DUI check point, what a way to be welcomed to cuba!

[spydee owner]

here is some perspective for you:clap:

 

[GloryRyders]

You go Firefly !!! :thumbup: You see how people get upset if you do not share there particular opinion on a topic. People start to attack you for it. I'm not defending drinking and driving but I agree, it should be illegal to do this. You know as well as I do, if Spyderfest was not there this checkpoint would not have took place. This stuff happens at almost every bike event.

It is my understanding that it was PROM NIGHT in Cuba and the checkpoint had nothing to do with Spyderfest. When we passed by, we were waved thru with no check at all. Over all the police in Cuba were very positive about our event.

 

[RAL]

It is my understanding that it was PROM NIGHT in Cuba and the checkpoint had nothing to do with Spyderfest. When we passed by, we were waved thru with no check at all. Over all the police in Cuba were very positive about our event.

Just as bad. The ground they stand on to do this is thin and shaky at best. They have to check EVERYONE at the check point, mom and pop, the pope, off duty cops, everyone. Any arrests made while operating under a pick and choose would be quickly destroyed by a competent lawyer.
I have no problem with police, they have a hard job and get little thanks. That does not change the fact that this practice is not in keeping with the very principles this nation was founded on.
Several years a go I was stopped at a paper checkpoint, registration, DL and proof of insurance. I was polite and complied with his requests. When he gave the papers back and told me I could move on I smiled told him to have a safe shift and informed him that he had just violated my civil rights. He just stood there with a puzzled look on his face as I drove off. When I was about 20 feet away he yelled at me that he had done nothing wrong that this is all legal!!!!!
Whats the point? To get people to think. Judging from his response I would be surprised if he did not at least check into it and maybe gain a deeper understanding of the laws that he is charged with enforcing. In my opinion ALL law officers, city, county, state and federal should be educated in constitutional law. Not some BS course either I mean EDUCATED!!! I would hope that "I was just following orders" never be be an acceptable excuse in this nation ever.:bdh:

RAL

 

[bruiser]

Obviously some of us didn't make it to Cuba and are spending a good part of our morning on SL.C. I love how many of these threads diverge from the original topic at times...

It was mentioned previously that northern states hit & run cases weren't as numerous because they didn't have the quite the illegal immigration problem as the southern states...

If you're not too busy...here's an interesting "illegal population" by state map.

http://pewhispanic.org/unauthorized-immigration/

Interesting.

 

[Firefly]

Interesting read......follow the money.
http://www.duiblock.com/DUI_Checkpoint_History/


RAL

Great link-- and they really hit the nail on the head about this issue.

Mandatory checkpoints of any kind are illegal in Michigan--- but the State police have found some sneaky ways around the law.

Seat belt tickets used to be secondary offenses-- you had to be pulled over for something else first -- but now they are primary offenses --- so if a cop sees you not wearing one they can pull you over and write you up.

What they did last summer was put state cops at certain 4-way stops throughout the state--- sitting there watching people. So it wasn't a 'checkpoint' - but they could look at you when you came to a stop.

Too bad they're more concerned with revenue than actually stopping REAL crime.

 

[Firefly]

Firefly,
I copied this directly from Michigan court records. The case number is notated... Len

The police may search a motor vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime may be found therein. People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 418-419; 605 NW2d 667 (2000).

Well, that's all fine and well-- but if they pull ME over and ask to search the car-- and they DO 'ask' -- they will kindly be told NO-- and that they can get a warrant if they want to do a search. Why do they ask??? hmmmm.....

Another one I see in the paper all the time is cops finding pot in someones pocket that was walking down the street or that was pulled over. Why these people allow the cops to search them is beyond me.

Now, Michigan DOES have 'implied consent' for breath and blood tests if you're pulled over-- when you got your license you agreed not to refuse a breath or blood test--- otherwise you relinquish your driving rights immediately-- but they must have probable cause.

These things all come down to money and do little if anything for public safety.

 

[boborgera]

Another one I see in the paper all the time is cops finding pot in someones pocket that was walking down the street or that was pulled over. Why these people allow the cops to search them is beyond me.
.

Probably because most pot heads don't have enough brain cells left over to say no

 

[bone crusher]

Agree with Firefly. The other one in my state is seat belt checks. They pull in dozens of outstandings and every sort of citation.

Constitutionally questionable.

It's the law...driving is a privilege, not a right...it's easily governed...also, no points for seatbelt violations and no points for red light and speeding cameras...although there is a nice fine...

Here in the republic of MD, we have both...and trust me, they stink!!

 

[Firefly]

It's the law...driving is a privilege, not a right...it's easily governed...also, no points for seatbelt violations and no points for red light and speeding cameras...although there is a nice fine...

Here in the republic of MD, we have both...and trust me, they stink!!

Uh--- we get points in Michigan for not wearing seatbelts.... and if you read the link provided above this kind of search HAS been determined to be michigan-unconstitutional. But you are correct that driving is a privilege --- but that doesn't mean it can trump our constitutional rights.

 

[bone crusher]

Uh--- we get points in Michigan for not wearing seatbelts.... and if you read the link provided above this kind of search HAS been determined to be michigan-unconstitutional. But you are correct that driving is a privilege --- but that doesn't mean it can trump our constitutional rights.

Where does the Constitution come in with driving regulations...MI has it's own Constitution? If so, it can't trump federal regulations and I think that the state would have no problem getting this cleared federally, if needed. Trust me, I hate all red light and speed cameras, seatbelt checks, etc...IMHO, nothing wrong with going fast provided you're not adversely affecting other riders.

Also, points for a seatbelt violation...ouch! Good thing the Spyder doesn't have a seatbelt...well, maybe that's a bad thing!

 

[Firefly]

Where does the Constitution come in with driving regulations...MI has it's own Constitution? If so, it can't trump federal regulations and I think that the state would have no problem getting this cleared federally, if needed. Trust me, I hate all red light and speed cameras, seatbelt checks, etc...IMHO, nothing wrong with going fast provided you're not adversely affecting other riders.

Also, points for a seatbelt violation...ouch! Good thing the Spyder doesn't have a seatbelt...well, maybe that's a bad thing!

Yes- Michigan has it's own Constitution as most(all?) states do. Driving privileges are granted by the state - not the federal government.

"The Supreme Court decision made sobriety checkpoints legal on a federal level and the case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court with instructions to change its decision accordingly. Instead, the Michigan Supreme Court Justices ran an end-around by finding that sobriety checkpoints, even though permissible under the United States Constitution, were in violation of Michigan’s state Constitution and therefore unlawful.

Since the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling, the use of sobriety, or DUI, checkpoints continues to be vigorously debated. Eleven other states—Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming—joined Michigan in determining the checkpoints were unlawful or in violation of state Constitutions."



​

 

[Bob Denman]

I think somebody sprayed this place with an extra helping of paranoia... :shocked:

 

[patdcop]

I thought driving was a privilege granted by license not a constitutional mandate protected by the bill of rights?

 

[Painter Dan]

Hang on everybody. I was there last nite and left at about 9 pm and did not see them. But this check point, was it on the main hiway and they were checking all cars or was this on the little county road that goes from the hiway to the golf course. MY POINT IS IF IT WAS ON THE MAIN HIWAY AND THEY WERE CHECKING ALL BIKES AND CARS FINE. BUT IF THEY WERE ON THE FEEDER ROAD ONLY CHECKING PEOPLE FROM THE GOLF COURSE OR JUST SPYDERS I HAVE A VERY BIG PROBLEM WITH IT. One is doing the job the right way and the other is selective prosicution and against the equal procection clause of the constitution. I would like to know just where the check point was!!!!!!:lecturef_smilie::lecturef_smilie::lecturef_smilie::lecturef_smilie:

The checkpoint was on the main road coming in to town. I drove through it. They usually put one there in the same spot a couple of times a year.

 

[Bob Denman]

I thought driving was a privilege granted by license not a constitutional mandate protected by the bill of rights?

:agree: Bone up on the differences between "Rights" and Priviledges"...

 

[NancysToy]

I thought driving was a privilege granted by license not a constitutional mandate protected by the bill of rights?

:thumbup:

 

[RAL]

I thought driving was a privilege granted by license not a constitutional mandate protected by the bill of rights?

The right to travel unmolested is a right. The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, that is the heart of it, what is reasonable?
Stopping a car that is weaving, reasonable. Casting a broad net and stopping everyone trying to catch people that MAY be committing a crime, not so reasonable. The difference is not that subtle. Once you allow the "bending of the law" to be used in a cause you feel is just you compromise the foundation of the law itself. Opening it up to further erosion.

RAL

 

[ThreeFeet]

The checkpoint was on the main road coming in to town. I drove through it. They usually put one there in the same spot a couple of times a year.

It was also put out to a bunch of spyderryders that there would be these check points. They also had these pretty much all over in the different towns. Seems it was that time of year to get er done!!! Probably due to Graduation timeing? Either way no harm no foul. Hope yall had a good time while your were here!!!:clap:

 

[Firefly]

This issue has nothing to do with 'liberal' politics and everything to do with making money. The ACLU stands AGAINST such searches and has defended some big cases pertaining to this.

 

[boborgera]

This issue has nothing to do with 'liberal' politics and everything to do with making money. The ACLU stands AGAINST such searches and has defended some big cases pertaining to this.

:agree:It's the MONEY; When the first red light cameras were put up a lot of money went into the slush box, Then the motorist got wise to the cameras and stopped for the red light. Mission accomplished right? WORNG.
They just changed the timing of light to change quicker, Gotta keep the Slush Box full.