But I'm all for them if they help save just one life. To me its worth it.
Well said. To many drunks on the roads at times to suit me anyways.
But I'm all for them if they help save just one life. To me its worth it.
Too bad SCOTUS doesn't agree with you. The great thing is your opposition doesn't matter, the Court has spoken. BTW, learn how to spell Amendment.
Holy smokes....Is anyone allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours?
I dont think general DUI inforcement is about money and it is certainly needed. However, DUI checkpoints sure the hell are about the bucks. Its easily disguised as a public saftey initiative but its used to check out every car for every infraction as it goes by. If the true intention was to just stop drunk driving, the cops wouldn't waste time writing tickets for minor offenses such as a missed inspection and would focus on their altruistic actions...HAHA...yeah right.
In general, the very actions the police take to cite violators of any traffic related law point to the fact that its primary goal is revenue generartion. If the true desire was to get the public to stop commiting the infractions, they would NOT HIDE and have 1/2 their fleet be unmarked (Obviously there are some legit uses for them). Instead, they would be in plain site and even attempt to be extra visable all the time to PREVENT the breaking of the law.
I agree that its a total violation of our constituional rights regardless of what any court or anyone else says.
A brief explanation of why it is legal in the United States.
Opinion: Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional?
Have you ever wondered how police can stop you at a DUI roadblock (aka "sobriety checkpoint")? Doesn't the Constitution require them to have "probable cause before stopping you"? Yes and no.
The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.
Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.
The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn't make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion... The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."
Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example.
Thanks.
So if this is a violation of constitutional rights, and even the supreme court admits this, how come it hasn't been struck down yet? What are they going to rule next, that random searches of vehicles for illegal drugs and weapons is ok because it's only a little violation of a person's rights?
Your rhetoric is getting old.
So if this is a violation of constitutional rights, and even the supreme court admits this, how come it hasn't been struck down yet? What are they going to rule next, that random searches of vehicles for illegal drugs and weapons is ok because it's only a little violation of a person's rights?
I think they are un-needed and a violation of civil liberty. But then again i dont ever drink and drive. I dont understand though why at least in my state you usually only see them towards the end of the month... sounds like quota filling to me
Not for revenue huh?
The truth must really bother you.
Florida traffic fines increase - St. Petersburg Times
Florida traffic fines increase
By Bill Proffitt, St. Petersburg Police Spokesman
In Print: Sunday, February 15, 2009
slow down or pay up: traffic fines increase
Gov. Charlie Crist recently signed a new law to cut spending and increase revenues to help balance the state's budget.
The new law, effective since Feb. 1, revved up the fines for all traffic citations.
Some police officers have quietly grumbled about the increased traffic fines because they recognize the financial strain it creates for violators. Some officers say the new traffic fines, which seem to increase every year, are excessive, especially in light of the current recession.
Compassionate police officers — imagine that.
But rest assured, police officers will enforce the traffic laws and will continue to conduct traffic operations throughout the city.
The new law increased all traffic fines.
• All bicycle violations (regardless of your age) are now $57.50.
• Nonmoving violations are $101.
• Moving violations are $151.
• Red light violations are $216.
Then there's the downside to speeding.
• 6-9 mph over the limit is $116.
• 10-14 mph over is $191.
• 15-19 mph over is $241.
• 20-29 mph over is $266.
Get caught traveling 35 mph in a 15 mph school zone and the fine is $416.
And the motorcyclist who likes to pop a wheelie on the road will now face a fine of $1,151.
Bill Proffitt, St. Petersburg police spokesman
Is your reading comprehension that bad or do you just not read and simply assume things? That isnt my opinion, I stated the holding of the Constitutional Scholars that sit on the United States Supreme Court.
You confuse the actions of the police with the intent of the legislature. The police would write the infractions whether they generated money or it meant jail time. The police enforce the laws that are written by your elected officials.
In your mind there can only be one intent for a DUI stop and all other occurrences must be ignored to be considered okay? Give us a break.
Writing citations for actual violations of the law is what police officers are supposed to do. Once again, police dont give a crap about a fine, it is about doing their job which is enforcement of the laws as written by your elected officials. If the elected officials choose to generate revenue by enacting traffic ordinances/statutes then you need to take it up with them.
Too bad SCOTUS doesn't agree with you. The great thing is your opposition doesn't matter, the Court has spoken. BTW, learn how to spell Amendment.
If you don't see the reasoning behind a checkpoint then maybe you would if someone you know was killed by a drunk driver, or if you are ever effected by a drunk driver in some way.
PS: If you don't agree with my above post, and feel that any sacrifice, inconvenience, nuisance, and loss of liberty is worth it to save just 1 life...
Then why aren't you campaigning for 5 mph national speed limits?
Or could it be that there are many things in our day to day lives that we accept that the freedom and convenience IS in fact more important than the safety risk and that 1 life? Freedom and mere convenience that is not more important than just 1 life but, 50,000+ lives every year so you can get to work 15 minutes faster?
You don't care about the inconvenience and intrusion of liberty on 300,000,000 people to potentially save 1 life, but you're ok with 50,000+ lives lost so you can shave an hour off your day?
Having a 5 mph national speed limit would make this country to dysfunctional it isn't even funny. Do you realize the effect it would have not only on getting you to and from work in a decent amount of time but shipping products, etc.? That's a rediculous comparison.
As for the DUI checkpoints, I see no problem with them. Sure, they inconvenience you for a few minutes, but it does help save lives and punish the people breaking the law. If it's used as a stepping stone towards a police state like some of you crazies are implying, then sure it wouldn't be right. But the purpose behind them is public safety and I'm willing to give a few minutes of my time to accomplish that. It's not like they have checkpoints on your way to and from work or to the store. They are mostly late at night when drunk drivers are most likely to be out and about, obviously there might be a few exceptions but you get my point.
I can read and comprehend just fine. There are "consitutional scholars" that sit on both sides of this debate. Just because you found some that agree with your opinion does not mean its correct. Some guy stated his opinion as did I. Deal with it.
I'm not confusing anything. Granted, the patrolman may be doing exactly what his superiors are telling him to do and his personal intent may not be to fill the coffers of the government. At some point however, there is a lot of cross over. The police department in many area's budgets depend alot on the citations they write. So the Chief and other high ranking positions aren't going to encourge the patrolman to write more? If you dont think so, then your not keeping up with reality. Try watching any number of credible new sources that keep finding evidence of this all the time.
Glad you are happy to roll over and have your constitutional rights violated. I am not. The fact the court has endorsed it may make it LEGAL, it does not however make it RIGHT.
The Constitutional Scholars I was quoting are the members of the U.S. Supreme Court. They are the final arbiters of what is Constitutional, like it or not.
Reality? Your reality comes from "credible new (sic) sources" while mine comes from working in L.E. and as an attorney. My reality is quite real. Yours might be a little skewed.
In my mind, DUI checkpoints should be illegal. My point that if the intention is to keep the public super safe from the posibility of a drunk, why are they writing tickets for everything else. Its an excuse, that is all.
You are correct it makes it legal. Right, is an opinion which you are entitled to. Since the Constitution is a dynamic document meant to change with the times so does the interpretation of it.
That's absurd. Recognizing something is wrong and fighting it doesn't mean one advocates or participates in the behavior.I think the only reason some people complain about certain laws is either because they have been caught in violation of said statute or because they do things to violate the law which might lead to them eventually being caught.
That's the same rationalizing the anti-gunners use on their quest to ban all guns. It is irrational and now you're doing the rationalizing.If you don't see the reasoning behind a checkpoint then maybe you would if someone you know was killed by a drunk driver, or if you are ever effected by a drunk driver in some way.