Got stopped at a dui check point.

[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]

My two and 1/2 cents input....

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...

 

[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...

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 --]

Really?????????

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.