At the request of @RunoftheShipe, today's post will be about sobriety checkpoints. The request for my piercing insight nonsensical ramblings was due to a recent post by Bob Collins in the 5x8 Newscut blog. The latest MADD report gives Minnesota an abysmal 2 out of 5 stars on our DWI laws and suggests 2 ways we can--and according to MADD, we should--fix this low rating.
Thing one: require an ignition interlock device for ALL convicted DWI offenders w/ a BAC of .08 or more.
Thing two: allow for sobriety checkpoints.
I could go on and on about thing one and the ridiculousness of mandating ALL defendants convicted of a DWI be required to have an ignition interlock device, but in the interest of addressing the question that was posed to me, I'll stick to just thing two today. Ignition interlock is a conversation rant for another day.
So, checkpoints. What's up with those?
So, I've talked before about the McNeely/Brooks decisions on DWI cases in previous posts, here, here, and here. We've now been in court battling these issues and there are plenty of varied arguments that are being utilized by both the prosecution and the defense to support their positions.
For the most part, I understand why the prosecutors are going with certain arguments that they are using. I disagree w/ the application of the legal concepts they are relying on, but I can at least understand the logic that got them to that argument.
But, I have seen one that has been argued that I find truly mind-boggling. If I were a prosecutor, I would not be able to argue it because I have such a visceral reaction to it.
The argument, in sum, is that DWI cases should be considered a "special needs" situation and should be completely exempted from the warrant requirement and the protections of the 4th Amendment.
If you didn't choke a little right then, you're not understanding the implications that argument has for you and for everyone if it were to prevail.
