The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

OKLAHOMA CITY — Anyone convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in Oklahoma would have to install an ignition interlock device on their vehicle for two years under a bill passed by the state Senate and sent to the House.

The Erin Elizabeth Swezey Act passed on a 45-0 vote Tuesday. It's named after a 20-year-old Edmond woman killed by a drunken driver. A second DUI conviction would require the ignition lock for five years and a third would lead to the device being installed for eight years.

The lock includes a device that detects alcohol and the driver must blow into it. If any alcohol is detected — it will not allow the vehicle to start.

Those convicted of DUI would also have the words "interlock required" printed on the driver's license.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20110315_12_0_OKLAHO816424

Can we do something similar for texting and general cell phone use?

God forbid they would actually be punished for their actions.

Yeah, that's tough.

Another successful lobbying effort by the manufacturers of the interlocks and their installers. 
They can pretty much name any price they want, having a captive audience.
Now, there would be those that say if anyone deserves to be gouged, it should be the chronic drunk drivers, but if we enable that sort of rationale, then who's to say where the line will be drawn in the future?

Unfortunately, trying to propose a lesser punishment will sound like one favors drunk driving. 

That's the Oklahoma way.

It seems that DUI has shifted from being a crisis to being an industry.

Probably more like an industry that needed and created a crisis to help itself along.

What if they get another car?   Drive buddy's car, etc.?

They can't do that. They have to have an interlock device installed on any vehicle they drive, including company cars.

Technically, there's no way to keep them from borrowing another vehicle.  It's illegal as hell for them to do it, but people with multiple DUI's are used to playing the odds on not getting caught.

Just FYI, as if anyone needed more reasons to not get a DUI, I've heard multiple stories about the installers of interlocks screwing up the wiring in people's vehicles and apparently there's no recourse.  The interlock itself is a bad deal, but having damage to your wiring...yeah well just don't drive drunk.  Have a plan folks, your life and the lives of others depend on it.

To the effect of what one of my marketing professors said, if there is not a market-create one.

Political translation-never fail to take advantage of a good crisis.

This is a little bit off of the the thread, but still an example. Google the Federal Trade Commission  and Federal Communications Commission re: their rulemaking attempts to oversee the internet  so that we poor sheep can be protected from spammers.

To add a quote from one of my old communist/socialist political science professors:  "If we can control it, we can tax it. If we can tax it, we can control it."

I have no sympathy for anyone convicted of a DUI.  Once worked with a guy who had something like 30 before he was finally hauled before a city judge who allowed him to be a guest of the state  for six months, and then to a half way house to allow him to work and earn enough to live and start paying his fines of something around $30k that were outstanding.

I think he became the poster child for MADD.

I agree with your sympathies, and analysis.
The point is, they, like illegal mexicans, etc, are soft targets that become the crash-test dummies for whatever machine the political opportunists want to test drive.

This happened to a friend of mine. The cost of the interlock device for one year:
$500.00 deposit
$300.00 install
$200.00 monthly charge to down load the stored records from the device
$1200.00 for repairs caused by the installer

Total for one year:
$4400.00 not including $1800.00 court fines and costs, and what ever he paid his attorney.

Don't forget that APC (Actual Physical Control) --people within reasonable distance from their cars while intoxicated or sitting in their car while waiting for a taxi-- carries the same punishments as DUI.

Don't let your buddies put their empty beer cans in the trunk of your car.  If you are stopped, the assumption is that you drank them all if you are alone when caught.  No wonder there are so many empty cans and bottles littering our roadsides.

I applaud our legislature, this is a much better answer and deterant than providing alternate modes of transportation to people to get them home when they eat out.

I love the underlying message: "Please please please frequent our bars and restaurants because we need the sales tax, and we can really use the revenue gerenerated by prosecuting you after we pull you over."

There is a saying in Arizona, "Come vaction and party in Arizona, go home on probation".

Probably reasonable for repeat offenders.  I think it's a bit harsh for first time offenders if there are no injuries or property damage involved.  Maybe a higher threshold than just being above .08 would warrant the harsher punishment.

http://www.dmv.org/az-arizona/automotive-law/dui.php (http://www.dmv.org/az-arizona/automotive-law/dui.php)

Thanks TURobY.

Drink at home or plan on getting a ride.  Simply not worth it.  As well, DUI deaths are completely preventable.

No where near harsh enough, especially if property of physical damage is involved.  That is violence with intent and deserves much more.

I thought empties were OK in the trunk, as long as they're not in the passenger compartment. I gotta legally take my recyclables to the MET somehow.

As for the physical control, can you really get a DUI sitting in your non-running car if you're not in the driver's seat?

Take your cans to the MET sober and there will be no way to get a blood alcohol level to convict you.

Yes, you can get a DUI in your non-running car even if you are not in the driver's seat, at least if you have access to the keys.  Not sure if someone took your keys and you have no more.

Yes, you can end up with a DUI conviction if your wife is driving you home in the car and stops at QuikTrip and leaves the keys in the car while going inside (or you both have a set of keys). I'm all for harsh punishment of drunk driving (at least at .10, .08 has no scientific basis), but this sort of thoughtcrime BS is rather upsetting to me.

It would be nice if the party that wraps itself in the flag would take up these issues of government overreach in the criminal law. It's not a hot button issue that garners votes, though. Nor does it make for good ad copy to appear to be on the side of drunks.

The last time I was out I know I heard at least a half dozen partiers say "I hope I can kill someone with my motorized vehicle tonight." 

There is no excuse and it is 100% preventable but I don't agree with the philosophy that impaired drivers intend to hurt themselves or someone else. (With a possible exception of a few wackos.)

Actually there is scientific basis for .08.  Motor skills and judgement are impaired at even lower levels.  As well, what I perceive as my level of intoxication at .08 will be quite a bit less than that of my 21 year old daughter who seldom drinks.

There is massively overwhelming evidence and experience and education and discourse in our society about the effects of driving impaired - whether 0.08 or 0.1, such that when one does drive impaired, yes, it is with intent.  One does know.  And one does intend.

You'd have to call the cop's mother something nasty for them to take you downtown for something like that though.

You'd be surprised...

There is not a significant impairment (more than driving home at the end of a boring work day, anyway) at .08. It's purely revenue generation. However, as you note, different levels of blood alcohol affect each individual in a widely varying manner. Yet another reason .08 as an absolute standard makes no sense.

They should be able to throw you in the clink and take away your license for impaired driving with any amount of alcohol or even no alcohol in your system. And it should be up to them to prove in a court of law that you were actually dangerously impaired. Let's not forget that kids caught with any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream are treated as if they were drunk as a skunk behind the wheel. That's just messed up.

Yeah, it sucks that being a police officer is hard work. That doesn't mean that we should take away people's liberty just to make their job easier.

This is a topic I unfortunately know far too much about from seeking out too many answers after my brother was killed by someone else's carelessness.  One of the few areas I consider myself an expert.  .08 isn't arbitrary.  It may not seem fair to some people, but it's not an arbitrary figure.

The reason the law is written the way it is is to react to those who experience more impairment at lower BAC.  Don't even go there on "liberty".  How much liberty does the victim of a drunk driver now enjoy?

Don't bet your driver's license on it.

Any number is arbitrary since alcohol affects us all differently.  Got some statistics that show that .08 is a better number that .10, .09, .07, .06....?  You have my sympathy for your brother but aside from prohibiting any alcohol level at all, any number will be arbitrary.  I believe I have heard that .02 is or at least was the number for airline pilots. 

What is it that you don't understand about the word "impaired"?  One more time, no excuse, 100% preventable, but I disagree with "intent".

Money grab.....

Apparently you missed the point in my prior posts.  .08 was designed to protect against the lowest common denominator.  You'd be far more likely to be killed by some cheerleader from Union HS who just had her first three beers than you would by me after three beers.

.08 was designated after years of research.  I'll gladly post stats when I'm in my office tomorrow.

I didn't miss your point.  That 105 lb cheer leader with 3 (real) beers would probably be over .08.  It happens a lot quicker than many think.  If you are going for lowest common denominator, you will probably have to go lower than .08.  I remember my grandmother who hardly ever drank, got silly after one drink.  And that's my point, an arbitrary number is not going to protect the innocent unless that number is 0.00.

Here's something funny.  Some friends of mine tried a test some time back, with a breathalyzer and a Friday night we had nothing better planned.

I sat down and started drinking beers.  After about two hours I had a little over a pitcher of beer (32 oz typically, and it was typical Oklahoma 3.2 or less coming from the draught).  As soon as I realized I'd finished a pitcher, I blew into the breathalyzer.

It registered a .03.

The same friend of mine, similar build, maybe 20 lbs lighter than me, had about the same amount.  He registered a .10, and I knew he was impaired.  I felt a little buzzed, but all I could manage was a .03.   We measured three times, I always blew .03, he blew .10, .10, .09.

Now, for disclosures sake, the breathalyzer was one you could find on any sundries website, but the mfg claimed it was accurate.  It wasn't cheap either for a handheld version ($75).

I'm just stating that if the same technology is used in the field units, there can be a HUGE discrepancy from one person to the next.  I felt pretty buzzed, enough so that I knew I shouldn't be driving.  None of us did, save for one, who was the DD.

You want studies?  Ok, here is some stuff to stew on.
What it boils down to is that a typical 150 lb male with two drinks per hour will "typically" be at .04.  And exhibit noticeable symptoms of impairment.  I am at 200+, and don't drink very often at all - almost never.  And two drinks in an hour is very noticeable to me.  I guess if I drank 3 or 4 drinks a day, I might feel like I could "handle my liquor" - even though I really couldn't.

So the law already "spots" you a 50% edge when drinking by going to the .08 level.  You really ARE starting to be affected at half that.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa25.htm

And to add to the illumination of 'urban myths', the most pervasive on the topic is that a fat guy like me can "handle my booze" better than a little girl, may not be all that valid.  It is more about absorption - goes to blood alcohol level - rather than metabolism - how long you are impaired.  Metabolism is very slow compared to absorption.  Hoss, your story illustrates this clearly.  The two of you are very different in metabolism rate, even though weights are not that much different.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa35.htm

The denial in this thread is reminiscent of discussions about smoking, with smokers denying that smoking causes second hand effects.  

Bottom line;  0.08 gives EVERYONE plenty of room to catch a buzz without getting tagged.  It is NOT arbitrary, or capricious and IS backed by plenty of research.

And it is definitely intent.

We can quibble forever about numbers.

I have still never met anyone who said "I intend to kill someone on the way home tonight."  They have always said something along the line of "I can handle it."

Exactly.  The same thing.

There is no relevant quibble about numbers that I (or likely most here) can contribute to.  There is massive information available that takes all the quibble out of it.

OK, post them.

Just did a little while ago.  Check the 9:18 pm post.

When someone gets behind the wheel and believs they are fine to drive, even if an outside person can clearly tell they are not, that is obviously not intent, since they intend to drive fine.  Saying that driving impaired in such a situation is intent is like saying all these idiots out on the road that can't drive yet think they can and get into wrecks everyday do so with intent simply because they lack any real driving skill. 

in·tent    /ɪnˈtɛnt/ 
[in-tent]
 
–noun
1. something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.
2. the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.
3. Law . the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.
4. meaning or significance.

Just checked them.  Neither makes a case for .08.  If anything, the first one makes more of a case for .04 than for .08. 

Client in town today, let's start here and I'll compile more as I have time.

" At .08 BAC, all drivers, even experienced drinkers, show impairment in driving ability. For the great majority, there is serious deterioration in driving performance at .08 BAC."

"With each drink consumed, a person�s BAC increases. Although outward appearances vary, virtually all drivers and motorcycle operators are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and on-road research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are significantly impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, changing lanes, divided attention tasks, and judgement. The risk of being in a crash rises gradually with each BAC level, but then rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC, compared to drivers with no alcohol in their system."

"08 Laws Work The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined the effects of lowering the legal BAC limit from .10 to .08 and implementing an administrative per se law in California. The two new laws, and the associated publicity, reduced the number of expected alcohol-related fatalities by 12 percent in 1990.

Another study* on the effects of lowering BAC levels to .08 compared the first five states to lower their BAC limit to .08 (California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont) with five nearby states that retained the .10 limit. Overall, the .08 states experienced a 16 percent reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .08 or higher, as well as an 18 percent reduction in such crashes with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .15 or higher."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/13qp/facts/perselaws.html

To be arbitrary, they would have pulled a number out of the air and assigned it as the limit.  .08 came from years of research.  The NHTSA info above at least explains the reasoning behind .08 and the results which followed after it was enacted in states.

The data obviously doesn't support the conclusion in the second study. If .15 drunks also died less (and in fact had a greater reduction in fatality rate), chances are there were less drunks overall.

In the first, I seem to remember that's exactly what they said about .10.

The data I would like to see (and it may exist) is where the slope of a graph of  driving ability vs. BAC makes a significant change.  Without that change in slope, the number is just an agreement among the liquor industry, law enforcement, MADD, and probably a few more.   Along with the change to .08 was a publicity campaign and notice of strict enforcement.  Would a similar campaign at .10 have had similar results?  What percent of highway deaths were caused by drivers with BAC between .08 and .10?  Those would theoretically be the only change.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that .08 is a bad choice or that drivers with a BAC of .08 are safe.  I believe in Oklahoma you get in some trouble for anything over .04.  The penalties get really bad above .08.

It's an impulse function for most people I have drunk with or watched drinking.  Few I know sip a drink over a fairly long period of time (30 minutes or more per drink - arbitrary number I pulled out of my arse.)  And the tests I have seen on TV show one drink in a few minutes followed by another fairly quickly - say 10 minutes later.  Then 10 minutes later, they can't walk straight and are drooling.  That would have me impaired for an hour or more.

You can probably guess where I stand on .08.  I say make it the .04.  And put some real penalties behind it.  But that won't ever happen since all the drunks making the laws would be in deep trouble too.  So we continue the casual approach.


Real penalties; the highest level of drunken driving misbehavior, IMO, occurs when one is drunk, has an accident that kills someone.  That should be a capital felony.  (Death penalty.)

Regardless of impairment charts, etc. which are there if you really care to Google them (sorry guys, you are on your own, I've got too much going on today) it's an indisputable fact the number of DUI-related injuries and crashes have declined along with harsher punishment, lower BAC standards, and most importantly the publicity surrounding it.  IOW, whether or not BAC .08 is the "magic" number it's created enough doubt in people's minds that it's most definitely reduced the number of fatalities and injuries which was the point in the first place if we are willing to move beyond the cynical mindset it's simply for fund-raising.

The point of .08 is for less people to drive drunk.

Stats say it's succeeded thus far.

Sounds REAL good to me!!!

.08 was to raise more revenue.....

Better than raising taxes, huh?  But not enough.
If we are gonna let money perform our enforcement, then make it serious enough to make an impression.  Say, $10,000 for the first event.  $25,000 for the second.  (If without an accident or killing/hurting someone.)

Make it just a tiny reflection of the cost to the rest of us and maybe it will be a deterrent.

Why stop with DUI? There are plenty of other dangerous behaviors behind the wheel.  How about defective equipment?  That's another potential gold diamond mine in Oklahoma.  We can make driving potentially so expensive that either the treasury will be flowing over or everyone will be afraid to drive.  That would be a boon for public transit but potentially a disaster for our economy.

With all due respect, Red, that's kind of taking it to the extreme.  You're a pilot.  Do you think FAA's systems of violations and fines is nothing more than a revenue raiser or do they set limits and restrictions based on the lowest common denominator to protect the rest of us?

If you make the consequences severe enough, it will act as a deterrent to most sensible people and will be punitive to those who go ahead and engage in the behavior anyhow and hopefully get them to think twice before doing it again.  There's a growing problem of people texting and playing with their smart phones while driving.  That may well be even worse than the DUI problem and one I'd like addressed.  I'm sick and tired of people treating driving as a secondary or passive activity. 

Personal choice and liberty are one thing.  When you engage in behavior which can take away the liberty and choices of others, through injury or death, there needs to be measures which appropriately apply a deterrent effect as well as a punitive effect to prevent it from happening again.

I'll be honest, if the penalties weren't so high and if .08 didn't create just enough doubt for me as to whether or not that third glass of wine or extra beer might have just put me over the limit, I probably would be more tempted to drive when I might be marginally intoxicated even though I "know" I could make it home just fine. 

For me and others like me, it's a good deterrent effect.  I really don't care to A) Be responsible for injuring or killing someone else by being over-confident in my abilities when I know my reaction times and coordination are impaired B) Go through the humiliation of trying to explain to my mother, my kids, and FMC W T F I was doing drinking and driving after our family's experience with it C) $2000-$4000 in associated fines, attorney fees, court costs, etc. plus the increase in insurance D) Having some monkey put an interlock on my vehicle.

Good, you caught my point.

It's a moot point.  And not relevant.  20,000 people a year don't die from defective equipment on the road.  They do from drunk drivers.  Come on, make it meaningful!!

Drivers who don't learn from the present penalties probably won't learn from the fees you propose.  You will have lock them up with the pot smokers.

If you remember, that is exactly what I have proposed.  Except for the fact that since the pot smokers don't kill 20,000 per year, if the RWRE was REALLY all about personal liberty, or even personal responsibility, we would not see them so into the idea of incarceration for something that is a non-event on the "bad things to do in society" scale.

And those penalties would help keep the drunks off the streets - they wouldn't have any money to buy gas.  And if they did, then raise it to $50,000 for first event.  $100,000 per second.  Since we don't really want to punish drunk drivers, then at least make it a little more painful for them.

I don't imagine that the US demand for pot has anything to do with the drug gangs in Mexico.

My mother had some friends in Norway she went to visit, I guess 20 or so years back.  The husband was a doctor.  They went to dinner, Doc has a glass of wine, wife drives home.  One glass.  Apparently at the time, their limit was .05.  He would have lost his professional license to practice and his livelihood if he got popped.

We might think of it as draconian here in the states but that's a damn good deterrent and must work.  Raise the stakes high enough and you will get the desired result of fewer fatalities and injuries related to drunk driving.  It's worked here in the states with a dramatic drop in rates since the early 1980's.

The libertarian in me struggles with issues like this until I put it in the context of whose rights are more impacted by the actions of someone else.  Sort of like smoking laws.  My decision not to smoke harms no one.  Someone else's decision to smoke doesn't just harm them, it also harms those around them.

Ask someone who became a quadriplegic as a result of someone else's drunk driving if they think our drunk driving laws are harsh enough.  99.9% chance they don't think so.  I know, heavy on the hyperbole but the major point of public safety laws is to attempt protect the rest of us from the stupidity of others or outright criminal intent.

You don't think better safety standards in general have contributed to those numbers? Especially given that overall fatalities and injuries have fallen as well.

You mean as far as vehicle and road safety standards?  No doubt they've contributed as well.  There's been a variety of factors which have lowered injury and fatality rates.

Fewer is good. You will never get them to zero.

But you can get all but about 7 of the drunks off the road.


As far as Mexican drug dealers??  That is an industry that will very quickly come back home.  No need for Mexican drug cartel if you can grow a small patch in your backyard.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/31/montana-rep-alan-hale-says-dui-laws-are-destroying-a-way-of-li/


Montana Rep. Says DUI Laws Are 'Destroying a Way of Life'
Not only are DUI laws 'destroying a way of life,' but they're hurting small businesses, too, says state Rep. Alan Hale. Including the barroom he owns.

What a dumb donkey

A DUI has not stopped anyone that I know from drinking and Driving......It aint about public safety and thats a fact.....

Slow learners.

I personally have a problem with the pre-emptive nature of drunk driving laws. They assume guilt and that assumption allows for suspension of fourth and fifth amendment rights. It criminalizes a POTENTIALLY harmful situation even when no one is harmed. If the assumption is that someone who has had a drink or two is liable to hurt someone if they put the key in the ignition and this potential is so terrible that this person should be locked up and criminalized, then all driving should be banned. Because there's a distinct potential to have that crash regardless of your intakes, state of mind or health. And when you see studies that show cel-phone use, texting et cetera, being more likely to cause an accident than a six-pack of beer, where is the enforcement of cel-phone bans?

Remember the daze when a cop pulled you over, saw an open beer, took it and poured it out and told you to go home. Now you get pulled over and you go to jail.  :'(

MADD is another part of the War On Drugs, the Ladies Auxilliary, the WTCU bluenoses reanimated. And the pre-emptive punitive nature of the laws they promote are an incursion on all of our rights.

Don't drink and drive....

What liberties did someone paralyzed or killed by a drunk driver give up?

There's plenty of other pre-emptive laws out there as well like speeding or weapon laws because it's a potential public safety issue.  I do agree with you though that there is unequal enforcement from other distracted behaviors and I tend to see more people weaving all over the place on the expressway during the day while they love with their smart phone than I see weaving all over the place at 10pm.

Chances are if my bike becomes a hood ornament, that driver will have been on the phone or texting or trying to dig that hot cigarette butt out of their lap.

My grandfather was killed by a drunk driver.  I don't know if the .08 should be sufficient for the device.  I think it should be based on perhaps squad car footage of the drunk test.  As stated earlier, different amounts effect people differently.  If you are impaired the same as somebody talking on a cell phone.  It shouldn't be installed.  I honestly don't know what BAC I have at any level.  Maybe if they had breathalyzers at bars...

Everything I read says motor skills and judgement are impacted in everyone at .08.  Again it's what the person feels or doesn't feel.  There's probably a lot of experienced drinkers who drive home at .12 or .15 every night and never get busted because they keep it in a straight line, don't speed, stop at all stops, and don't mess with the radio or cell phone while they are driving.  Usually the traffic stop is initiated for speeding, unsafe lane changes, crossing the center line, or some sort of reckless behavior.  Cops just don't randomly pull people over for sobriety checks.  In other words, it wasn't the drinking that got you pulled over in the first place, it was the crappy driving.

You can get a keychain model for $10 to $80 I think.  Not as accurate as what the po-po uses, but it will give you a good idea if you might be over the limit.  I imagine they more expensive ones are more accurate.

There was no doubt the driver who killed by brother and his boss was overly impaired.  BAC was over .20, driving completely in the wrong lane and no headlights after dark.  

Actually it's not random except by location but they do pull drivers over at the check points they sometimes run.

Was discussing roadblocks the other day with a coworker, and couldnt find the citation that enabled Oklahoma to comply with the Supreme Court ruling as far as announcing roadblocks, how cars are selected for scrutiny, etc.
The topic was the smartphone apps that some politicians claimed allowed drunks to bypass checkpoints, despite the departments that run them approving of the apps because they raise public awareness.

So, anyone know the procedure behind announcing roadblocks in Oklahoma? 

1. The .08 is entirely arbitrary.  MADD wanted to lower the limit and got it passed.  Some people are trashed and .08 and shouldn't be driving, some shouldn't drive at .05, some should never frikken drive while others can drive just fine at .01.    The number is made up and lowered everywhere because the Federal government said so (RULE 1:  lobby the fed to force the states to comply, it's easier and cheaper).

2.  DUI laws have had much less to do with the decrease in DUI crashes than general public awareness.  I know FAR too many people that still think nothing of driving with an open container or who will INSIST on driving home loaded, even if you offer to PAY for a cab or offer them a place to crash.  That group has shrunk because of public disdain for DUI.

3. Lowering the BAC limit has zero effect on drunk driving.  If someone feels OK to drive now, with an honest personal assessment, they will feel OK if the limit is lowered to .05.   Most people pulled over for DUI are above .15.  Furthermore, cops can give you a DUI even if you are below the legal limit - no one has been let go because they seemed really drunk but werent over.   The problem isn't that the limit is too low, it's that a group of people continue to refuse to comply (in general the same people over and over, and frequently a group that doesn't fear consequences int hat they aren't insured and already lost their license).

4. Road blocks are completely and totally BS.  It ASSUMES everyone who passes by has violated the law and is therefor subject stopping and search.  The cops have no probable cause to stop people, no reasonable suspicion to search, and no excuse that gets around my constitutional right.  Even if I did nothing wrong, am not suspected of doing anything wrong, and am not accused to doing anything wring - I get stopped and searched.  How's that different than simply NOT having a 4th Amendment right?