Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
I'm in with jhe888 and ArtieS. An ALL SIGFORUM Supreme Court would be awesome! "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Run Silent Run Deep  |
Guys, the key to getting through these things quickly is to ask the officer to hold your beer while you search for your license. That way, you don't spill it and make the whole car smell like alcohol. _____________________________ Pledge allegiance or pack your bag! The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher Spread my work ethic, not my wealth | |||
|
| Non-Miscreant |
I've been opposed to them since about 1985 when a girl who worked for me came to work, madder than a hornets nest. She and a girlfriend had been to a bar. They didn't stay late because the girl who worked for me wasn't feeling very good. They left and in about 2 blocks were pulled over. By a cop they had seen in the parking lot of the bar. He pulled the entire run of things, asking if they'd been drinking, etc. Only the driver answered, and it was no. The stop went on for a few minutes. He finally let them go with a "warning". When she got home she phoned the bar, telling them about the incident. The bartender said it was part of a shakedown. They refused to pay protection. As a result, every night someone few were "given" a traffic stop. Legal because the good officer had seen them leaving a bar! It eventually blew up because the only bar the cops sat in was that one. Just fishing for a donation to the police benefit fund. There were enough complaints to the State Police that they began an investigation. No harm, no foul? Unhappy ammo seeker | |||
|
| Member |
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. ********* "Some people are alive today because it's against the law to kill them". | |||
|
| Member |
I might be a bit older than you and I remember when a drunk driving charge meant very little to a driver who had a DAMN GOOD lawyer. I recall several who had multiple drunk driving offenses and were still able to legally drive. Some killed people, after running away to turn them selves into Police after they sobered up. You don't like DUI check points? Don't drive drunk. ********* "Some people are alive today because it's against the law to kill them". | |||
|
Age Quod Agis |
I agree with this completely. It isn't the fault of the officer doing the checkpoint that this is legal. He is doing a job that the big guys, by a vote of 6-3 decided is an exception to the 4th Amendment. I'm not sure that with today'd court, it would turn out the same way. Rhenquist, Scalia (PBUH), O'Connor and White often found for the power of the state. They came of age at a time when state power, used for an ostensibly good purpose and somewhat constrained by rules, was trusted. It is much less so today, by both the left and the right. On today's court, I imagine that Roberts, Kennedy, Kagan and Breyer would be for DUI stops. I am not at all sure that Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch as liberty interest conservatives, and Ginsburg and Sotomayor as civil libertarian liberals would permit these stops. It's important to remember that when this case was decided, drunk driving was MAJOR national priority, driven by MADD and other interest groups. The "do something" mentality (that as gun owners, we are acutely aware) was in full swing. On balance, "do something" won the day. My one major complaint about Scalia (PBUH), was that he had a greater deference for state power, and a lower opinion of personal liberty than most of us expect in "conservative" judges. For all of his intellectual brilliance, and all of his incisive writing, he was an establishmentarian, had great deference to what he assumed were the good intentions of the state, and had great respect for precedent. "I vowed to myself to fight against evil more completely and more wholeheartedly than I ever did before. . . . That’s the only way to pay back part of that vast debt, to live up to and try to fulfill that tremendous obligation." Alfred Hornik, Sunday, December 2, 1945 to his family, on his continuing duty to others for surviving WW II. | |||
|
| Age Quod Agis |
This is an understandable reaction, but it's lousy legal theory. Simply apply this to guns and you will note the fallacy. How about instead of putting everyone through a violation of their constitutional rights, we simply enforce the laws we have and really drop the hammer on people we catch driving drunk? First offense; Lose license for a year, and mandatory substance abuse counseling with a requirement that you petition for a return of your license, you don't simply get it back. Second offense, lose license for life, get caught driving or injure or kill someone and get a long prison sentence. This is how it is handled in Germany, which arguably has looser alcohol laws than we do, but also has (or had when I lived there) a much lower rate of drunk driving. "I vowed to myself to fight against evil more completely and more wholeheartedly than I ever did before. . . . That’s the only way to pay back part of that vast debt, to live up to and try to fulfill that tremendous obligation." Alfred Hornik, Sunday, December 2, 1945 to his family, on his continuing duty to others for surviving WW II. | |||
|
Objectively Reasonable |
This. | |||
|
| Member |
You like the driving laws in Germany? Speed cameras everywhere. You get a ticket in the mail. Cameras measuring distance between cars on highways. Tailgate the car ahead of you and you get a ticket. And taxes... ********* "Some people are alive today because it's against the law to kill them". | |||
|
| Smarter than the average bear |
I am sure that the Court's rationale was that the purpose of these things is to curtail drunk driving. I actually think that this is the actual purpose of DUI checkpoints, and that they are not some kind of scheme just to have an excuse for the stop, with a greater purpose in trying to observe other criminal violations. I certainly think that if there was evidence of this "other purpose", then the Court would not have upheld the practice. I would be curious to know, from the LEOs here, if they honestly were intending to get drunks off of the road, or if their departments were secretly aiming for other arrests. While I'm sure they would be happy with drug busts, warrant pick ups, etc., if a checkpoint resulted in getting some drunks off the road, with no other violations found, would it be considered a success? | |||
|
Res ipsa loquitur |
When you submit your DL application, you agree to abide by certain rules and statutes. Checkpoints are simply a part of the privilege of driving. __________________________ | |||
|
| His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm.  |
"I'm invoking the Fifth Amendment" is what I said the last time this happened. | |||
|
| Member |
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. __________________________ Keep your rotor in the green The aircraft in trim Your time over target short Make it count | |||
|
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
The courts have made it clear that DWI checkpoints are DWI checkpoints. They aren't drug checkpoints, warrant checkpoints, etc. The ones I've done we didn't even run the people for warrants or to see if their license was valid. Some of them we didn't even check registration or insurance. Just "Good evening sir/ma'am, we are conducting a DWI checkpoint. May I see your driver's license? Thank you, we appreciate your cooperation, have a good night." Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
You think you only need the Constitution if you break the law? Jones is right, though. The damn checkpoints are legal, despite my opinion to the contrary. Arguing with a cop about their legality is stupid. It isn't his call. If you get stopped, you have to comply. Don't be a dick - it won't do you any good. The cop was assigned to a checkpoint, he is doing his legal duty. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
"No, I do not;" is a lot less confrontational. You don't have to expressly invoke your rights to stand on them. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
Hey, that ArtieS knows what he is talking about! Scalia, much to casual fans surprise, had a general tendency to support state power in law enforcement matters. He was very conservative, but much less so on personal liberty questions. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
quarter MOA visionary |
That's not the point. You shouldn't drive drunk > regardless of the checkpoint. Thank God Texas does not uphold the tyranny. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
One of the difficulties is that effective enforcement is not very popular with the people. There is a portion, relatively small, who are fully supportive, for one reason or another. Those who object to alcohol, MADD types, etc. If stricter enforcement is implemented, more arrests, the defendants soon figure out that going to trial especially on borderline cases produces better results, because the courts can’t keep up, cases start to stack up, dismissals are more likely. If penalties are increased, juries won’t convict as readily. They sit in the jury room knowing that if they convict him, this guy who blew a .09 and luckily hurt no one is going to spend a mandatory 30 days in jail, or whatever, and they won’t do it. Now defendants se that and start to demand trials. Pretty soon the cops and courts relax, adjust as best they can, and back to business. Few give up drinking and driving. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| When you fall, I will be there to catch you -With love, the floor |
NJ had requirements to conduct such a operation. These are a basic outline of the requirements. The state of New Jersey has legalized sobriety checkpoints and set forth the following requirements for the validity of such operations: The public must receive advance notice of sobriety checkpoints, but police do not need to disclose where the traffic stops will be Field officers cannot unilaterally initiate a sobriety checkpoint—all such operations must be approved administratively in advance The formula for determining who is subjected to a full search/alcohol test must either be random or based on a neutral mathematical formula The checkpoint must be reasonably visible in advance When police officers have reasonable suspicion of intoxication, a field sobriety test may be conducted. Absent additional probable cause, though, a vehicle may not be searched. There are also logging and followup requirements that must be met. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024