Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you violate the terms and conditions of holding a drivers license then you should be held accountable for your actions. If a person is pulled over and asked to do a breathalyzer, they have no reason to deny it if they have nothing to hide. And if they do have something to hide they obviously should not have the right to drive.
The police aren't going to go around testing people's breath for no good reason. Let's say the system was abused. What's going to happen? Drunks will be found and those who aren't drunk will face no consequences. It's pretty easy to smell alcohol on a person's breath. Does smelling around their personal space constitute invasion of privacy? Of course not. This way the police can have proof and it protects not only the police but the person tested.
Yes, the practice of random breath testing by police is an invasion of an individuals privacy and should be classified as an unreasonable search because most of the people being stopped are innocent and have done nothing wrong so that is considered an invasion of their privacy rights. This is also a very slippery slope, next they will stop you and make sure you have your correct i.d.'s and the right color shoes on. The point being, they could soon stop you for anything. The police should be more concerned about crime.
If someone has been pulled over after driving erratically and there is a suspicion that they are intoxicated then a breath test makes sense. But random testing, I'm assuming of drivers, is not warranted and should constitute an unreasonable search. This is a total invasion of privacy, total inconvenience to the individual and must certainly be unconstitutional.
Breathalyzer testing should only be performed when the police have reason to believe the driver is under the influence
Currently, it is the US law that a person or property can only be searched under reasonable suspicion. Randomly stopping people on the highway is a waste of time for both the drivers and police. Chances are, police officers would be too busy trying to meet their quota of people they have to check that they'd completely miss people swerving around on the road at 2am.
Allowing random breath tests seem harmless. Only the people that are drunk would be punished. But there is a slippery slope problem. How far should law enforcement be allowed to go in conducting tests on people to see if they have violated a law? Should there be random urine tests to see if someone has used an illegal drug in the past few weeks? It seems to be going too far.
Cops who are busy doing RBT's on the side of the road can't possibly maintain all the necessary infection control procedures that are required by law in any clinical setting. For example, Nurses taking oral swabs must wash their hands between patient contact, don protective gloves, and carefully dispose of all contaminated material.
Of course it is an invasion of an individual's privacy. We should all be treated as innocent and left alone unless there is a reasonable suspicion that we have committed a crime. Driving along perfectly minding our own business is not an action that should cause anyone to suspect a crime of any sort, and we should not be forced to interact in any way with agents and employees of the state. This is s slippery slope but fundamentally and clearly it is dead wrong.
Civil liberties are a very important part of any democracy. The whittling away of our civil liberties, especially by those we have employed to protect us, leads to a Big Brother state. Democracy was very hard won, over hundreds of years, and it is still a battle which must be continued. We take it for granted at our peril.
Random breath testing by the police is neither an invasion of an individuals privacy nor an unreasonable search because driving is a licensed privilege. In exercising that privilege, one is obligated to obey the laws related to driving. Alcohol related traffic deaths number over 33,000 per year, while gun related deaths number under 26,000 per year. Drunk drivers are deadlier than guns!
The Constitution allows for reasonable search and seizures provided the reason outweighs the individual liberty. This is one of those where the individual is one person and the good of the society dictates that the police need to find out if someone is driving drunk. With this test, they are absolutely clear on the status of the driver and they will then judge if he/she can be let go or held in custody for the night.
Breath tests are helpful for the authorities when they are out in the field. It helps them to confirm right away if someone is driving drunk. This helps to prevent drunk driving and the accidents that could occur because of this. They are also helpful for cops to tell if minors are under the influence which helps to prevent others from doing something illegal. Whatever the case, breath tests benefit all drivers and citizens and are important to the safety of the public. I think that invading people's privacy can be necessary if the outcome is for the better good of the public, within reason of course.
It's a simple fact that Random breath testing saves lives by taking people off the road who are drinking. This potentially saves the lives of other people on the road and also the life of the drink driver. How is it a breach of privacy? Is your breath private? No!! You breathe out into the atmosphere with everyone else. People today are simply complaining for the sake of complaining about something that takes about ten seconds of their precious day! I don't want people on the road who have been drinking.
It is clear that random breath testing is an effective deterrent against drunk driving. About 10,000 people are killed each year and many more wounded as a result of drunk driving in the U.S. Many of them are young people. Almost all of us know of somebody killed due to a drunk driver. If an average person gets tested once every three years or so in a random breath test, that will be an effective deterrent, and drunk driving fatalities and injuries could be reduced very significantly. Typically, in European countries, the tests are done quickly without asking for a driving license or registration. You are on your way in less that a minute, if you are under the legal limit. That is much less of an invasion of privacy than being video taped in the store or at an ATM. Talk to some of the mothers who lost their kids to a drunk driver. RBTs are just a small inconvenience, incomparable to the hurt that drunk driving currently causes to too many families.
No, random breath testing by police is not invasion of an individual's privacy and classifiable as an unreasonable search, because they are protecting others from harm. If a person shows signs of intoxication, breath testing works as evidence for DUI or DWI. From there, the person will serve punishment and he or she is taken away from a situation where they might go on to drink and drive and eventually hurt someone.
We are protected by the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure, but I do not agree that random breath testing falls under that category. Random breath testing usually has probable cause based on erratic driving. So, officers deciding to pull a driver over on suspicion of being a drunk driver must have cause to do so. In addition, most police cruisers are equipped with cameras. So, if an officer violates someone's civil liberties, that will be captured by the camera and can be proved in court. Also, this should be viewed as a preventive tactic to reduce the chances of someone being killed by a drunk driver and encourages the drunk driver to change his or her behavior.
Many an accident do happen due to drink driving. Some sensible people take a taxi, have a designated driver, or sleep it off at a friend's place. There are, however, some people who take the risk and get behind the wheel. If motorists know about the possibility of a random breath test, it might make them stay within the legal limit, or find an alternative to driving drunk.