Constitutionality of DWI checkpoints?

[wvmystichrome]

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.

 

[Black*Death]

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.

Although slow and painful to change his "opposition" does matter. Luckily he can vote for the reps and Senators who likely confirm another Supreme court justice . By making his opinion known and gaining more of a Congressperson's constituents support, he can help change who is confirmed by letting that Congressperson know people's opinions on subjects. Admittedly slow for change, it is possible to do with enough groundswell support.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Holy smokes....Is anyone allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree that its a total violation of our constituional rights regardless of what any court or anyone else says.

:rollseyes

 

[jman511115]

A brief explanation of why it is legal in the United States.

Opinion: Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional?

Thanks.

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.

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?

 

[rubber duck]

The dissenting opinions on the use of sobriety checkpoints in this thread should based around questions of constitutionality, and not monetary gains. As FordSVTFan already pointed out, officers don't get a free slip 'n slide for every DUI they do, they are out there for public safety, whether you agree with the means to which it's being enforced or not.

 

[exdeath]

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?

The absolute sole purpose of government is the preservation of individual liberty. The conflict arises when you attempt to protect the liberty of individuals who have a right to be in public places without being endangered by reckless individuals, while simultaneously not violating the liberty of random individuals suspected of doing something they haven't.

Obviously the source of the conflict is mass preemptive all or nothing enforcement and mass surveillance on anonymous whole groups of innocent citizens in the hopes that you will catch someone, rather than focused profiling of individual drunk drivers. And this is related directly to the principle of "pre-crime" or "stopping a crime that never happened", which is NOT how our system is supposed to work.

An example of the difference would be like checking everyone's pockets and treating them as thieves as they leave a store, just in case, vs. only those who set off the detector.

 

[TERMIN8TR]

Your rhetoric is getting old.

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

 

[FordSVTFan]

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?

Because they have carved out exceptions. There are quite a few 4th Amendment exceptions to search and seizure. The Court uses a balancing test to determine an exception and in this case the exception went with allowing checkpoints for DUI if done in properly.

 

[SNCBOOM]

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

I've been through them at random times of day and days of the week. However, they're usually held at night during the big "drinking" holidays around here and on the side of town where sketchy shit is likely to happen.

Weekend DUI checkpoints net 48 arrests - News

 

[FordSVTFan]

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

I am fine with the truth. The problem is you are not being responsive to my post. You post Governor Crist and the legislator's position which has nothing to do with why L.E.O.s make these stops. Not one cop thinks to himself "oh I am generating revenue, happy day."

You really dont understand "context" do you? :rollseyes We are speaking specifically of DUI. DUI stops are NOT done for revenue, they are not civil violations like the ones you posted above, they are criminal in nature. A first degree misdemeanor in Florida carries a $1000 fine with it, so when someone commits Domestic Violence Battery and receives a $1000 fine is the arrest done specifically to generate revenue?

Like I said before Police dont care about the fine and most wont even be able to tell you what the ticket costs, that is a legislative issue. If your elected officials pass ordinances/statutes the police MUST enforce them. They dont get to pick and choose the ones that dont generate revenue.

You should confine your rhetoric to legislator's if that is your argument, because it has NOTHING to do with the Police that enforce the laws. I guess you conveniently ignored the bolded and underlined part of the article you posted. :nonono:

 

[ShortThrow50]

I dont agree with checkpoints. The truth is, i only went through one of them and that was like 10 years ago. I lied to the cop when asked if i had anything to drink and was sent on my way. Hey, 50/50 chance right? I was sent on my way.

 

[ecoastkid]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok, I can agree with that but what is your point?

The thread is about whether or not DUI check points are consitutional. I believe they are not. I think they do not get struck down because of the financial gain, but doing it under the guise of "saving just one life" is a great way to make it palletable to the general public.

 

[snakecharmer]

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.

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.

 

[61mmstang94]

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. 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.

 

[ShortThrow50]

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.

I live outside of philly and ever morning i see on the news about so and so being shot and killed. DUI death, Maybe you see one on the news once or twice a month. I dont see your reasoning on how its constitutional. Thats what the thread title is and its all being sidetracked.
BTW, Im pro gun and own many. Just using as an example

 

[61mmstang94]

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.

 

[d-nice]

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 think that checkpoints work in two ways. If people know that they may get stopped at a checkpoint and possibly get arrested they will either, not drink and drive or find some other kind of transport like a Taxi. So not only does it catch drunk drivers put prevents them from being in the first place.

 

[FordSVTFan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[61mmstang94]

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.

Relax, brother. These guys enjoy getting wasted and driving their hillbilly pickup trucks home and they don't care what some Supreme Court Justice has ruled. **** that. They're doing what t hey want because that's their right!!!!!!!! oke: haha

 

[03DOHC]

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 absurd. Recognizing something is wrong and fighting it doesn't mean one advocates or participates in the behavior.

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.

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.



"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277


"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192