I always thought you had the option of either taking the breathalyzer, or giving up your license for a year. Most attorneys say it's easier to defend against a charge if you did take the breathalyzer... Is that just NC?
Yeah I hate that the courts have ruled that these checkpoints/roadblocks are constitutional.
A- They completely circumvent the normal requirement of reasonable suspicion
B- They are ineffectual compared to the officers actually driving around and stopping vehicles that do warrant reasonable suspicion. There is a study on this that I don't care to link to right now.
You are correct about the automatic revocation. Your refusal will also be used as evidence against you in your DWI trial. It is worth noting that you generally do have the ability to choose which test (blood/breath) you take, but if you use that as a delay tactic the officer (and judge) will eventually consider you to have refused to take a test.
The justification legitimizing the stop is that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and you are always required to provide your authorization to do so (driver's license) at the demand of an LEO. As long as they are stopping everyone the stop theoretically isn't discriminatory, and will be considered constitutional. Interesting to note that in the seminal case here (
Michigan v. Sitz if I recall correctly) the SCOTUS determined that checkpoint stop
IS a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, but that the State interest in preventing drunk driving is compelling enough to justify the infringement.
Part of the "trick" is that the forced interaction gives the LEO the
opportunity to form articulable suspicion of your being in violation of the law (i.e. being intoxicated or CCing without a permit). There is nothing about a roadblock that obviates the requirement that LEOs have probable cause to arrest you. Running
because you see a cop, or avoiding a checkpoint both give rise to the suspicion required to stop you and investigate further under NC law. In some other states the mere avoidance of the roadblock is not sufficient to create the required suspicion.
IIHS has details:
http://www.iihs.org/laws/checkpoints.html
Also, the State knows that checkpoints are not as effective at catching drunk drivers, but they are catering to public perception that they are catching more drunk drivers, which unquestionably escalates with the increase in roadblocks and "BATmobile" ads. The intent is to scare people away from drunk driving rather than catching them in the act.
Tying back to the theme of this forum, I am sure that no-one here advocates mixing open-carry and alcohol, but for those interested in the
legality of drinking and carrying, remember to check local ordinances. I would argue that there is a preemption problem here, but Apex Local Ord. 14-17.1. says:
Firearms; display on public property while under the influence of an impairing substance.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, while impaired, to display any firearm, gun, or pistol or any spring gun, pistol, or other similar device which impels with force any shot, pellet, or projectile of any kind on any street, sidewalk, alley, or other public property or within a motor vehicle on any street, sidewalk, alley, or other public property. Unless otherwise defined in Chapter 14 of this Code, all words and terms of this section shall have the same meaning as defined in Chapter 20 of the General Statutes and the phrase "while impaired" means:
(1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or
(2) After having consumed sufficient alcohol such that a person has, at any relevant time after displaying of the firearm or device, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, as these terms are used in G.S. 20-138.1, impaired driving.
(b) The chief of police or any member of the police department is authorized to seize and hold subject to order of court any firearm or device displayed in violation of subsection 14-17.1(a).
(c) This section shall be enforced as provided in G.S. 160A-175 or as provided in this Code. Any criminal violation of this section shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $200.00 and up to 30 days in jail or both.
(Ord. of 1-4-94, § 1)