Thanks BB61 and jbourneidentity. Your responses are helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by jbourneidentity:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
If checkpoints for warrantless stops are fine then why not just go door (public or private) looking for a crime?

Homes have a higher expectation of privacy than motor vehicles.

Seems like that could vary depending on the state. Here in NM, your vehicle is considered extended domain- an extension of your private residence.

I was pulled over this one time just after midnight. As soon as I left the parking lot of a tavern, this car races up behind me. So fast I thought the they would hit me. The exit of the lot was about 200 ft from an intersection. As I made a right turn on red this guy is tailing me very aggressively. Being distracted by this idiot, I didn't notice the no right turn on red sign. Within seconds, his lights go on.

First words were something to the effect of, so you have been drinking, haven't you? How many did you have. He obviously came to that conclusion since I just left the tavern. So I tell him I had two beers. He chuckles in disbelief asking for my info.
He returns to my car saying all checked out, but he then says, I have to do a sobriety field test. I explained that it is a waste of his time, but he gets upset by this. I explained that I'm partially blind in one eye, so I might fail the finger follow. We go through the motions, then says, yep, you failed that one. Then did the line walking touching nose looking at the stars at same time. Seems like it is designed to make you fail. Sure enough, he wasn't convinced. At this point, he asked if I would submit to breath test. I again explained it is a waste of his time. He insisted that if I refused, I'm admitting guilt and I could be arrested immediately. So I go along with the charade, knowing I'm going to be good.. As I'm blowing into the device, he seemed shocked with disbelief. He asked to do it again. So he looks at the device then me. Then device, then me. Finally saying I passed that test. I replied, I told you that you were wasting your time. Then he says, since you executed a very cautious right turn, even though it was posted, I'm going let that go. I explained that I just wanted to get away from the aggressive driver behind me. Then he says, Have a goodnight, get home safely. I was shocked at the end of how polite he became.

As a back story to all of this, my parents died in a car accident involving drinking.
I don't ever want to harm anyone and I very rarely drink. When I do, it is one per hour, almost always with food if more than one. Followed by an hour per drink of no drinking. So in this instance, I was at the tavern about four hours. I had one drink, then dinner, then the second, then another hour of nothing.

Perhaps he had seen my car there for hours and assumed the worst.

As for the OP...I did a turn around ahead of a check point knowing that it is going to be another waste of time. I didn't see it advertised. So it took me by surprise.

The FST's are not always necessary. Like when the driver does a faceplant when he gets out of the car, or pukes on your spit shined boots.

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:

As for the OP...I did a turn around ahead of a check point knowing that it is going to be another waste of time. I didn't see it advertised. So it took me by surprise.

Not sure where you are in PA but around here when they do them they have officers posted as lookouts about 300 yards behind the actual checkpoint and will go after anyone who turns around. I don’t really have a problem with that as turning around seems to be a red flag that you’re trying to evade them and very well be impaired.

I drove up, rolled my window down and was polite and cooperative but still don’t like this concept at all.

What if it had gotten to the point where they were checking for vaccine passports? Or like in the old USSR where you literally had to have an internal passport to travel outside of your sector?

In the very early days of the pandemic my employer, a defense contractor, issued me an official letter from the DSS (Defense Security Service) because they actually thought Tyrant Gov Wolf would lock things down so hard there would be PA State Police checkpoints everywhere for those deemed “essential” workers.

Thank God it never came to that.

I turned around before a checkpoint long ago. I had no idea it was a sobriety checkpoint and hadn't been drinking. But they had traffic backed up for miles and lots of cars were doing U-turns to get home. I only heard about it on the radio the next day.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
In the very early days of the pandemic my employer, a defense contractor, issued me an official letter from the DSS (Defense Security Service) because they actually thought Tyrant Gov Wolf would lock things down so hard there would be PA State Police checkpoints everywhere for those deemed “essential” workers.

Thank God it never came to that.

Slight thread drift: our organization issued similar letters, anticipating interactions with LE as employees commuted to work. One of my team was working on a project that required attention every four hours for about two weeks. He was pulled over a number of times on his way to restart testing. I'm told it was often the same officer; they became "sorta-friends" over a series of days. --> "Morning, Ralph." "Morning, Sam." https://youtu.be/ECa1toPGth4

Why wasn’t everyone wearing their COVID masks?

Illegal in Michigan but I recall going through a few in TN. Surprisingly they were often announced well beforehand.

quote:

Originally posted by jbourneidentity:

I sat outside of bars for years during DWI enforcement patrol, and what I saw, without fail, were potential killers leaving the bar with piss-stained pants, falling down in the parking lot as they walked to their 4,000 pound missiles, and driving off down the road, without a second's thought about you, me, or our families. It was my life's pleasure to pull those criminals out of their vehicles, make them stand in front of my patrol car in the take-down lights so that passing motorists could see their piss-stained jeans, and take them to jail. You can damn well bet that I never once considered revenue, taxes, or "balancing the take." I did it to save innocent lives, and I'm confident that I'm speaking for other officers.

What you were doing is far different than a "papers please" checkpoint, and I for one am quite ok with an officer observing someone who appears to be intoxicated and stopping them.

I'm not ok with checkpoints, and not ok with fishing expeditions. Freedom is freedom, and yes it has risks such as a drunk driver not being detected at a checkpoint. But there is that famous slippery slope where if encroachments on freedom are allowed then there will be further encroachments attempted.

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
After you have to care for someone who has been severely injured by a worthless drunk, you'll welcome these attempts to remove them from the road.
Drunks only care about one thing. Being drunk.
Not you, not your family or who they will kill.
just the next time they can get drunk.
Fuck them.

An á la carte Constitution is far more dangerous than any drunk driver.

10,000 deaths by drunk drivers last year.
Now who is the monster.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
After you have to care for someone who has been severely injured by a worthless drunk, you'll welcome these attempts to remove them from the road.
Drunks only care about one thing. Being drunk.
Not you, not your family or who they will kill.
just the next time they can get drunk.
Fuck them.

An á la carte Constitution is far more dangerous than any drunk driver.

10,000 deaths by drunk drivers last year.
Now who is the monster.

You are employing the same bankrupt tactic the left has successfully used to continuously erode firearm rights of lawful gun owners. While I am not unsympathetic to the victims and families of drunk driving accidents, compromising the Constitution is not the proper course of action to correct the problem. Perhaps you should shift your misdirected anger toward the liberal court system which enables repeat offenders.

SHOW me where in the constitution where driving is a right.
SHOW me where drinking and driving together is a right.

I'll wait.

Driving is not a right.
Drinking while impaired is not a right.

A DUI checkpoint is an administrative inspection of a state privilege(operating a vehicle).

So it's not unconstitutional.
Coming inside your home without a warrant is.

^^^
In order to get a driver's license, you also agree to abide by certain terms and rules.

"Unreasonable" is a pretty big grey area. And during the 80s and 90s when drunk driving was an issue of national levels, the people wanted something done to fight it. So is a 5 minute road side stop unreasonable? A lot of communities in this country said it was reasonable to help get drunks off the road.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
"Unreasonable" is a pretty big grey area. And during the 80s and 90s when drunk driving was an issue of national levels, the people wanted something done to fight it. So is a 5 minute road side stop unreasonable? A lot of communities in this country said it was reasonable to help get drunks off the road.

I'm no lawyer, but AFAIK, when the term "reasonable" is used in the text of a law, it refers to "a reasonable person would.... or there is a reason to believe criminal activity is or is about to be afoot." So just stopping all or some number of cars for no reason doesn't sound right to me. If "they may be drunk" suffices for PC now, then there is absolutely no more limit on police powers. They could do anything under the guise of "criminal activity MAY be afoot." Uh, no.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
"Unreasonable" is a pretty big grey area. And during the 80s and 90s when drunk driving was an issue of national levels, the people wanted something done to fight it. So is a 5 minute road side stop unreasonable? A lot of communities in this country said it was reasonable to help get drunks off the road.

I'm no lawyer, but AFAIK, when the term "reasonable" is used in the text of a law, it refers to "a reasonable person would.... or there is a reason to believe criminal activity is or is about to be afoot." So just stopping all or some number of cars for no reason doesn't sound right to me. If "they may be drunk" suffices for PC now, then there is absolutely no more limit on police powers. They could do anything under the guise of "criminal activity MAY be afoot." Uh, no.

Seeing how DUI check points, like described in this thread by members of the police community, do catch people driving drunk, it isn't like the police are arresting anyone at random and figure out what crime they committed later. The police are not setting check points to detain people on their way to church. They are set up so they can catch drunk drivers. And they do catch them regularly at the checkpoints. And for the reasonable man test, the test is would a reasonable person accept a five minute or so stop to get drunk drivers off the road, making it safer for everyone driving.

Is it really the best tool?

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
And for the reasonable man test, the test is would a reasonable person accept a five minute or so stop to get drunk drivers off the road, making it safer for everyone driving.

I'm pretty sure I've heard that argument for five day waiting periods for buying a gun too.