7 ms·

Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to ruin your lif

by smokeyj 12y ago

Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to ruin your life.

krallja 12y ago
A drivers license has always been a privilege, not a right.
- tedks 12y ago
  Likewise, having a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, but it's nearly impossible to survive in modernity without one, so restricting access to one becomes a form of coercion. No matter how you spin it, this is an attempt to coerce people into incriminating themselves. There's nothing stopping these states from going further and saying that driving a car implies consent to have that car searched at any time, or impounded to be emissions-checked at the state's leisure.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      > Having a cell phone is a privilege? The ownership of a physical phone is not; having service for that phone involves a voluntary transaction that may be denied, and is therefore a privilege.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        It is a voluntary transaction between 2 private parties. Either party can deny that transaction, but the government stepping in and preventing the transaction seems like a very different thing. I suppose some would say it's part of thew government's right to regulate interstate commerce.
        tedks 12y ago
        Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        "owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.
        tedks 12y ago
        "The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.
        vertex-four 12y ago
        What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins. 2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. 3) Even given those narrow definitions, the radio spectrum is much more nuanced than physical property. Radio waves literally travel around the world. I as a property owner can enact physical boundaries that have a fair chance of preventing trespass and providing an uninformed arbitrator to make a decent decision. When it comes to radio frequency, even the act of trespass is a highly technical and subjective topic.
    - rabid_fish 12y ago
      I have family that have been restricted from internet use. This includes the use of most cellphones. Makes it hard to get or maintain a job.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        Restricted why? They are allowed to take away rights as punishment for a crime.
    - tedks 12y ago
      It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc.. This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems possible, and there certainly isn't a reason why it couldn't happen. If felons can be denied the right to vote, I think it'd be an easy sell to deny them the right to cell phones. Any state could pass it as a "tough on crime" measure.
      - ganeumann 12y ago
        NY's Senator Schumer tried to pass a law that made anonymous prepaid cellphones illegal in 2010 (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=325263 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=3252...). While this bill seems to have quietly died, it shows that it is certainly possible.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.
        tedks 12y ago
        There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access government-controlled radio spectrum. This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in the same way they lose the right to vote in many states. To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic system: voting, or controlled frequency access? It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  The distinction between privileges and rights, while interesting from a moral perspective, isn't of much use in the real world. The vast majority of us would not be able to survive without the use of numerous privileges and "voluntary" transactions, and we require more and more every day. What's more, if you manage to live completely off the grid on your own land, the result is that you have fewer resources to protect you in the case that someone who does make use of those privileges decides that they want to violate your rights. Privileges and voluntary transactions are a myth - anyone who is restricted from them is at a significant disadvantage, and at significantly higher risk of loss of rights to property or to life.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  During the original debate over the Bill Of Rights, a primary concern was that the failure to enumerate a right would be construed as non-existence thereof - exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended. Methinks if the Founding Fathers had conceived of the notion of vehicular transportation being prohibited without governmental consent & licensing, they wouldn't have hesitated to include that as a fundamental right (just as security requires armaments, and speech requires presses - ownership & use of equipment facilitating both explicitly may not be infringed/abridged). As the notion of vehicle licensing (both horse and horseless) was never considered, unto inconceivable, they didn't enumerate it as a natural right. Require a driver's test and license a horse & carriage? absurd! ...well, now the technological improvement plus lack of enumerated right means 'tis common to construe vehicular travel as a "privilege" in a society where one is darned near dysfunctional without.
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  This use of the word "privilege" has always irked me - maybe I'm just not reading it in the correct sense. It sounds very paternalistic. Driving is a regulated activity, but you do have a right to a drivers license if you are able to comply with the regulations. "Privilege" sounds so arbitrary, as if someone could say "I don't like your face, no license for you".
- anonbanker 12y ago
  from Thefreedictionary.com's legal dictionary [1]: License: The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct. let's think about that: Driving is illegal. Marriage is illegal. Fishing is illegal. 1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license
tedks 12y ago
I'm from a state that does this and I have to confess, I'd never really thought about it this way before. There are so many other ways this sort of principle can be exploited: your ability to have a cell phone contract could be contingent on allowing the police to search your cell phone at any time, remotely; your ability to have a computer could be contingent upon the same; your ability to have an ID card could be continent upon consenting to constant facial recognition tracking. It's pretty insidious. Obviously nothing is going to be done about it.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
Let's be clear here - what you're referring to is some states will suspend your DL for a year if you refuse all types testing. This includes the array of FST's (field sobriety tests), blood, urine, chemical or breathe. This is not an admission of guilt, but in most states, a violation of your driving contract you signed when you were given your license. Also, you can refuse an FST, then tell the police you refuse the rest of the tests until your lawyer is present. At that time, they arrest and book you and you can call an attorney to come and bail you out. By that time, your attorney will likely advise you to take one of the three tests since its been long enough and you're probably back under the legal limit. It's a good strategy to delay taking of the tests. This way, in court, your attorney can argue you didn't refuse to take the test, and simply invoked your constitutional right until your lawyer was present to make sure everything was legal.
- hallman76 12y ago
  Another good strategy is DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    That doesn't help the main point here, which is police imposition on people that have done nothing wrong. You don't need to yell at the side point without actually contributing to the conversation.
  - mahyarm 12y ago
    You assuming people are guilty with your statement.
wffurr 12y ago
What's upsetting here is not that the state can revoke your driver's license. Operating a 2-ton 100+ HP motor vehicle requires due care and observance of traffic law. It's super dangerous to everyone around the vehicle. What's upsetting is that losing your right to operate heavy machinery is seen as "ruining your life", and often is in many places due to the built infrastructure requiring driving a car to go to work and buy food.
rosser 12y ago
If you get drunk and get behind the wheel, any ruin that ensues is entirely on you.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jlgaddis 12y ago
IIRC, all 50 states have implied consent laws.

by smokeyj 12y ago

Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to ruin your life.

krallja 12y ago

A drivers license has always been a privilege, not a right.

tedks 12y ago
Likewise, having a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, but it's nearly impossible to survive in modernity without one, so restricting access to one becomes a form of coercion. No matter how you spin it, this is an attempt to coerce people into incriminating themselves. There's nothing stopping these states from going further and saying that driving a car implies consent to have that car searched at any time, or impounded to be emissions-checked at the state's leisure.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    > Having a cell phone is a privilege? The ownership of a physical phone is not; having service for that phone involves a voluntary transaction that may be denied, and is therefore a privilege.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      It is a voluntary transaction between 2 private parties. Either party can deny that transaction, but the government stepping in and preventing the transaction seems like a very different thing. I suppose some would say it's part of thew government's right to regulate interstate commerce.
      - tedks 12y ago
        Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        "owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.
        tedks 12y ago
        "The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.
        vertex-four 12y ago
        What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins. 2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. 3) Even given those narrow definitions, the radio spectrum is much more nuanced than physical property. Radio waves literally travel around the world. I as a property owner can enact physical boundaries that have a fair chance of preventing trespass and providing an uninformed arbitrator to make a decent decision. When it comes to radio frequency, even the act of trespass is a highly technical and subjective topic.
  - rabid_fish 12y ago
    I have family that have been restricted from internet use. This includes the use of most cellphones. Makes it hard to get or maintain a job.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Restricted why? They are allowed to take away rights as punishment for a crime.
  - tedks 12y ago
    It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc.. This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems possible, and there certainly isn't a reason why it couldn't happen. If felons can be denied the right to vote, I think it'd be an easy sell to deny them the right to cell phones. Any state could pass it as a "tough on crime" measure.
    - ganeumann 12y ago
      NY's Senator Schumer tried to pass a law that made anonymous prepaid cellphones illegal in 2010 (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=325263 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=3252...). While this bill seems to have quietly died, it shows that it is certainly possible.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.
      - tedks 12y ago
        There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access government-controlled radio spectrum. This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in the same way they lose the right to vote in many states. To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic system: voting, or controlled frequency access? It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.
vertex-four 12y ago
The distinction between privileges and rights, while interesting from a moral perspective, isn't of much use in the real world. The vast majority of us would not be able to survive without the use of numerous privileges and "voluntary" transactions, and we require more and more every day. What's more, if you manage to live completely off the grid on your own land, the result is that you have fewer resources to protect you in the case that someone who does make use of those privileges decides that they want to violate your rights. Privileges and voluntary transactions are a myth - anyone who is restricted from them is at a significant disadvantage, and at significantly higher risk of loss of rights to property or to life.
ctdonath 12y ago
During the original debate over the Bill Of Rights, a primary concern was that the failure to enumerate a right would be construed as non-existence thereof - exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended. Methinks if the Founding Fathers had conceived of the notion of vehicular transportation being prohibited without governmental consent & licensing, they wouldn't have hesitated to include that as a fundamental right (just as security requires armaments, and speech requires presses - ownership & use of equipment facilitating both explicitly may not be infringed/abridged). As the notion of vehicle licensing (both horse and horseless) was never considered, unto inconceivable, they didn't enumerate it as a natural right. Require a driver's test and license a horse & carriage? absurd! ...well, now the technological improvement plus lack of enumerated right means 'tis common to construe vehicular travel as a "privilege" in a society where one is darned near dysfunctional without.
nsxwolf 12y ago
This use of the word "privilege" has always irked me - maybe I'm just not reading it in the correct sense. It sounds very paternalistic. Driving is a regulated activity, but you do have a right to a drivers license if you are able to comply with the regulations. "Privilege" sounds so arbitrary, as if someone could say "I don't like your face, no license for you".
anonbanker 12y ago
from Thefreedictionary.com's legal dictionary [1]: License: The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct. let's think about that: Driving is illegal. Marriage is illegal. Fishing is illegal. 1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license

tedks 12y ago

I'm from a state that does this and I have to confess, I'd never really thought about it this way before. There are so many other ways this sort of principle can be exploited: your ability to have a cell phone contract could be contingent on allowing the police to search your cell phone at any time, remotely; your ability to have a computer could be contingent upon the same; your ability to have an ID card could be continent upon consenting to constant facial recognition tracking. It's pretty insidious. Obviously nothing is going to be done about it.

at-fates-hands 12y ago

Let's be clear here - what you're referring to is some states will suspend your DL for a year if you refuse all types testing. This includes the array of FST's (field sobriety tests), blood, urine, chemical or breathe. This is not an admission of guilt, but in most states, a violation of your driving contract you signed when you were given your license. Also, you can refuse an FST, then tell the police you refuse the rest of the tests until your lawyer is present. At that time, they arrest and book you and you can call an attorney to come and bail you out. By that time, your attorney will likely advise you to take one of the three tests since its been long enough and you're probably back under the legal limit. It's a good strategy to delay taking of the tests. This way, in court, your attorney can argue you didn't refuse to take the test, and simply invoked your constitutional right until your lawyer was present to make sure everything was legal.

hallman76 12y ago
Another good strategy is DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  That doesn't help the main point here, which is police imposition on people that have done nothing wrong. You don't need to yell at the side point without actually contributing to the conversation.
- mahyarm 12y ago
  You assuming people are guilty with your statement.

wffurr 12y ago

What's upsetting here is not that the state can revoke your driver's license. Operating a 2-ton 100+ HP motor vehicle requires due care and observance of traffic law. It's super dangerous to everyone around the vehicle. What's upsetting is that losing your right to operate heavy machinery is seen as "ruining your life", and often is in many places due to the built infrastructure requiring driving a car to go to work and buy food.

rosser 12y ago

If you get drunk and get behind the wheel, any ruin that ensues is entirely on you.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jlgaddis 12y ago

IIRC, all 50 states have implied consent laws.