Michael Mitchell: Archive

Can states make it a crime for "drunk" driving suspects to refuse to take chemical tests that detect the presence of alcohol in their blood? That's the question the U.S. Supreme Court chose to consider recently when they agreed to hear three cases of states possibly violating Fourth Amendment rights.

Without need for any further deliberation, I'll happily consider the question, but first I should remind you I'm not bound by the Constitution, only my own moral code, when I answer: Of course, not. There's no crime in refusing to take a chemical test because no one's rights are violated. But I'll also go even further and say -- never mind the destruction of individual rights -- such a law would set a precedent that leads to the destruction of the legal system itself.

Making it a crime to avoid self-incrimination is the same as forcing self-incrimination, which is the same as conviction without self-defense. If states were permitted to force suspects to convict themselves, then why would they even need chemical tests? Why can't they just make it a crime to refuse to confess? Why can't they just convict anyone they suspect committed a crime? No need for evidence, trials, juries nor any of those pesky, annoying mechanisms preventing the state from doing its job. Sure, innocent people will be unfairly punished, but no more "bad guys" will escape justice. Problem solved...

Obviously, states shouldn't be allowed to do this. The fact that it is even an issue, one that has earned the interest of the highest court in the land, proves that something bigger is wrong. These states only made these laws because they believe "drunk" drivers, even those caught by the police, are escaping punishment. Essentially, they're failing to prosecute "drunk" drivers and using the law to make it easier. What could lead them to believe they could get away with such a blatant violation of individual rights? Well, the fact that they already are, of course. "Drunk" driving laws are violations of individual rights, too.

I want to be clear that I'm not defending actual drunk drivers here. They're all scum as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't lose any sleep at night if they all drove off a cliff. With that said, however, it should not be a crime to drive drunk, regardless of intoxication levels. Sure, drunk driving is immoral, but so are "drunk" driving laws.

If I drink until I'm drunker than the legal drunkenness limit (which is arbitrary by nature) and then drive home without causing an accident or harming anyone, then what crime have I committed? The answer should be none. But, since there is a law that says I'm not permitted to drive while intoxicated beyond a certain limit, if I get pulled over by a cop and he or she suspects I'm "drunk," I can be forced to take a sobriety test. I can be arrested, i.e., forced into the back of a police car and then transferred to a holding cell. My vehicle can be impounded, i.e., forcibly taken from me and transferred to a lot somewhere that forces me to pay a ransom to get it back. I can be charged with a crime, the penalties of which can be fines, loss of driving rights, and imprisonment. Though I have not used force against anyone else, "drunk" driving laws give the government the right to use force against me, even before I've been convicted of breaking said laws. If I'm convicted later, the punishment continues.

This is wrong and no government devoted to securing freedom for everyone should be allowed to function in this manner. "Drunk" driving laws do not protect our rights, they make it legal to violate them.

There's no argument for reckless endangerment or criminal intent here, either. I'd have to be so drunk I can't see straight to prove recklessness and I'd have to plan to cause an accident and at least attempt to execute that plan to prove intent. If I only had three beers instead of two at the bar last night before driving home -- something thousands, maybe millions of people do all the time -- then the only law I broke was due to my level of intoxication.

"Drunk" driving laws do not exist to punish criminals for violating the rights of others, which is the only justification for the use of force by the government against its own citizens. No, they exist to prevent crimes from ever happening in the first place -- and that's why they're immoral.

"Drunk" driving laws are examples of preventive laws. Other examples include traffic laws, labor laws, drug laws, gun laws and all business regulations. The alleged intent of preventive law is to prevent crime, but it only succeeds at inventing crime. Allegedly, in order to stop people from committing actual crimes, such as theft, fraud, assault and murder, the government forbids or mandates certain actions, such as selling drugs or owning guns or obtaining licenses, that might otherwise lead to actual crimes if the targeted actions were permitted or not required by law.

The main problem with such laws, of course, is that no one who breaks them has actually violated anyone's rights, placing government in the role of criminal every time it enforces them. With regards to this article, however, it is the legal precedent such laws establish that is pertinent.

For instance, if the government can make "drunk" driving illegal because it might lead to accidents, then what's stopping it from making drinking illegal because I might drink "too much" and then decide to drive? What's stopping it from making driving illegal because every time I get behind the wheel I might cause an accident?

Where does preventive law end and my freedom begin? In twenty years, will I need permission to leave the house? Can I be trusted to not harm myself with even a fork or butter knife? This sounds absurd, but how absurd is it really? The fact is, if the government can make a law against any action or inaction that might lead to physical harm, then it's not absurd at all. If the U.S. Supreme Court is really needed to answer the question of whether it's right to force suspects to take chemical tests, then the legal violation of rights by the government stopped being absurd long ago. The government is drunk on power and driving the country off a cliff.

I think I made my point, so I'll finish by saying I know drunk drivers -- and by drunk drivers I mean really drunk drivers -- must be kept off the roads to keep everyone else on the roads safe. I just don't think government is the solution to such problems. It's not the solution to most problems; freedom is.

For instance, if the roads were privately owned, then the owner would have every right to set the rules for using them. One rule an owner might set could be: "Drive while drunk beyond my designated limit and you'll never use my roads again." This is a much harsher penalty than the government could ever get away with setting. This means, other than the usual protection of everyone's rights, there would be no need for government to get involved at all, except to protect road owners' property rights when rule breakers violated them by refusing to cooperate with the private system. Like when professional athletes refuse to pay fines, it would be a civil issue rather than a criminal one.

Of course, I'm also aware, in the present, that roads are publicly owned and drunk drivers have to be dealt with, but I still don't concede the need for "drunk" driving laws outweighs the protection of individual rights. Thousands of drivers are on the road right now driving while intoxicated beyond the legal limit, regardless of any laws forbidding it. Obviously, if any driver causes an accident, he or she should be punished to the fullest extent the law allows, whether he or she is intoxicated or not. But if any one of them gets pulled over for being "drunk" and has his or her rights violated for it, even though he or she has actually harmed no one, then that's what I consider one too many.