AUSTIN, Texas — Texas, which has more alcohol-related traffic deaths than any other state, would allow police to set up sobriety roadblocks and force more drunk-driving suspects to give blood or breath samples under legislation approved in the state Senate Monday.
The bill allowing police checkpoints in large counties and cities passed the Senate 20-11 Monday. The chamber unanimously passed separate legislation aimed at forcing compliance from motorists who initially refuse to give breath samples when police suspect they're intoxicated.
Both bills still have hurdles to overcome, including passage in the House, before becoming law.
Texas is one of only 11 states that does not allow sobriety checkpoints, according to a Senate analysis. The U.S. Supreme has ruled that checkpoints are constitutional but haven't been allowed in Texas since 1994. That's when a state court ruled they violated the Texas Constitution because there were no statewide guidelines.
The author of the sobriety checkpoints legislation, Republican Sen. John Carona of Dallas, said the bill would make the roads safer while protecting civil liberties.
"We're not taking anyone's rights away," Carona said. "We're trying to ensure that my right and your right to drive safely on the roadway and be protected from drunk drivers is preserved."
Under his bill, SB 261, only the police in counties with a population of 250,000 or more, and cities with a population of 500,000 or more, would be allowed to set up roadblocks to check for drunk drivers.
The bill would also exempt federal highways and interstates, bridges, causeways and roads that serve as a single route into and out of a designated area, such as the one used to access South Padre Island, officials said.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Texas' 1,292 deaths in alcohol-related crashes in 2007 were the most in the nation. Another 30,000 were injured.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, police agencies and many local government associations support creating sobriety checkpoints. But civil libertarians and criminal defense attorneys say sobriety checkpoints are ineffective, promote racial profiling and treat innocent people like criminals.
Under the legislation, police would be required to consider the number of drunken driving arrests and accidents in an area the previous year. And checkpoints would have to be chosen without regard to the ethnic or economic makeup of an area. Police would also be required to announce the checkpoints in advance.
Still, Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said the legislation would give too much power to law enforcement by removing the requirement that there be "probable cause" before motorists are stopped.
"Every law-abiding Texan could now be forced to stop and have contact with a police agency," Whitmire said. "If you're minding your own business you ought not be bothered."
Earlier Monday, the Senate passed a bill giving law enforcement more latitude in forcing motorists to submit to breath or blood tests. Currently, half of all Texans arrested for Driving While Intoxicated refuse a breathalyzer test, according to a Senate analysis.
Under a bill by Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, police could take a breath or blood sample if the officer believes that the person caused a serious accident, was driving drunk while transporting a child or has evidence that the person had two prior DWI convictions.
23 comments:
I think that drunk driving is indeed a problem that needs solving but there are better ways to solve the problem rather than stopping every car on the road.
I think this is a very good move. The deaths resulting from drunk drivers are totally preventable in my opinion and everything possible should be done to prevent them.
I totally just saw this on the news! And I think it's a very good thing that we're getting sobriety checkpoints here in Texas.
They say our civil liberties won't be affected, but this still reeks of government interference on my life, and other citizens who have no reason to take a manditory breathalyzer. Maybe it's just me. I'm a little paranoid about these sorts of things. I think the probable cause argument will hold strong.
I think the checkpoints are a good idea. I realise that there is going to be some profiling of sorts, but overall it's for a good cause and will help alot of people. While the chekpoints obvoiusly won't stop all drunk driving in the selected counties and cities, they will deter the thought of driving after drinking and will catch some people who drive anyways. I personally am willing to occasionally get stopped at a checkpoint if it means they will catch the person driving drunk behind me and may have killed me a few miles down the road.
I believe that this is a great bill and i hope it passes through the house to become law.
John Carona could not have said it better. "We're not taking anyone's rights away. We're trying to ensure that my right and your right to drive safely on the roadway and be protected from drunk drivers is preserved."
Although many complain that if they are abiding the law and going about their own business, they shouldn't have to be a part of the DWI checkpoints. However, it is merely a safety precaution that benefits all.
Just because a person is not drinking doesn't necessarily mean they are safe. People never suspect the person driving beside them to be drunk until there is an accident.
There has to be something done about the number of deaths caused by drunk driving and I believe this is an excellent solution. This bill keeps drunk drivers off the road and helps maintain safety on the road for those who don't drink and drive.
I think Texas needs to be one of the states to be proactive against drunk driving, and if that takes setting up checkpoints then so be it. Police should be able to require a breathalyzer test, no one is willingly going to submit to one and I think if there is just cause to be pulled over in the first place for perhaps intoxication while driving, being not only is it risking that persons life but many others as well, it should be required for the safety of society.
It's about time Texas legislation stepped up and faced the challenges. Drunk drivers are a serious problem in this state and in this city. Any legislation that prevents more deaths due to drunk driving is OK with me. Although.....it would kind of suck if you had to go through one of those checkpoints to go to work/school every day. And would they be set up all day in case of 11AM drunks? Haha in any case, I believe that legislation that hinders durnk driving will be beneficial to our state.
I believe that drunk driving is indeed a major problem in our world today, but there are better ways to go about stopping it than stopping everyone on the road. and by the way Mr Perry i swear i blogged last week. you crazy foo!
I think this a good idea. There have been too many deaths resulting from alcohol related accidents. If this gets drunk drivers off the roads and saves lives then I'm all for checkpoints. I don't think it is violating anyone's civil liberties. If you're innocent then you can go about your business if not well too bad because it's not fair to take a persons life due to the fact that you can't handle your drink.
In the long run this will help Texas, and keep people safe. My dad always tells me stories about drunks and what can happen in an instant. He was hit by a drunk christmas eve while on duty several years back. I think it will help keep people safe even though some people will protest.
I also think that its good but bad at the same time. you cant just get any drivers and see if they have been drikning.
I have no problem with this act. I think it is a fair compromise between the citizens of this country and our government. Compared with accusations about abridgment of privacy the hundreds of lives that could be saved outweigh them many times over.
I think that police setting up sobriety roadblocks and forcing more drunk-driving suspects to give blood or breath samples is a great idea. The only problem is if people are impatient they don't want to stop at roadblocks and be checked to see if their intoxicated. This bill will indeed catch a lot more drunk drivers(if they actually know to stop!). Government is interfering a lot more but this is something that will have success. Everyone should be fine with this bill because stopping to provide police with the samples they need won't kill you but not catching drunk drivers will.
i think that this is a very good idea because drunk driving takes more teenagers lives than anythinnig else, this will also make the roads safer. of corse, this won't stop all drnk drving, but it will stop a good amount of it.
My opinion is that if your not driving while intoxicated why worry about it and it will deter those in the habit of it, or just take a different way home, in other words, so be it. Because no matter how much we fuss about it makes no difference, they've already declared it constitutional.
I think its a great thing that we're preventing everything possible to keep people from driving drunk. hopefully it will save even more lives.
I think this is a great idea. Texas having the highest death rate due to drunk driving should is a sign something needs to be done. Anything that can prevent a death in my opinion is worth giving a try.
I think that this is good to try to control the drunk driving situation.
Hmmm...i can see where this law would be aimed at but surely people would know better than to choose the route with the checkpoint. I'm really not sure how effective this really is but I'm thinking there are many drawbacks. I'm willing to bet this will become a very sticky area in which many people feel they were unfairly stopped without any probable cause.
I am torn between this issue of creating checkpoints to check if people are driving while intoxicated. I understand that drunk driving has caused many deaths to innocent people and to those who are the ones that drive while intoxicated. On the other hand I can see the trouble of discrimination that would come into play. We live in a country where this seems to no longer be a problem, but in Texas there is discrimination even when we don’t see it. I believe that this could cause a major issue and lead to lawsuits of unfair justice that people would have to go through if they are thought to be drinking. I think we should just step up law enforcement and leave the checkpoints out of this I don’t see any good coming out of this new law.
okay not everyone drinks
so there isn't a need to stop
every single person on the road.
yes alot of people die from drunk
driving a year, but it was there
choice to drink and it was there choice to drive home. they aren't solving anything by giving someone a ticket. all there going to do it pay the ticket and hope they don't get caught again. checkpoints are i guess a good idea, but people will find a way around it.
I feel that drinking and driving is a problem but this idea is a bit ridiculous. This is just another why for the government to come into our everyday lives. I am all for cutting back on drunk driving but i don't believe this is the way at all.
Post a Comment