A Case of Privacy

[barmar]

No, I would not require hospitals to drug test people for the government. If you start down that path, where does it stop? Why not require hospitals to drug test people any time they show up, as a means of winning the war of drugs? Why just hospitals? Why not just line people up for yearly tests?

That reminds me. I think at one time some cities or states tried to combat drunken driving on holidays like New Year's Eve by setting up random police stops to apply breathalyzer tests. I'm sure there were court cases over this, but I can't remember how they decided.

[kenberg]

That reminds me. I think at one time some cities or states tried to combat drunken driving on holidays like New Year's Eve by setting up random police stops to apply breathalyzer tests. I'm sure there were court cases over this, but I can't remember how they decided.

 

I was stopped for something along these lines but it was not alcohol related. I was going to a local park that had one main road in and after grtting on this road there was a huge line of cars, all stuck with no decent option, waiting for a cop to check us out on something, I forget just what they were checking on. . I remember complaing to the cop and citing some story that I had recently read indicating such stops were illegal. The cop explained that it was illegal to make random stops, but here they were stopping everyone so it was legal. I was not amused. Whatever the checking was for, i passed it. It just took twenty or thirty minutes.

 

Probably others, maybe some with more pull, were also not amused because I never saw it happen again. I think some cops just got pissed at being told that they couldn't do random stops and decided to take it out on us.

[mike777]

As CCTV becomes much more common in the USA it will be interesting to sort through all the privacy law suits.

 

I note for the most part we have given up our right to privacy over the internet between all the Big Data robots and young people posting all sorts of things.

 

These robots seem to be able to match up names with much of our medical history all ready per 60 minutes tv show.

 

My guess is many of our posters medical history is all ready out there on big data company servers.

[mike777]

The strongest argument I can make is a middle ground approach. I personally don't think that the existing law is defensible. In fact, the prosecution could not do it except by claiming that the right to privacy has been revoked in Ohio. This was a sad day for the State.

 

We're I to defend the basic idea, I would recommend a law with as little protection as possible. For example, I might have a process allowing the subpoena of the records, delivery to the court, and opportunity for the suspect to object if done within 7 days, the standard for review being simply proof of an accident in a traffic case. The warrant may be too much.

 

I am not as concerned about the records being released in response to an accident. I am concerned about the process enabling rogue cops with no accident required and no one watching over the process.

 

Just to back up for a second. Has the right to privacy been revoked in Ohio at the state level courts?

[kenrexford]

Just to back up for a second. Has the right to privacy been revoked in Ohio at the state level courts?

That's the issue here. States often create parallel rights. For example, the constitution affords the right to a speedy trial and the State has a statute establishing a 90 day rule. The constitution has a confront your accusers right and the State has hearsay rules. A lot of parallels.

 

In ohio the right to medical privacy as a constitutional right had a parallel of a doctor patient privilege. The state decided that the privilege was getting in the way of law enforcement, so they revoked the privilege. This seemed bad, so they restored it but with this 1994 law as an exception.

 

My appeal claims that although the State of Ohio can revoke a privilege it created, it can't abridge a privilege established by the constitution, per the 14th amendment. Since they both cover the same territory, the statutory fix is no good.

 

The core, therefore, has a question about whether the federal constitution trumps in Ohio. As I put it in my brief, when the State and the uUnited States supreme court disagree on a question about federal constitutional right, the United States supreme court always wins.

[Trinidad]

I was stopped for something along these lines but it was not alcohol related. I was going to a local park that had one main road in and after grtting on this road there was a huge line of cars, all stuck with no decent option, waiting for a cop to check us out on something, I forget just what they were checking on. . I remember complaing to the cop and citing some story that I had recently read indicating such stops were illegal. The cop explained that it was illegal to make random stops, but here they were stopping everyone so it was legal. I was not amused. Whatever the checking was for, i passed it. It just took twenty or thirty minutes.

 

Probably others, maybe some with more pull, were also not amused because I never saw it happen again. I think some cops just got pissed at being told that they couldn't do random stops and decided to take it out on us.

These kind of "check everybody" events occur regularly in the Netherlands.

 

As a school kid you are already getting used to this, since in fall, when it gets darker, the police will be hiding around a corner somewhere on your way to school to check whether everybody has functioning bike lights.

 

They will do "catch everybody" drive through alcohol tests around festivals such as carnaval. The time lost for the drivers is minimal since the police come out at full force, so you don't need to wait long.

 

I think it is very good that the police performs these checks and I think the vast majority of the Dutch think the same way.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

Ticketing those w/o lights, car or bike, seems completely natural. A nearby ocal jurisdiction has a limited access two land undivided highway and requires drivers to use headlights during the day as well as at night. There are signs telling us so, and they give tickets to those who forget. . Fair enough.

 

I have heard of sobriety checkpoints for cars although I have never been stopped in one. I did once go to a wine festival (invited by some friends who actually liked it, no accounting for taste) where you paid an entry fee and got free wine and music afterward. As you left, they checked you with a breathalyzer. Becky agreed to be the designated driver, but the wine was lousy and you had to stand in line to get it, so we both passed the test when we left. Also the music was lousy and loud, so mostly we escaped to the edge, enjoyed the sunshine, and got the hell out as soon as we could do so w/o social awkwardness.

 

I understand safety concerns but I guess I think that I should be doing something to arouse concern before the police can intervene, as opposed to monitor. I was stopped once for speeding, I was speeding, and given a breathalyzer which I passed. I had had some wine at dinner, this was fairly late so it had worn off. Checking me for alcohol after I violate a law seems fair enough, but just stopping me on general principles seems like a stretch.

 

Monitoring compliance with the law is a tricky concept. Most of us are not sociopaths but good god there are a lot of laws. Maybe there should be at least some reason to believe that we are doing something wrong before we have to prove that we are not.

[Trinidad]

Maybe there should be at least some reason to believe that we are doing something wrong before we have to prove that we are not.

I understand where you come from and that for you "reason to believe" is meant on the individual level. (As in: "We have reason to believe that you, Ken, have done something wrong.)

 

In Europe, the "reason to believe" is certainly there, but it is on the statistical level: Many people who drive around carnival have been drinking. Therefore the probability that any individual who drives around carnival has been drinking is quite high. Therefore, we have reason to believe that you have been drinking and therefore we check everyone who passes by.

 

Actually when I was living in Sweden they took it a step further in a way that I originally didn't understand (but then I don't drink). From time to time, they do breathalyzer tests on everybody who enters the parking lot of the grocery store on Saturday morning (when all families do their grocery shopping). But some Swedes drink a lot on Friday evening, so much that they are still above the legal limit on Saturday morning when they shop.

 

Rik

[Bbradley62]

In Europe, the "reason to believe" is certainly there, but it is on the statistical level: Many people who drive around carnival have been drinking. Therefore the probability that any individual who drives around carnival has been drinking is quite high. Therefore, we have reason to believe that you have been drinking and therefore we check everyone who passes by.

Such checkpoints are also common in some parts of the US. I saw many in both New Jersey and Georgia, most frequently on holidays (most specifically New Year's Eve, St Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo) or holiday weekends (usually Memorial Day and Labor Day). State laws vary: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

[akwoo]

In Europe, the "reason to believe" is certainly there, but it is on the statistical level: Many people who drive around carnival have been drinking. Therefore the probability that any individual who drives around carnival has been drinking is quite high. Therefore, we have reason to believe that you have been drinking and therefore we check everyone who passes by.

 

Here's the problem with "statistical reason to believe": Could the police use it as a reason to stop all East Asian young men, and no one else, on Chinese New Year? If so, and then the police subsequently decide not to stop South Asian young men on Diwali, what happens when someone claims (correctly or not) that the police action was harassment targeted at an ethnic group the police happen not to like for some reason?

[mycroft]

If it doesn't get to "statistically, people who look like X" and are simply "statistically,people", then your issue doesn't apply. And I don't know anywhere in North America where that's done (legally, anyway, and without court challenge). Now, if the police decide on Chinese New Year to put a checkstop outside Chinatown and near the exit for Little Vietnam, there might be an issue about statistically who the people are that drive to and from those areas - the "stop and frisk" argument that "when we set up one of these stations, we stop every nth person"; but for every station set up in SoHo, they set up 14 in TriBeCa, in other words.

 

I get caught frequently by this, because I live right behind the sports stadium that does the concerts, and there's a *lot* of checkpoints on game and concert nights. Usually I can say either "I'm coming from the bridge club" or "I'm coming from church"...

[blackshoe]

Monitoring compliance with the law is a tricky concept. Most of us are not sociopaths but good god there are a lot of laws. Maybe there should be at least some reason to believe that we are doing something wrong before we have to prove that we are not.

Perhaps the purpose of "good god there are a lot of laws" is to ensure that we are doing something wrong whenever some cop decides to question us. ;)

[blackshoe]

I get caught frequently by this, because I live right behind the sports stadium that does the concerts, and there's a *lot* of checkpoints on game and concert nights. Usually I can say either "I'm coming from the bridge club" or "I'm coming from church"...

I suppose if telling the cops where you've been reduces the hassle, it's worth doing, as long as you don't care that you're answering a question about something that's none of their business to ask.

[Bbradley62]

I get caught frequently by this, because I live right behind the sports stadium that does the concerts, and there's a *lot* of checkpoints on game and concert nights. Usually I can say either "I'm coming from the bridge club" or "I'm coming from church"...

I suppose if telling the cops where you've been reduces the hassle, it's worth doing, as long as you don't care that you're answering a question about something that's none of their business to ask.

When I was a young man who drove a sportscar (meaning, not any time recently) I found that "I'm coming from a bridge tournament" was a great way to avoid a speeding ticket. I always made a point of having an ACBL Bulletin handy, with the tournament's ad page clipped, to show that I wasn't making this up.

[mycroft]

Well, the standard stop up here asks where you've been, followed by "have you had anything to drink?"

 

I don't know what the legality is, and the difference in such in Canada and the US. But you know...

[Trinidad]

Well, the standard stop up here asks where you've been, followed by "have you had anything to drink?"

Well, that we would find harassment, invasion of privacy and a waste of time and money. It is not at all relevant where I have been ("Well, I just came from the SM dungeon"), nor whether I had anything to drink ("No comment").

 

The only things that are relevant is whether I am driving (easy to observe by the COP) and whether my body contains too much alcohol (which they will test). Just asking silly questions takes more time than the 1 second it takes to blow towards a funnel.

 

In addition, the police wants to do all this as fast as possible to prevent traffic jams. Fastfood chains should watch and learn. Typically, the entire act will be:

 

Driver stops the car and opens window.

"Good evening. We're performing an alcohol check." (The device is shown.) "Do you know how this works?"

- "Yes"

"Please blow towards the funnel until the beep."

- blooooow

BEEEP

"Thank you... All is fine, have a nice evening."

- Vroooom

 

In case you didn't pass the test, the last sentence is replaced by: "Thank you... Would you please pull over in that spot over there?"

 

The people who are tested don't appreciate questions about where they have been or what they have done. The other drivers don't appreciate traffic jams. And the tax payers don't appreciate the police wasting time (and tax payers' money) asking irrelevant questions.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

When I was a young man who drove a sportscar (meaning, not any time recently) I found that "I'm coming from a bridge tournament" was a great way to avoid a speeding ticket. I always made a point of having an ACBL Bulletin handy, with the tournament's ad page clipped, to show that I wasn't making this up.

 

This surprises me!. I wonder if it would owrk if I said i was coming from a math meeting. When I was 21, I was driving a car that needed some front end work. (I junked it not much later). I was stopped by a cop who started lecturing me about endangering the life of the woman in the passenger seat. I replied that my wife and I just wanted to see a movie. The word "wife" led to a near miraculous change in attitude. In a nanosecond I was tranformed from young punk to struggling young family man. I was addressed as sir, and he put his ticket writng stuff back in his pocket.

 

I also had experiences that were very much in the reverse direction when I was young. Lesson learned: Have a woman with you and be sure to refer to her as your wife.

[helene_t]

I once was stopped by a cop who wanted to check the brakes of my bike which were in very bad shape. He asked for ID. Noted that my surname was the same as that of a well-known solicitor. He asked if I was family. Yeah, that is my mum's cousin. I didn't get a fine.

[blackshoe]

"Thank you... Would you please pull over in that spot over there?"

So the cop determines that you are too much "under the influence" to be allowed to drive, and then he instructs you to drive? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

 

Since we're telling stories...

 

During my Freshman year at college, I returned home for a vacation, and went over to the high school to say hi to some folks (teachers and students). I left the building when school let out, got in my car, and headed around the building. Saw1 a girl who was a year behind me and stopped to talk to her. Note that during our entire conversation there was no other vehicle traffic on this street at all. There were a lot of kids crossing the street on foot. After a while (ten minutes? twenty? I don't remember) the cop who was directing traffic down the street at the corner with the main drag walked down and instructed me to go park up on the corner. So I did. He came over and asked for license and registration, which I gave him. He walked back and looked at the license plate, then came back to me and asked "who's Barbara?" "My mother," I replied (it was her car). Then he proceeded to give me a lecture about "blocking traffic", at the end of which he said "I'm not giving you a ticket, but I know your mother well, and I'm going to tell her about this." Then he gave me back my papers and sent me on my way. I got home, and the first thing I asked Mom was "do you know a cop named Miller?" "Nope." "That's what I thought." Then I told her what happened. She just laughed.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, I've never been tested...just the questions. Even when the answers were "at the bridge club" and "yes, one beer [three hours ago]" (with unstated the fact that it took me two hours to finish it). I *think* in Canada, we find the test without suspicion invasive in a way that the questions (which seem to be the invasive part elsewhere) are not.

[mike777]

I once was stopped by a cop who wanted to check the brakes of my bike which were in very bad shape. He asked for ID. Noted that my surname was the same as that of a well-known solicitor. He asked if I was family. Yeah, that is my mum's cousin. I didn't get a fine.

 

 

Wow it sounds like the cops have an awful lot of free time to do this.

 

I watch something called Chicagoland on CNN. Each week the show is partially focused on Roseland where I grew up.

Murder, Rape, Drugs seem to be out of control. Keep in mind this is just a small prt of Chicago.

 

Crime reports in Roseland

 

Jan. 25 - Feb. 24, 2014

 

Click on crime types to show only those dots on the map.

 

 

 

 

violent crimes

 

 

 

23

 

reports

 

Robbery - 14

Battery - 6

Assault - 3

Homicide - 0

Sexual assault - 0

 

 

 

 

 

property crimes

 

 

 

109

 

reports

 

Theft - 73

Burglary - 20

Motor vehicle theft - 16

Arson - 0

 

 

 

 

 

quality-of-life crimes

 

 

 

98

 

 

 

reports

 

Criminal damage - 44

Narcotics - 50

Prostitution - 4

[barmar]

Well, that we would find harassment, invasion of privacy and a waste of time and money. It is not at all relevant where I have been ("Well, I just came from the SM dungeon"), nor whether I had anything to drink ("No comment").

 

The only things that are relevant is whether I am driving (easy to observe by the COP) and whether my body contains too much alcohol (which they will test). Just asking silly questions takes more time than the 1 second it takes to blow towards a funnel.

I suspect they're not really so much interested in the answers to the questions as observing you while you try to answer them. They just need to keep you engaged long enough so they can try to smell alcohol on your breath or recognize the mannerisms that are typical of inebriation. If you seem drunk or tipsy, I guess they'd have probably cause to ask you to submit to a breathalyzer. Of course, if you do admit that you just came from a bar where you were drinking, it makes things even easier.

[mike777]

At the very least the cops are invading our privacy but that is sort of what a cop does.

[kenrexford]

At the very least the cops are invading our privacy but that is sort of what a cop does.

Truth. I have no problem with the cop asking. If the law says that he can, why not? Heck, I might ask if I could just for voyeur reasons. The problem is that the law allows it and that some judges don't think that this is their job to stop.

[mike777]

Truth. I have no problem with the cop asking. If the law says that he can, why not? Heck, I might ask if I could just for voyeur reasons. The problem is that the law allows it and that some judges don't think that this is their job to stop.

 

A very interesting thread Ken and best wishes with your case. Let us know.