I was rabbit trailing on youtube and came upon a bunch of videos of people trying to go through a DUI checkpoint with the refusal to answer bit.

Wondering if it's different in each state or what the real rules are for whether you have to answer or what the police can and can't do without any real evidence or suspicion other than a checkpoint you were stuck in...

I'm in TN if anyone has any specifics. Just curious. I'm not the type to try and do this at a stop - I'd rather just answer and be on my way...

The US supreme Court has ruled they are legal.

Each state has different rules that can be more restrictive. Michigan, for example, prohibits them.

They still need probable cause to get you out of the car or make you do field sobriety tests.

I'm not an expert, but can generally say this:

You still have your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself, so from a criminal procedure standpoint, you do not have to answer questions, and you do not have to submit to a breath or blood test.

But, there can be civil or administrative consequences to not complying, such as a suspension of your driver's license.

In some cases a warrant can be issued compelling the taking of blood. But there would have to be probable cause and a judge would have to be satisfied with the evidence to issue the warrant.

I believe this is correct, but this is from my general legal knowledge; I am not practicing in criminal law or DUIs. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

In Arizona, DUI check points are common around major Holidays and has been for as long as I'm living in AZ.. And, business is brisk.....and expensive for those caught being DUI.

It's usually announced on Radio and TV when the DUI task force is operating.

So, it must be legal.

They are legal. A judge must approve the scope and conditions of the checkpoint too.

You are not required to participate, you only need to provide ID. Very likely though you will provide them PC to arrest you anyways. Smell of alcohol, red or glossy eyes, slurred speech, etc. Very easy for officer to make up odor of alcohol or appearance of drinking.

Once arrested you have to submit to breath or blood samples as a condition of having a license. So you can still loose your license for refusal.

I'm sure they are likely legal. Just wondering how much cooperation you legally have to provide. The same with Border check-points that are miles and miles from the border. I kinda (deep in my heart) agree with the people who say "I am a citizen and shouldn't have to produce my papers just to go about my business.."

Retired cop here;

DUI checkpoints are legal

If asked for you ID/DL-you must provide it.

If ordered out of a car (or to remain) by the police you must obey (Supreme Courts have upheld this repeatedly)

If you haven't been drinking you will be thru it faster than it took the time to read this post.

Yes, the stop is an inconvenience and is an infringement but again, the Supreme Court has upheld them.

Each State has a little different criteria before they can be set up. At my old dept. anyone could talk to the Sergeant and request a checkpoint, and he picked the number of cars stopped (like each car, every other car, 3rd car etc) We had a written plan and followed that...working the street-we never did DUI/DWI checkpoints as we were too busy dealing with calls for service and the normal violence...but the guys who worked traffic or on holidays...you could come in and work the checkpoint.

I have never seen a checkpoint that didn't net at least one drunk, regardless of time of day, what day it was, where it was or who ran the checkpoint...I've seen big one's run by the Troopers that even were advertised in the paper a week before the holiday and we still arrested people...

quote:

Originally posted by old dino:

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
The US supreme Court has ruled they are legal.

Each state has different rules that can be more restrictive. Michigan, for example, prohibits them.

They still need probable cause to get you out of the car or make you do field sobriety tests.

In Washington State we have what is called, "implied consent".

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308

That's slightly different. We have implied consent in Michigan too, but the officer still needs probable cause/reasonable suspicion to make the stop of your vehicle. So implied consent is not related to check points, at least not in Michigan.

These DUI threads never fail to illustrate the submissive attitude some people have when they're told by their betters that a violation of their rights is "legal".

Being detained and questioned by the police without any cause whatsoever is legal? Now queue the brainwashed to tell us that it's only for a short amount of time or that driving is a privilege

Legal in FL but last time I checked there is a whole laundry list of protocols the LEO's must go through to set them up. Not just random roadblocks.

Also, remember that when you sign your DL (at least in FL) you agree to submit to roadside and alcohol tests. Sure, you have a 5th Amendment right to criminal prosecution, but not administrative (generally speaking)

The checkpoints are legal.

One is only required to provide their driver's license/registration/proof of insurance. Sometimes all the officers ask for is a driver's license.

If an officer develops reasonable suspicion, whether it is for impairment or any other violation (failure to carry driver license, etc.) the violator can be detained and ordered out of the car.

There are always the asshats that want to be difficult, usually they get on their way after making themselves look like freaking idiots and dragging the 30 second interaction out to a couple of minutes because they don't want to cooperate. There are people that actually research where checkpoints will be and go there to be a pain in the ass.

I'm not a fan of checkpoints, and only work them when directly ordered to. I think the last one I had to work was Halloween 2013 or 2014. We ended up on national news. F checkpoints.

Also legal in WV. as long as the law advertises the info in the paper, 2 week notice. And they still catch people!!
"Perhaps the most important guideline is that the police must publicize the checkpoints ahead of time. Each state may also impose its own guidelines (or the states may outlaw checkpoints entirely, as 12 states have done."

Source, DUI checkpoints in West Virginia

Varies by state. In TN, from what I can recall, they only have to be uniformly enforced.

Way off topic. Ignore if more appropriate. But why is driving considered a privilege. Why is it not a right to be able to use whatever transportation is available to one's means to go anywhere via public areas?

Were licenses required for horses, buggies, Model T's? If not, when do all this start?

The Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong, and I am inclined to think that this is one of those times.

The state is forcing you to interact with its agents, even if briefly, so that it's agents can find sufficient evidence of a crime (DUI, driving without a license, etc) to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. That is the purpose of these things.

I don't believe that the state should be given that advantage. I'm firmly of the belief that they should have to catch wrongdoers by observing citizens doing something wrong, not fishing for violators by forcing them to pass through a screening process to continue on their way.

I understand that some folks will argue with me on this, and that the scourge of drunk driving is so great as to justify this intrusion into liberty. But I am something of a liberty absolutist and I am also very suspicious of state power.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong, and I am inclined to think that this is one of those times.

The state is forcing you to interact with its agents, even if briefly, so that it's agents can find sufficient evidence of a crime (DUI, driving without a license, etc) to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. That is the purpose of these things.

I don't believe that the state should be given that advantage. I'm firmly of the belief that they should have to catch wrongdoers by observing citizens doing something wrong, not fishing for violators by forcing them to pass through a screening process to continue on their way.

I understand that some folks will argue with me on this, and that the scourge of drunk driving is so great as to justify this intrusion into liberty. But I am something of a liberty absolutist and I am also very suspicious of state power.

Agreed.

I can hear them now, "but its just 20 minutes out of your day", or "we're trying to keep you safe", or some other bullshit.

DUI checkpoints are an infringement on liberty just like the NFA, waiting periods before we take possession of firearms, and other assorted nanny state nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong, and I am inclined to think that this is one of those times.

The state is forcing you to interact with its agents, even if briefly, so that it's agents can find sufficient evidence of a crime (DUI, driving without a license, etc) to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. That is the purpose of these things.

I don't believe that the state should be given that advantage. I'm firmly of the belief that they should have to catch wrongdoers by observing citizens doing something wrong, not fishing for violators by forcing them to pass through a screening process to continue on their way.

I understand that some folks will argue with me on this, and that the scourge of drunk driving is so great as to justify this intrusion into liberty. But I am something of a liberty absolutist and I am also very suspicious of state power.

Agreed.

I can hear them now, "but its just 20 minutes out of your day", or "we're trying to keep you safe", or some other bullshit.

DUI checkpoints are an infringement on liberty just like the NFA, waiting periods before we take possession of firearms, and other assorted nanny state nonsense.

I can recall not too long ago when the motor vehicle accident fatality rate was around 50,000 a year. Half of those were related to drunk drivers on roadways.

Should we return to those days of allowing drunks to drive and kill innocent people.

The Border check points are another PITA stops for this AZ driver....but much narcotics are seized at these stops and I really don't mind being asked: "Are you a US Citizen". (Although my GF sometimes wants to answer the officer in Spanish).

Drugs are killing people. Shouldn't we try put a stop to the illegal traffic of narcotics?

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong, and I am inclined to think that this is one of those times.

The state is forcing you to interact with its agents, even if briefly, so that it's agents can find sufficient evidence of a crime (DUI, driving without a license, etc) to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. That is the purpose of these things.

I don't believe that the state should be given that advantage. I'm firmly of the belief that they should have to catch wrongdoers by observing citizens doing something wrong, not fishing for violators by forcing them to pass through a screening process to continue on their way.

I understand that some folks will argue with me on this, and that the scourge of drunk driving is so great as to justify this intrusion into liberty. But I am something of a liberty absolutist and I am also very suspicious of state power.

Agreed.

I can hear them now, "but its just 20 minutes out of your day", or "we're trying to keep you safe", or some other bullshit.

DUI checkpoints are an infringement on liberty just like the NFA, waiting periods before we take possession of firearms, and other assorted nanny state nonsense.

I suppose you could make the same argument about having to stop at red lights or driving in the carpool lane with 2 or more people in the car or that the speed limit laws are suggestions only for the dolts.

Is that what you're arguing because from the tone of your post any action taking by government that slows down your travels seems to be suspect.