gigag04 wrote:pbwalker wrote:
What evidence do you have to setup a 'no refusal' checkpoint? I am genuinely asking this question...what evidence do you have?
I have no experience with a checkpoint...AFAIK they are still nailing down the case law and legislation regarding checkpoints. Our search warrants all stem from standard DWI arrests. My standard affidavit will include my reason for the stop, what I observed during the stop, and what factors indicated that defendant was intoxicated.
These can include:
Odor of an alcoholic beverage
Red, glassy eyes
Slow, labored speech
Fumbling while retrieving DL/Insurance
Observance of standardized clues on SFSTs
Criminal History regarding DWIs
Statements made by the defendant
Condition of clothing
Presence of bracelets or markings on hands/wrists from bars
Indicators of impaired driving
(and many others)
Here is a link to a publicly available search warrant for blood packet (found via google):
http://www.cityofriesel.com/DWIbloodwarrantbyhand.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These forms are in line with what much of the state is using.
In reference to our earlier deviation from topic (my fault), I'm not offended by your posts, and am happy to hear other opinions. However, often times I feel like subjects in the media are thrown under the bus with little to no facts by people with no first hand experience in doing their job. I have nothing against you whatsoever. I don't feel that a search warrant for blood is a bending of rights. DWI is a serious crime that costs lives every year. The laws passed by the legislature (3 strikes rule, accident rule) are there to protect the general public from intoxicated drivers and the dangers they present.
I am a champion of citizens rights, and respect them in every execution of my job, as do the vast majority of my peers - even when they are publicly accused of the contrary.
Thank you for the reply. I think we both agree on a lot of these subjects, it's just that the written word can not always convey emotion. I apologize if I came across as anti-LEO. I know that LEO's work a thankless job and I appreciate it every day...
Your list above is what I'd expect to see for PC and I agree 100%. If I were a LEO, any one of those alone would be PC enough for me (but that's just my opinion...I am not sure if there are other factors that need to exist for PC).
My big pain point is not DWI stops. Heck, I wish EVERYONE under the influence (be it booze, xanax, grass, etc.) would go to jail for a mandatory minimum. If you drive while intoxicated, you are not only putting yourself at risk (the least of my concerns) but you are putting me, my wife, and my two little girls at risk.
My "beef" is around the roadblocks. If I go out to a movie with my family and drive up to one of these spots, where does that PC exist? In my mind, it doesn't. And it's my opinion that the police do these knowing that a large majority will comply, while those who do not are generally going to be intoxicated. It's the sheeple that comply that bother me. They are giving up their 4th. There is no PC to be stopped, and the fact that you are arrested on spot for not blowing in to the device bothers me (this is in SAT...not sure of the regs for other cities). Then, they go and get a warrant for your blood. So what rights do I have as an ordinary citizen when I roll up in to one of these? It's a trap. If you turn around, you are going to be lit up. If you drive up and refuse, you go to jail. I really don't drink and I surely do not get behind the wheel when I've even had one sip, so if I drive up to one of these, I know I am not going to get in trouble...but it's the principal. I shouldn't have to be dealing with it to begin with. (I know you have no experience with the checkpoints, so this is more of a rant...) It's essentially the same thing as a LEO walking up to your house and saying "Let me in!" and if you don't, you are arrested...only then the judge signs a warrant.
