Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1dl8bi wrote

Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to answer any questions at checkpoints

59

Mnemon-TORreport t1_j1dqtf7 wrote

>Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to answer any questions at checkpoints

Certainly true but also a great way to make sure you get pulled over to the side of the road and subjected to a field sobriety test.

45

BozoDidtheW t1_j1dungv wrote

Sound like a violation of constitutional rights ngl

26

SheeEttin t1_j1e23iq wrote

You don't have a constitutional right to drive. You can walk through and just wave.

−25

JaesopPop t1_j1e5vy9 wrote

They didn’t say they had a constitutional right to drive.

8

SheeEttin t1_j1e6fec wrote

Is there a scenario other than driving where you'd hit one of these checkpoints and get pulled over?

−10

JaesopPop t1_j1e6mxa wrote

Than driving? No, but that doesn’t mean that person was saying anyone had a constitutional right to drive lmao

3

SheeEttin t1_j1e9zib wrote

What constitutional right would it violate, then?

−10

JaesopPop t1_j1ecias wrote

You can re-read their comment and engage with them if you’re confused I’m just informing you that they didn’t say anyone had a constitutional right to drive

4

alongfield t1_j1ecp8l wrote

The 4th.

Sobriety checkpoints only get away with being constitutional if they stop every single vehicle. If cops use any discretion about which car to stop, then it's illegal.

4

LackingUtility OP t1_j1epviw wrote

Yep. Technically, random stops work too - every 4th car, or "we flip a coin", or something similar, as long as the cops aren't using their discretion.

3

Local_Stuff_Acct t1_j1gbmuw wrote

As a matter of fact, you have a constitutional right to do anything not prohibited by law.

You also continue to have a variety of other constitutional rights while driving and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures is one of them.

0

SheeEttin t1_j1gi8bb wrote

SCOTUS ruled that a DUI checkpoint and brief questioning was not an unreasonable search and seizure. If questioning produces probable cause, then out comes the breathalyzer.

0

LackingUtility OP t1_j1e2a40 wrote

>Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to answer any questions at checkpoints
>
>Certainly true but also a great way to make sure you get pulled over to the side of the road and subjected to a field sobriety test.

Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to perform a field sobriety test (i.e. the 'dance like a monkey', 'recite the alphabet backwards', 'stand on one leg while singing My Country 'Tis of Thee' tests), and should never do so. You are required to take a breathalyzer or give a blood sample and can temporarily lose your license for refusing, but that does not apply to the sit and spin tests.

21

Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1dyjcu wrote

You have no legal requirement to perform FSTs either

20

RawDoggRamen t1_j1e0txp wrote

Refusing a FST can result in a 6 month license suspension.

−12

Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1e11y9 wrote

No. You mean breath test

23

RawDoggRamen t1_j1e1g3z wrote

I've had 3 in my life, and had to do both every time. They are pretty much one in the same. And unless you have a 10k dollar attorney on retainer, it's gonna be treated the same.

Mostly, cops can and will do whatever the fuck they want on the side of the road. As we see daily in videos posted on reddit.

−1

PakkyT t1_j1efib4 wrote

>I've had 3 in my life, and had to do both every time. They are pretty much one in the same.

Except they are not. A FST is optional and there is zero penalty to refusing one. This is different than a breathalyzer test which you can also refuse but there is also a penalty associated with it. That is how they are different.

12

Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1e24bw wrote

You didn't "have to" perform FSTs or a breath test. You chose to.

4

RawDoggRamen t1_j1e2ug9 wrote

Again, when you refuse a breathalyzer. You are liable to lose your license for 6 months.

0

Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1e35tn wrote

Right. Which I've already said in multiple other comments. You still have the choice to take a breath test or not.

4

RawDoggRamen t1_j1e39lz wrote

Yeah. I guess..... I don't really see losing your license for 6 months as much of an option.

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1e49y3 wrote

Refusing the field tests isn't itself a crime. But if you refuse to do it, you'll almost certainly be asked to do a chemical test. Refusing that is a crime that carries a mandatory license suspension.

2

PakkyT t1_j1efo1g wrote

Refusing a breathalyzer is not a crime despite there being a penalty for refusing. Different things.

5

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1f9032 wrote

gotcha - yeah, i was thinking of RI where it still involves court and all that jazz.

​

Odds are, you're probably still being charged for a DUI if it happens in MA. You just might beat the rap for it.

1

RawDoggRamen t1_j1e4kk8 wrote

If you refuse a breathalyzer. There is a suspension that follows.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/alcohol-and-drug-suspensions-for-over-21-years-of-age

And that suspension is 180 days.

4

MrDelicious84 t1_j1ecugv wrote

1st time 180 days 2nd time 3 years 3rd time 5 years etc

Also wanted to clarify that refusing the breath test isn’t a crime per se. You won’t get a ticket or get charged with anything.

4

RawDoggRamen t1_j1ehu27 wrote

Correct. But they will cut your license up on the side of the road and or bring you into the drunk tank for the night. It's weird I'm getting downvotes for stating that refusing a breathalyzer and sobriety test will result in a suspension. I guess because the guys point is that it's still a choice? Yeah I guess, but it still has consequences.

5

LackingUtility OP t1_j1fxi8w wrote

The downvotes are because you’re not distinguishing between the breath test, which is mandatory and can result in a license suspension for refusal, and the field sobriety test, which is entirely optional, has no penalty for refusing, and should not be performed by anyone.

1

RawDoggRamen t1_j1fxosd wrote

Yeah but I mean, when you are in the position, saying no to an officer isn't really the greatest idea.

−2

LackingUtility OP t1_j1fyeeg wrote

Okay, Officer, I suppose people should just confess to murder or heroin possession or whatever false accusation you want too, just because “saying no to an officer isn’t the greatest idea”?

No. Sorry if that’s the first time you’ve heard that in a while. But the right to refuse FSTs and the right to refuse to answer questions are so clearly established that there would be no qualified immunity to civil suit if a cop were to arrest someone for refusing.

2

MXC-GuyLedouche t1_j1e8kju wrote

It can but then you can fight that to. When you get pulled over illegally then get told to do things you don't have to with zero probable cause they will often give you your license back because they want you to go to work. This may require a lawyer though which ain't cheap

1

RawDoggRamen t1_j1ehzig wrote

Yeah my neighbor is going through this exact thing right now. 12 grand it's cost him and he's been without a license for 5 months.

2

TreeEleben t1_j1e4ean wrote

If you don't answer, they'll pull you out of the car, make you do an FST, fail you, and arrest you. Cops have no accountability, and they know that even a false DUI arrest will likely result in the person losing their job and being forced to spend thousands of dollars to avoid conviction.

13

plawwell t1_j1e86gt wrote

Never do these tests. They're there as supplemental evidence not to prove you're not drunk.

11

Personal-Walrus3076 t1_j1ek5yo wrote

Yes, at that point they've already decided to arrest you. You're roadside performance will be used against you in court

6

Crayonbreaking t1_j1flkyj wrote

The faster you are in the cell the faster you can get the case dismissed and sue for illegal incarceration.

1

JIM78559 t1_j1egng5 wrote

Whats that old saying?

"You can beat the wrap but you can't beat the ride."

Yeah, Ill just have to comply if I want to get home.

Fuck them still though.

10

ExpatJundi t1_j1et5a5 wrote

Friendly reminder that drunk driving causes a shitload of deaths every year and if you don't do it you don't have to worry about sobriety checkpoints.

−9

RevengencerAlf t1_j1fjfb6 wrote

It's entirely possible to be against drunk driving and also be against shitty, unproductive methods that violate civil liberties, cause traffic jams, cost absurd amounts of money and have never been able to demonstrate any reduction in drunk driving or drunk driving crashes.

12

Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1etdhh wrote

The fuck does that have to do with my comment?

Also, you do understand sober drivers end up going through and being inconvenienced by these roadblocks as well, correct?

11

ExpatJundi t1_j1etxui wrote

God forbid you be slightly inconvenienced. Happy motoring.

−11

Crayonbreaking t1_j1fm3gg wrote

So government enforced terrorism is acceptable in your world because there is. 1% chance of catching someone driving drunk.

3

ExpatJundi t1_j1foj33 wrote

I think that's a tiny bit of overstatement.

−1

majoroutage t1_j1gnk8l wrote

Innocent until proven otherwise, motherfucker. Don't stop me unless you actually have some kind of evidence I have broken the law.

1

ExpatJundi t1_j1gnzq0 wrote

Technically you're driving up to them. You seem angry. Everything okay?

1

majoroutage t1_j1gopl1 wrote

Technically they are obstructing traffic and unlawfully detaining drivers while interrogating them. Merely driving down a road is not probable cause to effect a traffic stop.

And, yes, people who don't care about the rights of lawful citizens do annoy me.

Amazingly, also, other countries with less enumerated rights can somehow even pull this off more efficiently than our cops can.

0

ExpatJundi t1_j1gr7c7 wrote

Technically they're doing neither because this has been litigated and ruled completely permissible under Mass law. You may disagree with it, but your opinion has no impact on the facts.

I care very much about the rights of both lawful citizens and anyone else residing here, all of whom have equal protection under our laws.

I don't know which countries you're referring to but I think the most reasonable countries to compare us to as far as legal systems would be the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

For instance, in the UK the police don't need any reason to pull you over at all, unlike here in Massachusetts.

https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights#:~:text=The%20police%20can%20stop%20a,if%20you%20do%20not%20stop.

In Australia, the police can ask anyone who is driving, is about to drive or has recently driven a car to take a breath test, and it's a criminal offense to refuse. The Australian BAC limit is also .05, lower than our .08.

https://breathalysers-australia.com.au/breath-test/#:~:text=Australian%20Police%20have%20used%20random,seat%20of%20a%20stationary%20vehicle.

1

majoroutage t1_j1grnh0 wrote

>In Australia, the police can ask anyone who is driving, is about to drive or has recently driven a car to take a breath test, and it's a criminal offense to refuse.

And it takes them far less time to do so. The cops have handheld breathalyzers. How are you today, may I see your license, please breathe into the tube. None of this bullshit trying to talk you into providing subjective evidence against yourself with field sobriety tests and whatnot.

1

ExpatJundi t1_j1gtcjl wrote

I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you saying you'd have less of an objection to an automatic mandatory breathalyzer for every driver coming through the checkpoint than you do with our system where the officer has to be able to articulate why they think you're impaired before they can ask you to step out and perform field sobriety tests and/or submit to a breathalyzer? In other words, going straight to a chemical documentation of how much alcohol you've ingested without first seeing signs that you're physically impaired? That seems a little unfair to me.

I don't mean to insult you but that position seems to be inconsistent with what you said above and I suspect you're just being argumentative because your previous comment about how other countries do it turned out to be inaccurate because the legal protections in other Anglosphere countries are actually much more limited than the US of A.

1

majoroutage t1_j1guf49 wrote

DUI checkpoints are already a presumption of guilt by stopping you, despite us having rights to the contrary. I was just pointing out the irony that countries with less rights have no problem handling the situation more efficiently than we do.

1

jp_jellyroll t1_j1e16zu wrote

That is not true. Commonwealth v. Shields. MA has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutionally legal. If you enter one, you are obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. If you refuse, you may be subjected to a field sobriety test. If you refuse that, you will lose your license automatically.

EDIT: Lol, go ahead and try it. I hope you enjoy spending all your time wrapped in court, meeting with lawyers, taking time off work, etc.

−14

LackingUtility OP t1_j1e2p6d wrote

>That is not true. Commonwealth v. Shields. MA has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutionally legal.

Yes. Here's the case for anyone interested.

But:

>If you enter one, you are obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. If you refuse, you may be subjected to a field sobriety test. If you refuse that, you will lose your license automatically.

No, no, no, no, 100% no. You are never obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. You are never obligated to perform a field sobriety test (the stand on one leg, recite the alphabet, poke your finger in your eye, etc.). You can be subjected to a breathalyzer or blood test, and refusing those will result in loss of license, but that does not apply to not answering questions or refusing to dance like a monkey for some cop's amusement.

"Obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions"? Sheesh. This is why cops need more than 6 weeks of training. What are the first 7 words of a Miranda warning?

16

Personal-Walrus3076 t1_j1en47z wrote

Technically correct but unless you comply and answer their questions you're going to find out that you can beat the charges but you can never beat the ride

0

jp_jellyroll t1_j1i5zko wrote

You aren’t being arrested so you don’t get Mirandized.

0

LackingUtility OP t1_j1ibvxd wrote

Then what do they do when you refuse to speak with authorities or answer questions, like you said you are "obligated to"? Do they say "oh, gosh, you got us," and walk away? Or do they arrest you? At which point, aren't the first seven words they say "you have the right to remain silent"?

Do you think that we don't have the right to remain silent until we're arrested? Like, the Constitution says "the government can compel your speech as long as you haven't actually been arrested yet"?

1

Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1e1s82 wrote

That's pure bullshit, aside from checkpoints being deemed constitutionally legal.

You have no responsibility of helping officers investigate their stop. You provide id/registration and your legal obligations as a motorist are complete.

You can never be forced to engage in FSTs, despite what cops may tell you. In fact, refusing the test is inadmissible in court as evidence against you.

Refusing a breath test is an auto 6 month suspension, if charged.

8

Personal-Walrus3076 t1_j1elqbt wrote

That's all true but unless you submit completely you risk spending your holiday in a cage regardless.

0

plawwell t1_j1e7z2k wrote

You're not obligated beyond saying you are taking the Fifth and you do not consent to any search of your person or car.

1

Personal-Walrus3076 t1_j1emag6 wrote

Go ahead and do that. You'll be pulled out of your car and summarily arrested. After they've held you for the maximum, they will release you with no charges. Now you can Uber to the impound lot to get your car. Be sure to stop at the ATM cuz they don't take credit cards.

2

plawwell t1_j1etg1c wrote

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

2

Crayonbreaking t1_j1fmc4u wrote

And then you win a lawsuit for a lot of money.

0

jp_jellyroll t1_j1i6ce9 wrote

Then go do it. I mean all these people saying how simple it is yet I don’t see any news stories of a heroic Redditor actually DOING it.

It’s all bullshit Reddit fake-law degree talk.

0

Crayonbreaking t1_j1i7mu9 wrote

Sane people intend to avoid checkpoints at all costs. There are tons of lawsuits won for wrongful arrest to the point there is a cottage industry around it.

1

jp_jellyroll t1_j1i8gny wrote

But if it’s such an easy-win payday… why wouldn’t you do it? If someone said I could make $50k for a day’s work, I’d do it.

Maybe because it’s a gigantic pain in the ass and much more time & money than a day’s work. And you know it.

1

warlocc_ t1_j1eieft wrote

"You have the right to remain silent".

Remember that one?

1

RevengencerAlf t1_j1fjqcl wrote

You are never, ever, absolutely ever, obligated to tell a police officer anything other than your name (even that is iffy) and that you are asserting your 5th amendment rights to silence and an attorney.

You have to physically comply with breath tests but you absolutely do not have to do a field sobriety test or answer any questions.

0