Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mnemon-TORreport t1_j1dqtf7 wrote

Reply to comment by Sir_Fluffernutting in Mass. State Police to set up sobriety checkpoint starting Thursday in Bristol County by LackingUtility

>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