Bean Counters v Constitution

First and foremost, I’m dead set against drunk driving. I don’t do it. I know from personal experience how devastating traffic accidents (of all types) can be. So right up front this BLOG does not advocate easing or relaxing the DWI laws.

That being said, I do have a problem with having some administrative rule overriding a constitutionally guaranteed right. Here the scenario. I’m driving my car and I get stopped by an officer that believes I am driving impaired (drunk). He asks me to perform a field sobriety check. I decline. My refusal is protected under the Constitution and has been so ruled by the courts.

Then he asks me to provide a breath sample. I again decline and again my refusal is protected under the Constitution and has been so ruled by the courts. To make this scenario even more ridiculous, let’s further assume that I agree to provide either a blood or urine sample. I just don’t have a lot of faith in the Breathalyzer.

Here’s where I part company with our government. The officer sends a notice to the driver’s license folks that I have refused (aka exercised my constitutional rights) to provide a breath sample and they in turn suspend my license administratively for a year or so. Huh? Yep, apparently driving is a privilege that state gives me and can be taken away because they want too. Also apparently the state gets to pick and choose how I have to incriminate myself.

The state says that, by having a driver’s license, I automatically consent (implied consent) to submitting to a breathalyzer. Phrased differently…I can only have the privilege of driving if I agree to give up some of my constitutional rights.

Most people react to my rant above by saying, “Don’t drink and drive then there won’t be a problem.” This brings me to Reverend Niemöller who said in a famous poem:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Wonder if I could paraphrase this one.

First they declared driving a privilege and administratively removed it, and I did not speak out—because I did not drink and drive.

Then they declared gun ownership a privilege and administratively removed it, and I did not speak out—because I did not own a gun.

. . . . . .

Well you see where this is going. Our legal system is similar to a person in that, if you torture it long enough, it will say anything you want it to.