It's not that I think it's OK to drink and drive

[asimplechord]

But this strikes me as an invasion of privacy and coming perilously close to a warrantless seizure.

I don't really know any details about it, just what I saw on the news last night. Apparently the judge/DA/whatever who signed the paperwork justified it by saying that the fine print in the driver's license contract includes an agreement for testing by the police. (Which, OK, I'm not a lawyer, so how do you enforce that if it's a relatively new addition and the driver signed the paperwork years ago? Isn't that invasive, pushing the boundaries of contractual obligations?)

Um... if they can do that to anyone they pull over, what else can they test for, look for, or investigate? Where do we draw the line?

Comments

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

It seems a bit hypocritical, really. But I'm sure that the first time someone tries to sue, the DA's office will point out that there's an "emergency warrant" setup so it's technically not a violation. Big brother everywhere.