Sobriety Checkpoints

[semperfi211]

Are you required to identify yourself at these checkpoints in Indiana?

Can anyone answer this?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...quired_to_show_dl_insurance_registration.html
I had a thread last summer relating to this. It looks like yes from post #5.

 

[ModernGunner]

^^ Depends on what you mean by "identify yourself". ^^

If you're driving your own vehicle, LEO's can 'identify' you by the license plate on your car. If you're stopped for a legitimate reason, they can ask for your driver's license. Again, identifying yourself.

Checkpoints are UNconstitutional, period. Was only assigned to one ONCE, under 'protest'. I waived through EVERY single car. Was never assigned to one again, LOL...

To be fair, IF I had noticed erratic driving (almost driving off the road, etc.) I WOULD have stopped that vehicle. However, such was not the case on the night in question. EVERYONE slowed down, and I waived them through.

I am / was NOT stopping (approx.) 1000 cars on the off-chance that ONE person may have had a BAC of .081.

Wanna catch drunk drivers? Get outta Dunkin' Donuts, do the job.

There's a reason we were called (at that time) PATROLmen, LOL...

 

[dross]

That's how our legal system works. It's not perfect but I don't think there is one better. I don't know of any other LEGAL way to address contested laws. How would you change our system to address "evil" laws? Who's opinion of the laws do we listen to/value if not those of the USSC?

I don't have a practical answer to the problem, my point was more academic. You as an officer have to draw your own line. We know from history that some will draw a line, others will do anything that has the stamp of legitimacy.

If you are working a sobriety checkpoint, I don't think that makes you a JBT. If you go house to house confiscating firearms, you ARE a JBT and you deserve what happens to you, even if the SC says you have the power.

Somewhere in between are lines each enforcer must decide whether to cross.

 

[Wreaver]

I personally think they do serve some public good, I'll explain below if you want to know why, but I don't think they're constitutional and as such shouldn't happen.





** I was 18, maybe 19, me and few friends had gone over to W. Terre Haute to a party. We drank an obscene amount of alcohol and when it came time we decided to drive home instead of crashing out at the party. So I drove from middle of nowhere WTH to my apartment on 7th and College in TH. Only a block or two from my apartment there was a checkpoint. I don't know if they were finishing up or what the reason was but they waved us through it. Up to that point it was my single most terrifying moment and I thought for sure I was going to jail.

After that I never drove after drinking, even a little, again. Now days I rarely drink, but I still have friends that party like they're in college again and they know they can call me if at anytime they decide they can't drive. So I really do think they can work as a deterrent.

 

[Denny347]

Refuse to enforce laws that are unjust.

I understand that. However, "unjust" laws are a matter of opinion and enforcement could vary wildly. I am aware of the amount of leeway we LEO's have in enforcement but it's a double edged sword. There are no free rides, giving us the job of deciding legality of existing laws could easily morph into making our own laws. I have my personal opinions of drug laws. Small stuff I can overlook if warranted. Felonies...sorry, my personal feelings become irrelevant. There has to be a line in the sand and every officer's line placement will vary if we were allowed to operate OUTSIDE judicial reviews/oversight/opinions. Be careful what you ask for...you might just get it.

 

[Denny347]

Are you required to identify yourself at these checkpoints in Indiana?

Just like most all the "what if" questions posted here, the answer is "it depends."

 

[GMtoblat]

Unconstitutional response to an inadequate justice system that lets drunk drivers kill people with little consequence.

i agree with this statement, but...What if...the check point is a couple blocks away from say...kirkwood ave. in bloomington where all the bars are?

 

[Denny347]

I don't have a practical answer to the problem, my point was more academic. You as an officer have to draw your own line. We know from history that some will draw a line, others will do anything that has the stamp of legitimacy.

If you are working a sobriety checkpoint, I don't think that makes you a JBT. If you go house to house confiscating firearms, you ARE a JBT and you deserve what happens to you, even if the SC says you have the power.

Somewhere in between are lines each enforcer must decide whether to cross.

Would you consider law enforcers who enforced slavery laws (that were legal at the time) as JBT worthy of treason? That is the only example of grossly unjust laws I can think of. So unjust that we cringe at the thought they they were almost universally accepted. I have yet to see a law I am required to enforce that is unjust.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

That's how our legal system works. It's not perfect but I don't think there is one better. I don't know of any other LEGAL way to address contested laws. How would you change our system to address "evil" laws? Who's opinion of the laws do we listen to/value if not those of the USSC?

I appreciate that officers are required to enforce the law. Giving them crappy laws to enforce puts the officers in a crappy position.

 

[public servant]

I recommend the next time an INGO member sees one of these checkpoints they immediately post it on INGO and we flood their checkpoint with cars and overwhelm them. A silent protest in a way.

I bet more than one would show up drunk.

 

[dross]

Would you consider law enforcers who enforced slavery laws (that were legal at the time) as JBT worthy of treason? That is the only example of grossly unjust laws I can think of. So unjust that we cringe at the thought they they were almost universally accepted. I have yet to see a law I am required to enforce that is unjust.

I'm not sure treason is the right word, but yes, I consider them criminals against humanity for what they did. Same as the the guards at Dachau.

Personally, I think the drug laws are grossly unjust. If you make your living selling liquor, you're a respected member of the community. If you sell marijuana for a living, they'll lock you in a cage with the worst and most dangerous members of our society.

I could never be a cop because of the drug laws. And before some idiot - not you, Denny - makes the accusation, I don't use illegal drugs.

I can easily see how you can truly believe you're not doing wrong enforcing the drug laws. There are lots of compelling arguments on your side. Personally, I believe the drug laws are tyranny, pure and simple. To put a man in a cage because he sold another man a plant, only because that particular method of intoxication doesn't come with a government tax stamp, is to me tyranny.

 

[Trigger Time]

I bet more than one would show up drunk.

It is sad that your right.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm not sure treason is the right word, but yes, I consider them criminals against humanity for what they did. Same as the the guards at Dachau.

Personally, I think the drug laws are grossly unjust. If you make your living selling liquor, you're a respected member of the community. If you sell marijuana for a living, they'll lock you in a cage with the worst and most dangerous members of our society.

I could never be a cop because of the drug laws. And before some idiot - not you, Denny - makes the accusation, I don't use illegal drugs.

I can easily see how you can truly believe you're not doing wrong enforcing the drug laws. There are lots of compelling arguments on your side. Personally, I believe the drug laws are tyranny, pure and simple. To put a man in a cage because he sold another man a plant, only because that particular method of intoxication doesn't come with a government tax stamp, is to me tyranny.

Exactly right!

 

[actaeon277]

^^ Depends on what you mean by "identify yourself". ^^

If you're driving your own vehicle, LEO's can 'identify' you by the license plate on your car. If you're stopped for a legitimate reason, they can ask for your driver's license. Again, identifying yourself.

Checkpoints are UNconstitutional, period. Was only assigned to one ONCE, under 'protest'. I waived through EVERY single car. Was never assigned to one again, LOL...

To be fair, IF I had noticed erratic driving (almost driving off the road, etc.) I WOULD have stopped that vehicle. However, such was not the case on the night in question. EVERYONE slowed down, and I waived them through.

I am / was NOT stopping (approx.) 1000 cars on the off-chance that ONE person may have had a BAC of .081.

Wanna catch drunk drivers? Get outta Dunkin' Donuts, do the job.

There's a reason we were called (at that time) PATROLmen, LOL...

I tried to rep you. But I have to "spread it around".

 

[ModernGunner]

I tried to rep you. But I have to "spread it around".

Hey, thanks actaeon! No worries, appreciate the thought!

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Why not have DHS on every corner as well?

Best of DHS Checkpoint Refusals | Military.com

 

[IndyDave1776]

I understand that. However, "unjust" laws are a matter of opinion and enforcement could vary wildly. I am aware of the amount of leeway we LEO's have in enforcement but it's a double edged sword. There are no free rides, giving us the job of deciding legality of existing laws could easily morph into making our own laws. I have my personal opinions of drug laws. Small stuff I can overlook if warranted. Felonies...sorry, my personal feelings become irrelevant. There has to be a line in the sand and every officer's line placement will vary if we were allowed to operate OUTSIDE judicial reviews/oversight/opinions. Be careful what you ask for...you might just get it.

Generally this is only an issue at the federal level, but there are examples of the exercise of a constitutional right being a felony. Given the oath, what do you do with that?

 

[Denny347]

Generally this is only an issue at the federal level, but there are examples of the exercise of a constitutional right being a felony. Given the oath, what do you do with that?

Example of what you are talking about and I'll have a better answer. Like serious violent felon possession of firearm (Indiana has no law that says "normal" felon cannot possess a firearm)? I have made many SVF arrests over the years and have no issues with it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Example of what you are talking about and I'll have a better answer. Like serious violent felon possession of firearm (Indiana has no law that says "normal" felon cannot possess a firearm)? I have made many SVF arrests over the years and have no issues with it.

You know the text of the Second Amendment. As I said, it is unlikely that you personally would be required to deal with this, but, for example, laws effectively banning certain weapons (think NFA + Hughes Amendment). What about 'hate crimes' laws (None in the IC that I am aware, but it could happen, or federal mandates may happen imposing current federal 'hate crimes' on the states) which fly in the face of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? What about restricting people with unpopular opinions to 'free speech zones'?

 

[Denny347]

You know the text of the Second Amendment. As I said, it is unlikely that you personally would be required to deal with this, but, for example, laws effectively banning certain weapons (think NFA + Hughes Amendment). What about 'hate crimes' laws (None in the IC that I am aware, but it could happen, or federal mandates may happen imposing current federal 'hate crimes' on the states) which fly in the face of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? What about restricting people with unpopular opinions to 'free speech zones'?

I'll cross those bridges IF and when they happen. As part of my routine patrolling I have a couple of abortion clinics that get regular protesters. Also, I am also part of a unit that deals with protesters, riots, large crowds, etc so we get extra training in this area. During the Superbowl I was one of many in my unit that followed the Westboro Baptist Church as well as a similar local group just as hateful. Of the all the protests, we never had a "protest zone" and trust me, what they were saying were considered fighting words to most who heard them.