Sobriety Checkpoints

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't read all the pages, but I will tell you there are very strict rules for checkpoints. One is that signage must be present forward of the checkpoint that warn the checkpoint is ahead, and there must be turn offs between the sign and the checkpoint. You cannot be forced to go through the checkpoint, in other words.

They do catch drunks, though. It never failed to amaze me how someone who HAD to know they were going to reek of alcohol and be over the limit could drive past two huge orange signs, not turn off and bypass the checkpoint, then wonder how they got caught. I worked them a few times for overtime when I was a rookie, but found them pretty boring and quickly found it was much more interesting to sign up for mobile DUI enforcement and troll Broad Ripple.

They are about revenue in one sense. That's federal money is used to fund most of them. Not in the sense of writing tickets. Its cheaper and easier just to pull people over if you want to write tickets. I used to run radar in a school zone for an hour each day when the kids were getting out of school. I could write 4 in that hour only stopping cars going 15+ over, and the limiting factor wasn't speeders, it was how long it took to handwrite the tickets.

It says a lot if someone is so drunk he can't read the sign declaring that he is about to get pinched. My concern is that the scope of such checkpoints could expand and the fair warning and escape route requirements could be diminished.

You are splitting hairs....my guns are in my home, We shoot where it is safe to shoot...If I ran down the road shooting my gun off irresponsibly, yes I would expect the police to take my gun and put me in jail before I killed someone. if someone wants to drink who cares...do it in your home, do it where it is safe...but the minute they get in their car and drive down the road they are infringing on my families safety. I do not feel it is anyone's right to get drunk and kill my one of my family members or my who family....just like it is not their right to stand in the front yard and fire shots randomly at my grand kids while they are playing outside. I could say is it an infringement on my rights to have to stop at red lights. I will not protect or defend the rights of a drunk driver or an irresponsible gun owner. I will and have walked the walk for gun owners.

Picking up where I left off above, my biggest concerns are that, first, there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion for shaking down any and all who drive up the street. If we let this take root, then we are setting ourselves up for something reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia in which there were permanent checkpoints ever so often on the roads in which they could demand papers and shake you down for whatever they so chose. This is unacceptable and needs to be stopped before it gets started. This is much different than stopping at red lights. Traffic control devices do not conduct searches. They simply mandate who has the right of way.

The problem we have is that there are times at which we have to defend the constitutional rights of less than desirable neighbors in order to defend our own. I would like the world to be rid of drunk drivers, assorted hoodlums, and other miscellaneous criminals, but I am not willing to give up my rights in order to (maybe) be rid of some of those people. You will find that whenever encroachments on our rights are allowed, they are usually used frequently on the wrong people, much like the asset forfeiture laws which make it inherently dangerous to encounter police while on vacation with enough money to pay as you go (never mind that the drug trade continues unabated). Allowing checkpoints would be largely the same--infringing on the righteous majority while doing little to mitigate the ostensible problem.

 

[Survivalcookie]

I do not see the difference between sobriety check points and door to door searches for illegal drugs.

On top of my philosophical objections is my knowledge of several people who have been repeatedly busted for drunk driving (crashed cars, swerving all over the road, slobbering drunk, sometimes with kids in the vehicle) who had their hands slapped, sent to "treatment" and back on the streets.

The difference is I am driving a car on a public highway, I have a great chance of killing someone...if I am sitting at home smoking pot I might stub my toe. Maybe years ago people got their hands smacked...but down putting out 10 grand should be a reason not to do it again...unless you are stupid.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The difference is I am driving a car on a public highway, I have a great chance of killing someone...if I am sitting at home smoking pot I might stub my toe. Maybe years ago people got their hands smacked...but down putting out 10 grand should be a reason not to do it again...unless you are stupid.

The fact they were driving drunk in the first place is evidence of that!

 

[Survivalcookie]

Do you consider sobriety checkpoints to be significantly different than checkpoints to control the transportation of illegal explosives, firearms or drugs?

Do you consider sobriety checkpoints to be significantly different than door to door searches of private property?

No, I don't. don't think those would be as effective a local check points. Lots of drunk drives out late at night...do you know what time of day all the people who transport illegal fire arms, explosives and drugs come out. I have seen a check points for illegals in CA, I have seen check points for illegal fruits before going into CA. I have seen check points for a missing child coming out of a small town, I have seen check points for law enforcement look for a certain make an model of a car that was seen in a crime.

As for at home apples to oranges.

 

[Survivalcookie]

You are using Obama's favorite tactic, "the Ole Straw Man argument"

OOO bull sh*t, don't you have anything better to add to the argument...they were doing check points when Obama was still in HS.

 

[Survivalcookie]

The fact they were driving drunk in the first place is evidence of that!

Exactly my friend.

 

[Survivalcookie]

It says a lot if someone is so drunk he can't read the sign declaring that he is about to get pinched. My concern is that the scope of such checkpoints could expand and the fair warning and escape route requirements could be diminished.



Picking up where I left off above, my biggest concerns are that, first, there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion for shaking down any and all who drive up the street. If we let this take root, then we are setting ourselves up for something reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia in which there were permanent checkpoints ever so often on the roads in which they could demand papers and shake you down for whatever they so chose. This is unacceptable and needs to be stopped before it gets started. This is much different than stopping at red lights. Traffic control devices do not conduct searches. They simply mandate who has the right of way.

The problem we have is that there are times at which we have to defend the constitutional rights of less than desirable neighbors in order to defend our own. I would like the world to be rid of drunk drivers, assorted hoodlums, and other miscellaneous criminals, but I am not willing to give up my rights in order to (maybe) be rid of some of those people. You will find that whenever encroachments on our rights are allowed, they are usually used frequently on the wrong people, much like the asset forfeiture laws which make it inherently dangerous to encounter police while on vacation with enough money to pay as you go (never mind that the drug trade continues unabated). Allowing checkpoints would be largely the same--infringing on the righteous majority while doing little to mitigate the ostensible problem.

Check points have been going on for many years...They are always announced and they are easy to miss...only people who are to drunk to realize they don't look or act sober get caught...I just think making a mountain out of a mole hill with this...and yes cops in small towns take advantage of people from out of state. Currituck, NC on the way to Outer Banks was the worst...if they know you car you could speed no one cared...but have an out of state plate and you will get pulled over for going the speed limit. Found that out when I was pulled over in my sisters car with Indiana plates, one of the 3 town sheriffs said oops, have a nice day and left when he looked at my licence and said he thought my face looked familiar.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

No, I don't. don't think those would be as effective a local check points. Lots of drunk drives out late at night...do you know what time of day all the people who transport illegal fire arms, explosives and drugs come out. I have seen a check points for illegals in CA, I have seen check points for illegal fruits before going into CA. I have seen check points for a missing child coming out of a small town, I have seen check points for law enforcement look for a certain make an model of a car that was seen in a crime.

As for at home apples to oranges.

So that I am clear on your position, you do support sobriety checkpoints on public roads. You do not consider them significantly different from firearms checkpoints, drug checkpoints or other checkpoints safeguarding the public good on public roads.

I infer that you do not support door to door searches of private property for the public good.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth or make an accusation. Tone does not carry very well on the internet, but I am being sincere.

Do I correctly understand your position on these questions?

 

[Meezer]

OOO bull sh*t, don't you have anything better to add to the argument...they were doing check points when Obama was still in HS.

OOO BS to you too with your lame straw man argument "I do not feel it is anyone's right to get drunk and kill"

NOBODY in this thread was claiming that it was a "right to get drunk & kill".



Btw:

9th Circuit Appeals Court: 4th Amendment Applies At The Border;


9th Circuit Appeals Court: 4th Amendment Applies At The Border; Also: Password Protected Files Shouldn't Arouse Suspicion | Techdirt

 

[Meezer]

Which is why people are resisting these unconstitutional stops:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u4Ku17CqdZg

 

[griffin]

signage must be present forward of the checkpoint that warn the checkpoint is ahead, and there must be turn offs between the sign and the checkpoint. You cannot be forced to go through the checkpoint, in other words.

This law must be unique to Indiana.

 

[Prometheus]

The probable cause is, it is 2 am the bar just closed, and moist people out after 2 am have usually been to a bar. Very few shifts change at 2 am.

PAPERS PLEASE!

I'd quote the rest of your ridiculous 'justifications' for destroying peoples Rights, but it would exceed the maximum post length on INGO.

It's fine if you don't believe people have Rights. It's fine if you think the Constitution doesn't say what it says.

Just don't try to say you believe in Rights or the Constitution when attempt to justify trampling them. You look like a fool when you do.

 

[actaeon277]

I think you are to paranoid for your own good or a drunk who likes to drink and drive. I do not have to any fear about condoning a check point, Use to live in southern CA where they had check points for illegals, use to live on a weapons station where my car was searched every time I entered the base to go home, have had my car searched many times going on military installations. I never considered it abusive. The probable cause is, it is 2 am the bar just closed, and moist people out after 2 am have usually been to a bar. Very few shifts change at 2 am.

The difference is I am driving a car on a public highway, I have a great chance of killing someone...if I am sitting at home smoking pot I might stub my toe. Maybe years ago people got their hands smacked...but down putting out 10 grand should be a reason not to do it again...unless you are stupid.

Survivalcookie, the person may be driving down the road, but they are in their vehicle. Which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If the person is driving erratically, then there is cause to suspect drunk driving.
It is the SAME as your gun in your house.
If you have an ND, the bullet WILL travel out of your yard.
Do you advocate law enforcement making sure your guns are "properly" locked up?

If someone is paranoid, because they think this is a violation of their rights, then would you be paranoid in being against random checks of your house for illegal drugs?

Rights are not just for when it is convienent. They often can result in problems.
But, they are there because NOT having them would cause more problems.

 

[thompal]

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

But, thank God that while those people are at the bars getting drunk and ready to drive, they won't be able to smoke in public!!!!!!

 

[Denny347]

This law must be unique to Indiana.

Yes, very good powerpoint on this very subject.

www.in.gov/cji/files/Legal_Update.ppt

 

[jLr]

I don't have a problem with them myself. I'll take the minute inconvenience if it means saving someone's life.

If you are sober, how on earth does a minute of inconvenience save someone's life?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Drunk drivers are not responsible....I do not think it will ever come to that...is the police suppose to just do nothing, I don't mind being inconvenienced once in a while to maybe save a live...I have been driving for 40 years and have only went through 1 sobriety check point. Why should they wait until someone is killed.

That is just like saying buying ammo with a background check is ok, if it just saves one life.

 

[griffin]

Yes, very good powerpoint on this very subject.

I have been through checkpoints where no turn-off was lawful. In addition, I have seen youtube videos of people pulling u-turns to avoid checkpoints and getting chased down for probable cause.

I found it interesting that the sobriety checkpoint must be timed to achieve maximum likelihood of non-compliance. In other words, sobriety checkpoints at 10 am on a Tuesday probably wouldn't fly.

I suspect you can get around this by setting up a seat belt checkpoint, though.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This law must be unique to Indiana.

Yes, the Indiana Supreme Court wrote the statute, er, the opinion on "how to" roadblocks, for profit and constitutionality, in Gerschoffer a couple of years after the United States Supreme Court shot down road blocks for drugs in City of Indianapolis (2000) (yes, that's right, roadblocks for drugs are unconstitutional but roadblocks for booze are okey-dokey--but, Kirk, that's makes absolutely no sense at all, join the club. Oh, don't forget SCOTUS shot down roadblocks to enforce Prohibition many years ago, but this New Prohibition is OK because children and puppies and rainbows and stuff):

State v. Jarrod E. Gerschoffer :: March, 2002 :: Indiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In other words, sobriety checkpoints at 10 am on a Tuesday probably wouldn't fly.

You would interfere with the Productive Class.