They are ABLE!

[Breadburner]

Is ABLE a profitable government entity......

[patric]

Is ABLE a profitable government entity......

Maybe not now.


Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (OHP, A.B.L.E. etc.) knowingly used faulty Breathalyzer testing, which could now result in decades of DUI arrests being thrown out.
http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/video-court-of-appeals-ruling-could-affect-dui/vDhLPg/

[Vashta Nerada]

ABLE Commission:  "We don't make any difference."

http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/gifts-for-lives-lost-over-the-last-4-years-to/vC6kWJ/

Justice Stevens argued that the checkpoints were not reasonably effective, writing that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion argued that the police had failed to show that the checkpoint seizures were a necessary tool and worth the intrusion on individual privacy. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," he stated.

 "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk."

[patric]

This week the Supreme Court ruled on blood and Breathalyzer tests, deciding that warrant-less blood tests were illegal but breath tests were not.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2016/06/23/supreme-court-limits-indiana-dui-tests/86283978/

Heres the case that started it:



A Michigan teen who was ticketed — as a passenger — for balking at taking a Breathalyzer test says that she refused because the detective did not have a warrant.

Now 17-year-old Casey Guthrie has filed a federal lawsuit against the cop who slapped her with the $100 citation last month.

The honor student is also challenging the constitutionality of a Michigan law that makes it a civil infraction for anybody under age 21 to refuse a police officer's request to blow into the device — and does not require the cop to produce a warrant.

"No adequate remedy exists at law to redress this unconstitutional policy, practice, and/or custom," the lawsuit states.

The law violates Guthrie's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, her Detroit lawyer told NBC News.

"Her rights were violated when she was forced to submit to Breathalyzer to prove her innocence," attorney Mike Rataj said. "That is not how the criminal justice system works. This is a girl who has never been in trouble before and has no criminal history."

"Also, she was not the driver," Rataj noted.

Rataj added that Guthrie's father is a retired ATF officer who had warned her earlier never to submit to a Breathalyzer without a warrant.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michigan-teen-challenging-warrantless-breathalyzer-law-n588351

[cannon_fodder]

The cases aren't really related. The Supreme Court ruled regarding drivers, the other involves the passenger.

The Supreme Court holding was that requiring you to prove your innocence by blowing into a government tube is a "legitimate condition on the privilege of using state roads" and that public safety is a compelling reason that justified the laws.  The police argument is that it is too much work to try and get a warrant every time they want to search a citizen. I'm skeptical of the logic (not necessarily the outcome) - because nearly every citizen in the US has to use the government roads to do anything. So if using roads is a "privilege" subject to waiving certain constitutional rights when it is convenient for the government, I have concerns of exceptions swallowing the rule (the rule being the lowly and burdensome 4th Amendment). 

But in this case, the Court basically said reasonable suspicion is enough to have a driver blow in the tube. They went on to say that a blood test is too far and requires a search warrant. Interestingly, Thomas would allow government mandated blood tests at road blocks and Alito said that breath tests are OK because it doesn't give the government a biological sample (unless, of course, he is familiar with DNA testing kits that use saliva which are for sale at Walgreens).

[Conan71]

Something about a cop asking you to blow his tube is just disturbing to me. 

[Breadburner]

Something about a cop asking you to blow his tube is just disturbing to me. 

Just wait until he tells you too..."Spread your legs wide and doooooon't move"......

[patric]

The cases aren't really related. The Supreme Court ruled regarding drivers, the other involves the passenger.

The Supreme Court holding was that requiring you to prove your innocence by blowing into a government tube is a "legitimate condition on the privilege of using state roads" and that public safety is a compelling reason that justified the laws.  The police argument is that it is too much work to try and get a warrant every time they want to search a citizen. I'm skeptical of the logic (not necessarily the outcome) - because nearly every citizen in the US has to use the government roads to do anything. So if using roads is a "privilege" subject to waiving certain constitutional rights when it is convenient for the government, I have concerns of exceptions swallowing the rule (the rule being the lowly and burdensome 4th Amendment).  

But in this case, the Court basically said reasonable suspicion is enough to have a driver blow in the tube. They went on to say that a blood test is too far and requires a search warrant. Interestingly, Thomas would allow government mandated blood tests at road blocks and Alito said that breath tests are OK because it doesn't give the government a biological sample (unless, of course, he is familiar with DNA testing kits that use saliva which are for sale at Walgreens).

So while you're handy  (ahem)


The Tulsa Police Department will join the Oklahoma Highway Patrol in conducting a DUI checkpoint in east Tulsa this weekend.

The checkpoint will start at 10 p.m. Saturday and continue until 3 a.m. Sunday, according to a news release. Its specific location will not be released until shortly before officers begin operating the checkpoint, law enforcement authorities stated.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/authorities-to-conduct-dui-checkpoint-in-east-tulsa-this-weekend/article_7a658b10-747c-5bf0-af79-aba2f8bed9c6.html

Now if I read Rehnquist correctly, setting up checkpoints only met the constitutional exception if there was advance publicity which allowed motorists to avoid the intrusion.   Likewise, additional warnings like signage and lights allows "motorists to turn aside, and under the operation guidelines no motorist was to be stopped merely for choosing to avoid the checkpoint."

I noticed that the section of the ENDUIok.com website that paraphrased "advance publicity is a deterrent" was removed as well.

Is this change of tactic going to pass constitutional muster?

[cannon_fodder]

Several police associations have begun pushing the "no notice" approach since about 2010. The goal, of course, is public safety. But police certainly will see how much of the 4th Amendment they can maneuver around while trying to do their job.  So far, Courts have said that the checkpoints have to be announced, but as the police will point out the Courts have not said they have to tell you where the checkpoint will be ("Well, we announced it, just like they said we have to.").

Drunk driving is a problem. But I disagree with the Supreme Court that drunk driving is such a problem that it overrides the 4th Amendment, which is essentially the current rule. I think the government should intrude on a person's life as little as possible, random governmental checkpoints doesn't seem to fit that line.

Consider this: recent DUI checkpoints in Tulsa have a "success rate" of about 3%. Meaning the vast majority of people stopped and searched by the government with no suspicion have not done the thing they have been stopped for. Of the 3-4% that are arrested, only some will actually be convicted of drunk driving. And nationwide this is considered an amazing success rate - many areas have a 1% success rate or less. Yes, they do catch criminals - but so would warrantless door to door searches. Some success does not end the debate.

What DUI checkpoints are fairly good at is generating tickets and conducting warrantless searches for other things. Though the May checkpoint only generated 8 arrests for DUI, it fined 134 citizens for other offenses and caught a few outstanding warrants (they also saw an SUV turn to avoid the checkpoint and chased it down... which seems dubious to me unless the SUV broke traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint). But writing tickets and warrant checks are not a justification to ignore the 4th Amendment, so we have to pretend our real concern is drunk driving. Tellingly, many advocates point to the "return on investment" of DUI checkpoints, which they have to, because...

DUI checkpoints are expensive. They take how many officers hours and hours, often on overtime? Several sources have indicated that the total cost of a DUI checkpoint is $10k. Hard to believe, but with a $101mil budget supporting 750 officers - taking a good number of them away for hours costs money. Every officer sitting at a DUI checkpoint waiting to find a drunk driver is an officer that isn't doing other things.

Roving drunk driver patrols have been shown in studies to be much more effective than checkpoints at actually catching drunk drivers. The roving patrols stopped far fewer people, but caught drunk drivers at a rate that was 35 times higher than government checkpoints. While the arrest rate is much, much higher - the "return on investment" is lower.

12 States ban DUI checkpoints as an unnecessary governmental intrusion. While I can believe that a governmental checkpoint is the most effective way of catching criminals, it doesn't seem American to me. Officer: "Pull over, show your papers."  Citizen: "What did I do wrong?" Officer: "I don't know, you tell me." Citizen: "Am I being detained?" Officer: "Show your papers. If you just comply you can go."

Anyone know the officer's opinion on DUI checkpoints?

April DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31802022/tulsa-brookside-dui-checkpoint-nets-8-arrests

May DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31977785/tulsa-police-arrest-10-in-dui-checkpoint

[Conan71]

DUI checkpoints are expensive. They take how many officers hours and hours, often on overtime? Several sources have indicated that the total cost of a DUI checkpoint is $10k. Hard to believe, but with a $101mil budget supporting 750 officers - taking a good number of them away for hours costs money. Every officer sitting at a DUI checkpoint waiting to find a drunk driver is an officer that isn't doing other things.

How about all the extra officers standing around at a homicide scene or major crash doing nothing but chattering amongst themselves?

I understand you need a certain amount to secure the scene and direct traffic, but it seems like they end up having many officers milling around who could be out enforcing traffic laws and generating revenue or responding to burglary calls.

[Ed W]

Sometimes there's federal grant money available for these "focused" actions. So the department and local taxpayers don't bear the full expense. Still, you'd think some of our elected officials would be complaining about it. It's federal, so it must be evil somehow.

[patric]

(they also saw an SUV turn to avoid the checkpoint and chased it down... which seems dubious to me unless the SUV broke traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint).

As per my earlier post, the Supreme Court specifically said motorists should be able to do just that, as part of the justification for mitigating the intrusion of a roadblock.  In practice though, anyone believed to be navigating around the lines leading to a checkpoint gets targeted.

How about all the extra officers standing around at a homicide scene or major crash doing nothing but chattering amongst themselves?
I understand you need a certain amount to secure the scene and direct traffic, but it seems like they end up having many officers milling around who could be out enforcing traffic laws and generating revenue or responding to burglary calls.

If just getting your name on an activity report is what supervisors look for, you take the easy route.  They're just human, after all.

[cannon_fodder]

Yes Patric. My understanding from secondary sources is that as long as you legally avoid the checkpoint you have done nothing wrong. U-turns, stops in traffic, sudden swerving etc. will raise reasonable suspicion. But if you have nothing to hide, why are you exercising your constitutional rights?

Sometimes there's federal grant money available for these "focused" actions. So the department and local taxpayers don't bear the full expense. Still, you'd think some of our elected officials would be complaining about it. It's federal, so it must be evil somehow.

Or, more earnestly, our politicians constantly pretend they believe in small government, the Constitution, and individual liberty --- except when those issues actually come up.

Regulate who you can marry - worth millions of dollars in legal fees!

Stick my religious monument on government property - worth millions in legal fees!

Warantless government checkpoints - lets do it!

Considering making marijuana a personal choice - never!

A rational single scheme to regulate alcohol - the hell you say!  (see what I did there, and the thread is back on tack...)

[patric]

Sometimes there's federal grant money available for these "focused" actions. So the department and local taxpayers don't bear the full expense.

It just hides the source better.  Its our money; it always was.

Lobbyists ask for tax money to fund overtime, unions etc. for a perceived problem.

Cops get paid overtime if they meet "goals" related to the perceived problem.

The sharp rise in arrests are "proof" that more money is needed to combat the new epidemic of the perceived problem.

Catch 22.

A rational single scheme to regulate alcohol - the hell you say!  (see what I did there, and the thread is back on tack...)

...and you do good legwork, too.

[dioscorides]

Has anyone heard anything about this?  This is the only mention of it that I can find.

Reversal: ABLE aims to block brewery pint sales

http://www.thirstybeaglebeerblog.com/2016/08/reversal-able-aims-to-block-brewery.html

Just weeks after Oklahoma craft brewers believed they had won assurance they would be able to sell their full-strength beer by the glass at their breweries, the state ABLE Commission today delivered a devastating blow to the industry.

Representatives from the state's craft beer industry met with ABLE officials this afternoon, expecting to find resolution on the issue of sales of growlers of full-strength beer.

Instead, brewers learned that ABLE had reversed course and intends to block the sale of full-strength beer by the glass. The brewers believed such sales would be allowed under Senate Bill 424, which was passed during the most recent legislative session and is set to go into effect on Aug. 26.

Brewers learned today that ABLE believes SB 424 actually does allow growler sales, and sales of bottles and cans, but only for off-premise consumption. The agency's interpretation of the bill suggests that on-premise consumption of full-strength beer -- by the glass, in other words -- is not allowed.

No formal rule has been issued by ABLE on this -- at this point it appears the news delivered to brewers today can only be construed as ABLE's intentions. And it remains unclear what recourse the brewers have. If a rule is formally issued, they may have the ability to challenge or appeal it.

In the interim, sources indicate that brewers will attempt to continue to negotiate with the commission in pursuit of a more favorable determination on SB 424.

One thing that is clear is the state's brewers felt assured by-the-glass sales would be cleared by ABLE. Several brewers had planned elaborate celebration events for Aug. 26; some of them have even begun morphing their business plans to cater to the new law. The announcement from Choc/Prairie of a new brewpub in Automobile Alley is just one example.

The fate of those events and those plans now seems up in the air.

(Blogger's note: I will update this post as more reaction/information becomes available.)

UPDATE!

The Craft Brewers Association of Oklahoma this evening released the following statement on the ABLE/SB 424 situation:

"We are disappointed in today's restrictive informal interpretation by the ABLE Commission relying on the Attorney General's office. The interpretation allows for brewers to sell 'to-go' beer only. 'To-go' beer can be packaged in growlers, six packs, and other original brewery packaging. Brewers will not be permitted to sell beer for consumption on premises, missing the original intent of SB 424 as passed by lawmakers."

Meanwhile, state lawmakers have also weighed in. State Rep. Emily Virgin responded to the controversy on Twitter today, saying "Incredibly disappointing development. Legislative intent to allow on-site consumption has always been clear."

And state Rep. Jason Dunnington said this on Twitter: "Looking into it. Fact is whatever the case we can adjust it legislatively."

Coincidentally, ABLE has a regularly scheduled meeting set for 10 a.m. Friday morning, at 3812 N Santa Fe, Suite 200. Representatives of the CBAO will be in attendance and will continue to attempt to work with ABLE toward a positive resolution.

You can see the agenda for the meeting here. Included are discussion points on State Question 792, Senate Bill 383, and "Discussion on Amendment to Title 37, Section 521(A)." In case you were wondering, Title 37, Section 521(A) is the same thing as SB 424. (Why did they not just call it SB 424 on the agenda?)

There's also a public comment period -- with a three-minute time limit -- so if you attend the meeting and line up to speak, keep it short and keep it classy.

So after a wild day, where do we go from here? Remember, brewers should still be able to sell bottles and cans (and growlers) from the brewery on Aug. 26, so Roughtail's plans for special can releases and American Solera's plans for special bottle release should proceed.

I have not received information on what will happen with all the taproom parties the breweries have scheduled. I think we'll need to wait on tomorrow's meeting, and then the brewers will likely have announcements to make.

One key thing to remember, meanwhile, is that SB 424 was never intended to be the cure for all that ails the state's craft brewers. It was only intended to bridge the gap until voters could (potentially) approve SQ 792, activate SB 383 and move Oklahoma into the post-Prohibition era come October 2018.

(And also remember what Dunnington said; legislators could attempt to make this right next spring in the 2017 legislative session.)

So, while a disruption of the intent of SB 424 is highly discouraging for the brewers, the move by ABLE is not the end of our craft beer industry.

It is disappointing because the brewers clearly were given the impression from ABLE that by-the-glass sales would be allowed, only to see the rug pulled out after they had started making plans and actually enacting business development.

And also disappointing because it could take an industry on the verge of massive development, and set it back by two years.