Diesel fuel checkpoints--legality in the US?

[Guest]

A friend of mine said that where he lives (in a more rural area), the police have checkpoints in which they stop all diesel vehicles and pull some of their fuel out to make sure it has the right dye indicating that the appropriate fuel tax was paid. I understand alcohol checkpoints, because there is an "implied consent" law, which allows the DMV to yank your license for a year (in California at least) if you refuse to allow your blood alcohol content to be tested, even in the absence of probable cause. But how do these checkpoints get around the probable cause requirement of the US Constitution in checking the fuel tanks of all diesel vehicles? Is the motorist legally allowed to say "You don't have probable cause, and I refuse to let you inspect my fuel tank" ?

[Electra 225]

In Texas, where I live, it is, theoretically, possible for this to happen as it is a law on the books. However, I know people with agricultural holdings all over the state and I, and they, have never heard of it actually being done. The Texas Highway Patrol has way too many other things to do, much less not having the budget or the manpower, to mess with something like this. The probably cause issue is interesting, but so is the issue of tax evasion. Neither issue would be worth the time and expense to fight from origin to the Supreme Court.

[MsGuy]

In many states, diesel intended for farm use is exempt from higheay fuel taxes, Generally it has a small amount of dye in it so it can be distinguished from diesal upon which state tax has been paid. The difference in price can be substantial.

 

The probable cause question is tricky. Several dacades back the implied consent statutes were addressed by the US Supreme court. In their infinite wisdom, they decided that operating a motor vehicle on the public way was a priviledge subject to reasonable regulation by the states and that the states could yank your liscense by deeming you to have implicitly consented to do a blood alcohol test on demand when you accepted your DL. See, you aren't being punished for refusing to give evidence against yourself, you're just losing your liscense for failure to abide by the conditions you (implicitly) agreed to when you accepted your liscense.

 

There have also been some court cases on the general question of roadblocks and checkpoints. More or less, they are ok so long as they are properly conducted and not used as a pretext for suspect purposes. Thought experiment: How does a check point for DL's or insurance certificates differ in principle from a check on whether folks are illegally using farm diesal in their Mercedes?

 

This is a good question. I'm not up on current check point law enough to say one way or the other.

 

My own state solves the probable cause issue by using a dye in the farm diesel that leaves a bright colored residue on the exaust pipes.

[+ not2rowdy]

Another scenario would be if you had a problem and took the vehicle in for service. This is secondhand - I have not researched this myself - but my understanding is that dealers and mechanics are obligated to report fuel misuse under risk of losing their business license.

[Frequentflier]

I've never heard of the police checking for clear versus dyed fuel but I like that they would. Hope its a prison sentence. I don't like people who cheat on their taxes.

[+ Funguy]

Not sure about this one on fuel, but in California you CAN refuse field sobriety tests (i.e. breathalyzer, blood, urine, etc.) without penalty. The cops must actually arrest you and then you cannot refuse. They have to have probable cause to arrest you so if you haven't been drinking, or even if you had a drink or two, if you are asked if you had any alcohol your answer is "NO!." As soon as you say, "yes," that is what gives them probable cause and starts your descent into hell. Even if they take you to the station, refuse to do the tests until they actually arrest you! Then you are stuck and have to do so. They are NOT going to risk arresting you without probable cause so chances are they will just pass you at the checkpoint.

 

ps: cops also lie and tell you that you must submit to the tests even if they are not arresting you so have your attorney on speed-dial!

[kjun]

They can do it because driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a right.

[Frequentflier]

Not sure about this one on fuel, but in California you CAN refuse field sobriety tests (i.e. breathalyzer, blood, urine, etc.) without penalty. The cops must actually arrest you and then you cannot refuse. They have to have probable cause to arrest you so if you haven't been drinking, or even if you had a drink or two, if you are asked if you had any alcohol your answer is "NO!." As soon as you say, "yes," that is what gives them probable cause and starts your descent into hell. Even if they take you to the station, refuse to do the tests until they actually arrest you! Then you are stuck and have to do so. They are NOT going to risk arresting you without probable cause so chances are they will just pass you at the checkpoint.

 

ps: cops also lie and tell you that you must submit to the tests even if they are not arresting you so have your attorney on speed-dial!

 

Is it still true that if a driver doesn't drive with alcohol in their system above the limit they can pass a test and are likely safe (for themselves and others) to drive?

[+ azdr0710]

They can do it because driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a right.

 

 

wow, we agree on something

[+ Funguy]

They may pass the test BUT that doesn't mean they are anyway likely safe to drive. Any alcohol impairs. Moral of the story: don't drink and drive. PERIOD. Whether or not you think you can pass the test!