Do drunken-driving checkpoints violate drivers' constitutional rights? Well that's what Warren Redlich, a South Florida attorney, thinks. And it turns out that many people agree with him. According to Warren, drivers don't have to speak to police or even roll down their windows. They just have to place their license and registration on the glass, along with a note saying they have no comment, won't permit a search and want a lawyer. Warren and an associate have even made a website dedicated to this idea and made several viral videos that show them refusing to interact with authorities.
Warren states that he is not doing this to protect drunk drivers, but rather to protect the innocent. He claims that he has many clients who passed their breath-alcohol tests but are still facing DUI charges because an officer "smells an odor" coming from the vehicle. Not very surprisingly, law enforcement officers do not approve of this tactic. Speaking and the use of words is necessary for the checkpoints to work properly. Law enforcement officials point out that in 1990 the US Supreme Court upheld the use of random DUI checkpoints, concluding they don't violate constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Legal professionals are uncertain whether or not Warren's tactic will hold up in court. This seems to be a topic that has public opinion split into two separate directions. What do you think? Do you have the right to refuse interaction with the police? I'm sure this topic will be intensely debated for a while; you have not heard the last of it.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/florida-lawyer-sparks-debate-rights-dui-checkpoints-172407203.html
No comments:
Post a Comment