Alcohol & DUI checkpoints aside, I've never been able to correlate
" Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" with the concept that leaving one's domicile and going anywhere is a privilege granted by the government.

The police should be doing police work that requires probable cause before making an arrest. Checkpoints of any kind are wrong. Save the "public roads are a privilege" BS. That is another example of the Government using our tax dollars against us knowing full well people need to travel in order to function, and that we should be so grateful and kiss their ass for allowing us to use the roads we pay for.

With all the recent "gun violence" would it be acceptable for the police to setup checkpoints to search people for guns? Hey, yours is legal so what do you care? If a legal firearm was found can they send it in for forensic testing to make sure it wasn't used in a crime?

While it sounds ridiculous that's exactly the same idea of any checkpoint stopping law abiding citizens so the police can go on a fishing expedition instead of actually doing police work to catch those who break the law.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Alcohol & DUI checkpoints aside, I've never been able to correlate
" Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" with the concept that leaving one's domicile and going anywhere is a privilege granted by the government.

Good point. It's always been said driving is a privilege. How about riding a bicycle, running, or walking? Was it a privilege to ride a horse once off your own property?

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:

It's always been said driving is a privilege. How about riding a bicycle, running, or walking? Was it a privilege to ride a horse once off your own property?

I sort of agree with you, but there's a counter-argument to consider: An incompetent driver is far more likely to cause a lot more damage and injuries than an incompetent horse rider, or bicyclist, or pedestrian.

Bottom line is that it is settled law, the U.S. Supreme court has spoken on the matter and until they change their ruling, checkpoints are Constitutional by the law of the land.

I don't think anyone is disputing that the latest SCOTUS decision on the matter is considered the current law. But I'm sure it will be revisited and the decision revised .... eventually. Seems to me someone busted for DUI at a checkpoint will eventually get a really good lawyer who takes the PC for the stop all the way up the chain.

About 15 yrs ago a judge in VA was dismissing a lot of DUI charges (some dead to rights) just to get the court challenges started because the law at that time said anyone blowing a .08 or higher "shall be presumed guilty" of XXXXX.

When I got my own DUI in NJ long, long ago, the first thing brought up in court, even though they knew I was going to take their plea offer, was the PC for the stop. At that time NJ was on DOJ's schitlist for racial profiling, so the slightest flimsiness in a stop would result in a dismissal to keep it from getting back to DOJ.

Pretty sure this will eventually be reviewed again.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:

It's always been said driving is a privilege. How about riding a bicycle, running, or walking? Was it a privilege to ride a horse once off your own property?

I sort of agree with you, but there's a counter-argument to consider: An incompetent driver is far more likely to cause a lot more damage and injuries than an incompetent horse rider, or bicyclist, or pedestrian.

It’s kind of a mixed bag around me. The same group of people who are all for infringing on my Liberties, via the government, also approve of using tax dollars to install bike lanes on already crowded streets. This is the same group that objects to the Amish driving their horse drawn wagons on County roads.

When I have the loss of Liberty conversation with them, they always return to “just small common sense laws for the children” followed closely by the “settled law” card. There is no small infringement. It’s like being a little pregnant.

I haven't dug deeply into the cases to see how they are distinguished, but I have a hard time squaring random DUI stops on roads and at times when people might just be driving drunk with random stop-and-frisk in certain areas and at such times as people might just be carrying drugs or guns.

Seems fishy to me that one is ok, and the other is not. I get the crime argument, and the minimal intrusion argument, and the privilege not a right argument, but I don't think that any of the justifications pass constitutional muster and all in, I'd rather see the practice declared unconstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Alcohol & DUI checkpoints aside, I've never been able to correlate
" Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" with the concept that leaving one's domicile and going anywhere is a privilege granted by the government.

Good point. It's always been said driving is a privilege. How about riding a bicycle, running, or walking? Was it a privilege to ride a horse once off your own property?

It has nothing to do with a privilege, it has everything to do with your right as affirmed by the Fourth Amendment.
Do you rights go away if you are not in your home?

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
Bottom line is that it is settled law, the U.S. Supreme court has spoken on the matter and until they change their ruling, checkpoints are Constitutional by the law of the land.

Perhaps, but they are wrong and this will eventually get fixed.


The Temperance Movement is the route of a lot of this, IMO.

How the hell is driving a privilege, when you pay for everything.

Didn’t get built without US taxpayer money. Don’t get maintained without my money. Doesn’t get enforced either without US taxpayer money.

Fucking A if that isn’t one hell of a privilege.

quote:

How the hell is driving a privilege

I think we're referring to natural rights or those expressly mentioned in the US Constitution...

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:


Perhaps, but they are wrong and this will eventually get fixed.

Yup, dead wrong.

I don't get the whole " privilege " thing but that's been settled and I lost .

I think it is considered a privilege since we, the mass population, have peacefully complied for about a century with the requirement to be licensed. That is, we agree we must first have government approval before we drive. It is difficult to argue today that what we've all agreed to for many generations is unConstitutional.

Very simple a roadblock doesn’t eliminate your right to remain silent, in your state constitution or at the federal level. Provide license and registration, answer no questions as to where you’ve been where your going, take no field sobriety tests, refuse a breathalyzer, admit to nothing. You may face an administrative penalty for not doing the breathalyzer, suspension of license, but in an DWI you give all the evidence to convict you from you. In most jurisdictions your refusal to answer questions or partake in fst or breathalyzer can’t be admitted as you invoke your self incrimination rights by refusing. Prosecutor can’t use invoking your Constitutional protections against you.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
Very simple a roadblock doesn’t eliminate your right to remain silent, in your state constitution or at the federal level. Provide license and registration, answer no questions as to where you’ve been where your going, take no field sobriety tests, refuse a breathalyzer, admit to nothing. You may face an administrative penalty for not doing the breathalyzer, suspension of license, but in an DWI you give all the evidence to convict you from you. In most jurisdictions your refusal to answer questions or partake in fst or breathalyzer can’t be admitted as you invoke your self incrimination rights by refusing. Prosecutor can’t use invoking your Constitutional protections against you.

I would strongly consider removing the sentence "In most jurisdictions your refusal to answer questions or partake in fst or breathalyzer can’t be admitted as you invoke your self incrimination rights by refusing. because it's inaccurate.

There are many states where a test refusal itself is a separate criminal offense. Criminalizing a breath test refusal was specifically upheld by the US Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota 579 U.S. ___ (2016) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1468). In other jurisdictions, evidence of a refusal to participate in field sobriety tests and/or to take a chemical test may be admissible in criminal court. Field sobriety tests and forensic tests are generally not considered testimonial evidence and therefore are not subject to fifth amendment (or equivalent state constitution) protection.

In my state, the following statute exists:

321J.16 Proof of refusal admissible.
If a person refuses to submit to a chemical test, proof of refusal is admissible in any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321J.2 or 321J.2A.

So the "refuse everything" schtick may work where you live and work, but it likely will not work in a lot of other places.

I keep hearing the “settled law” phrase. Settled Law is a term used by leftist to discourage efforts to correct bad interpretations by power hungry judges. The fact that “settled law” has been changed, and recent history proves this, the term is inaccurate in both definition and usage. Remember this. Our Constitutional Rights were “Settled” until they weren’t.

Reclaim the narrative. Don’t let leftist frame the discussion.