In Pennsylvania the local police are required to notify people like a week in advance they will be doing them in a general area. You'll see articles in the local paper and on FB by the PD announcing them.

I've always found them a bit chilling, it's not something you normally see in our country like these Soviet, papers-please! style checkpoints. The cops WILL go after your ass too if you turn off or around or make any move to avoid one.

They may be legal, but they aren't right. Those are two different things.

quote:

Originally posted by alreadydead:

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
The number of DUI related deaths runs around 10,000-11,000 per year in the U.S. The number has dropped off considerable over the past 50 years due to safer vehicle design, restraints, and airbags, and stricter laws and enforcement. NHTSA keeps track of the numbers and they are always tragic.

Roughly 1% of 111 million licensed drivers are arrested for DUI each year. But DUI drivers are responsible for 28% of all traffic deaths. DUI drivers are a menace to public safety. Those of us who were or are first responders have seen the carnage firsthand. So have the judges who rule on the legality of checkpoints and they have consistently held that the need to curb DUI's is in the public interest. They have also held that DUI checkpoints be conducted in the least obtrusive manner possible, and that they not be used as an excuse for other or discriminatory enforcement actions. This is why the time and place and protocol is determined by an official who is not present or involved in any enforcement action. There are elements of education, deterrence, and enforcement in DUI checkpoints.

My department advertised that we were doing a DUI checkpoint in the newspaper and on radio and TV, identifying the time date and place. Senior command officers and prosecutors were generally present to observe. Average contact time between officers and drivers was less than a minute. We tried to keep the delay to under 10 minutes. We still made a whole busload of arrests and citations for DUI, no driver's license, no insurance, and warrants, among other things. Now and again we got complaints but for the most part the motoring public appreciates efforts to keep drunks off the road.

A lot of DUI's I have encountered were nice people when they were sober, but every one of them is an asshole when driving drunk.

The roadblocks have not shown to be effective in reducing DWI deaths though, there is no evidence that the same resources used in one of the road blocks on the street would not produce more arrests.
What they have done is proven to be a revenue generator, expired License, expired License Plate, inspection sticker (for you poor bastards that live in states that require them) failure to produce proof of insurance (a scam that merits a separate topic). They produce so much revenue that there is no way that they will not continue.
No, I have not had a ticket in 30 years.

CDC has studied the effectiveness and the data is clear. DUI checkpoints reduce DUI crashes by up to 20 percent in areas where conducted. The effectiveness is why the courts have upheld them. The courts always balance the rights of the individual against public safety.

Checkpoints are intended to educate, deter drunk drivers, and if you are stupid enough to drive drunk to make arrests. They are manpower intensive and are a loss leader for revenue gained. Many agencies have to use NHTSA grant funds to pay salaries. If done with proper safeguards in place they are a good thing.
.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
In Pennsylvania the local police are required to notify people like a week in advance they will be doing them in a general area. You'll see articles in the local paper and on FB by the PD announcing them.

I've always found them a bit chilling, it's not something you normally see in our country like these Soviet, papers-please! style checkpoints. The cops WILL go after your ass too if you turn off or around or make any move to avoid one.

My department runs a couple of checkpoints during the year. Mostly, we participate in the "roving DUI patrols".

As for going after vehicles that turn around or try to avoid the checkpoints, unless the person driving does an illegal U-turn or something else, we have no authority or reasonable suspicion to go after or stop the vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:
We do have a law in Arizona against using a cellphone while driving. No need for check point. Cop sees you on the cellphone while driving and can issue you a citation. $550, I'm told by someone who got cited.

Bit of thread drift to correct some inaccurrate data.
GW, someone was feeding you bullshit. Arizona DOES NOT have a cellphone law.
(unless you're 15.5 yrs old with an "instruction permit")
Some cities have cellphone laws, (Phx, Tucson, Tempe, Flag?) but the state does not.

quote:

FN in MT wrote:
Super easy solution to anyone having problems with these checkpoints; DON'T DRINK and DRIVE.

I *don't* drink and drive.
Doesn't mean I deserve to be stopped by a fishing expedition just because I happen to drive on "X" day of the year down "X" road.

I wish to point out, as many of you have posted, your local deputies make it VERY well known they will be making stops. You have no right to complain.
If you lived in a state that didnt post them, well then complain.
But by driving under those conditions where you know there will be one, YOU ARE CONSENTING. You could have went another way, not gone out, waited til later. It's the same thing about driving being a right. It's not. Because its the same reason you need a fishing or hunting license. Otherwise, wouldnt those be rights? Along with the right to over fish and hunt?

Weird we have some here that dont get how these shouldn't be allowed. Replace "dui" checkpoint with other crimes and let us know how you feel.

"Illegal gun" checkpoint
"Illegal marijuana" checkpoint
"Warrant and license check" checkpoint

I seem to remember, or have heard apocryphal stories of, checkpoints for things other than DUI, e.g., licenses, seat belts and child seats.

We never had DWI checkpoints, but we had DWI drives where our traffic unit and volunteers(and sometime volunteered) would hit the streets during certain holidays. There were many officers jumping at the chance due to all of the overtime they would make, especially since many of these arrests extended past the time they were supposed to be out.

Also, we did have DL and insurance checkpoints. We had to do 2 of those each day shift(we rotated each month - days, swings and graves). Eventually, we went to 12 hour shifts so day shift came every other month.

It was rare, but every now and then, a DWI arrest would come out of those DL/insurance checks.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:
We do have a law in Arizona against using a cellphone while driving. No need for check point. Cop sees you on the cellphone while driving and can issue you a citation. $550, I'm told by someone who got cited.

Bit of thread drift to correct some inaccurrate data.
GW, someone was feeding you bullshit. Arizona DOES NOT have a cellphone law.
(unless you're 15.5 yrs old with an "instruction permit")
Some cities have cellphone laws, (Phx, Tucson, Tempe, Flag?) but the state does not.

quote:

FN in MT wrote:
Super easy solution to anyone having problems with these checkpoints; DON'T DRINK and DRIVE.

I *don't* drink and drive.
Doesn't mean I deserve to be stopped by a fishing expedition just because I happen to drive on "X" day of the year down "X" road.

Pima County has the cellphone while driving ban. I stand corrected in believing it was a state wide restriction.

I wish it was a state wide law, however.

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:
I wish it was a state wide law, however.

As much as don't like legislators trying to 'law' common sense, I'm with you.
Idiot cellphone users while driving deserve a warning shot through the left ear.

More related to the topic, I was shooting a match at the Tucson Rifle Club and missed the turn for the "driveway".
(My GPS said it was another 1/4 mile ahead...which left me looking for a turn that didn't exist)

I see a CBP checkpoint ahead as I'm making my U-turn really hoping they won't bother pulling me over.
It would have left me late for the match if they wanted to ask bunch of questions, run license, registration, etc.

I won't argue the legality of DUI/DWI checkpoints. Here's why...


Teenager with no license, no insurance and under the influence of God knows what turned left in front of my motorcycle.
Thread drift: learning to walk again is a bitch.

But I'm good with getting idiots off the road, even for a day or two.

quote:

I won't argue the legality of DUI/DWI checkpoints. Here's why...

Which is just a way of saying "I will voluntarily give up my 4th Amendment rights, because it MAY prevent bad accidents."

I'm not trying to be a dick, because I get the emotion, and I am sure that the accident was terrifying, the injury extremely painful, and the recovery, as you say "a bitch", but this is essentially the argument of the gun control folks.

It's "I'm willing to give up my 2nd Amendment rights because giving them up MAY prevent a bad outcome."

We gun folk frequently argue that "shall not be infringed" is the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment, and we are puzzled that the "antis" can't seem to understand this simple truth.

The 4th Amendment reads:

quote:

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.

Those of us arguing that the court has it wrong in the DUI stop matter are asserting the same simple truth. What part of the bolded bit above, don't people understand? Or more accurately, why are they willing to allow exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements as to the sanctity of to their persons, houses, papers and effects. It is inconsistent with a belief that the Constitution means what it says for these gaping exceptions to exist.

Note also that the DUI exception (and the immigration exception and the information exception) are determinations that owing to public policy, the severity of the issue, and a lack of other means of enforcing policy, these searches are effectively exception to the ENTIRE 4th Amendment, not simply an exception to the warrant requirement as are the exigency exception and the search incident to arrest exception.

Remember finally that the Constitution does not grant us rights. These are natural rights with which we are born as free beings. The Constitution, in this context is a document of limitation and not of grant. It limits the ability of the government to affect us as citizens. As a conservative and a constitutionalist, I argue that we should never accept exceptions to the government's power over us, particularly when an instrument of that government, namely the courts, argues that the exception is for an important public policy, and makes government's job easier. "For an important public policy" and "makes government's job easier" is one hell of a gaping exception to our rights as citizens and is the ultimate slippery slope to a meaningless Constitution.

We either have our rights secured by the constitution or we do not. When we start admitting exceptions to them, we admit exceptions to all of them. We should never give up, notwithstanding court decisions, and always argue for, and fight for the rights we are born with and which are guaranteed to us.

Artie, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you dont need a warrant for a DUI arrest. You also are not searching, nor seizing anything. You are enforcing a contract you made with the state to use a motor vehicle. I know in GA you lose your license for failure to comply with one, and you could even get a criminal charge for not providing any i.d. FL may be different.
And remember, if your DUI behind the wheel, you'd be public drunk otherwise.

At the end of the day, we ARE arguing over people not being stupid. And hell, most of the laws WE all dont like, came from people being stupid. Check any gun law, and it came from someone being stupid. Last time I checked there isnt a law named after a responsible common sense gun owner. There are one's named after victims of stupid idiots.

I've always found it funny how the USSC injected the diminished-expectation-of-privacy factor in it's decisions. But I'm not surprised.

It probably all started with the Booming Voice. "What the hell are you doing, Adam? Eve---naughty girl! Bad girl!"

The times I've been at a checkpoint, I've taken it to be a necessary misfortune. No consequences, but misfortuned.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS: Which is just a way of saying "I will voluntarily give up my 4th Amendment rights, because it MAY prevent bad accidents."

We have had debates over driving: privilege or right? I'll offer the opinion if you don't meet licensing and insurance requirements, you lose that right or privilege. I'm not happy when I'm caught in a checkpoint...don't enjoy it one bit. But if an individual is out in public causing pain, property damage and death in some cases it has become a problem. What do we as a nation do about it?
In my case my rights were violated by the sheriff deputy letting her walk away from the scene without a sobriety test, while showing up at the emergency room to make sure my blood was tested for drugs and alcohol (I was sober and free of any drugs). My complaint I filed later was dismissed. We have a equal problem with how LEO conduct themselves at checkpoints and accidents. Any ideas?

quote:

Artie, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you dont need a warrant for a DUI arrest. You also are not searching, nor seizing anything. You are enforcing a contract you made with the state to use a motor vehicle. I know in GA you lose your license for failure to comply with one, and you could even get a criminal charge for not providing any i.d. FL may be different.

I mostly agree; you don't need a warrant for an arrest WHEN you have PC for the encounter, and PC for the criminal violation. And the police are absolutely searching for evidence at these stops. They are seeking evidence from individuals of the possible criminal violation of the DUI laws by through a close examination of (look in the eye, smell of the breath) and interaction with (conversation about the stop, possible request to see a license) the driver of a car when they would otherwise have no reason or ability to have such an interaction. Absent the ability to randomly stop every third car or so and force a face to face with the driver, police would need probable cause; i.e., driving erratically, unreasonable speed (either fast or slow), something observable to stop the car and further observe the driver. The ability to stop the citizen who is going about his business in his private car removes the first layer of PC, and provides the state with a distinct advantage in seeking criminal conduct. In no other case, is an officer allowed to simply stop a car and ask the person inside what they are doing today. These things are "fishing expeditions" or at least "fishing opportunities" and fishing expeditions by law enforcement are prohibited.

In the ordinary case, the progression is observed conduct = probable cause for an investigatory stop, then investigatory stop leads to further observation of impairment (smell of alcohol, failure of sobriety test, etc.) leads to further PC for arrest for DUI. I have no problem with this. There has NEVER been a warrant requirement for an in person, real time arrest for violation of a law.

To your point about a "contract" with the state for use of the roads, and Oldrider's comment about don't meet the requirements, don't get the right or privilege: you are both correct up to a point, and that point is the privilege of driving.

The "privilege" of driving is different from the "crime" of DUI. A privilege can be removed from you with much less "due process" than is required for the application of a criminal sanction.

The state requires, that as a matter of keeping the privilege to drive, you consent to a Breathalyzer test when stopped. If you refuse the test, the civil (not criminal) sanction is a one year loss of driving privilege. That's fine. The state can stop you from driving, it can't force you to provide evidence that you violated the criminal law of DUI. To do that, it must get a warrant for a blood draw. Note that if you refuse the Breathalyzer and are later found to not be drunk, you still lose your driving privilege for the year on the basis of your refusal, not on the basis of DUI.

You guys are conflating the state's civil ability to remove your driving privileges with the state's power to compel you to give evidence of a crime against yourself. They are different things. As a matter policy, I am fine with losing driving privileges if you refuse the state's request for evidence. I am not fine with the state trying to acquire evidence without PC, or in appropriate cases, a warrant.

As to Oldrider's valid point about DUI being a serious problem; I agree. The key as I see it is to put sufficient resources behind the problem. Have plenty of roving patrols; have a visible presence in the bar scene area, when a DUI is caught, have the penalties be serious. We, as a society can put the resources against solving the problem if we have the will to do so. DUI checkpoints are a shortcut, not the "right" solution.

We have made great strides in my lifetime (I'm 52) about making drinking and driving socially unacceptable. I argue that if we commit the enforcement resources at the LE and court levels, we don't have to consent to the denigration of our 4th Amendment rights to achieve the outcome we all agree we want, which is safe roads.

With respect,

A

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:
I've always found it funny how the USSC injected the diminished-expectation-of-privacy factor in it's decisions. But I'm not surprised.

It probably all started with the Booming Voice. "What the hell are you doing, Adam? Eve---naughty girl! Bad girl!"

The times I've been at a checkpoint, I've taken it to be a necessary misfortune. No consequences, but misfortuned.

They sure as hell never asked me! Diminished expectation is a crutch to get a result. Without it, much 4th Amendment jurisprudence goes right out the window.

Yes. It's like it was shoved right in. More like forcefully injected with a #13 hypodermic needle.

But then, Sir, for a long time I've been aware that privacy is pretty much a myth.

Funniest one was the one about garbage. "You throw it away, anyone can pick it up." It's like a treasure in admiralty.

I think the posting of the times, and granted if its a roving I dont believe they are posted, give way to the consent part, because now its like a border patrol checkpoint. They can stop you because now you've entered into their zone of operation.

As to enforcement by LE, its hard to enforce something if you dont catch it. But by you and me stating opinions, and both vocally condemning the drivers who do it, we do assist in making it socially unacceptable. So maybe one day we will be able to no longer need DUI checkpoints. But until then I dont think either side has enough evidence to get rid of them or expand them.