As I discussed in a recent post, the fatalities statistics used by MADD and government agencies to justify DUI checkpoints are flawed. In fact, the statistics can be viewed as indicating quite the opposite.

Well, all right, so checkpoints may not reduce fatalities — but, according to MADD, they certainly result in more DUI arrests.

Wrong again. The simple fact is that checkpoints are largely wastes of police resources and taxpayer money — not to mention unjustified invasions of privacy. In fact, in the United States Supreme Court decision (Michigan v. Sitz) upholding their constitutionality, a dissenting justice pointed out the “the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative”. (Emphasis added)

This is confirmed by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies, which conclude that “the number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWI arrests made by the checkpoint programs”.

Then why do we have DUI roadblocks? Consider the following news story:

PENNDOT GRANTS TOTALLING $1 MILLION FUND SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS STATEWIDE

Chester County officials said recent recommendations from the national headquarters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been implemented by area police departments for years. Among the recommendations are an increased focus on prevention tactics such as sobriety checkpoints.

“We work with MADD and will continue to work with them to reduce the incidents of drunken driving in Pennsylvania,” (DOT spokesperson Jenny) Robinson said….

“I’ve read that police are less than enthusiastic about DUI checkpoints because they don’t make as many arrests,” (MADD official Bryce) Templeton said….

Richard Harkness, superintendent of the Tredyffrin Police Department, said checkpoints keep drivers aware that police are on the lookout for drunken drivers. He said there usually aren’t many DUI arrests at checkpoints, but they help educate the public.

“There should be as many DUI roadblocks as economically feasible,” Harkness said.

So…Roadblocks are invasive, don’t reduce fatalities and don’t produce more arrests — but we should have lots more of them. Why? To educate us.

The latest weapon in MADD’s “War on Drunk Driving”:

Senate Measure Would Ban Lawyers

from DUI Advertising

Nashville, TN.  AP, April 22 – Defense attorneys would be banned from advertising their expertise with drunken driving cases under a bill advancing in the Senate.

Sen. Rosalind Kurita, a Clarksville Democrat, successfully added the provision to a bill that would create an online registry of repeat DUI offenders in Tennessee.

Kurita says officials have a hard enough time convicting drunken drivers without lawyers advertising their expertise in the field and offering discounts to DUI defendants…

In another article appearing hours later, Senator Kurita explained her reasoning:  “Kurita said she pushed for the amendment because she was tired of suspected DUI offenders not being convicted.”

Imagine that:  A citizen accused of a crime who is not convicted.  Intolerable!  There oughta be a law against that.

Another rational solution to the drunk driving problem…

(Thanks to David O’Shea.)

I’ve written repeatedly in the past about the inaccuracy and unreliability of the various breath machines used to estimate blood alcohol concentrations.  See, for example, How Breathalyzers Work (and Why They Don’t), Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol and Breathalyzer Inaccuracy: Testing During the Absorptive State.  I’ve also pointed out how our laws now ignore scientific truth and presume that the blood-alcohol level at the time of testing was the same as when driving, say, three hours earlier.  See How to Overcome Scientific Facts: Pass a Law.  And I’ve written about how our laws now presume guilt based upon a reading over .08% from one of these machines — how these devices have become judge, jury and executioner.  See Whatever happened to the Presumption of Innocence?.

Well, at least a citizen accused of drunk driving can call his own expert from the local university to testify as to alcohol metabolism and the probable true levels of alcohol in the accused, right? 

That may now be disappearing, too….

Supreme Court Strikes Blow

to ‘Two-Beer Defence’

Toronto, April 17 – The Supreme Court of Canada dealt a blow Thursday to the so-called “two-beer defence” – used by individuals accused of impaired driving – in which defence toxicology experts use their own measurements to try to refute a breathalyzer reading taken by police.

A 7-2 majority said Thursday that allowing defence experts to estimate the amount of alcohol an accused person had in his or her system when arrested is an unreliable exercise that depends on too many variables.

“To admit such a defence would obviously fly in the face,” of Parliament’s desire to bring drinking and driving under control, Madam Justice Louise Charron said, writing on behalf of three other majority judges…

In a testy rebuke to the majority, Madam Justice Marie Deschamps said: “I find it highly troubling and offensive for a court to impeach an expert’s credibility by dismissing post-offence testing, without an indication that the testing conditions were inadequate, on the basis that it does not adequately replicate the conditions at the time of interception.

“Testing conditions are in the domain of experts, not of the courts,” she said, writing on behalf of Mr. Justice Ian Binnie. “Courts need evidence in order to question the weight of expert testimony…”

Defence toxicologists typically administer specific amounts of alcohol to the subject and measure the rate at which their body absorbs the alcohol. Their evidence ultimately covers a range of possible blood alcohol concentrations, taking into account the amount of alcohol consumed, the pattern of drinking, and the accused’s age, height, weight and gender…

  
Amazing.   Let me repeat the reasoning of the Court:

“To admit such a defence would obviously fly in the face,” of Parliament’s desire to bring drinking and driving under control, Madam Justice Louise Charron said, writing on behalf of three other majority judges…

In other words, the defendant is not permitted to question the Breathlayzer results — because it interferes with efforts to combat drunk driving.  Think about that.

In view of past decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, and the political influence of MADD, how long do you think it will be before we follow the Canadians?