Sobriety Checkpoints....

[Vernal45]

I dont like the concept that I have to PROVE that I am not drunk. Mind you, I would be driving to my destination, get stopped in the check point, asked questions that are no ones business, then let go. Sounds like fishing to me.

 

[odysseus]

Ihr papiere gefallen...

I have not been stopped by one of these yet, though I have seen them in use. I too would of course have to obliged, but they would know exactly where I stand on it. Wouldn't be a friendly discussion.

These stops are examples of minimizing citizens rights to look to grab a minority of offendors. We gave up rights becuase of a bunch of a**holes who drive drunk. Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good direction in policy.

 

[centac]

"We gave up rights becuase of a bunch of a**holes who drive drunk."

Specifically which rights have you given up at a sobriety checkpoint? Driving a car isnt listed in the BOR.

Maybe if fewer "A**holes" drove drunk we wouldnt be having this conversation.

Y'all arent big believers in the social contract, are ya?

 

[beerslurpy]

Erecting roadblocks is a situation designed to systematically detain and interrogate people despite no evidence of wrongdoing.

Isnt there a common law right to travel without being waylaid and also a general right to not be bothered by the police unless you are doing something obviously wrong like causing accidents?

 

[odysseus]

Specifically which rights have you given up at a sobriety checkpoint? Driving a car isnt listed in the BOR.

It's called the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Look it up.

Y'all arent big believers in the social contract, are ya?

Of course I am, but not in any movement that is in the direction of a police-state. My right to drive is one thing. My right to search and seizure is another. Don't know why that is difficult for some to understand.

Centac,

That's cool on your opinion. Wish this was more of a conversation, since writing back and forth here isn't going to cut it. However seeing discussions you are in on other topics here on THR - I am not going to get into a pissing match on this with you. We agree to disagree.

 

[Biker]

Too much coffee Centac?
Biker

 

[GRB]

Police have been legally allowed to set up checkpoints to randomly target any driver ever since I was a young child and probably longer. They have been allowed to obligate you to answer questions about driving under the influence and obligate you to take field sobriety tests for quite some time too. To equate this the either the USSR or to Nazi Germany is absolutely disgusting as I see it, thats my opinion. I have known quite a few people who lived through the ordeals of Nazi germany both as victims of the Nazis and others as German citizens. I do not think they would agree with you for a moment that these checkpoints are like what the Nazis did, or that the reasons for them are similar to for what the Nazis may have used a checkpoint.

Please bear in mind that when you are driving you are performing a privilege not a right. Your driver's license comes with conditions. These are often enforced by way of police at police check points. You have no constitutional right to drive a otor vehicle and the police have every right to stop you randomly at police checkpoints. Funny how any people moan and groan (and compar our country to Nazi Germany, the USSR or other true tyrannies) about the police or the state violating their rights, while at the same time forgetting the states and the even the federal government have rights too.

 

[Jim Diver]

Maybe if fewer "A**holes" drove drunk we wouldnt be having this conversation.

But the fact is that road blocks are no where near as effective as having the same resources out patroling the roads. Roadblocks pick up very few drunks. Its more an opportunity to harass the law abiding citizen...

The police love to report how grateful the citizens are and how motorists appreciate the presence of roadblocks, and how they complement the officers on "being out there and protecting us from the menace of drunk drivers." So what? The Jews in Germany probably said "Thank you!" when they were asked "Papers please!".

 

[centac]

"It's called the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Look it up."

Not exactly. SCOTUS held in
Carroll that motor vehicles have a lessened expectation of privacy and were not held to the same standards as dwellings. Also the plain view doctrine applies. As a earlier poster pointed out, the Supremes have already held that randomized checkpoints are Constitutional. Furthermore, these checkpoints take place on public roadways, and typically there is prior notice given, either by sign or PSA, so there is implied consent in traveling to the checkpoint itself.

Therefore it isnt a 4th Amendment issue, so which rights are they again? Please enlighten me.

 

[GRB]

Isnt there a common law right to travel without being waylaid and also a general right to not be bothered by the police unless you are doing something obviously wrong like causing accidents?

So please be so kind as to: 1) enlighten us as to where this law is mentioned in legal journals or upheld by the courts, and 2: show the decision where it was upheld as overiding the right of the state to use checkpoints.

Oh one more thing: 3): Tell me how you equate a police checkpoint with being waylaid?

Just for your information you have no right for the police not to "bother" you if by bother you you mean they cannot stop you for a police checkpoint in a random stop. If are performing their duties they may stop you at random for checkpoints, and they may stop you to question you at random (such as to seek out witnesses), they may stop you to provide information or warnings to the public (such as telling you a street is closed), they can stop you for other things too.

I am always up for learning more about the law. Sometimes it surprises me to learn a new right or of an old one that I had not known about, this I think would be one of those times.

Best regards,
Glenn B

 

[Deavis]

i dont see driving as a right with all the money that has to be spent to put roads down, enforce/ regulate traffic, on and on.

So, would you say that you should be forced to stop at side-walk check-points? Sidewalks are often paid for by public funds. Walking on the sidewalk in front of your house, bingo, time to stop, and ID yourself. Public funds, public place (the sidewalk), no right to walk in the Constitution?

Drunk drivers scare me.

Give me a break. You are scared of drunk drivers when there are thousands of other accident prone people who are more likely to end your life than a drunk driver? Let's be specific here, there have been studies proving that people using cell phones are more dangerous than drunk drivers. Why not a cell-phone checkpoint? In addition, most drunk driving accidents (study was cited on Fox News I'd have to go search for it) are caused by people well over the legal limit. Not like .09 but more like .2. MADD and all their hysterical BS has criminalized people who drink socially and drive in many places without public transportation.

I'm not saying I support drinking and driving but acting like drunk driving is the greatest sin in the world that a driver can commit is ridiculous. You want to talk about people getting killed, let's talk about drivers who run red lights or who fall asleep at the wheel.

once you get behind the wheel , you lose a bunch of rights, just like when you get on an airplane, and cars use more public funds than planes do i think. enough of us prefer to be safe (remove drunks) that the majority approves of this practice, nazi as it may seem

You would rather force everyone to submit to checkpoints for sobriety just so you can feel a little bit better driving? New flash, no matter how hard you try, you aren't going to make it out of this life alive so why inconvenience everyone else because you don't know how to properly manage risk?

In the same vein, Texas is currently spending billions of dollars to create divided highways to keep people from falling asleep, crossing the dividing line, and killing oncoming motorists. It is really sad to die that way, but they are spending billions of dollars to stop somewhere in the neighborhood of ~100 deaths. I'm sorry, but very few people are worth that much money. If it saves one life and makes it just a little safer

 

[centac]

"But the fact is that road blocks are no where near as effective as having the same resources out patroling the roads. Roadblocks pick up very few drunks. Its more an opportunity to harass the law abiding citizen..."

Please cite the source for this, I'd love to have it. Empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the checkpoints are a more reliable producer of DUI arrests that random patrol. They may not result in more arrests, but typically at least a minimal number of arrests are assured, which cannot be said of random patrol

 

[odysseus]

Poliuce have been legally allowed to set up checkpoints to randomly target any driver ever since I was a young child and probably longer. They have been allowed to obligate you to answer questions about driving under the influence and obligate you to take field sobriety tests for quite some time too. To equate this the either the USSR or to Nazi Germany is absolutely disgusting as I see it. I have known quite a few people who lived through the ordeals of Nazi germany both as victims of the Nazis and others as German citizens. I do not think they would agree with you for a moment that these checkpoints are liike anything of the bottom line of what the Nazis did, or that they are used for whatv a Nazi checkpoint would have been used as.

You say police legally have been able to, but not without much argument by people; enough to warrant the Supreme Court to examine it. Police checkpoints often were used when a crime had occured or a known issue was abound to control a size of people during a event. Setting up a checkpoint in everyday USA to then interrogate people for something they have no probable cause for is conterversial. Maybe not for you, but for many it is and for good reason. In fact like some others have said here too, I have known LE officers who don't like them either. So this is not the closed case you make it sounds as.

You say comparisons with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are disgusting. I would tend to agree that they are extreme, and any comparison to the great tragedies of those regimes would be a mockery. There is no direct connection between this finite issue and those large tragedies. However I would take you up on what you seem to be saying, that there is no place for it. It is any movement against liberties that we have constitutionally protected that brings up these fears, and for good reason. Liberties are fragile, and over time people begin to forget the next law after next law that moves against them. Regarding the 4th Amendment, it is just as important as many here on this board feel about the 2nd Amendment. To make mention of police-states by people (myself included here) is to point to history on what direction to not go in. Is it debatable? Most certainly.

I too know people who went through, escaped, or immigrated from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I know that some feel these road stops are an overstep into our liberties here, just for drunk driving cases. Education and strong laws prevent DUI's, not blocking traffic in surburia to "inspect" every driver.

Yes - to say that sobriety checkpoints are related like to the Holocaust, well I hope no one here is actually trying to do that.

 

[beerslurpy]

I'm sure its all very legal to set up the roadblocks, but I feel it is MORALLY WRONG to permit the police to do so because it facilitates other abuses, as I'm sure centac would demonstrate if you ever ran into him.

I personally dont drive drunk, but I resent that the police are putting their noses into people's business without any probable cause. Next thing you know, someone decides he sees a coffee can in the back seat and you have thousands of dollars in legal fees. Is this likely to happen to a middle class white male? Not really. How about a 20 something with long hair driving a 15 year old civic? Got my car searched a lot back then.

Unrelatedly:
The state doenst have a "right" to establish roadblocks. The state chose to exercise its power and the supreme court (IMO wrongly) decided that particular exercise didnt violate the rights of citizens. They could rebalance it later or decide a different case differently if they so wished.

I dont know about your neighborhood, but the radio stations around here alert listeners to roadblocks as they are happening, as opposed to the police publishing a footnote in a local paper a month before the fact. That truly is implied consent.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Y'all arent big believers in the social contract, are ya?

Absolutely and emphatically not. I've never been big on fantasy.

 

[Beren]

while at the same time forgetting the states and the even the federal government have rights too.

Um, no, they don't.

They have Powers, not Rights.

...

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[answerguy]

Do we all agree that there should be speed limits? What they should be on specific roads could be open for debate but in general I think we can agree
that there should be an upper limit on how fast we can drive. And then can we agree that police are proper in enforcing those speed limits? Given that, do we agree that police using radar is a fair and lawful way to monitor (and ticket) speeders?

I think we also agree that people should not be driving while impaired with alcohol. The arguement is what BAC level is proper and how to go about finding those who are over the limit.

Now what if they could develop a sensor that could detect alcohol blood levels as cars went by on the highway.

Do you think this would this be a reasonable enforcement tool?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I think the complaint of many posters here is that you no longer have the right to travel unmolested. You can't in your car. You can't on a plane. If you live your life so that you can get everywhere on a bicycle, can you do so without worry of these sorts of searches, or is use of the public roads consent to be stopped?

Hell, if you can organize your life such that you have no need of transportation in your day-to-day life, you can still be stopped while walking somewhere without cause, and the cop can frisk you "for his safety and yours" in the process.

Does anyone think the founders saw a need to enumerate the "right to travel without being hassled by government officials" in the bill of rights? Who would have thought it would get to this?

"Tough -- it's not specifically listed as a protected right, therefore it doesn't exist." That's a sickening point of view to take, to be honest.

 

[Vernal45]

^ What he said.

 

[centac]

So now you want the BOR to be liberally interpreted, oh, except for the 2nd amendment.

Ya cant have it both ways, life aint a free ride.

 

[Vernal45]

So now you want the BOR to be liberally interpreted, oh, except for the 2nd amendment.

NO, we want cops to do their jobs, not line people up like cattle and hope to snag a few who are drunk.

 

[centac]

Vernal

Feel free to walk,

Oh, and is that the job you decided not to do?

 

[2nd Amendment]

No, centac, I'll feel free to drive sans license again, as I did for many years in the past. You and yours never managed to catch me before...

Do we all agree that there should be speed limits? What they should be on specific roads could be open for debate but in general I think we can agree
that there should be an upper limit on how fast we can drive.

Not really, no. I believe training should be better and requirements higher to receive a license. Once requirements are met the government should bugger off.

And then can we agree that police are proper in enforcing those speed limits?

No, I question the validity of speed limits in most situations and believe that any traffic enforcement should be handled by a specific force with no other duties. "Police" should not be involved in traffic enforcement at all, since it is essentially nothing but a revenue generator AND leaves a bad taste in people's mouthes re, LEO's.

Now what if they could develop a sensor that could detect alcohol blood levels as cars went by on the highway.

Emphatically not. No level of technology would ever be able to tell if you were reading the driver or the passenger or the empty bottle in the back hatch. Also, there's too much intrusive scanning(read ANY) going on already.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

So now you want the BOR to be liberally interpreted, oh, except for the 2nd amendment.

Ya cant have it both ways, life aint a free ride.

It must be nice when you can group everyone who disagrees with you into one mindset -- as proponents of the same arguments.

Here's my take on "non-enumerated rights:"

• I have the right to marry who I want, and procreate with whoever I choose. "******* don't make good parents, so you can't marry that ****** woman" is offensive and wrong, and I would have ignored such a "law" if it existed in the early part of the last century in the South where I live. Remember though: "if it's not enumerated, it's not a right."
• I have the right to own property, and to amass wealth. If I were female, I'd have the same right. This right wasn't acknowledged in the beginning of the country (that's where George got his wealth -- once he married Martha it was his), but the unwillingness of the powers that be to acknowledge a right in no way nullifies it. Rights are rights, whether the government "allows" them or not.
• I have the right to worship God/The Infinite as I see fit. I don't care if I call myself a Jew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, Satanist, Zoroastrian, Man Of Science, Scientologist, Consumer, or anything else -- it's my right to pursue my own sense of spirituality regardless of popular thought. This one happens to be enumerated in the 1st amendment to the constitution, but even if it weren't the Nazis and the Spaniards in the 15th century were wrong to deny that right.
• I have a right to decide what I consume. If I want to eat ice cream, or smoke tobacco, or grow poppies for medicinal and entertainment use, that's my business. No-one has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. It's mine.
• I have the right to travel, period. I have the right to walk/bike/crawl/swim/drive/hop/fly wherever I want, provided my travel isn't in conflict with anyone else's rights. I don't need "government permission" to do so in any moral sense. The argument that I'm using "government roads" is crap -- I'm part of the population that the roads were purchased for in the first place, often through the use of immenent domain to seize them.

Basically, I'm of the opinion that I should be able to live my life as I see fit, without any interference whatsoever, as long as I'm not infringing on the rights of others.

Does it harm anyone if I grow grapes in my back yard and make wine? What about brewing beer or distilling whiskey? What about growing pot, or mushrooms with hallucinagenic properties? How about opium poppies, or cultures of penicillin?

What if use of said pot is in order to help me reach particular states of consciousness, as Sufis have been using for centuries?

These are all rights that everyone has, whether they're acknowledged by the powers that be or not. You wanna criminalize them so I'll go to jail for breaking a law, but that doesn't make the law right.

Which brings us to the main point: Whether something is against the law or not is not a judgement as to whether it is/isn't a moral action. It's just a statement that those in power will punish those actions, even if they were morally correct and the law is morally bankrupt. Remember, it used to be illegal to help a slave escape captivity, and I don't believe that even our most outspoken "property rights" advocates would argue that that law was one that deserved any obedience whatsoever.

 

[zahc]

If you live your life so that you can get everywhere on a bicycle, can you do so without worry of these sorts of searches

HA! If you only knew. I have never been pulled over in a car, but the amount of hassle I have gotten from police while riding my bike is more than anyone deserves.