Sobriety Checkpoints

[rambone]

FYI, that's more nonsense. If you don't want to go through the checkpoint simply turn off before it.

If you don't want to submit your biometric information to the police, simply don't carry a gun. How easy.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Statute?

The statute of "if you're not guilty, then you don't have anything to hide"

 

[JollyMon]

The statute of "if you're not guilty, then you don't have anything to hide"

By that logic you would be okay with banishing the 4th amendment and with them searching your home with no probable cause because you are not hiding anything? I'm not hiding anything, but still don't want the government snooping around my things.

 

[Denny347]

Avoiding a roadblock is probable cause for drunk driving.

No, but turning off without signaling...maybe.

 

[steveh_131]

By that logic you would be okay with banishing the 4th amendment and with them searching your home with no probable cause because you are not hiding anything? I'm not hiding anything, but still don't want the government snooping around my things.

he was pointing out that this is the logic used to violate our rights. No statute necessary.

 

[Rookie]

Avoiding a roadblock is probable cause for drunk driving.

Statute?

It's state law.

I swear to God it is.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It's state law.

I swear to God it is.

Shutup Randy! Yeah thats right, I said it right to your face.

 

[ATOMonkey]

By that logic you would be okay with banishing the 4th amendment and with them searching your home with no probable cause because you are not hiding anything? I'm not hiding anything, but still don't want the government snooping around my things.

This article from Duke Law does a good job of discussing the issue.

In several states, or under certain circumstance, making a legal U-turn can be seen as evading or fleeing police.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...5oHYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHmiCaoY8r3qNjKEi8mfxpg5JyPNA

 

[PRasko]

As for the "Terry law" the officer so pointed out.

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws.

Meaning, they would have to prove, in a court of law, they had reasonable suspicion that you had, did, or are about to commit a crime. If they cannot, it is a violation of your Constitutional rights, and they would be liable.


Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5 states that you need to be already guilty of an infraction before they can ask you to provide identification.

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

What they are doing is illegal.

I would take them to court over it.

 

[MTubbs1]

This article from Duke Law does a good job of discussing the issue.

In several states, or under certain circumstance, making a legal U-turn can be seen as evading or fleeing police.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1328%26context%3Ddlj&ei=zpsgU-mDCumI2gW55oHYDQ&
usg=AFQjCNHmiCaoY8r3qNjKEi8mfxpg5JyPNA

I admit I only got about 8 pages in and went to the conclusion, but now I realize U-turns are supporting terrorism!

"allowing terrorists with bombs to escape easily by making U-turns at checkpoints also gives
them the opportunity to launch new attacks. As such, granting law
enforcement officials per se reasonable suspicion to stop those who
flee checkpoints would give officials a useful tool in the battle against
terrorism, drunk driving, and other crimes."

 

[Rookie]

Avoiding a roadblock is probable cause for drunk driving.

Statute?

As for the "Terry law" the officer so pointed out.


Meaning, they would have to prove, in a court of law, they had reasonable suspicion that you had, did, or are about to commit a crime. If they cannot, it is a violation of your Constitutional rights, and they would be liable.


Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5 states that you need to be already guilty of an infraction before they can ask you to provide identification.



What they are doing is illegal.

I would take them to court over it.

I really, REALLY wish you were right, but you're not...

 

[PRasko]

I really, REALLY wish you were right, but you're not...

Please elaborate.

 

[Rookie]

State v Gerschoff

 

[PRasko]

State v Gerschoff

From the ruling pertaining to the aformentioned case...

In sum, Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution prohibits police stops of motorists except on the reasonable suspicion required by Baldwin, Brown v. State, and Taylor. See Baldwin, 715 N.E.2d at 337;Brown, 653 N.E.2d at 79-80; Taylor, 639 N.E.2d at 1054. We hold, therefore, that a sobriety checkpoint such as the one at issue here, which is conducted absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, constitutes an unreasonable seizure as proscribed by Article I, Section 11.[SUP]14[/SUP] The constitutional heritage of Indiana has never recognized the right of the State, without any level of suspicion whatsoever, to detain members of the population at large for criminal investigatory purposes.[SUP]15[/SUP] See Sitz II, 506

[738 N.E.2d 727]
​

N.W.2d at 223-24. We decline to create a sobriety roadblock exception to the Indiana Constitution. We affirm the trial court's determination that the checkpoint was unconstitutional under Article I, Section 11 and hold that the trial court did not err when it suppressed the evidence of Gerschoffer's intoxication.Affirmed.

 

[Denny347]

From the ruling pertaining to the aformentioned case...

This case set rules that must be followed to allow a sobriety checkpoint to be legal in Indiana. The checkpoint operated in this case was ruled as unconstitutional.

 

[Denny347]

This is a more recent appellate ruling that explains the legality of DUI checkpoints from the Gerschoffer ruling. We call it the Gerschoffer test.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07251201ewn.pdf

 

[jaybird_123]

I have read a lot of good pros, and a lot of good cons. All I know is, there are a LOT of beer cans and empty beer bottles along the road side where I live. That means a lot of people are drinking and driving.

 

[d.kaufman]

Unconstitutional! But whats the constitution anymore. Its blatantly stepped on daily by our current administration

 

[MiNDRiVE]

Unconstitutional! But whats the constitution anymore. Its blatantly stepped on daily by our current administration

And it has by every single administration since your birth. So whats the point?

 

[MTubbs1]

So to legal a check point needs all 6 of these things:

(1) whether the roadblock was staged pursuant to a formal, neutral plan approved by appropriate officials;
(2) the objective, location, and timing of the checkpoint, taking these factors into account to determine 4 whether the seizure was well calculated to effectuate its purpose;
(3) the amount of discretion exercised by field officers conducting the checkpoint, with a goal of minimal discretion to ensure against arbitrary or inconsistent actions by the screening officers;
(4) the degree of intrusion and whether the roadblock was avoidable;
(5) whether the surrounding conditions of the checkpoint were safe; and
(6) whether the checkpoint was effective.

So I see a problem with number 6, in the appeal it mentions that publicizing the checkpoint can be an effective deterrent. Later in the appeal it cites a case Michigan Departmentof State Police v Sitz. In this case it mentions that the stop in question was deemed constitutional, this checkpoint had two OWI arrests with 126 total stops. That comes out to 1.5 percent of people stopped were OWI arrests. I cannot say I have ever been part of something where 1.5% was considered effective.

So my point is..where is the line drawn to determine “effective”? Somewhere between deterring OWI with a best case of 0 arrests (so a 0% rate) and a 1.5% rate?


Before the first person is in with “wells that MI not IN”.
I only used it because it was in the appeal. You can sub it with the data from the Hamilton county checkpoints on page two of this thread.