI's get more attention because it's a better news story.
The fact of the matter is that driving is dangerous and there are plenty of things that can kill you in life. People that drive incredibly drunk should be punished, but law-abiding citizens shouldn't be inconvenienced or live in a state of fear/paranoia because they had a drink with dinner.
(O_o)
H̨̼̩͐̑͆̀̚&
LOL you're right, you just have CCTV surveillancing you 24/7.
I would rather DUI checkpoints here and there.
How to really get out of DUI (Depending on how drunk you are).
Firstly, refuse any sort of test until you are actually under arrest for DUI. The second you are put under arrest, stall for time by any means necessary, but refuse to take the breathalyzer.. Say anything you can think of to stall for as much time as possible, appear to be undecided about the breathalyzer. Then, during the ride back to the station for the blood test, you BAC will have a chance to settle a little bit.
Then, the second before you are about to take the blood test, instruct the officer that you are indeed afraid of needles and that you would now like to take a breathalyzer test.
Most officers will get pissed and mark you down as a chemical test refusal (which the penalties are pretty much the same as DUI, if not worse in some cases).
However, the officer did not follow protocol at that point and you will win against that refusal 100% of time in court, since at the end you did submit to the breathalyzer test.
Firstly, refuse any sort of test until you are actually under arrest for DUI. The second you are put under arrest, stall for time by any means necessary, but refuse to take the breathalyzer.. Say anything you can think of to stall for as much time as possible, appear to be undecided about the breathalyzer. Then, during the ride back to the station for the blood test, you BAC will have a chance to settle a little bit.
Then, the second before you are about to take the blood test, instruct the officer that you are indeed afraid of needles and that you would now like to take a breathalyzer test.
Most officers will get pissed and mark you down as a chemical test refusal (which the penalties are pretty much the same as DUI, if not worse in some cases).
However, the officer did not follow protocol at that point and you will win against that refusal 100% of time in court, since at the end you did submit to the breathalyzer test.
No they aren't. All that happens is that you forfeit your license for a few months to a year.
No conviction, no legal fees, no jail time (other than temp. holding), etc.
This is not anywhere near 100% foolproof. The stall tactic is highly recommended, though. Highly. Get that BAC down.
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? No - see below
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.
Short answer, there are lots of variables that can affect it, but weight really isn't one. BAC machines (typically the Datamaster in most states, using Motorola chips from the 1970s) do use a partition ratio that reflects some amount of"averaging" but breath alcohol relates to concentration levels so a heavier person consuming the same amount of alcohol as a lighter person is going to have a lower concentration. The BAC readings can be challenged in Court, but its very rare for a Court to not allow a BAC reading as evidence, those questions just go to how much weight should be assigned to the evidence. There are other variables that have been shown to effect a reading quite a bit, certain medications, presence of chewing tobacco (it can absorb vapor alcohol and skew the reading) and a lot of other boring shit you probably don't care about. Add in the use of fun concepts like retrograde extrapolation and differences in bodily absorption of ingested alcohol at wildly different rates by different people relative to the amount of time that passed before the BAC test was performed, and there are lots of better details for the lawyers to argue over besides the weight of the person.
I always told myself that I'd request to see the source code to the machine when in court. That'd throw 'em for a loop.
It probably wouldn't work, but it'd get an interesting look out of the judge.
