Is that your appetite?
Here's a pretty old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 16 years ago, in 2008, on the World Wide Web.
In Columbus, Ohio, local cops and judges have conspired to put together a series of No Refusal Weekends
for DUI stops. If you’re pulled over on suspicion of DUI, you have the choice to consent
to a breathalyzer test, or to be chained up by the cops, hauled off to a hospital, jabbed with a needle, and having your blood drawn against your will for BAC testing.
Please keep in mind, if you happen to be passing through Columbus, that the local police force believes that, on certain weekends of the year (notably, big football games and, natch, the Independence Day), they have the right to stop you, harass you, demand your papers, and then tie you down and take your blood against your will in order to try to find some incriminating evidence, based on absolutely nothing other than some cop’s vague suspicions and impressionistic judgments about your driving, and on the fact that you refused consent to an invasive search by other means.
(Story via Yury Tsukerman 2008-10-27.)
Follow
Not to miss the point from an anarchist perspective, but has this ever been ruled unconstitutional anywhere? Something about unreasonable search and seizure comes to mind…
The constitution and the fourth amendment in particular have usually been suspended on the border so it’s not a big leap to suspend it in “troubled” cities.
I’ve never been comfortable with this and it is another case of a crime that was not taken very seriously by society for many years (yes, it was treated with a wink and a nod for a very long time, mostly because cops and judges were doing it too) and now it’s turned into a revenue generating witch hunt but the fact remains that the constitution says nothing about automobiles or driving them. So under the law, driving, or having a license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. To get that privilege, you give what is called implied consent to be searched when stopped. It has nothing to do with suspension of the constitution. It is controversial, however. But as an originalist would tell you, the constitution is mute on the right to drive a motor car. Try googling informed consent and implied consent.
But as an originalist would tell you, the constitution is mute on the right to drive a motor car.
They didn’t have trailor homes when the constitution was written. Does that mean the fourth amendment doesn’t apply to people who live in one because it’s a “motor vehicle”?
They didn’t have the internet when the constitution was written. Does that mean there is no such thing as free speech when using a TCP/IP network?
Not that I uphold the constitution, but your interpretation doesn’t sound like something most originalists would agree with.
In AZ, the Supremes in their infinite wisdom and capacity to read all manner of things into our CONstitution, even when conflicitng English is present stating the opposite intent have found that the moment you signed your driver’s license stating you would obey all laws of the state you also gave your unstated consent to do all manner of unspeakable things to your person should a friendly representative wielding state power demand it of you. Nice eh?
The “conservative” Rhenquist court ruled that you have no right to privacy in your car, so what Columbus is doing is completely legal, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I guess the Fourth Amendment is dead in Columbus.
And, I guess I will not drive through there nor spend any money there.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing is happening all over the country. Not only might we lose the option of not going to such places; we might lose the option of traveling at all.
See my blog!