Enforcing the Law

We are a nation governed by laws. Over 226 years ago our founding fathers adopted a constitution to serve as a framework for our governance. Over the years it has been amended but, battered and bruised, it is still the standard by which we live. However the laws by which we are governed are established by legislative bodies in thousands of jurisdictions across our great land. The requirements of the law can vary greatly from city to city or state to state. The only standard by which they are all judged is whether they are within the boundaries set by the constitution.

Why, you ask, am I blogging about this at 5:00 am? That is because the lead story on the 5 am news is a live report from the Austin PD about the results of their "no refusal weekend". For the uninitiated this is a program, passed by ordinance of the Austin City Council, in which drivers suspected of driving while intoxicated are required to submit to whatever sobriety test that the police officer deems necessary to prove sobriety, up to and including forcibly taking a blood sample. These "no refusal weekends" generally are on holidays when the dumbasses are out in force, driving drunk. And, as you might expect, it is like shooting fish a barrel. The program is advertised and reported on in hopes of convincing these fools not to drive drunk but they still do and people still die in alcohol related accidents. Sadly, no matter how much we try we cannot legislate stupidity from existence!

So what's the problem? Well that pesky constitution for one. In our zeal to make everyone safer we are ignoring several of the principles of criminal justice system. A person is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. He can not be compelled to testify against himself. The police cannot conduct a search without probable cause. Forcibly taking a blood sample could be construed as testifying against oneself or an illegal search, in my opinion. For the most part the burden of proof has been shifted to the "defendant" in that he must prove that he is sober, or not guilty. Why is this allowed? Because laws are presumed legal until proven unconstitutional. That means John Roberts and the Supremes. The process for taking a case before the Supreme Court is expensive and can take several years. Meanwhile these violations go on.

Does the means justify the ends? So we trample on a few constitutional rights but we get those damn drunks off the road so that is okay? They just announced the stats from the Memorial Day weekend, 2013 vs 2012. Arrests were up to 99 in 2013 from 89 last year. So it doesn't seem to be deterring anyone. But maybe it is. The enhanced enforcement may be paying off but at what cost? Just the rights of some drunks.......

Look, I decided years ago that if I am going to drink away from the house I will either have someone else drive, i.e. a designated driver, or make sure that it is limited to ONE DRINK. This was way before the current initiatives. So far it has served me well. Blame it on maturity, the deterrence of the costs associated with a DUI or whatever I will not be doing a "Rosemary Lemberg" for you!

But more to the point if the enforcement is allowed to encroach upon constitutional protections for DUI enforcement, why not other crimes? The old slippery slope argument comes to mind. So, for me, we only have one constitution, and there is an amendment process. Let's do it right!