Drivers: Florida cops are out for blood. If you get pulled over, refuse the breathalyzer test and have a prior conviction, you can count on being subjected to a mandatory blood draw.
And officers: need a warrant? No problem. Officials are pushing to have judges on-site to approve requests. Indeed, having a judge present at the checkpoint will effectively streamline the warrant application process, in order that the results of the subsequent blood draw are not compromised.
I hope that this offends you on a number of levels. The procedure for obtaining a warrant is exactly that: a procedure. It is not a formality, and it is not an inconvenience to be shucked for the sake of “streamlining.” An officer requests a warrant based on a foundation of evidence, the judge reviews this evidence and then makes a decision to either approve or deny the officer’s request. There is no “formula” that guarantees a warrant. Nor are police entitled to arrange a situation in which getting that warrant is extremely likely, which is exactly what happens when you invite a judge to a DUI checkpoint with the intention of charging every suspicious individual. But this is worse than just an irksome scenario.
The judiciary is meant to be separate from law enforcement. This new law puts judges and police officers on the same freedom-snatching, rights-abusing team. The idea of a judge being present at a crime scene, ready to sign a warrant, spits in the face of every tenet establishing independence of the judiciary, not to mention the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
Perhaps this idea becomes less ludicrous in light of the motivations driving it. It has been argued that blood draws provide more accurate results than the breathalyzer, but when you think about it, both pose significant problems for prosecutors. A refusal to submit to a test implicates the driver; test results, however they are obtained, can be used to call an officer’s/tester’s precision into question. And even with a judge present to hand out warrants, time elapses between stopping a driver and testing his blood, time that will inevitably skew results. Alcohol digested and absorbed can implicate a driver who would have otherwise been clear at the time of driving.
Perhaps this idea becomes less ludicrous in light of the motivations driving it. It has been argued that blood draws provide more accurate results than the breathalyzer, but when you think about it, both pose significant problems for prosecutors. A refusal to submit to a test implicates the driver; test results, however they are obtained, can be used to call an officer’s/tester’s precision into question. And even with a judge present to hand out warrants, time elapses between stopping a driver and testing his blood, time that will inevitably skew results. Alcohol digested and absorbed can implicate a driver who would have otherwise been clear at the time of driving.
MADD has come forth as an advocate for this policy, claiming that said measures will serve as a stronger deterrent than current consequences. Drivers with priors can no longer ultimately refuse to submit to testing, unless a warrant is denied, which seems unlikely, given the flavor of the operation. And officers will be instructed to take all measures necessary in obtaining evidence from a suspect, even if this means holding down suspects who offer physical resistance.
There are several ways to respond to the issue of deterrence. Mainly, I have yet to see solid proof that vindicates this position: drunk driving is an inherently irrational choice, which makes me wonder if the response to this additional threat will be prudence. And do tragedies on the road justify restrictions on rights, and if so, how far must this attitude extend before someone recognizes the slippery slope onto which we’ve stepped? The fate of our civil liberties deserves as much concern as the desire for safer roads. And in the wake of a decision such as this, our freedoms fall victim to a growing police state.
