Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Get my pies outta the oven! |
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. | |||
|
His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm. |
They may be legal, but they aren't right. Those are two different things. | |||
|
Member |
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. . CMSGT USAF (Retired) Chief of Police (Retired) | |||
|
Member |
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. Steve "The Marines I have seen around the world have, the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps." Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945 | |||
|
I have not yet begun to procrastinate |
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.
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. -------- After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box. | |||
|
Member |
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? Used guns deserve a home too | |||
|
JOIN, or DIE |
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 | |||
|
His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm. |
I seem to remember, or have heard apocryphal stories of, checkpoints for things other than DUI, e.g., licenses, seat belts and child seats. | |||
|
Member |
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. Retired Texas Lawman | |||
|
Member |
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. ********* "Some people are alive today because it's against the law to kill them". | |||
|
I have not yet begun to procrastinate |
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. -------- After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box. | |||
|
Member |
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. ___________________________________________________________ Your right to swing your fist stops just short of the other person's nose... | |||
|
Age Quod Agis |
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:
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. "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. | |||
|
Member |
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. Used guns deserve a home too | |||
|
Member |
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. *************************** Knowing more by accident than on purpose. | |||
|
Member |
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? ___________________________________________________________ Your right to swing your fist stops just short of the other person's nose... | |||
|
Age Quod Agis |
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 "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 |
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. "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. | |||
|
Member |
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. *************************** Knowing more by accident than on purpose. | |||
|
Member |
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. Used guns deserve a home too | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |