Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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