Sobriety Checkpoints

[Shadow8088]

They're nor searching your car are they? Not until they have probable cause.. ya know.. like.. the smell of alcohol coming off of you? I'm not trying to justify LEOs pulling you over and searching you without cause or warrant, but a DUI checkpoint? Their title is Law ENFORCEMENT Officer. How do you enforce a law without any way to establish if someone is breaking the law? In this case, there's what? two ways? Leaving it to chance when someone calls it in or you happen to get behind someone swerving, or once they've wrecked and killed/injured themselves or others.. Yeah.. I'd much rather have someone ask me a quick question and be on my way that have to be cut out of my vehicle because some dipsh*t decided to put my life and the life everyone else on the road as risk because they drank too much.

 

[Bunnykid68]

DUI checkpoints are ineffective. Ask some of the LEO here about how well they work. They will tell you they could get more drunk drivers off the road by themselves while patrolling. If I have right to be on the road, and I do, I should be free to travel without being harassed for just trying to go home from work.

 

[actaeon277]

They're nor searching your car are they? Not until they have probable cause.. ya know.. like.. the smell of alcohol coming off of you? I'm not trying to justify LEOs pulling you over and searching you without cause or warrant, but a DUI checkpoint? Their title is Law ENFORCEMENT Officer. How do you enforce a law without any way to establish if someone is breaking the law? In this case, there's what? two ways? Leaving it to chance when someone calls it in or you happen to get behind someone swerving, or once they've wrecked and killed/injured themselves or others.. Yeah.. I'd much rather have someone ask me a quick question and be on my way that have to be cut out of my vehicle because some dipsh*t decided to put my life and the life everyone else on the road as risk because they drank too much.

They ARE pulling you over, for no specified reason.
If the driver was swerving, speeding, driving too slow, etc would be a reason.
But just pulling you over?

 

[IndyDave1776]

They're nor searching your car are they? Not until they have probable cause.. ya know.. like.. the smell of alcohol coming off of you? I'm not trying to justify LEOs pulling you over and searching you without cause or warrant, but a DUI checkpoint? Their title is Law ENFORCEMENT Officer. How do you enforce a law without any way to establish if someone is breaking the law? In this case, there's what? two ways? Leaving it to chance when someone calls it in or you happen to get behind someone swerving, or once they've wrecked and killed/injured themselves or others.. Yeah.. I'd much rather have someone ask me a quick question and be on my way that have to be cut out of my vehicle because some dipsh*t decided to put my life and the life everyone else on the road as risk because they drank too much.

This post makes an excellent point. While I absolutely disagree with everything you have said aside from disagreeing with driving while intoxicated, you have done an excellent job of demonstrating how a police state can function with the consent of enough people to carry it to the point it cannot be contained by political methods. William Pitt wisely observed that necessity is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. This post demonstrates that point quite nicely.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Great discussion. I had never considered the Constitutionality of checkpoints (ICE or sobriety) before I started perusing the pages of INGO.

In the .ppt (back a few pages), it said, "Asking a motorist to produce his driver's license and vehicle registration is not unreasonably intrusive at a sobriety checkpoint where the stated purpose is to prevent drunken driving."

What bearing does it have, then, in the prevention of OUI? Do unlicensed drivers have a higher rate of OUI than licensed? What about registered vehicles? Are unregistered vehicles in more OUI occasions than those which are?

Is the point of the notice signs and newspaper announcements, etc., in effect, generating a level of consent to be detained (albeit for only 2 minutes, per the ppt)--you knowingly entered an area controlled by police, and area which had either mandatory or random stops by the police...

 

[Whosyer]

How many MWAG posts have there been on this forum, and you ask me that? Your car is not your house.. You're driving on State or Locally owned/maintained roads. They're not sitting in your driveway performing stops... But hey, lets make sure we jump to the extreme to make our point right?

What if the road is privately owned ?

 

[IndyDave1776]

What if the road is privately owned ?

Good catch. I don't know how I missed that one!

How many MWAG posts have there been on this forum, and you ask me that? Your car is not your house.. You're driving on State or Locally owned/maintained roads. They're not sitting in your driveway performing stops... But hey, lets make sure we jump to the extreme to make our point right?

The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

While driving, your person, papers and effects seem to cover all the bases, standard procedure of ignoring the Constitution notwithstanding.

 

[Shadow8088]

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.

A simple question of "Have you been drinking tonight?" is an unreasonable search? I'm done talking politics with you boys.. You'll find an enemy or attack on your rights behind every blade of grass if you look hard enough... See y'all up a few threads...

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

A simple question of "Have you been drinking tonight?" is an unreasonable search? I'm done talking politics with you boys.. You'll find an enemy or attack on your rights behind every blade of grass if you look hard enough... See y'all up a few threads...

Yes, it says 'unreasonable' and describes the conditions necessary to avoid 'unreasonable'. Randomly stopping people or stopping everyone who happens to be in a location some police officers decide to camp does not meet those conditions. Your hypothetical question is irrelevant since there was no justification for the creation of the opportunity to ask it.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

A simple question of "Have you been drinking tonight?" is an unreasonable search? I'm done talking politics with you boys.. You'll find an enemy or attack on your rights behind every blade of grass if you look hard enough... See y'all up a few threads...

I'm glad you quoted that. Thank you for making our point.
I've highlighted it, since I think you may have overlooked it.
1) probable cause
2) supported by oath or affirmation
3) describing the place to be searched
4) persons or things to be seized.

I can't see any of those that say, "pull random people over for no reason".

 

[Denny347]

Great discussion. I had never considered the Constitutionality of checkpoints (ICE or sobriety) before I started perusing the pages of INGO.

In the .ppt (back a few pages), it said, "Asking a motorist to produce his driver's license and vehicle registration is not unreasonably intrusive at a sobriety checkpoint where the stated purpose is to prevent drunken driving."

What bearing does it have, then, in the prevention of OUI? Do unlicensed drivers have a higher rate of OUI than licensed? What about registered vehicles? Are unregistered vehicles in more OUI occasions than those which are?

Is the point of the notice signs and newspaper announcements, etc., in effect, generating a level of consent to be detained (albeit for only 2 minutes, per the ppt)--you knowingly entered an area controlled by police, and area which had either mandatory or random stops by the police...

Asking for driver's license/registration is a divided attention test. I ask for a drivers license and while they are looking for it, I ask for their registration. A person under the influence will stop looking for the driver's license and grab the registration, they will forget about getting their license. They are unable to multi task. Also, when they grab their Kroger card instead of their license is a clue of possible intoxication.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Rookie]

Asking for driver's license/registration is a divided attention test. I ask for a drivers license and while they are looking for it, I ask for their registration. A person under the influence will stop looking for the driver's license and grab the registration, they will forget about getting their license. They are unable to multi task. Also, when they grab their Kroger card instead of their license is a clue of possible intoxication.

Maybe the Kroger card is a bribe? $1.00 off per gallon of gas adds up!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Or they present their Department of Corrections card.

"What? You mean I can't drive on that?"

 

[Kirk Freeman]

what i want to know is if the are "trying" to catch drunks, why tell them when there doing it? dont that defeat the whole porpuse?

The police have to announce the roadblocks or the roadblocks are deemed illegal.

 

[NavyVet]

Let's see...

A pre-announced checkpoint, advertised on TV and the newspaper (at least around here), flashing lights and signs. Seems to me that you have been given ample warning to avoid the area. I wouldn't consider that a random, unannounced stop.

Do I question the constitutionality? Absolutely! My problem is that we keep electing the same bureaucrats into office that pass ineffective/infringing laws that our LE are then required to 'enforce'.

I continually see the messages that are condemning our LEOs for enforcing the crap laws we have allowed our elected leaders to enact. No wonder they want a boot on our neck!

Quit whining, become knowledgeable about your rights, teach others (specifically the younger folks that are clueless right now), and vote for people that understand our constitution. If you can't find one, become one.

Blaming LEO for our own electoral stupidity just doesn't make sense. We have put them in the situation they are in.

In full disclosure: I'm am not a LEO, nor do I play one on TV. And no, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[Survivalcookie]

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.

The Constitution gives the authority to the government to protect the general welfare of the people...doing what they can to to protect my right to drive on the road at 2 am with out fear of being killed by a drunk driver.

PREAMBLE

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[rambone]

The Constitution gives the authority to the government to protect the general welfare of the people...doing what they can to to protect my right to drive on the road at 2 am with out fear of being killed by a drunk driver.

You think the Constitution supports a "right" to be free of fear?

But you don't think the Constitution is against warrantless checkpoints.

 

[Survivalcookie]

You think the Constitution supports a "right" to be free of fear?

But you don't think the Constitution is against warrantless checkpoints.

Like I said the Constitution gives the government authority to look after the general welfare of the people...this includes taking drunk drivers off the road.
Check points are a tool nothing more. DO you not think taking drunk drivers off the road is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

 

[steveh_131]

DO you not think taking drunk drivers off the road is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

This sort of lazy thinking is what brought us into this police state/nanny state.

Any tyrannical law or social welfare program can be justified in this same way.

Do you not think taking guns out of the hands of criminals is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

Do you not think providing affordable health care to all is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

Do you not think providing free food to poor people is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?