Got stopped at a dui check point.

[Magdave]

And all I had to do was show my license ( not registration and insurance that was in my frunk) and answer questions. They wanted to know all about the bike and said they really wanted to ride one. It was 40deg and I was suited up. They got me on the way back too as I was taking something to my wife at work round trip and it was on the only street to my house. Same treatment. Just told me to go around the car in front of me. They got 15oz of pot, 1 dui and 4 arrests even after it was announced where and when 24hrs in advance. Some people just do not learn. Good to know the cops like Spyders:thumbup:

[ARtraveler]

:2thumbs:

[Chupaca]

you were sober and well informed about the world of roadsters..!! :roflblack:

[jcthorne]

Yeah, been through one of those checkpoints several times. The initial conversation is all about profiling you, much like at a security checkpoint. If you are having a friendly and rational conversation, not much happens past that. If not, they suspect and look further. Be polite, friendly and open, they really are not looking for personal information, just the conversation.

[Bob Denman]

They're out there; on the job, and trying to keep the roads safer for the rest of us... :2thumbs:
Here's to getting through it unscathed! :cheers:
Ooh... :shocked: Was that in poor taste??? :roflblack:

[maww12]

Ya know I never understood why they post or announce where there gonna be in advance. Hopefully someone here can enlighten me as to why. Don't mean to hijack this thread just thought I'd ask seeing as how it was brought up anyway.

[condorflysu]

I have been stopped 3 time for RIDE spot checks (dui stops) from Spring to now ... The one time the young officer could not let me go without asking 100+ questions, nothing about drinking just the same questions everyone has about Spyder's:f_spider:. He asked.. you married? How'd you convince the wife? :) :shemademe_smilie:

[SteveMac]

Ya know I never understood why they post or announce where there gonna be in advance. Hopefully someone here can enlighten me as to why. Don't mean to hijack this thread just thought I'd ask seeing as how it was brought up anyway.


As far as I know, they don't announce it around here. At least I have never seen an announcement. It may very well be that in some areas, there is some obscure legal precedent that dictates an announcement. It would take more digging than I am willing to do.

I agree with Bob, I am glad they are on the job and checking. Now if they would just get more proactive about treating texting drivers (which I feel is an even bigger problem than drunk driving) with an iron fist, I'd be even more happy. :doorag:

[MouthPiece]

As far as I know, they don't announce it around here. At least I have never seen an announcement. It may very well be that in some areas, there is some obscure legal precedent that dictates an announcement. It would take more digging than I am willing to do.

I agree with Bob, I am glad they are on the job and checking. Now if they would just get more proactive about treating texting drivers (which I feel is an even bigger problem than drunk driving) with an iron fist, I'd be even more happy. :doorag:


BINGO!!!!!!!!!

​Chris

[Oldmanzues]

In some states like Ohio, it the law they have to announce check points so far in advance. There are signs saying, speed limit strickly enforced, signs that warn of red light/speed cameras, handicap signs are not enough/there has to be a sign stating the fine or the ticket is invalid.
One lawyer ( I thank a lawmaker) that his defense in Court was Stop sign are only advirsory , not manditory.
One lawmaker complained and made a city stop enforcing the speed trap (Passed a State of some kind, forget what). A clearly marked 35MPH zone through town. It was ilegal because it was between two 55 mph zones.
Wonder why our Country is so screwed up ???????
Oldmanzues

[Bob Denman]

Orrrr ;).... They announce it so that anybody who's sober enough to remember, can find another less-invasive route home??? :dontknow:
Either way... :2thumbs:

[bruiser]

They don't announce them here in the Old North State. Few months back we were on a poker run, 50 bikes came up on a checkpoint. Yep, they stopped everyone of us. DL check and current sticker on plate. None of us moved until everyone was checked. Pissed the cops off because we waited. One of the guys sent a text to the RC for the next group. There were 80 bikes in that group. They took a different route. I'll say this, don't ever turn around if you see a checkpoint. They will come after you.

Anyone ever see a Federal checkpoint? That's another story.

[captblack]

If they were stopping everyone (cars, trucks, bikes, etc.) it is a good thing. If they were focusing only on bikes, notify your local ABATE chapter with the date, location and details. There are places that use these types of stops aimed at bikers and then hand out tickets for minor or non-existent infractions. The love to set these up in the middle of poker runs, thinking that riders will be drinking at each stop.

Can you say 'profiling' ? We should never drink and ride but we should also be treated just like everyone else. Personally, I would love to see them inspect each driver's cell phone and arrest them it they found recent texting ...

[bullant12]

That is why I have it in my signature May all your encounters with the law begin with the words: "nice trike!".

[Magdave]

If they were stopping everyone (cars, trucks, bikes, etc.) it is a good thing. If they were focusing only on bikes, notify your local ABATE chapter with the date, location and details. There are places that use these types of stops aimed at bikers and then hand out tickets for minor or non-existent infractions. The love to set these up in the middle of poker runs, thinking that riders will be drinking at each stop.

Can you say 'profiling' ? We should never drink and ride but we should also be treated just like everyone else. Personally, I would love to see them inspect each driver's cell phone and arrest them it they found recent texting ...

It was everyone and I was the quickest one to be let loose. Maybe cause I am an old fart.:clap:

[SPYD3R]

warrentless stop n searches are AGAINST the CONSTITUTION..... who's going to arrest those cops....????? this :cus: needs to STOP....

[KAPike]

In our county they advise with two HUGE orange signs..."Seat Belt Enforcement Zone Ahead" and then "Buckle Up, It's the Law"
Then about a mile down the road a police officer or trooper is standing outside a marker police car with a radio. He looks into your car as you go by. He radio's to the line of police cars a block down the road which cars to pull over.

So you get two HUGE warnings and a mile to buckle up and you wouldn't believe the cars pulled over. Sorry, but you can't fix stupid. :banghead:

They use the funds collected from these tickets to fund grants that departments apply for to do these DUI and Seat Belt Enforcement check points. So it's self funding.

[KAPike]

warrentless stop n searches are AGAINST the CONSTITUTION..... who's going to arrest those cops....????? this :cus: needs to STOP....

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[SNOOPY]

warrentless stop n searches are AGAINST the CONSTITUTION..... who's going to arrest those cops....????? this :cus: needs to STOP....



I like this thought and think cops have better things to do. :shocked:

[ArsonInvest]

warrentless stop n searches are AGAINST the CONSTITUTION..... who's going to arrest those cops....????? this :cus: needs to STOP....

Looks like someone needs to read up on Constitutional Law on DL and DWI check points....and what the Supreme Court has ruled on these stops....

[wftb]

what about assuming guilt ? its why they dont use radar in california .we have r.i.d.e checks in ontario all the time and i have driven in every state except hawaii and never seen a US dui check .is this a new thing ? is it happening everywhere ?

[SpyderMarkus]

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court never stated these checkpoints didn't violate 4th Amendment protection, they stated that the greater good to society overruled the individual protection granted by the 4th Amendment! There is is a difference... Constitution protects individuals against these types of intrusions; however, the Supreme Court dictated that the society as a whole would be better served....

There is no requirement to cooperate or answer any questions; however, if probable cause is sufficient, they could take other actions as they deem necessary. Each state has laws for and against setting up these checkpoints and how they are carried out.

I find them useless and nothing more than a training requirement for local police officers to establish roadblocks when directed! I'm sure that basic police patrols looking for DUI behaviors are WAY more effective than setting up road blocks.

[wyliec]

The Supreme Court never stated these checkpoints didn't violate 4th Amendment protection, they stated that the greater good to society overruled the individual protection granted by the 4th Amendment! There is is a difference... Constitution protects individuals against these types of intrusions; however, the Supreme Court dictated that the society as a whole would be better served....

There is no requirement to cooperate or answer any questions; however, if probable cause is sufficient, they could take other actions as they deem necessary. Each state has laws for and against setting up these checkpoints and how they are carried out.

I find them useless and nothing more than a training requirement for local police officers to establish roadblocks when directed! I'm sure that basic police patrols looking for DUI behaviors are WAY more effective than setting up road blocks.

According to this, the Supreme Court did say that they (DUI stops) did not violate the 4th amendment:

http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

But, I'm sure you may also find where the S.C. did say it violates the 4th amendment. You can find anything with google.

In any case, I don't believe the original intent of the OP was neither for nor against dui checkpoints as they relate to the 4th amendment. He just pointed out that they (the LEO's) appreciated his spyder.

Don't get me wrong; I like these posts because it makes me aware of the different amendments that I may have forgotten over the years.

[Bob Denman]

warrentless stop n searches are AGAINST the CONSTITUTION..... who's going to arrest those cops....????? this :cus: needs to STOP....
"Those cops" protect you and your family...
This is very simple; Obey the laws, and you'll NEVER have a problem! :thumbup:

Here is the definitive Checkpoint encounter...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKHrBr8mY78

[MouthPiece]

My experience over many years as both an ex prosecutor, public defender and presently criminal defense attorney is that our Courts have come up with "creative distinctions/arguments" to justify invading our rights to privacy in our cars, homes, computers telephones (ad nauseam) all in the name of promoting our supposed war on drugs. <buckling up>

Chris

[Bob Denman]

Face it; Some folks just don't like anybody peering over their should for ANY reason..
Would you rather that nobody keep an eye on the roads for us?? :shocked: :dontknow:

[wyliec]

"Those cops" protect you and your family...
This is very simple; Obey the laws, and you'll NEVER have a problem! :thumbup:

Here is the definitive Checkpoint encounter...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKHrBr8mY78

Thanks Bob,

I forgot I saw that one before. The alphabet recital was amazing.

[reverendg]

warrentless stop n searches are AGAINST the CONSTITUTION..... who's going to arrest those cops....????? this :cus: needs to STOP....

I agree...."but it is for the general good" is a poor excuse for violating the rights of the people to go about their business.

[reverendg]

My experience over many years as both an ex prosecutor, public defender and presently criminal defense attorney is that our Courts have come up with "creative distinctions/arguments" to justify invading our rights to privacy in our cars, homes, computers telephones (ad nauseam) all in the name of promoting our supposed war on drugs. <buckling up>

Chris

Yep....Always "for your own good"...or mostly "for the children's sake". What did Ben Franklin say about sacrificing liberty for safety? It is still true today.

[Bob Denman]

Sooooo... Would you rather that we just let the drunk and drugged drivers crash into the rest of us? :shocked:
It's painfully obvious that there are folks out there who like to do moronic things behind the steering wheels of their vehicles. We end up paying for that! :gaah:
Until a system can be hardwired into all vehicles, that prevents one of these idiots from starting a car in the first place; catching them on the roadway is the only other viable alternative.
Until yolu've had a friend or two killed by these :cus:; you won't understand...

[wyliec]

Yep....Always "for your own good"...or mostly "for the children's sake". What did Ben Franklin say about sacrificing liberty for safety? It is still true today.

This article relates to how most people who quote Franklin take it out of context:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/

[wyliec]

Sooooo... Would you rather that we just let the drunk and drugged drivers crash into the rest of us? :shocked:
It's painfully obvious that there are folks out there who like to do moronic things behind the steering wheels of their vehicles. We end up paying for that! :gaah:
Until a system can be hardwired into all vehicles, that prevents one of these idiots from starting a car in the first place; catching them on the roadway is the only other viable alternative.
Until yolu've had a friend or two killed by these :cus:; you won't understand...

Although that may be a good idea, I'm sure there are those who would say that that was unconstitutional.

Bob,

A little tongue in cheek here- Remember, we all have the freedom of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. For some people, the pursuit of happiness is drinking or drugs or both and not have a concern for someone else's safety.

[Bob Denman]

This article relates how most people who quote Franklin take it out of context:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/
Yup! :thumbup:

[Pirate looks at --]

what about assuming guilt ? its why they dont use radar in california .we have r.i.d.e checks in ontario all the time and i have driven in every state except hawaii and never seen a US dui check .is this a new thing ? is it happening everywhere ?

Well you haven't driven much in California then because they sure do use Radar in California. Can't tell you how many times on the freeway that I have seen the CHP pointing the radar gun at me. You should be more careful the next time you come back.

[Magdave]

Sooooo... Would you rather that we just let the drunk and drugged drivers crash into the rest of us? :shocked:
It's painfully obvious that there are folks out there who like to do moronic things behind the steering wheels of their vehicles. We end up paying for that! :gaah:
Until a system can be hardwired into all vehicles, that prevents one of these idiots from starting a car in the first place; catching them on the roadway is the only other viable alternative.
Until yolu've had a friend or two killed by these :cus:; you won't understand...

Personally I would rather see one that detects outgoing text messages and causes the car to stop for 15 min. :roflblack:

[Michael211_2000]

Personally, I would love to see them inspect each driver's cell phone and arrest them if they found recent texting ...

Can you say "Nanny State"? This is an extremely slippery-slope where the government is allowed to do whatever it wants in the name of improved "safety", whether any particular citizen has done anything wrong or not in fact. Guilty until proven innocent? It's all fine and good until it's YOUR phone a police officer is demanding to inspect, whether you have text messaging service or not (which I don't, in fact).

I'm for roads with more curves in them and large trees growing right along the roadside, they generally work well to eliminate bad drivers drunk drivers txt'ing drivers etc. and make for a more enjoyable ride IMHO. Straight roads may be more efficient but they're boring and allow the previously mentioned drivers to travel long distances without killing themselves. :cus:

We've gone a long ways towards making our society idiot safe, is it any wonder there are so many idiots running (and driving!) around then?

And let's face it, the Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure has pretty much been set aside by the government at this point... elections have consequences, and a Republican loaded Supreme Court has allowed the government to to stop *everybody* on a highway without reasonable cause, probe your body and take fluid and tissue samples from you by force and at will without any conviction in a court of law! What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If that's not an unreasonable search of an "innocent" person (invading the body) then obviously nothing is anymore. Sad. :gaah:

ps. I'm VERY much against DUI I don't drink at all (hate the taste of alcohol), but also VERY VERY MUCH against these "check points" (and mandatory blood draws) which stop everybody in the hopes of catching somebody doing something wrong. We were supposed to be "the land of the free", where did this go so wrong? :banghead:

Regards.

- Michael

[Michael211_2000]

A little tongue in cheek here- Remember, we all have the freedom of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Uhhh, that's in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of American... not in the Constitution itself. The Preamble has no legal standing to my knowledge.

Regards.

- Michael

[Michael211_2000]

I agree...."but it is for the general good" is a poor excuse for violating the rights of the people to go about their business.

Well spoken, I totally agree! :agree::agree::agree:

- Michael

[WackyDan]

warrentless stop n searches are AGAINST the CONSTITUTION..... who's going to arrest those cops....????? this :cus: needs to STOP....

I can see your point... However, until we actually start penalizing those who drive drunk/impaired and those who drive without a license (Many times because the license was suspended revoked due to a prior DUI), then these checkpoints are needed.

I've had a family member hurt badly by a drunk driver. I'm all for personal freedoms, but we live in a society that grants infinite chances to those who can't act responsibly. I'd rather these habitual offenders be locked up good when on their 2nd/3rd DUI and Locked up good and long for being caught driving with a revoked license after a prior DUI. Some people only learn the hard way and I'd rather they learn than an innocent person going about their day.

IF we actually made the penalties severe and made them stick, we wouldn't need these checkpoints.

[reverendg]

Sooooo... Would you rather that we just let the drunk and drugged drivers crash into the rest of us? :shocked:
It's painfully obvious that there are folks out there who like to do moronic things behind the steering wheels of their vehicles. We end up paying for that! :gaah:
Until a system can be hardwired into all vehicles, that prevents one of these idiots from starting a car in the first place; catching them on the roadway is the only other viable alternative.
Until yolu've had a friend or two killed by these :cus:; you won't understand...

Sorry, the constitution was quite clear. It was not a Bill of Rights to be Limited. We were warned.

[Bob Denman]

When you've actually stood over a casket of a friend :shocked:; THEN come talk to me about it...
Read the post prior to yours...

[jerpinoy]

And all I had to do was show my license ( not registration and insurance that was in my frunk) and answer questions. They wanted to know all about the bike and said they really wanted to ride one. It was 40deg and I was suited up. They got me on the way back too as I was taking something to my wife at work round trip and it was on the only street to my house. Same treatment. Just told me to go around the car in front of me. They got 15oz of pot, 1 dui and 4 arrests even after it was announced where and when 24hrs in advance. Some people just do not learn. Good to know the cops like Spyders:thumbup:

You mean you got away?:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

[muonwhiz]

I have been stopped 3 time for RIDE spot checks (dui stops) from Spring to now ... The one time the young officer could not let me go without asking 100+ questions, nothing about drinking just the same questions everyone has about Spyder's:f_spider:. He asked.. you married? How'd you convince the wife? :) :shemademe_smilie:

One thing I do is keep some of the small Can Am flyers that I got from dealer in my rear trunk. I give these out to people who have more questions to ask than I have time to answer!

[Raknid]

They checkpoints near my house around Labor Day. Like the OP, they had something like one DUI/DWI, but several arrests for pot and other drugs. It is like people are starting to avoid drinking and driving..but still doing the drugs.

[wyliec]

Uhhh, that's in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of American... not in the Constitution itself. The Preamble has no legal standing to my knowledge.

Regards.

- Michael

Who cares where it's at. The OP wasn't talking about the Constitution either; but, that was brought up. By the way, it's in the Declaration of Independence where you find Life, Liberty and blah, blah, blah.

[Dochands]

It is unconstitutional.

[reverendg]

This article relates to how most people who quote Franklin take it out of context:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/

Franklin, and the rest of the founders, made themselves well understood on more than one occasion. Whether you choose to disparage the context of a quote or not, the general theme of him and his fellows is well-understood. They founded the nation, not as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic, purposely. Individual rights and liberties were not to be subservient to the "good of the people".

Of course, Franklin first used paraphrased versions of this quote 16 years prior to the instance this reporter speaks of. Him being a New Republic liberal journalist, I expect no less than a jaundiced reporting.

[reverendg]

When you've actually stood over a casket of a friend :shocked:; THEN come talk to me about it...
Read the post prior to yours...

I am sorry for your loss, but it pales in comparison to the loss of liberty, the destruction of our constitutionally enumerated liberties. How many caskets were filled obtaining and defending THAT?

There are numerous LEGAL ways of finding and arresting those who break the law. Infringing the rights of the citizens is not one of them.

[Bob Denman]

..Bury a family member; then come back to me in here...

[reverendg]

..Bury a family member; then come back to me in here...

Again....without liberty, without respect for the constitution, the supreme law of the land, your silly making of excuses for overriding that law are heart rending nonsense. I know a person who died from eating too much sugar....I guess we should outlaw it since it would have helped my friend stay alive? Maybe we should legislate shallower bath tubs so that people can't drown in them? Spyders should be limited to 15 mph, it would save lives. Where do we stop with "feel good" laws? Easy, respect the constitution.

It is easy to invent heart rending pretexts for taking away people's rights.

[Captain Fin]

They don't announce them here in the Old North State. Few months back we were on a poker run, 50 bikes came up on a checkpoint. Yep, they stopped everyone of us. DL check and current sticker on plate. None of us moved until everyone was checked. Pissed the cops off because we waited. One of the guys sent a text to the RC for the next group. There were 80 bikes in that group. They took a different route. I'll say this, don't ever turn around if you see a checkpoint. They will come after you.

Anyone ever see a Federal checkpoint? That's another story.
Yes, we have the federal checkpoint here in the Keys. That is how the Conch Republic came about that you can read about on the internet. There was a Federal Checkpoint set up across from the Last Chance Bar on U.S. 1 at Florida City and the 18 mile Everglades run to the Keys. It really pissed off the locals and tourist.

[Bob Denman]

It is easy to invent heart rending pretexts for taking away people's rights.
:shocked::hun:
Normally; Im a pretty easy-going and positive outlook kind of guy...
You and I are gonna bump heads on this one 'til the cows come home... why not drop it before we both say things that we'll regret?

[reverendg]

:shocked::hun:
Normally; Im a pretty easy-going and positive outlook kind of guy...
You and I are gonna bump heads on this one 'til the cows come home... why not drop it before we both say things that we'll regret?

I am kinda hardcore about the idea of reinventing my constitutional rights. Unalienable is a word I recall seeing. Cops can learn to do their jobs without trampling rights. I am pretty sure there is at least 3 percent of homes that contain drugs of some illicit sort in most major cities/suburbs. Since that is about the success rate for the checkpoint programs, I guess it justifies no-knock searches of homes for drugs as well. Sounds perfectly logical, what the heck, rights are over-rated. I have seen many times over the tragedy of addiction, so I guess I should be all for this? Or are rights really important after all?

[Bob Denman]

I offer us both a chance to step away from this with a bit of our dignity intact :shocked:...
...And you persist :dontknow:

[reverendg]

My point is clear enough.

[Bob Denman]

Fair enough...
I'll just add you to my ignore list...
Enjoy your ride! :thumbup:

[reverendg]

Fair enough...
I'll just add you to my ignore list...
Enjoy your ride! :thumbup:

Works for me....ignorance is bliss for some it seems.

[wyliec]

Franklin, and the rest of the founders, made themselves well understood on more than one occasion. Whether you choose to disparage the context of a quote or not, the general theme of him and his fellows is well-understood. They founded the nation, not as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic, purposely. Individual rights and liberties were not to be subservient to the "good of the people".

Of course, Franklin first used paraphrased versions of this quote 16 years prior to the instance this reporter speaks of. Him being a New Republic liberal journalist, I expect no less than a jaundiced reporting.

We all have our beliefs. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

You are one person that I would not put on my ignore list. I like reading what you write; it makes a lot of sense,even though I don't agree with you. I'm not just talking this thread.

Don't take this the wrong way. In my mind I picture you on a pulpit and being very charismatic and swaying the people who come and listen. You just bring someone else to mind with your screen name.