AJAshinoff - They want you to roll down your window so that they can get a better view of both the inside of the car and of you, and also to get better "access" to you.
The theory and practice of civil liberty is to not cooperate in any way. If you cooperate, it merely gives them a lever to use against them: you opened your window for us, now what's wrong with opening the door.
resist. resist everything.
and yes, it is damn scary - even to watch it happen to a friend.

The theory is that was just a conversation. He wasn't detained. If he doesn't want to have a conversation, he's free to do that. Your argument can be used to justify giving up more and more rights.

I know. I suspect thats where its heading in time.

As I said, it was a quick search. I'm sure more satisfactory sources for stats can be found if one looks longer than 5 minutes.

There are people in the DUI moment that have proposed just that scenario. Those people are prohibitionist, not safety concerned.

Oh no! Not MADD please. MADD's statistics have been proven to be inflated so many times that they have no credibility left. As an example, their numbers of alcohol related include a pedestrian witness on the street that's drunk. It also includes participants that aren't inebriated enough to be charged with DWI or DUI.

Been driving for 56 years, all over this country, back and forth I don't know how many times in every kind of situation. I've never wrecked a car (not even fender benders), nor hit another, nor harmed another.

Okay, but there is a difference between a house (which can be kept under surveillance until reasonable suspicion is achieved for a warrant) and a moving car with a drunk behind the wheel. I never said it reduced traffic accidents but it does act as a deterrent to drunk driving and reduces the possibility that someone will be maimed and killed by that person.

An auto, like a house, is private property. But operating a vehicle on a public road is the difference.

We do live in a society. I, my son (who just started driving) and others who do not drink, have a reasonable expectation of safety from people who make the poor choice to drink to drunkenness and drive, no? The only way I can see around this inconvenience is to have breathalysers installed in everyone's vehicles to prevent them starting up if alcohol is detected. Now that scenario, to me, is a breach of privacy more-so than occasional checkpoints

Nah, you smell what they put in the alcohol for flavor and odor. By the way, spent a while with drunken sailors as well.

yes. do not accuse me of it before I've done it. I actually can post many studies that disagree with your analysis. The number of tickets issued does not correlate to a reduction in traffic accidents. OK, I only need 10-12 minutes of your time to search your home because we have established your neighborhood is statistically more likely to have a meth house or illegal weapons, or illegal aliens, or recalcitrant teens, or thefts...

But drinking and driving is a crime. None of those things mentioned previously are targeting a specific individual since the identity is unknown. Because the identity is unknown a car by car search is required. When it comes to DUI there are statistics to back certain days when the probability of drunk driving is highest and arteries of a city or town which dictate where to place the car by car checks. I'm not intentionally being difficult I just can't see the violation of Rights when it comes to a 5-10 minute personal inconvenience to stop someone who may destroy other people's lives.

No. A specific person, vehicle, or something else specific linking people to a crime. Pursuit of someone specific. We have modern technology, this should happen very quickly. pretending it can't only invades others' privacy. so you were for the forced house arrest of Boston citizens in the pursuit of Boston bombers? You ignore all the false arrests, the killing of innocents based on these bad police tactics. You own yourself. No one has the right to stop you without reasonable cause. On a utilitarian thought process, the macro evidence is WAY overwhelmingly against your examples.

Fourth Amendment? We don't need no stinkin' Fourth Amendment!

This video is ancient.

This video is at least 6 months old.

So if a bank were robbed and the criminal got away with no solid description of him/her or his/her vehicle a checkpoint on the roads leading in and out of town shouldn't be conducted?

So a checkpoint setup to search for a person suspected of child molestation does not legitimize stopping every car going in and out of town?

Unless I'm wrong, only semantics separates those example from the DUI, no? None of those situation presume you guilty they each only check to see if you are the person they are searching for.

What's to stop a person who's had previous dui (s) and knows they're going to be drinking and driving, from looking that up and taking an alternate route on their way home? How is announcing it keeping us "safe"?

All rights begin with the ownership of Oneself. Anyone who doesn't get that is at the very least for limited forms of slavery. I will not be a slave to your safety fears

a crime must be committed. Driving erratically is cause. Forcing everybody through a possible search is not only NOT efficient it violates your rights. If I can stop you like this, we all should submit to random drug testing, we all should allow random house searches. You have nothing to hide...

Bogus. I definitely can smell alcohol on someones breath or clothes. Maybe its from years being and dealing with drunken sailors.

Until you get drunk, step into a car in your drunken confidence and get into a wreck.

I can easily smell alcohol on someone's breath or clothes.

From ww2.potsdam.edu

"Myth: “Alcohol on the breath” is a reliable sign of alcohol consumption and intoxication.

Fact: Alcohol is actually odorless.... it has no smell. What people perceive as alcohol on the breath is actually the odor of things commonly found in alcoholic beverages. The breath of a person who drinks a non-alcoholic beer will smell the same as that of a person who has consumed an alcoholic beer.

Research using experienced law enforcement officers has found that odor strength estimates are unrelated to blood alcohol concentration (BAC), which ranged in the experiment from zero to .13 (almost twice the legal limit for driving). The estimates made by the officers were no more accurate than random guesses. The researchers concluded that estimates of alcohol on the breath are unreliable. 2"

Again, you can't smell alcohol.

I totally agree O.A. Thanks for the 20 :-)

i'm responsible for my public and private safety! I don't give any part of the government the power or authority to take that from me. The government's job is to punish those that don't respect my individual property rights. Other than that they're to leave my alone. That's all.