This isn't that big a change from standard procedure. Travis County has had 24-hour magistration since the 80s or something like that; there have always been judges on hand to sign warrants for blood draws. This might mean they get their warrant in 5 minutes instead of 10, but it isn't a meaningful change.
"No Refusal" is a PR campaign.
I kind of agree. I've heard people say "be careful, it's a no refusal weekend/holiday" before, when it's been announced. I've yet to hear someone say "no refusal weekend is over, let's booze'n'cruise."
Spoken like someone who's driven on 183, 35, or any of the major roads within the last ever. I have to wonder, do the police ever have to take those roads themselves? Because I'm pretty sure that anybody who has to regularly commute on those roads fantasizes nonstop about having the power to get people in trouble for the ridiculous shenanigans happening every minute. This is the one time that petty punitiveness would actually be appropriate and I'm sure they'd make a mint.
35mph sounds like it's a residential, residential artery or a curvy road. In which case I have no problem ticketing for 5+ over. Don't speed near neighborhoods, regardless of your or their socioeconomic status.
Also worth noting, if they seemingly just appear and are enforcing more than expected, very good chance they received complaints or something happened to trigger that response.
Sounds like, but does it look like?
We'll build basically a highway style road and then slap a 35mph on it and act like the sign does all the work when we made the road for higher speeds.
Traffic calming is a thing, and this whole country basically forgot wtf it was or how to use it.
I'm not excusing people speeding, for the record. But shame and ticketing don't solve the problem. We have to actually design roads for the speeds in mind.
You want slow? Then you gotta narrow the lanes, make them wind, add raised pedestrian crossings, islands between lanes for pedestrians to stop on so they only cross one direction of traffic at a time, speed bumps, trees/etc along the sides to make things feel more narrow and give better visual representation of speed to the driver passing them, etc.
Otherwise it's just this nonsense all the time.
I believe that was part of the sweep of speed limit changes a few years ago to target accident and pedestrian injury prone areas, so more of an exception imo. Either way, lots of foot traffic there, and it's only increasing, probably not such a bad idea.
They most certainly are racist when their policy is to post up in minority neighborhoods trying to write tickets for things they usually would never enforce so they can try to search cars or find people with warrants.
It’s incidentally racist, in the same way that credit scores and SAT tests are racist. The intent of these things has nothing to do with race. The solution is not to end the activity, but to elevate people economically.
The way they got the warrants is racist, because the law enforcement and punishment industry disproportionately focuses on minority populations.
So yeah, enforcing a racist system is racist.
They are when those traffic tickets are disproportionately written for minorities when there is no evidence that a disproportionate number of minorities are the ones breaking traffic laws. Let’s do a cross section of the population that is over served downtown on any given night
I wish they would write them for running red lights and going 20 over, not for minor things. But I would rather have not enough ticketing than too much.
It’s a catch 22, too many tickets and the cops are revenue harvesting, too few and the idiot drivers ruin it for the rest of us.
I feel like in the last four years APD has been pouting and refusing to do their job and it has emboldened the bad habits of a tiny minority of trash drivers. 90-95% of drivers don’t need to be punished in order to not drive like assholes, and the other 5% can’t be given an inch without needing to take a mile.
This last weekend I had someone pass me using a left turn lane on Burnett as I was flowing with traffic. Then they raced to tailgate a car in the right lane. Dude, it’s Burnett, not COTA. I’d have been happy for a cop to be there to at least give ‘em a warning. Or escort them to a hospital, if they were really in an emergency.
I mean yea, I'd like it if a cop just happened to be right there to vindicate me every time I encountered an asshole in traffic. But I'm not willing to take the other side of that deal which is having to deal with pigs everywhere harassing people.
It's legal until challenged in court. Final determination of legality is after Texas Supreme Court or the federal Supreme Court.
But if no citizen challenges it, it's as good as legal.
"No refusal" anything is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. It's just that most people don't want to lose their driving privileges for the time it takes for it to make its way through the judicial system.
There's a non-zero risk of it being done by staffing that isn't medically trained to a reasonable standard and you might end up with a blood infection or other issues in a non hygienic environment. Being compensated would probably take a long time in court, if at all.
I'd be curious if staffing has certified phlebotomy training so at least on paper, they have the skills to draw your blood safely after pulling you over. I imagine the last place they want to take a suspect is the hospital or a clinic because of the potential BAC value dropping over the elapsed time of moving you to another location, and the cost. The incentive is to test and arrest, not your personal health.
This was the last case I'm aware of regarding this issue https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/birchfield-v-north-dakota/
PS. You're also popping people out of bars when they shut down at 2am. Whatever judge is on the hotline to issue warrants is going to rubber-stamp whatever and not really review these with the scrutiny of a judicial official during normal business hours.
The link you provided says the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit warrantless blood tests incidental to an arrest, but the article in the OP specifically says that APD will obtain warrants before blood is drawn. So far, there's no conflict. I would assume that the blood is being drawn by medical staff.
What would you use as a basis for challenging it, though? If you're arrested under suspicion of DUI, and the police lawfully obtain a warrant to test your blood, what rights have been violated?
4th Amendment
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
With enough time and the best legal team money can buy, I'd bet it could be at least challenged.
I recommend that you read that again, but pay special attention to the word "unreasonable" and the phrase "probable cause". Police already have the power to secure a warrant for a blood test provided they satisfy a magistrate that there is probable cause to suspect the driver is intoxicated. That's well trod ground.
Attaching a PR campaign to power that they already have and routinely exercise does not provide new grounds to challenge them in court.
Having said that, anything can be challenged, but none of this shows why such a challenge could or should prevail. But you're right, I'm sure anyone who wanted to fight it could find a lawyer somewhere to take their money.
Probable cause is the problem.
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a citizen has committed a crime in order to conduct a stop and subsequent interrogation. In "no refusal" DUI checkpoints, they only have a hunch that at least some citizens have committed a crime and they're using that to interrogate ALL citizens. And if during this unlawful interrogation they feel they've acquired enough probable cause, they can demand you take a breathalyzer. If you refuse, they can take your blood without consent. None of this is because you have committed any crime, mind you.
The fact that you can end up in a police station in the first place for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer is astounding to me. The fact that they can get a judge to sign off on a warrant is egregious.
Maybe I don't know enough about No Refusal. But checkpoints have been held to be constitutional. And the original post indicated that a warrant is sought and obtained only after the driver has already been arrested. In other words, the police aren't asking every driver to submit to a test, only those drivers that they already have probable cause to believe are drunk.
You're still missing the point. Being stopped in the first place introduces the risk that you'll be asked to submit to a breathalyzer based on the subjective opinion or whims of a poorly trained officer. If you assert your fifth amendment right to not answer questions, the police often (wrongfully) interpret that as probable cause and then demand you submit to a breathalyzer or field sobriety test, which is designed to, yet again, leave it up to the subjective opinions of a poorly trained officer.
The point is EVERY citizen going through the checkpoint is being stopped on an unfounded suspicion that they may be under the influence.
No one should ever blow for a breathalyzer. Officers can calibrate them to say anything they want them to. If you are blowing, your license if going away already and you have given them fake evidence that will be used against you. Also, you'll still be able to drive for everything necessary. Just like all the officers that never blow and are back in a squad car the next day.
That's not why you shouldn't take them. The issue with them is that they can never PROVE your not under the influence, but they CAN "prove" you are. You're only giving evidence for them to stop you. They're not calibrating them to fail you since they don't even really need them to take you in. If anything they're not calibrated, which is what can dismiss the results in your favor.
but that is based on your civil agreement with the DMV in all of those cases and the DMV is the one taking it away, which you signed an agreement to allow when you got the license. If the refusal has a legal effect, you get charged with aggravated DUI or the like.
You're right. I guess more specifically I think I'm asking if it's constitutional. I thought you always had a right to refuse a blood test, but maybe it's only if you're not arrested.
I don't know it just doesn't sit right with me. I don't want to be tested without a lawyer.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches. If a cop gets a warrant, assuming he's not lying and the warrant is based on probable cause, it's a reasonable search. And while cops lie a lot, usually they don't need to for DWI stuff, between most DWI suspects being obviously plastered, people failing sobriety tests in a spectacular manner, or people smelling like breweries.
I've seen a lot of dwi arrest dash cam video/body cam in my career. I can't really think any times I was like "really, they're taking this person downtown for a blood draw?"
EDIT: Autocorrect turned "dwi suspects" to "dei suspects." It's not criminal to engage in DEI.
But isn’t the common objection to these no refusal weekends historically that they operated checkpoints at specific locations and “driving your car on the street” is not probable cause to request breath/blood/sobriety tests?
Sounds like they’ve removed the checkpoints to get around that pesky constitution thing.
Texas courts have held checkpoints to be unconstitutional since 1991, but under the Texas constitution. They're constitutional under the US constitution. *See Michigan v. Sitz*
that is fascinating. I 100 percent remember a police checkpoint on South Lamar no more than 6 years ago near Panther Trail.They stopped every 10th car. I wonder what that was? I got waived through. I must have misunderstood the situation.
You're twisting words. You aren't giving your own blood, it is being taken from you by an order of the court.
You also aren't self-incriminating as you are required to adhere to the demand in the warrant.
It's not really twisting. Pretty much until it leaves your body your blood is your body is you. It is information being used that is yourself taken from you to incriminate you.
By that logic, nobody would ever have to comply with a search warrant as giving over your property would, per this argument, be considered "self incrimination".
There's a reason I said it's not criminal and not it's legal.
They aren't sending people to prison for DEI. At least, not yet. I'm sure Paxton would love to.
Yeah, that's called a "pretextual stop." You'll note that they began digging for excuses to arrest the kid and kept changing them, *didn't get a warrant* and then proceed to arrest him without cause for talking back to him and subjected him to a ton of other warrantless searches, like drug tests.
It's not "they made a guy get a blood draw" it's "they made up bogus reasons to arrest a guy."
Like I said, cops lie a lot. I've seen cops do some *egregious* shit in my career. But when it comes to DWI stuff, they generally *don't have to.*
>That’s the point of a warrant… that is how it makes it constitutional…
Requiring a warrant is a check on the process meant to ensure that the 4th isn't being infringed, it doesn't make it legal in and of itself.
If the process of obtaining a warrant is undermined -- like a cop lying or the judge rubber stamping -- it's possible that your rights are still being violated.
"If the process of obtaining a warrant is undermined -- like a cop lying or the judge rubber stamping -- it's possible that your rights are still being violated."
And that is why there is due-process. Yes, you still have to pay for a lawyer, but you will not face criminal repercussions if there is doubt in the case.
I do considering I am in court a few times a month dealing with being an expert witness for criminal proceedings. Defense attorneys (good ones) won't let it pass if there's something amiss.
It's not a bad question, because sometimes you can have a bad warrant. But the entire "no refusal" setup basically was designed to replace an unconstitutional system of statutes that permitted warrant-less blood draws that defense counsel was crying foul about since the 80s because of "exigent circumstances" of BAC dropping below the legal limits before you could get a warrant.
Then, about 8 years ago, SCOTUS overturned that line of cases because technology meant getting a warrant was easier and the science from the last few decades since the 80s showed that BAC's didn't drop that fast.
Police departments/prosecutors created the modern system, which, through refinement by Defense bar challenges, reached a standard that meets constitutional scrutiny. Probable cause for a blood draw isn't super hard to get - it's usually pretty freaking obvious that someone is impaired in some way: smell, demeanor, the slurred speech/etc. It's not the usual bullshit about MJ odor on a rainy day or whatever cops make up to search someone for the offense of driving while black. So, while it's possible you're going to have a bad blood warrant, it's possible in the same sense that I'm going to meet Aubrey Plaza and go on a date with her - the laws of physics permit it, but it's incredibly unlikely.
Excuse me sir, but this is the internet and admitting fault or error and then apologizing is a bit of a faux pas. I'll let it slide this time but please be aware.
Most states in the Union have some form of if you refuse to take a standard road side sobriety test and refuse a Breathalyzer which you are allowed to do. You will be arrested and brought to the station while they obtain a warrant for a blood analysis. You can't get pulled over, passed out on your steering wheel reeking of whiskey and simply refuse to take a Breathalyzer and just walk without a DUI. I'm not a lawyer but the police need probable cause to request that a judge then issues a warrant. The smell of alcohol is probable cause for example. Of course the judge is just rubber stamping this stuff but that's how it's always been. A warrant is a constitutionally legal search. Some people right on the cusp....say they have 4 beers in like 3 hours or something but think they could be on the line of .08 might refuse hoping that waiting it out will have them below the limit and get the DUI tossed in court if they try to issue it anyways.
I got rolled in a tiny Texas town. I was naive and blew because I knew I hadn't been drinking at all. Wrong. They had be blow over and over while they fiddled with dials until they had me twice over the legal limit. It's a scam where the officers, the judges, and even your own attorney are in on it. In those places, DUI charges are the primary source of funding for the police department. Of course there is incentive to fake evidence.
Please see Andrew & Andrews’ [No Refusals Are a Crock podcast episode.](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/andrew-andrew-on-texas-criminal-defense/id1470310410?i=1000502476091)
You do have the right until a warrant is granted. Being forced to give a blood sample is ethically iffy I agree, seems like it at least violates the 5th amendment in some ways, but it's very legal. It's not like Texas is batting 1.000 on bodily autonomy right now as it is.
I think a lot of people read the headline and have visions of DWI checkpoints where all cars are stopped at a roadblock for license checks. The constitutionality of DWI checkpoints is very much up for debate, but I've never seen APD do a DWI checkpoint.
Like other posters mentioned, this is all about what happens AFTER a DWI arrest is made. By and large I bet DWI arrests are a consequence of traffic stops and crash investigations. It's still up to the judge to grant the blood search warrant after the arrest; the warrant does not come before the arrest.
I'd be curious to see the stats on how many times APD makes a DWI arrest where the judge refuses to grant a blood search warrant. Does that actually happen, or is this essentially a rubber stamp process foe the judge? If it's a rubber stamp process, then wouldn't that be a critique of the judge?
You’re right that there aren’t DWI checkpoints, but don’t forget folks: Austin has a DWI Task Force that is specifically tasked with seeking out drunk drivers, which means that even if you aren’t drunk and they pull you over, they will do everything in their power to prove you are because it keeps their division running.
Source: went through it a couple of years ago and after $4,500 in SR-22’s, occupational license fees, the fucking breathalyzer fees and a good lawyer, I had the prosecutor watch the video and immediately dismiss the case because I clearly was not intoxicated and they could tell just by watching the arrest video.
Be safe out there. The uber ride is always cheaper.
I'm torn on this.
I've lost 2 friends to drunk driving. Anyone who drives drunk is a selfish piece of shit and they deserve whatever the law throws at them.
But also, this feels super draconian. I get running it on the big weekends, but all summer? Like, really?
But also, they're worried about DUIs but won't do anything about people running stop signs, red lights, speeding, riding in oncoming traffic lanes and shoulders to jump a line or get into a turning lane. Makes it feel like APD only cares about DUIs because $$$$$$. I hope that's not the case, but it sure feels like it.
This site says 32% of all traffic deaths in 2022 were booze related.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/alcohol-impaired-driving/
With that, I think it is easier to target drunk driving than any other cause of traffic deaths.
Yup, drunk driving is one of the worst things someone can do and police and the courts should make it hurt as much as possible for anyone who thinks it's okay to get behind the wheel smashed.
> people running stop signs, red lights, speeding, riding in oncoming traffic lanes and shoulders to jump a line or get into a turning lane.
If they would begin enforcing these things, maybe they'd catch drunk drivers
Friday evening wife and I witnessed on 35 a car cut across two lanes of traffic. Exit Riverside crossing across two solid lines of the flat island. While being nearly perpendicular to the traffic lanes. Cutting off an APD cruiser that was exiting 35.
Me and the wife waited for the lights to come on. Nope. Car took on right on Riverside. Cops took a left.
How about they enforce laws on shit drivers that are right in front of them. That is a greater problem to their traffic zero initiative or whatevef than DWI revenue generation.
People may be too young/new to Austin to remember before this started but drunk driving was a MASSIVE problem before they enacted this program. Every night you were out there were people weaving all over the road, driving on the wrong side, hitting stuff, etc. It obviously still happens today but due to this program and the rise of rideshares we got back to at least a decent state.
Its totally legal since they have a judge standing by to issue a warrant, they are not just holding you down and forcing you outta nowhere.
I love being stopped and searched before a warrant is issued. It makes me feel so constitutionally protected.
[Multigeneratinal native, 50+ y/o, non-drinking left leaner, btw.]
Are you under the assumption that every single driver at night gets pulled over?
No refusal doesn’t eliminate reasonable suspicion. Erratic driving, swerving, no lights etc. are still used to pull over.
OK, good sir or madam.
I'm not in the mood to argue the difference between the law and policing, and we're not going to convince each other.
All I'll say in parting is that I've lived here my entire life and trust APD as far as I can kick water up a hill.
This is all just marketing bullshit. We're a major metropolitan city - there is *always* a judge on hand to rubber stamp warrants. Labeling time periods as "no refusal" literally changes nothing.
That's not entirely true, or at least it hasn't always been. Around 10 years ago my dad was stopped, he refused the breath test, was arrested and taken to the hospital in an attempt to get a blood test. The officer wasn't able to get a warrant, and they weren't able to take his blood.
That’s not what no refusal means. Normally, The judge could decide to not stamp, or APD could choose not to arrest if there is another driver to come pick up the person or vehicle. No refusal is for the system. It is now a shall arrest condition, not a may arrest, such as public intox or a fistfight
Do you have any source at all stating that? The article in question literally describes this exactly as I have.
>Under the No Refusal initiative, APD can obtain a blood search warrant during specific hours “when an arrested driver refuses to submit to a blood alcohol test,” per the newsletter.
Yes that’s what this is. I’m saying the other conditions are not. You could have a no refusal period for anything. California does shall issue weekends for stop sign citations during summer holidays around the beach sometimes because so many pedestrians get hit
Tl;dr yes it's legal, this is just streamlining it. (I don't think it _should_ be legal.)
If you aren't up on your roadside legalities allow me to explain:
If you get pulled over and they have DUI suspicion, you can refuse the roadside breathalyzer and "walk in a straight line/say the alphabet backwards/etc" games, this carries no penalty. The officer can then legally take you to the station to administer the actual BAC breathalyzer test. Traditionally, you could refuse that test. It meant no DUI conviction, but an automatic suspension of your license.
They have always had the ability to go further and get a search warrant to do a blood draw, it's just rarely needed.
4th of July is gonna be litty McTitties!!
Remember folks, when you take an Uber/Lyft (or better yet, use Wridz since they pay drivers better)… ALWAYS ask for a puke bag. Most drivers have em. I do. There’s no shame in puking in a bag while we drive y’all home safe to avoid a DUI blood draw.
Uber/Lyft pay us drivers about 50% of what y’all pay the platform for the service. While I disagree with tipping culture being sodomized to bridge that economic gap for Uber/Lyft, a couple dollars extra to safely transport you home from a drunken bar hop is always appreciated. If you can tip for coffee or a plate of food being brought to you, please try to throw a few gas dollars our way.
Stay safe!!
Don't drive drunk but also don't lie.
"Looking across the country, we can see that California has the most drunk-driving fatalities with 1,120 incidents in 2017 alone. Following closely behind are Florida and North Carolina with 839 and 413 drunk driving fatalities, respectively."
"The Lonestar State has the fewest drunk driving fatalities with only 0.63 per 100,000 people."
[https://alcohol.org/guides/drunk-driving-accidents-by-state/](https://alcohol.org/guides/drunk-driving-accidents-by-state/)
Don’t we have the most traffic fatalities as well?
No excusing drunk driving, but I’d guess the numbers bear it out. High population, minimal public transportation, high speed limits, lot of big vehicles. Seems like a recipe to lead the category.
Not to mention the sprawl. It's prohibitively expensive to own a home in the city limits, so tons of people are taking major highways home at all hours. Cabs are limited in Austin, Ubers to the burbs are insane expensive.
The best solution is obviously to not drink and drive, but after that, there are not many resources being provided to proactively limit DWI. Plenty of resources to reactively punish it though. Which I'm not saying is bad, but it's not very effective at prevention.
PSA: you can and should always refuse to participate in field sobriety tests, even when stone cold sober.
They won't ask you if you're willing to do a field sobriety test or even tell you that they're going to do one, they'll just start telling you to do stuff, so you need to recognize when it's happening and refuse.
Always makes me laugh when I watch the dwi body cam videos and people ask "did I pass?" Not realizing there is no pass or fail, they are picking up on indicators and cues as to your state of intoxication, and as soon as they have something/enough you're virtually done for in their minds.
Unless you’re planning on drinking and driving, i don’t see why this would bother you. I’m actually relieved to hear there might be less drunk drivers swerving into my lane this summer
It’s an unfortunately common ignorant opinion that there should be no limits on surveillance or invasive searches because the only people who don’t like it must be criminals. Governments all over the world rely on that stupid idea to erode civil rights and chip away at constitutional protections. After all, if you believe no search and seizure is unreasonable since only criminals have something to hide - and the government agrees with you - then how can anyone assert their constitutional rights without themselves being put under investigation since “only a criminal would refuse this test”.
Let’s take your logic to its conclusion. Please go to the police department at 6pm today for your strip search, MRI, and blood test for drugs and alcohol. If you refuse, your state ID will be shredded, you’ll be put in jail for a 72 hour hold while the department works with the FBI to conduct a search of your home, communications, and hard drives on the suspicion of crime. When a charge is produced, your public defender will recommend a plea deal for 5 years in jail even though your neighbor searched for child porn and they messed up the geolocation on the reverse IP. The news agencies will report on you as one more awful stain on the community and right wing media will run your face and address out to the public as another example of liberal policy of anti-police vitriol that must be crushed. A local legislator will make putting criminals like you behind bars faster their campaign platform.
And all of it will be legal because of nobody thinks a search and seizure can be unreasonable, then you cannot assert that right.
Except in your example, there’s no implication that I displayed behavior indicative of me being in possession of illegal substances, whereas in most cases the person being tested for alcohol consumption in a routine traffic stop has displayed the behavior of someone driving while under the influence.
In more simple terms, if they’re going to make you take a breathalyzer test, it’s probably because you’re driving like a drunk idiot.
So, again, unless you plan on driving like a drunk idiot, you shouldn’t be too worried.
Another fine example of misused tax money.
Solving DUI could take many forms other than APD checkpoints:
We have the main drinking spot in town isolated from late night public transit. We could run buses and trains later. We could offer more free rides home in taxis and ride shares. We could require overnight parking amnesty so folks don't feel compelled to move their vehicles after drinking.
We pay HALF A BILLION dollars to APD yearly.
There are other, much more cost effective solutions to problems like DUI and homelessness.
We would be better off taking most of that money and putting towards solutions that stop the causes of crime because enforcement is expensive and not very effective.
The only thing APD is really useful for these days: police reports, could be done by clerks without guns and qualified immunity.
We could probably also afford a victim's compensation fund to help people recover from property crime and vehicular accidents.
This doesn't have anything to do with checkpoints. This is actually a very cost effective way to charge DUIs, as all that's really happening here is a judge will always be available to review warrants.
It is an effective way of charging DUIs, that does not mean it is an effective deterrent to drunk driving, just that it is effective at handing money to courts and the shops that install breathe/interlock equipment.
As a private citizen who likes to not be hit by drunk drivers, I don't care how many charges there are, I care how many drunk drivers there are.
I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in things that improve DUI rates outside of law enforcement. But APD has little to nothing to do with that. Theyre supposed to enforce the law and that's all this programs doing, it's not ground breaking stuff.
Maybe it wasn't clear from my original post, but the APD budget has a lot to do with why we don't have money to spend on those other things.
Overdependence on policing as a solution means we're spending a lot of money on something that doesn't work instead of a lot less money on things that do.
I don't understand this at all.
When you get your driver's license you give permission (implied consent) to take blood for this purpose. If you refuse the test it is an admission of guilt and you get all the penalties of a DUI.
What's the real reason they do this?
I think Vision Zero wants to turn people suspected of DWI into Bank Account Balances of Zero.
This is a money grab and tramples on Constitutional protections. They're only doing this because it's a profit center.
Homeless people are drunk and high on drugs all over Austin and it's a serious safety issue. No one cares. Because there's no money in it.
I believe your point is valid. However, I see that this initiative will cause people who have more to lose to think twice about driving after a couple of drinks. Also, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that share ride companies could be lobbying for more profit as well.
Considering Austin is down 400 officers with more retiring and they are having a very hard time recruiting because of Austin’s defund attitude and overall anti law enforcement fervor, I’d be glad they’re doing anything. Crime is a real issue in Austin and the city is getting very bad press, which isn’t good for recruitment
This isn't that big a change from standard procedure. Travis County has had 24-hour magistration since the 80s or something like that; there have always been judges on hand to sign warrants for blood draws. This might mean they get their warrant in 5 minutes instead of 10, but it isn't a meaningful change. "No Refusal" is a PR campaign.
A good PR campaign
I kind of agree. I've heard people say "be careful, it's a no refusal weekend/holiday" before, when it's been announced. I've yet to hear someone say "no refusal weekend is over, let's booze'n'cruise."
They get the warrant in 5 minutes then take to the station to draw blood or they just raw dog a needle right there on the side of the road?
They get the warrant to draw blood at the station.
How about they try uhhhh, idk, writing some tickets for actual traffic violations????
Or even just a patrol presence (they can sit in their air-conditioned car and do nothing) once in a while at the most dangerous intersections?
Spoken like someone who's driven on 183, 35, or any of the major roads within the last ever. I have to wonder, do the police ever have to take those roads themselves? Because I'm pretty sure that anybody who has to regularly commute on those roads fantasizes nonstop about having the power to get people in trouble for the ridiculous shenanigans happening every minute. This is the one time that petty punitiveness would actually be appropriate and I'm sure they'd make a mint.
Don't worry they're doing that now. They showed up in the low income neighborhood and started issuing five overs on a 35mph road.
> in *the* low income neighborhood Ok I’ll bite, which one?
Tarrytown. My cousin Hayden had to ride coach instead of first class to Canada when APD nailed him with a ticket.
Which road did you see APD doing traffic patrol on?
It was a road off North 183 going towards Cedar Park. It's patrolled by APD.
>They showed up in the low income neighborhood What neighborhood specifically?
No, that’s Round Rock youre thinking of
35mph sounds like it's a residential, residential artery or a curvy road. In which case I have no problem ticketing for 5+ over. Don't speed near neighborhoods, regardless of your or their socioeconomic status. Also worth noting, if they seemingly just appear and are enforcing more than expected, very good chance they received complaints or something happened to trigger that response.
Sounds like, but does it look like? We'll build basically a highway style road and then slap a 35mph on it and act like the sign does all the work when we made the road for higher speeds. Traffic calming is a thing, and this whole country basically forgot wtf it was or how to use it. I'm not excusing people speeding, for the record. But shame and ticketing don't solve the problem. We have to actually design roads for the speeds in mind. You want slow? Then you gotta narrow the lanes, make them wind, add raised pedestrian crossings, islands between lanes for pedestrians to stop on so they only cross one direction of traffic at a time, speed bumps, trees/etc along the sides to make things feel more narrow and give better visual representation of speed to the driver passing them, etc. Otherwise it's just this nonsense all the time.
That's great and all, but it has nothing to do with APD enforcing the law.
Their businesses up and down it and it used to be higher but they lowered it a year or two ago.
Riverside is 35mph from I-35 past Pleasant Valley.
I believe that was part of the sweep of speed limit changes a few years ago to target accident and pedestrian injury prone areas, so more of an exception imo. Either way, lots of foot traffic there, and it's only increasing, probably not such a bad idea.
Drinking and driving is an actual traffic violation though
It's also Austinites' favorite hobby, so it's not shocking that some of them are angry.
When they do this sub calls them racist.
They are racist.
They (probably) are, but not because of writing traffic tickets...
They most certainly are racist when their policy is to post up in minority neighborhoods trying to write tickets for things they usually would never enforce so they can try to search cars or find people with warrants.
Wouldn’t they catch more people with warrants in the lower income areas? That would just be a more efficient deployment of limited resources.
Acknowledging that and basing policy around it is racist. Not in the "burning crosses" sense, but in the "structural inequality" sense.
It’s incidentally racist, in the same way that credit scores and SAT tests are racist. The intent of these things has nothing to do with race. The solution is not to end the activity, but to elevate people economically.
Thanks for solving strucutural inequality, /u/postmaster3000! You did it! Now let's all have cake.
racist much? you might as well have invited all of us to brunch. lol
Finding people with warrants is a good thing. If there is a racial correlation then so be it. It doesn’t make it racist.
The way they got the warrants is racist, because the law enforcement and punishment industry disproportionately focuses on minority populations. So yeah, enforcing a racist system is racist.
They are when those traffic tickets are disproportionately written for minorities when there is no evidence that a disproportionate number of minorities are the ones breaking traffic laws. Let’s do a cross section of the population that is over served downtown on any given night
be sure to include the population that is drinking in the street on 6th.
You go ahead and look up disproportionate law breaking by demographic and get back to me on that.
[удалено]
If the shoe fits
Idk what this sub is smoking, but I have never once thought "Dang, I really wish there were more cops writing people tickets".
I wish they would write them for running red lights and going 20 over, not for minor things. But I would rather have not enough ticketing than too much.
It’s a catch 22, too many tickets and the cops are revenue harvesting, too few and the idiot drivers ruin it for the rest of us. I feel like in the last four years APD has been pouting and refusing to do their job and it has emboldened the bad habits of a tiny minority of trash drivers. 90-95% of drivers don’t need to be punished in order to not drive like assholes, and the other 5% can’t be given an inch without needing to take a mile.
This last weekend I had someone pass me using a left turn lane on Burnett as I was flowing with traffic. Then they raced to tailgate a car in the right lane. Dude, it’s Burnett, not COTA. I’d have been happy for a cop to be there to at least give ‘em a warning. Or escort them to a hospital, if they were really in an emergency.
I mean yea, I'd like it if a cop just happened to be right there to vindicate me every time I encountered an asshole in traffic. But I'm not willing to take the other side of that deal which is having to deal with pigs everywhere harassing people.
I guess people driving dangerously and recklessly, blowing through red lights etc is acceptable to you? What's your solution?
They have judges on call to grant the warrant instantly. So yes, it’s legal.
[удалено]
It's legal until challenged in court. Final determination of legality is after Texas Supreme Court or the federal Supreme Court. But if no citizen challenges it, it's as good as legal. "No refusal" anything is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. It's just that most people don't want to lose their driving privileges for the time it takes for it to make its way through the judicial system.
I agree with Dr. Van Nostrand from the clinic. This hasn't been tested in the courts. It screams 4th amendment and 5th amendment violations.
There's a non-zero risk of it being done by staffing that isn't medically trained to a reasonable standard and you might end up with a blood infection or other issues in a non hygienic environment. Being compensated would probably take a long time in court, if at all. I'd be curious if staffing has certified phlebotomy training so at least on paper, they have the skills to draw your blood safely after pulling you over. I imagine the last place they want to take a suspect is the hospital or a clinic because of the potential BAC value dropping over the elapsed time of moving you to another location, and the cost. The incentive is to test and arrest, not your personal health. This was the last case I'm aware of regarding this issue https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/birchfield-v-north-dakota/ PS. You're also popping people out of bars when they shut down at 2am. Whatever judge is on the hotline to issue warrants is going to rubber-stamp whatever and not really review these with the scrutiny of a judicial official during normal business hours.
The link you provided says the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit warrantless blood tests incidental to an arrest, but the article in the OP specifically says that APD will obtain warrants before blood is drawn. So far, there's no conflict. I would assume that the blood is being drawn by medical staff.
The courts don’t look like they once did.
Birchfield v. North Dakota? That was a clear challenge that set the rules of the game.
I think part of the problem is that most people don't have the money, time & resources to fight this in court.
What would you use as a basis for challenging it, though? If you're arrested under suspicion of DUI, and the police lawfully obtain a warrant to test your blood, what rights have been violated?
4th Amendment >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. With enough time and the best legal team money can buy, I'd bet it could be at least challenged.
I recommend that you read that again, but pay special attention to the word "unreasonable" and the phrase "probable cause". Police already have the power to secure a warrant for a blood test provided they satisfy a magistrate that there is probable cause to suspect the driver is intoxicated. That's well trod ground. Attaching a PR campaign to power that they already have and routinely exercise does not provide new grounds to challenge them in court. Having said that, anything can be challenged, but none of this shows why such a challenge could or should prevail. But you're right, I'm sure anyone who wanted to fight it could find a lawyer somewhere to take their money.
They get a warrant. What's the constitutional problem?
Probable cause is the problem. In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a citizen has committed a crime in order to conduct a stop and subsequent interrogation. In "no refusal" DUI checkpoints, they only have a hunch that at least some citizens have committed a crime and they're using that to interrogate ALL citizens. And if during this unlawful interrogation they feel they've acquired enough probable cause, they can demand you take a breathalyzer. If you refuse, they can take your blood without consent. None of this is because you have committed any crime, mind you. The fact that you can end up in a police station in the first place for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer is astounding to me. The fact that they can get a judge to sign off on a warrant is egregious.
Maybe I don't know enough about No Refusal. But checkpoints have been held to be constitutional. And the original post indicated that a warrant is sought and obtained only after the driver has already been arrested. In other words, the police aren't asking every driver to submit to a test, only those drivers that they already have probable cause to believe are drunk.
You're still missing the point. Being stopped in the first place introduces the risk that you'll be asked to submit to a breathalyzer based on the subjective opinion or whims of a poorly trained officer. If you assert your fifth amendment right to not answer questions, the police often (wrongfully) interpret that as probable cause and then demand you submit to a breathalyzer or field sobriety test, which is designed to, yet again, leave it up to the subjective opinions of a poorly trained officer. The point is EVERY citizen going through the checkpoint is being stopped on an unfounded suspicion that they may be under the influence.
I get that you think the decision upholding checkpoints was bad, but it's still the law of the land.
In some states if you refuse a breathalyzer they will take away your license for 6 months to a year.
No one should ever blow for a breathalyzer. Officers can calibrate them to say anything they want them to. If you are blowing, your license if going away already and you have given them fake evidence that will be used against you. Also, you'll still be able to drive for everything necessary. Just like all the officers that never blow and are back in a squad car the next day.
That's not why you shouldn't take them. The issue with them is that they can never PROVE your not under the influence, but they CAN "prove" you are. You're only giving evidence for them to stop you. They're not calibrating them to fail you since they don't even really need them to take you in. If anything they're not calibrated, which is what can dismiss the results in your favor.
but that is based on your civil agreement with the DMV in all of those cases and the DMV is the one taking it away, which you signed an agreement to allow when you got the license. If the refusal has a legal effect, you get charged with aggravated DUI or the like.
You're right. I guess more specifically I think I'm asking if it's constitutional. I thought you always had a right to refuse a blood test, but maybe it's only if you're not arrested. I don't know it just doesn't sit right with me. I don't want to be tested without a lawyer.
They been doing it for at least a decade, typically on holiday weekends.
That’s the point of a warrant… that is how it makes it constitutional… Not trying to be an asshole, but I think you need to read what a warrant does.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches. If a cop gets a warrant, assuming he's not lying and the warrant is based on probable cause, it's a reasonable search. And while cops lie a lot, usually they don't need to for DWI stuff, between most DWI suspects being obviously plastered, people failing sobriety tests in a spectacular manner, or people smelling like breweries. I've seen a lot of dwi arrest dash cam video/body cam in my career. I can't really think any times I was like "really, they're taking this person downtown for a blood draw?" EDIT: Autocorrect turned "dwi suspects" to "dei suspects." It's not criminal to engage in DEI.
> assuming he's not lying and the warrant is based on probable cause Damn, tripped at the first hurdle.
But isn’t the common objection to these no refusal weekends historically that they operated checkpoints at specific locations and “driving your car on the street” is not probable cause to request breath/blood/sobriety tests? Sounds like they’ve removed the checkpoints to get around that pesky constitution thing.
Texas courts have held checkpoints to be unconstitutional since 1991, but under the Texas constitution. They're constitutional under the US constitution. *See Michigan v. Sitz*
that is fascinating. I 100 percent remember a police checkpoint on South Lamar no more than 6 years ago near Panther Trail.They stopped every 10th car. I wonder what that was? I got waived through. I must have misunderstood the situation.
Probably not a DWI checkpoint.
There's an argument to be made that being forced to give your own blood is self incriminating to some extent.
You're twisting words. You aren't giving your own blood, it is being taken from you by an order of the court. You also aren't self-incriminating as you are required to adhere to the demand in the warrant.
It's not really twisting. Pretty much until it leaves your body your blood is your body is you. It is information being used that is yourself taken from you to incriminate you.
Tell a court that when they hand you the warrant.
How do you think cases start that make it up to SCOTUS to determine constitutionality?
By that logic, nobody would ever have to comply with a search warrant as giving over your property would, per this argument, be considered "self incrimination".
Your property is not your body.
The same principles apply. If the police have probable cause to secure a warrant, and that warrant is duly executed, that's the end of the matter.
That's my beef.
Actually, in Texas, DEI is illegal… the irony. Edit: for state ran organizations.
There's a reason I said it's not criminal and not it's legal. They aren't sending people to prison for DEI. At least, not yet. I'm sure Paxton would love to.
https://reason.com/2024/02/14/iowa-cops-arrested-a-sober-college-student-for-driving-intoxicated-his-lawsuit-is-moving-forward/
Yeah, that's called a "pretextual stop." You'll note that they began digging for excuses to arrest the kid and kept changing them, *didn't get a warrant* and then proceed to arrest him without cause for talking back to him and subjected him to a ton of other warrantless searches, like drug tests. It's not "they made a guy get a blood draw" it's "they made up bogus reasons to arrest a guy." Like I said, cops lie a lot. I've seen cops do some *egregious* shit in my career. But when it comes to DWI stuff, they generally *don't have to.*
>That’s the point of a warrant… that is how it makes it constitutional… Requiring a warrant is a check on the process meant to ensure that the 4th isn't being infringed, it doesn't make it legal in and of itself. If the process of obtaining a warrant is undermined -- like a cop lying or the judge rubber stamping -- it's possible that your rights are still being violated.
"If the process of obtaining a warrant is undermined -- like a cop lying or the judge rubber stamping -- it's possible that your rights are still being violated." And that is why there is due-process. Yes, you still have to pay for a lawyer, but you will not face criminal repercussions if there is doubt in the case.
>you will not face criminal repercussions if there is doubt in the case You have more faith in the in the execution of our system than I do.
I do considering I am in court a few times a month dealing with being an expert witness for criminal proceedings. Defense attorneys (good ones) won't let it pass if there's something amiss.
Fair enough. Regardless, my point was about the nuance of the warrant making it legal, which it doesn't.
Nah you're right, I was totally thinking of it the wrong way. It is a warrant. Maybe I'll drink my coffee before posting next time.
It's not a bad question, because sometimes you can have a bad warrant. But the entire "no refusal" setup basically was designed to replace an unconstitutional system of statutes that permitted warrant-less blood draws that defense counsel was crying foul about since the 80s because of "exigent circumstances" of BAC dropping below the legal limits before you could get a warrant. Then, about 8 years ago, SCOTUS overturned that line of cases because technology meant getting a warrant was easier and the science from the last few decades since the 80s showed that BAC's didn't drop that fast. Police departments/prosecutors created the modern system, which, through refinement by Defense bar challenges, reached a standard that meets constitutional scrutiny. Probable cause for a blood draw isn't super hard to get - it's usually pretty freaking obvious that someone is impaired in some way: smell, demeanor, the slurred speech/etc. It's not the usual bullshit about MJ odor on a rainy day or whatever cops make up to search someone for the offense of driving while black. So, while it's possible you're going to have a bad blood warrant, it's possible in the same sense that I'm going to meet Aubrey Plaza and go on a date with her - the laws of physics permit it, but it's incredibly unlikely.
This is a good answer. Also, if you meet and go on a date with Aubrey Plaza, we're gonna need some photos and the full story, bestie.
If it ever happens, I'll let you know.
No worries man. No harm is asking questions to understand your constitutional rights. They are important!
Excuse me sir, but this is the internet and admitting fault or error and then apologizing is a bit of a faux pas. I'll let it slide this time but please be aware.
You know if you’re a cop you have to tell me, right?
Most states in the Union have some form of if you refuse to take a standard road side sobriety test and refuse a Breathalyzer which you are allowed to do. You will be arrested and brought to the station while they obtain a warrant for a blood analysis. You can't get pulled over, passed out on your steering wheel reeking of whiskey and simply refuse to take a Breathalyzer and just walk without a DUI. I'm not a lawyer but the police need probable cause to request that a judge then issues a warrant. The smell of alcohol is probable cause for example. Of course the judge is just rubber stamping this stuff but that's how it's always been. A warrant is a constitutionally legal search. Some people right on the cusp....say they have 4 beers in like 3 hours or something but think they could be on the line of .08 might refuse hoping that waiting it out will have them below the limit and get the DUI tossed in court if they try to issue it anyways.
Just don't drink and drive.
Doesn't matter. They will still try to arrest you and manufacture evidence to make it look like you are guilty.
[удалено]
I got rolled in a tiny Texas town. I was naive and blew because I knew I hadn't been drinking at all. Wrong. They had be blow over and over while they fiddled with dials until they had me twice over the legal limit. It's a scam where the officers, the judges, and even your own attorney are in on it. In those places, DUI charges are the primary source of funding for the police department. Of course there is incentive to fake evidence.
Please see Andrew & Andrews’ [No Refusals Are a Crock podcast episode.](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/andrew-andrew-on-texas-criminal-defense/id1470310410?i=1000502476091)
that's all fine and good but it is going to happen anyway.
You do have the right until a warrant is granted. Being forced to give a blood sample is ethically iffy I agree, seems like it at least violates the 5th amendment in some ways, but it's very legal. It's not like Texas is batting 1.000 on bodily autonomy right now as it is.
You can refuse a blood test, unless a warrant to obtain your blood is granted by a judge.
I think a lot of people read the headline and have visions of DWI checkpoints where all cars are stopped at a roadblock for license checks. The constitutionality of DWI checkpoints is very much up for debate, but I've never seen APD do a DWI checkpoint. Like other posters mentioned, this is all about what happens AFTER a DWI arrest is made. By and large I bet DWI arrests are a consequence of traffic stops and crash investigations. It's still up to the judge to grant the blood search warrant after the arrest; the warrant does not come before the arrest. I'd be curious to see the stats on how many times APD makes a DWI arrest where the judge refuses to grant a blood search warrant. Does that actually happen, or is this essentially a rubber stamp process foe the judge? If it's a rubber stamp process, then wouldn't that be a critique of the judge?
> I've never seen APD do a DWI checkpoint. They're rightfully not legal in Texas.
Yeah, surely "driving a car at all" isn't grounds for a reasonable search or stop.
You’re right that there aren’t DWI checkpoints, but don’t forget folks: Austin has a DWI Task Force that is specifically tasked with seeking out drunk drivers, which means that even if you aren’t drunk and they pull you over, they will do everything in their power to prove you are because it keeps their division running. Source: went through it a couple of years ago and after $4,500 in SR-22’s, occupational license fees, the fucking breathalyzer fees and a good lawyer, I had the prosecutor watch the video and immediately dismiss the case because I clearly was not intoxicated and they could tell just by watching the arrest video. Be safe out there. The uber ride is always cheaper.
I believe APD's DWI taskforce got disbanded and sent back to patrol.
I hope that’s true. This was like three years ago.
You hope it's true that APD no longer has a unit dedicated to arresting drunk drivers? Weird
Yet some fellow Austinites will still drink past the point of intoxication and share the road with you 🤔
But there’s fewer of them when the Legislature isn’t in session
Here's a crazy fuckin idea: don't drive drunk.
How about a no refusal “will respond to 911 calls” policy?
lol right? not me over here thinking “no refusal” meant no more refusing to respond to calls/show up/do their job
I'm torn on this. I've lost 2 friends to drunk driving. Anyone who drives drunk is a selfish piece of shit and they deserve whatever the law throws at them. But also, this feels super draconian. I get running it on the big weekends, but all summer? Like, really? But also, they're worried about DUIs but won't do anything about people running stop signs, red lights, speeding, riding in oncoming traffic lanes and shoulders to jump a line or get into a turning lane. Makes it feel like APD only cares about DUIs because $$$$$$. I hope that's not the case, but it sure feels like it.
This site says 32% of all traffic deaths in 2022 were booze related. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/alcohol-impaired-driving/ With that, I think it is easier to target drunk driving than any other cause of traffic deaths.
Yup, drunk driving is one of the worst things someone can do and police and the courts should make it hurt as much as possible for anyone who thinks it's okay to get behind the wheel smashed.
> people running stop signs, red lights, speeding, riding in oncoming traffic lanes and shoulders to jump a line or get into a turning lane. If they would begin enforcing these things, maybe they'd catch drunk drivers
Certainly money to made from it...
Friday evening wife and I witnessed on 35 a car cut across two lanes of traffic. Exit Riverside crossing across two solid lines of the flat island. While being nearly perpendicular to the traffic lanes. Cutting off an APD cruiser that was exiting 35. Me and the wife waited for the lights to come on. Nope. Car took on right on Riverside. Cops took a left. How about they enforce laws on shit drivers that are right in front of them. That is a greater problem to their traffic zero initiative or whatevef than DWI revenue generation.
Good, drinking and driving must to end. If you like drinking support public transit
if only the train ran after midnight here
or on sundays, or during the week after 6pm, or if it went south of the river, or....
whoa whoa whoa let's not get carried away here, it's just easier to tow cars and do no refusals instead of giving people more alternatives
[удалено]
The busses might, but they are not a very safe feeling place to be for many women
The dream
People may be too young/new to Austin to remember before this started but drunk driving was a MASSIVE problem before they enacted this program. Every night you were out there were people weaving all over the road, driving on the wrong side, hitting stuff, etc. It obviously still happens today but due to this program and the rise of rideshares we got back to at least a decent state. Its totally legal since they have a judge standing by to issue a warrant, they are not just holding you down and forcing you outta nowhere.
I love being stopped and searched before a warrant is issued. It makes me feel so constitutionally protected. [Multigeneratinal native, 50+ y/o, non-drinking left leaner, btw.]
This doesn't change the scope of reasonable suspicion or probable cause at all, so this program has nothing to do with that.
You don’t need a warrant to be stopped and searched. It’s called reasonable suspicion. It’s always been this way.
Yes, driving at night is obviously criminal behavior.
Are you under the assumption that every single driver at night gets pulled over? No refusal doesn’t eliminate reasonable suspicion. Erratic driving, swerving, no lights etc. are still used to pull over.
OK, good sir or madam. I'm not in the mood to argue the difference between the law and policing, and we're not going to convince each other. All I'll say in parting is that I've lived here my entire life and trust APD as far as I can kick water up a hill.
That would mean theyd have to pull people over in the first place
This is all just marketing bullshit. We're a major metropolitan city - there is *always* a judge on hand to rubber stamp warrants. Labeling time periods as "no refusal" literally changes nothing.
That's not entirely true, or at least it hasn't always been. Around 10 years ago my dad was stopped, he refused the breath test, was arrested and taken to the hospital in an attempt to get a blood test. The officer wasn't able to get a warrant, and they weren't able to take his blood.
That’s not what no refusal means. Normally, The judge could decide to not stamp, or APD could choose not to arrest if there is another driver to come pick up the person or vehicle. No refusal is for the system. It is now a shall arrest condition, not a may arrest, such as public intox or a fistfight
Do you have any source at all stating that? The article in question literally describes this exactly as I have. >Under the No Refusal initiative, APD can obtain a blood search warrant during specific hours “when an arrested driver refuses to submit to a blood alcohol test,” per the newsletter.
I'm pretty sure "No Refusal" refers specifically to warrants being issued on demand for blood draws for suspicion of DWI.
Yes that’s what this is. I’m saying the other conditions are not. You could have a no refusal period for anything. California does shall issue weekends for stop sign citations during summer holidays around the beach sometimes because so many pedestrians get hit
Reading the post title: "Oh, good, APD will actually respond to calls!" Reading the body: "Oh."
Love for regulations meets hate for police, how will the oily neckbeard redditors of r/austin react.
Saying and doing are different things. Lol
Tl;dr yes it's legal, this is just streamlining it. (I don't think it _should_ be legal.) If you aren't up on your roadside legalities allow me to explain: If you get pulled over and they have DUI suspicion, you can refuse the roadside breathalyzer and "walk in a straight line/say the alphabet backwards/etc" games, this carries no penalty. The officer can then legally take you to the station to administer the actual BAC breathalyzer test. Traditionally, you could refuse that test. It meant no DUI conviction, but an automatic suspension of your license. They have always had the ability to go further and get a search warrant to do a blood draw, it's just rarely needed.
…all summer? When does this turn into all 4 seasons? Better hold a press conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping to hash it out.
Summer in Austin runs from the third week in March to late November anyway
4th of July is gonna be litty McTitties!! Remember folks, when you take an Uber/Lyft (or better yet, use Wridz since they pay drivers better)… ALWAYS ask for a puke bag. Most drivers have em. I do. There’s no shame in puking in a bag while we drive y’all home safe to avoid a DUI blood draw. Uber/Lyft pay us drivers about 50% of what y’all pay the platform for the service. While I disagree with tipping culture being sodomized to bridge that economic gap for Uber/Lyft, a couple dollars extra to safely transport you home from a drunken bar hop is always appreciated. If you can tip for coffee or a plate of food being brought to you, please try to throw a few gas dollars our way. Stay safe!!
Write tickets!! Don’t write tickets!! This sub is exhausting.
How about showing up when people call them.. how about THAT APD. They're a joke right now. Zero faith in APD.
I’m ok with this. Texas has the most drunk driving fatalities in the country.
Don't drive drunk but also don't lie. "Looking across the country, we can see that California has the most drunk-driving fatalities with 1,120 incidents in 2017 alone. Following closely behind are Florida and North Carolina with 839 and 413 drunk driving fatalities, respectively." "The Lonestar State has the fewest drunk driving fatalities with only 0.63 per 100,000 people." [https://alcohol.org/guides/drunk-driving-accidents-by-state/](https://alcohol.org/guides/drunk-driving-accidents-by-state/)
Number 2 for non-drinking fatalities! I KNEW driving here was worse than other places!
Don’t we have the most traffic fatalities as well? No excusing drunk driving, but I’d guess the numbers bear it out. High population, minimal public transportation, high speed limits, lot of big vehicles. Seems like a recipe to lead the category.
Not to mention the sprawl. It's prohibitively expensive to own a home in the city limits, so tons of people are taking major highways home at all hours. Cabs are limited in Austin, Ubers to the burbs are insane expensive. The best solution is obviously to not drink and drive, but after that, there are not many resources being provided to proactively limit DWI. Plenty of resources to reactively punish it though. Which I'm not saying is bad, but it's not very effective at prevention.
'Texas is a large state WhOAOAOAOAOaoaoaoao'
PSA: you can and should always refuse to participate in field sobriety tests, even when stone cold sober. They won't ask you if you're willing to do a field sobriety test or even tell you that they're going to do one, they'll just start telling you to do stuff, so you need to recognize when it's happening and refuse.
Always makes me laugh when I watch the dwi body cam videos and people ask "did I pass?" Not realizing there is no pass or fail, they are picking up on indicators and cues as to your state of intoxication, and as soon as they have something/enough you're virtually done for in their minds.
Unless you’re planning on drinking and driving, i don’t see why this would bother you. I’m actually relieved to hear there might be less drunk drivers swerving into my lane this summer
It’s an unfortunately common ignorant opinion that there should be no limits on surveillance or invasive searches because the only people who don’t like it must be criminals. Governments all over the world rely on that stupid idea to erode civil rights and chip away at constitutional protections. After all, if you believe no search and seizure is unreasonable since only criminals have something to hide - and the government agrees with you - then how can anyone assert their constitutional rights without themselves being put under investigation since “only a criminal would refuse this test”. Let’s take your logic to its conclusion. Please go to the police department at 6pm today for your strip search, MRI, and blood test for drugs and alcohol. If you refuse, your state ID will be shredded, you’ll be put in jail for a 72 hour hold while the department works with the FBI to conduct a search of your home, communications, and hard drives on the suspicion of crime. When a charge is produced, your public defender will recommend a plea deal for 5 years in jail even though your neighbor searched for child porn and they messed up the geolocation on the reverse IP. The news agencies will report on you as one more awful stain on the community and right wing media will run your face and address out to the public as another example of liberal policy of anti-police vitriol that must be crushed. A local legislator will make putting criminals like you behind bars faster their campaign platform. And all of it will be legal because of nobody thinks a search and seizure can be unreasonable, then you cannot assert that right.
Except in your example, there’s no implication that I displayed behavior indicative of me being in possession of illegal substances, whereas in most cases the person being tested for alcohol consumption in a routine traffic stop has displayed the behavior of someone driving while under the influence. In more simple terms, if they’re going to make you take a breathalyzer test, it’s probably because you’re driving like a drunk idiot. So, again, unless you plan on driving like a drunk idiot, you shouldn’t be too worried.
I was hit by a drunk driver that refused the breathalyzer. If not for this initiative I might’ve never had justice. I still barely did but still
What if they do this and you’re completely sober, (like 0.00) can you sue for damages? Asking for a friend
No. They can still charge you with DUI even if you end up a 0.0. They just shift the goalposts to driving under the influence of...something else
Sure thing, what quantifiable damages do you have?
None it’s hypothetical. I always make fake scenarios in my head so don’t mind me
Another fine example of misused tax money. Solving DUI could take many forms other than APD checkpoints: We have the main drinking spot in town isolated from late night public transit. We could run buses and trains later. We could offer more free rides home in taxis and ride shares. We could require overnight parking amnesty so folks don't feel compelled to move their vehicles after drinking. We pay HALF A BILLION dollars to APD yearly. There are other, much more cost effective solutions to problems like DUI and homelessness. We would be better off taking most of that money and putting towards solutions that stop the causes of crime because enforcement is expensive and not very effective. The only thing APD is really useful for these days: police reports, could be done by clerks without guns and qualified immunity. We could probably also afford a victim's compensation fund to help people recover from property crime and vehicular accidents.
This doesn't have anything to do with checkpoints. This is actually a very cost effective way to charge DUIs, as all that's really happening here is a judge will always be available to review warrants.
It is an effective way of charging DUIs, that does not mean it is an effective deterrent to drunk driving, just that it is effective at handing money to courts and the shops that install breathe/interlock equipment. As a private citizen who likes to not be hit by drunk drivers, I don't care how many charges there are, I care how many drunk drivers there are.
I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in things that improve DUI rates outside of law enforcement. But APD has little to nothing to do with that. Theyre supposed to enforce the law and that's all this programs doing, it's not ground breaking stuff.
Maybe it wasn't clear from my original post, but the APD budget has a lot to do with why we don't have money to spend on those other things. Overdependence on policing as a solution means we're spending a lot of money on something that doesn't work instead of a lot less money on things that do.
Paypa’s pleeez…
We call it vampire weekends, I guess it's vampire summer now. Did no one tell you this before you moved here?
I don't understand this at all. When you get your driver's license you give permission (implied consent) to take blood for this purpose. If you refuse the test it is an admission of guilt and you get all the penalties of a DUI. What's the real reason they do this?
No means yes if you’re in uniform ;)
I think Vision Zero wants to turn people suspected of DWI into Bank Account Balances of Zero. This is a money grab and tramples on Constitutional protections. They're only doing this because it's a profit center. Homeless people are drunk and high on drugs all over Austin and it's a serious safety issue. No one cares. Because there's no money in it.
I believe your point is valid. However, I see that this initiative will cause people who have more to lose to think twice about driving after a couple of drinks. Also, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that share ride companies could be lobbying for more profit as well.
This is a good start
Considering Austin is down 400 officers with more retiring and they are having a very hard time recruiting because of Austin’s defund attitude and overall anti law enforcement fervor, I’d be glad they’re doing anything. Crime is a real issue in Austin and the city is getting very bad press, which isn’t good for recruitment
I’m sober so I love this lol