Sobriety Checkpoints....

[fjolnirsson]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Flyboy]

Guess who:

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

Nope. Never signed the thing. My lawyer advised against it.

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

Nope. I'd prefer literally. As in, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Merely driving is not PC to think I'm breaking the law.

Empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the checkpoints are a more reliable producer of DUI arrests that random patrol.

I don't doubt it. But arrests don't count. Convictions count. And not just any conviction--only legitimate convictions, free of coerced confessions, bogus "evidence," and "he had a coffee can!" probable cause.

"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.

Yup. And SCOTUS held in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks can be property, and in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" was OK. Just because the Nine Tin Jesuses* say something doesn't make it so.

And, while we're on the subject of the courts, why don't you weigh in with your name, department, and badge number? I'd love to forward a few of your posts to criminal defense attorneys in your area. If you're right, and your actions are legal, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Beren +1
Derek Zeanah +1
*Judge Lerned Hand +1 for giving us such wonderful phrases to describe the High Court (I've used a few others elsewhere)

And my Russian accent is terrible, but I can do German, both language and accent, well enough to to annoy your average cop.

 

[answerguy]

Are you just being silly or trying to be argumentative?

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.

You want the government to have better and higher standards BEFORE giving out driver's licenses but then it's hands off and anything goes afterwards?

Would it be OK with you if I drove past your house at 90 MPH while waving my better and higher standard DL some day?

 

[centac]

"why don't you weigh in with your name, department, and badge number? I'd love to forward a few of your posts to criminal defense attorneys in your area. If you're right, and your actions are legal, you have nothing to worry about, right?"

Sport, the defense attorneys here dont need your help, they have plenty of clients who have tried amd lost. Darn straight I dont have anything to worry about, I have been thru more suppression hearings than I can count and they have all gone my way, but one. I had 6 pot plants suppressed when I went into a pole barn that was under construction without a warrant. The judge held that because it was enclosed on 3 sides it counted as a building and couldnt be claimed under plain view. Of course I got a warrant for the house that was on the same property and seized 20 pounds processed, and it was admitted, so I think that turned out OK. Other than that I have never had any evidence suppressed from any warrant, plain view or consent search I've done at any court level, local, appellate or fed. So please, all you experts on the subject, you'll find that I place a little more credence in what the judges have to say than what anonymous twits on the errornet spout. You tell me what a horrific job I'm doing, and I'll take it as worth the paper it is written on.

Ya see, for you arguing this stuff is a hobby, for me its a profession. As for identifying myself, yeah right, with the reactionary whackjobs here? I'd never heard the phrase "vote from the rooftops" until here, and y'all must be very proud. No thanks.

 

[ReconTech]

Its a very sad day when people are so narrow minded, and so anti-govt and anti-police on this board.

Thats ok, I'm sure you guys never need anything in terms of public safety. Next time your involved in a bad injury accident, pull out the soviet papers and KGB insignia and hope it helps you survive, why bother calling big brother to help?

 

[Jeff]

I've also believed the "driving is a privilege" viewpoint to be totally wrong. There is no Golden Document anywhere that states it is a privilege. There is plenty of language in the Costitution and DOI, however, that strongly suggests such an activity could only be a right.

The right to move about freely includes driving a motor vehicle, much like other rights include specific examples for exercising it: the right to own an AR-15, and the right to express your freedom of speech on the Internet.

Checkpoints are unnecessary wastes of valuable resources that would be better spent finding actual criminals and solving actual crimes.

 

[odysseus]

Would it be OK with you if I drove past your house at 90 MPH while waving my better and higher standard DL some day?

This line of thought is a distraction from the discussion of the thread, IMO. Traffic laws and speeds go into the realm of driving rules, and licensing and operation of a vehicle. If I were speeding and driving an unsafe vehicle, I would be breaking rules I signed up to obey by getting a license to drive.

I will say it again, I don't know why this is hard to delineate for some. I see it clearly, and I disagree with the Supreme Court on this issue. Blocking free movement by creating roadblocks and stopping people on the street without probable cause to interrogate them, is an infringment on 4th Amendent rights. Even if the cause to catch DUI drivers is honerable, using these methods doesn't make it right.

The two are seperate. I don't have a "right" to drive. I do have my Constituational rights still if I am in a plane, train, automobile, bicycle, walking, wheelchairing, etc...

Yup. And SCOTUS held in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks can be property, and in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" was OK

Thanks for bringing that out.

 

[2nd Amendment]

You want the government to have better and higher standards BEFORE giving out driver's licenses but then it's hands off and anything goes afterwards?

Would it be OK with you if I drove past your house at 90 MPH while waving my better and higher standard DL some day?

It's either a right or a privilege. If it's a right then the gooberment needs to get lost, period. If it's not a Right then why are we treating it as such, ie: Giving damn near every single person the "privilege" regardless of training or talent or capacity? If it's a privilege then properly train people and require proper ability. If done thus there's very little reason for speed limits or other regs outside congested areas. And, of course, there would be less congestion since there wouldn't be as many Yahoos on the road and those on the road would be better qualified to deal with it.

You all did say it's a privilege? Then treat it as such... Oh, but you don't like that? Everyone should have the "right", then we'll just dumb it down to the lowest common denominator and micro-manage it with plenty of LEO out there to supervise every half-wit with a license. OK, when you get some consistency to your views you all let me know...

And I don't care how fast you drive by my house. Why should I? What difference does it make to me? I am smart enough, as is every member of my family, to avoid you. I don't need laws or cops to keep me safe from you. In fact, people buzz down this road at 70 or so every single day. It's four or five miles of straight, paved, rural road. Law has nothing to do with it. And every so often one of them exits the gene pool due to speed and lack of talent/training/skill. If you're one of these you'll be gone soon enough and if not then I don't need to worry about you anyway, nor do you need "The Law" to manage you.

 

[garyk/nm]

Truth be told (oh lord, am I gonna get pimp-slapped for this one) I agree with Centac. I live in New Mexico, which has one of the (if not THE) highest rates of DUI in the Nation. I live in a small town, and one or two Saturday nights a month, the local LE's set up a roadblock for DUI. It is always in the same place, at the same time of day. They catch drunk drivers EVERY time they do this. How intelligent do you have to be to realize that driving through this area on a Saturday night has a good chance of getting you stopped? But still, they catch drunks EVERY TIME! As far as I am concerned (personal opinion only), KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! The safety of my family is more important to me that the inconvenience of having to "show papers" at a sobriety checkpoint.
If folks quit driving while under the influence, then we would have no need for such checkpoints. Is that going to happen? I don't think so. Until that happens, I am perfectly willing to "show papers" any time asked. (And thank those doing the job).

Let the slappin' begin.

 

[odysseus]

As far as I am concerned (personal opinion only), KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! The safety of my family is more important to me that the inconvenience of having to "show papers" at a sobriety checkpoint.

Ok, I know this is a can-o-worms - but let's follow the logic then. So imagine then now that you have meth labs in your area. It's a real problem in your community. You cool with then having LE knock on your door and say they are going to inspect your home for meth and meth equipment? Not too much of an inconvenience right? I mean, you are not guilty of it so what's the problem?

 

[2nd Amendment]

The safety of my family is more important to me that the inconvenience of having to "show papers" at a sobriety checkpoint.

*shudder*

So at what point do your rights and privacy become more important than this false sense of security represented by the police state?

 

[odysseus]

Its a very sad day when people are so narrow minded, and so anti-govt and anti-police on this board.

Thats ok, I'm sure you guys never need anything in terms of public safety. Next time your involved in a bad injury accident, pull out the soviet papers and KGB insignia and hope it helps you survive, why bother calling big brother to help?

I do see some pretty inflammatory speech here in regards to that (and I too don't like it), but why is it that this sounds like no discussion can be made without some point be made to just throw it all out the window?

Hey - my opinion can change and be formed by good discussion. That's why i am here.

Not sure what you mean by the KGB insignia.

I pay my taxes, and I vote. Sorry but having a strict Constitutional opinion on this doesn't mean I don't want goverment.

 

[Onmilo]

Like a speedtrap in a small town, sobriety checkpoints are all about money.
Money spent to run them and money that the checkpoint brings in.
If the checkpoints aren't cost effective they go away,,,,

 

[stevelyn]

The sobriety checkpoints are just a lazy way to get around having to justify the stop. It eliminates the need for the arresting officer to articulate in the report (and court) that the driver's actions were indicative of driving impaired warranting the stop.
You can bypass having to do police work by stopping everybody and having a driver submit to a FST and breath test if they exhibit any signs and symptoms of intoxication. Easy, quick, efficient and damn near defense attorney proof since the reason for the stop will never be questioned.
Unfortunately the Constitution is also bypassed when you set up these checkpoints.

 

[Flyboy]

You can bypass having to do police work by stopping everybody

Exactly.

This is the same philosophy that's behind "zero tolerance," specifically that of removing any thought or effort from the part of the person who is charged with enforcing the rules. By treating everybody the same--guilty--the enforcers don't have to engage in any rational thought or expend any effort on considering individuals. It's Just Another Thing Wrong with the leftist point of view: treating people according to their group membership, instead of as individuals. In the case of zero tolerance, the group is "people who committed any infraction of this rule, no matter how technical," and it's what gives us such BS actions as suspensions and drug charges for kids who keep their asthma inhalers on their persons because the time it takes to get the inhaler from the nurse's office could be the difference between life and death. In the case of checkpoints, the group is drivers, and we all see the BS we get: you're driving, so you have to prove that you're {sober, wearing a seatbelt, current on your vehicle taxes, carrying the right papers}. Heaven forbid some poor policeman actually have to articulate his probable cause by "Oath or affirmation."

Throw in the revenue-collection aspect, and you have yourself a leftist!

 

[johnster999]

Our country is configured for travel by automobile. Cities are built around this fact, along with most facilities within the cities. There are no horse and buggy parking facilities provided in the parking lot at the local courthouse or the grocery store. Virtually nothing is within walking distance anymore, as residential and commercial districts are widely seperated.

Our work schedules are built around the fact that an employee can be expected to arrive for work or travel to destinations in a short period of time via automobile. In most US cities, it's almost impossible to hold down a good job without the use of a car, as public transit is often unavailable.

The automobile is today's means of freely traveling within this country, and conducting one's personal or professional business in a free and productive way.

999

 

[Art Eatman]

No more bash-trash.

Art

 

[suvdrvr]

I can't believe no one posted yet that they are illegal in the state of Washington. We will not see a sobriety stop here thanks to WA State Article 1 section 7, this restricts the reach of gov't more than the 4th to the point that the gov't can't imped with out PC.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Back when god and I were young the US Army sent me to Germany as a young single soldier (I was seventeen, the year was 1967). When I find out there is NO SPEED limit on the Autobahn, I ask, "How can that be?" I find out from my "chain of command" and the soldiers that have been to Germany before that they do not restrain anyone from being stupid. But, they do punish stupidity. I am free to drive 150 KPH on the Autobahn, but if I cause an accident or let some one else involve me in one I will be severely punished. I think that is the way things should be. It worked then, and I think it will work now. Speed limits do not make us safer. Safer driving makes us safer. EXTREME punishment for causing an accident stops accidents. Speed limits make us mad at the police.

 

[O.F.Fascist]

Never been stopped at a Sobriety Checkpoint but I have gone through several border patrol checkpoints.

About a month ago me and two other friends went to Big Bend National Park to go camping. Going and coming we went through 4 Border Patrol checkpoints.

3 of them went fairly easy, the guys just asked "yall US citizens" we replied yes, and then he okay and waved us through.

The last ????er though was doing the whole 20 ????ing questions routine. Where are you coming from, how long were you there, where are you going, which I replied to by saying "home," then he said where no what city, and one of my friends said Corpus Christi, then he asked where do you work, and I told him but then the **** points at my two other friends and says "do you all work there.

Anyways after that he then asks can I have a look in your trunk to which I reply "No." He gets the deer in the headlights look for about 10 seconds and then he says "No?" And I reply "No, Sir."

He then walks around around the car and knocks on the trunk presumable to see if there is anyone inside who responds.Then he walks around back torwards my driver window and then he finally asks us if we are all US citizens, we say yes and then he waves us through.

 

[Plumber576]

In Ohio, it's state law that they have to inform the public of where and when they are going to have the checkpoints. They are published in the papers...and people drive around them, rightfully so.

 

[mons meg]

As far as the effectiveness of these checkpoints versus "random patrol", why don't we choose neither of those options a stake out the "problem" bars so the drunk drivers don't have a chance to do any damage?

Background: My sister was killed in 1993 by a drunk driver who left a bar on the edge of town and wsa doing 65 or so when he blew through a stop sign and T-boned my sister's car. She had right of way.

Seems like there was more than one local cop who knew this particular place had a rep for folks wobbling out to their cars at 2am. I mean, when you fish for bass, you don't go out in the middle of the lake and trawl around...you go to their hidey holes. You would have all the PC you need if you *saw* someone tripping over their keys and creeping out into the street.

 

[O.F.Fascist]

ReconTech,

Thats ok, I'm sure you guys never need anything in terms of public safety. Next time your involved in a bad injury accident, pull out the soviet papers and KGB insignia and hope it helps you survive, why bother calling big brother to help?

The Lord helps those that help themselves.

 

[Tom Servo]

Please bear in mind that when you are driving you are performing a privilege not a right. Your driver's license comes with conditions.

Agreed. Around these parts, they're not called sobriety checkpoints, they're "seatbelt checks." Which just happen to take place most often after midnight

I've got lifelong injuries from a drunk driver. Ironically, it happened while such checkpoints had been suspended over a lawsuit. Otherwise, the guy might have been stopped before he destroyed my left knee, hip, and car.

How they do it here isn't all that intrusive. You roll your window down and present license (which you agree to when you get the license in the first place). If the officer happens to smell something on you, or he notices the crack-pipe in your ashtray, well, that's PC. Since I'm not involved in those sorts of recreational activites, it's no problem for me; I just get thanked for my time and waved through. The process takes a few seconds of my oh-so-precious time.

Is there a possible civil-rights issue here? Perhaps, but it lies deeper in the actual question of having to get a "license" to drive in the first place, not in the checkpoints set up to enforce compliance. I've got meth labs and violent hillbilly bars in my neck of the woods, and I know that alot of those types get nabbed at the checkpoints at minimal to zero hardship to me, so I don't really see it as a tradeoff.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Mons? You have our sympathy and our condolences. It is a tragedy that a drunk can kill anyone. The question here is a little bit different.

The REAL question here is "Should ANY leo have permission to stop ANYONE, ANYWHERE, and ask them to PROVE sobriety or competency to drive"?

I say NO. Just because I am in my car at 02:00, (two AM) on a saturday night/sunday morning is not probable cause to pull me over to check for intoxication.