New Mexico votes to violate the 4th Amendment

Truly sickening news:

The New Mexico State politburo House has voted to require the installation of breathalyzer ignition interlock devices on cars in the state. Not just new cars, but to every car extant in New Mexico. If it passes the senate, in order to start and operate their vehicle every New Mexican will be required to submit to a test that no police officer can legally compel you to take otherwise. Every trip to the store would violate your rights under the 4th Amendment, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I hope that enough people in the New Mexico state Senate have some integrity and vote down this horrific affront to human dignity and civil rights.

For comparison, Eugene Volokh lists the similarity in features of both the proposed breathalyzer interlock system with so-called "smart gun" control chip technology, noting that if the ACLU has a problem with one, it should have a problem with both...

(via Improved Clinch)

Share this

Why not a blood test too? A

Why not a blood test too? A little prick to check for other intoxicants not detectable by a breathalyzer?

I smell reductio creep...

That reminds me: anyone seen Gattaca?

Gattaca, interesting movie.

Gattaca, interesting movie. It portrays just the kind of iron fist/velvet glove police state I can image the U.S. becoming.

IMO the money quote is, ?I

IMO the money quote is,

?I think it?s crazy, the thing is it doesn't even work when people (are) court ordered to have it?

How do they expect to keep people from just disabling the stupid thing (or, for the lazy, just blowing a can of compressed air into it), for one thing? Random spot checks? Then what's the difference between that and spot-checking for drunk drivers the old-fashioned way? Also, I'd love to see some figures on false positives (a cursory Google search yielded nothing instructive).

What's next, ignition-lock devices that measure pulse and blood pressure, to combat road rage? If we have to have some sort of mandatory preventive safety-check device, I'd be more in favor of mandatory pre-ignition IQ tests, personally...

This is purely a

This is purely a grandstanding move, so that they can seem like their doing something to "solve the problem", when all they're doing is papering over it with a 'solution' that will undoubtedly cause more problems without appreciably reducing DUIs.

What a bunch of muppets this

What a bunch of muppets this lot guilt makes things so much easier on politicians. They don't have to bother with busting the real culprits.