Constitutionality of DWI checkpoints?

[Outlaw99]

during my stent, our department frowned on the idea of calling them *DUI" checkpoints, because the incinuated or had a stigma that we were violating everyone else's rights that had not been drinking...

so, we conducted Licesnce check points. At which we checked for expired drivers lisences, tages or inspection stickers..WHICH could give us reasonable suspicion upon being with in personal distance to establish probable cause to determine if any may be under the influence of an intoxicating substance, not just alcohol. this approach was much more acceptable by the community and was less intimidating and threatening.

seems the only people that really bitch, whine, moan and complain are the ones who risk their lives and everyone's elses with no regard while driving under the influence of anything.

I have been told thank you more times than i could possibly count by people of all ages when we conducted license sheck points in their area. they appreciate it.

if by chance we took a few idiots off the roads by doing a checkpoint, we could have saved a life. even you whiny ass bitch moaning and complaining idiots, so even tho you have never said thank you....YOUR WELCOME.

 

[03DOHC]

seems the only people that really bitch, whine, moan and complain are the ones who risk their lives and everyone's elses with no regard while driving under the influence of anything.

That's also absurd. A citizen has every right to be furious for getting stopped for a fishing expedition and if you don't like that, well that's just too bad.

if by chance we took a few idiots off the roads by doing a checkpoint, we could have saved a life. even you whiny ass bitch moaning and complaining idiots, so even tho you have never said thank you....YOUR WELCOME.

You expect someone to thank you for doing what you were told to do? You got a paycheck in return for doing what you were told, just like everyone else. If that wasn't enough then you were in the wrong job

 

[Outlaw99]

You expect someone to thank you for doing what you were told to do? You got a paycheck in return for doing what you were told, just like everyone else. If that wasn't enough then you were in the wrong job.

if you wouldnt mind, please take a moment and refer to my post and please quote where i said i expected it.

i was thanked many times. it was very appreciated.

just like i thank service men and women when i see them. especially older war vets. they dont expect it either. but they say thank you.

im waiting for your quote.

or maybe it will be like svtburnout and never happen.

 

[exdeath]

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.

No it's not a ridiculous comparison. It is an example that sometimes other things ARE in fact more important than 'saving 1 life' and that giving up anything and doing whatever it takes to 'save just 1 life' isn't always practical or reasonable. It is merely one example that we do in fact often accept the risk (and occurrence) of loss of life on a daily basis for increased freedom or convenience, which completely blows away "if it saves one life it's worth anything" arguments.

You do what you can to minimize the negative as much as possible without infringing on the activity. What is being debated here is the appropriate balance between what is an acceptable burden to minimize loss of life vs. completely violating everyone else under a false idealism that you can eliminate ALL loss if you subject yourself to ever increasing levels of infringement.

 

[03_SVT_Freak]

Safety is never a substitute for liberty. Thousands+ died to ensure liberty, and now we take away that liberty from 300 million who didn't do anything just to *POTENTIALLY* save 1 life that will be lost when another drunk driver who didn't hit the checkpoint hits him 5 minutes later.

People who are fanatical about DWI are just upset that there is nobody to make pay for the crime when the drunk driver also dies, so it's taken out on society preemptively.

The true price of liberty is that you CAN'T police everyone all the time or assume everyone is a bad guy* just to catch the few that are, and attempting to do so violates the very liberty that which you have laws and government to protect in the first place. There will always be a few rotten eggs that have the initiative to cause harm to others before they can be stopped. Fact of the matter is in a society that values individual freedom, you aren't a bad guy until you actually do something bad, and by then it's too late. Having laws which try to stop things before they happen and treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent are counter productive to the one true purpose of government.

On the other hand, being safe in your vehicle from drunk drivers is a right afforded to you by YOUR OWN individual liberty, which the government has an obligation to provide for. However, the balance between protecting your liberty (right to be safe from drink drivers) and that of those who may or may not pose a threat to you (all drivers who are not drunk but treated and suspected as if), often tends to bias on the side of incriminating as many people as possible preemptively and doing more harm than good, even if it's with good intention.

*I don't use the term criminal because all one needs to be a criminal is to commit a crime, a crime which is defined as such due to a law prohibiting it, a law which may or may not be valid to begin with when it violates the rights of the innocent. And by rights I mean all natural rights that supercede all government, law, and any constitution. If ice cream cones are illegal and I have one I am a criminal, but not a bad guy. Whether someone is a criminal or not depends on whether you agree or disagree with that particular law.

this! i have never drank and drove and never will, but becuase joe blow did, i am a bad guy and have to be subjected to random stops becuase of it

 

[exdeath]

seems the only people that really bitch, whine, moan and complain are the ones who risk their lives and everyone's elses with no regard while driving under the influence of anything.

I don't drink at all.

if by chance we took a few idiots off the roads by doing a checkpoint, we could have saved a life

If we locked everyone up in padded bubbles from the day they were born and controlled their every action, we could save a few hundred thousand lives a year.

 

[61mmstang94]

I don't drink at all.



If we locked everyone up in padded bubbles from the day they were born and controlled their every action, we could save a few hundred thousand lives a year.

Your examples are crazy. 5mph national speed limit on every road, wrapping people in bubble wrap? We're talking about a checkpoint that takes you all but a few minutes and you're on your way.

Here's a little bit on checkpoint requirements which might ease your mind that this is going to lead to a police state and violations of your rights from an article called "Requirements for Sobriety Checkpoints" from AssociatedContent.com:

"Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, there are certain requirements that must be met in order for sobriety checkpoints to be legal. Police officers must be careful not to violate the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure, which means that sobriety checkpoints are closely monitored.

The following are the requirements for sobriety checkpoints that all police officials must follow, and are derived from the rules and regulations published by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.

(1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.

(2) The local district attorney’s office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.

(3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.

(4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.

(5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations."


**So it shows they aren't just randomly setting up checkpoints to violate your rights. It shows they're being responsive to areas with a high rate of drunk driving. They are also adequately informing drivers that there will be a checkpoint hoping to either deter you from drinking and driving in the first place. They also have very strict guidelines they must follow during the checkpoint. This isn't a police department being given free range to start stopping cars just because they want to. It's a logical method derived to combat a serious problem which kills many people every year in this country. It's like the increased security checks in an airport. There are certain times when it is just necessary to allow authorities to search your things for not only your own safety but everybody else's. It's a gray area that people could debate all day, but in the end, if the checkpoint is done according to the guidelines and the police dept. doesn't overstep its boundaries then I don't personally have a problem with a dui checkpoint.

 

[ShortThrow50]

I retract my earlier statements. I agree with checkpoints. They need to take the dumb drunk idiots off the roads that take the main roadways home. After they lose thier license for a little while maybe they will learn to use the damn back roads like the experienced drunks do. Damn rookies

 

[Iceman II]

Dispite opinion's, check points will continue in those states where they are legal. If you decide to drink and drive and get busted then that's no bodies fault but your own. Get ready to pay at least 10K.

 

[mswaim]

What I find really amazing is after publishing in advance the location of our sobriety checkpoint, after setting up lights, barriers AND providing a turnaround point a block prior (for those who wish NOT to engage the officers) last night 11 drunk drivers were taken off the road in the city of Fresno at one checkpoint. A few suspended licenses were discovered, all other mechanical issues are waived through since it is not the intent of the exercise. That's 11 drivers too drunk, stupid or a solid combination of both to avoid the situation.

 

[ShortThrow50]

setting up lights, barriers AND providing a turnaround point a block prior (for those who wish NOT to engage the officers) .

Arent cops usually posted at the barriers getting the ones who attempt to obviously pull a uturn to avoid the check point? Was the way it was set up the time i went through one:shrug: They seem to put up the first "sobriety checkpoint ahead" sign at a point where you cant see it until its to late and there is no side street to turn and a u turn would be illegal. Of course it is not as easy as you explain.

 

[exdeath]

Your examples are crazy. 5mph national speed limit on every road, wrapping people in bubble wrap? We're talking about a checkpoint that takes you all but a few minutes and you're on your way.

No they are not crazy. We are talking about saving lives! If you aren't a hypocrite, then show me just how far you are willing to go to save lives and only drive 5 mph.



I didn't think so.

My point being that "safety" and "saving lives" is often used to throw everything else out the window. Take the most absurd legislation imaginable, and throw "to save lives" onto the end of it and somehow it's supposed to be worth it and easier to swallow.

Safety and saving lives is not the be all end all measuring stick. Liberty is. If you were at all familiar with the writing of not only the Constitution itself but it's supporting documents and musings of those who influenced and wrote the document, you'd understand that not only was safety a non-concern, but that lives were considered expendable for the sake of liberty.

 

[61mmstang94]

No they are not crazy. We are talking about saving lives! If you aren't a hypocrite, then show me just how far you are willing to go to save lives and only drive 5 mph.



I didn't think so.

My point being that "safety" and "saving lives" is often used to throw everything else out the window. Take the most absurd legislation imaginable, and throw "to save lives" onto the end of it and somehow it's supposed to be worth it and easier to swallow.

Safety and saving lives is not the be all end all measuring stick. Liberty is.

:rollseyes You're helpless.

So should we not have security screening at airports? Because using your logic, where you take it to absolutism to save a life (which you claim is wrong), shouldn't the correct thing be to do it completely in the opposite direction? Since we don't want to infringe on your rights AT ALL, we better not check you for anything at any time unless you actually get caught int he act of committing said crime. But then it would be too late, wouldn't it?

There is a gray area of what's okay and not okay to do. Things like airport screenings, dui checkpoints, and the like are acceptable searches for everyone's safety. Having an absurd 5 mph speed limit on every road or wrapping people in bubble wrap is clearly not acceptable in the eyes of a rational human being (which might be why you're having a tough time understanding this).

 

[exdeath]

:rollseyes You're helpless.

So should we not have security screening at airports? Because using your logic, where you take it to absolutism to save a life (which you claim is wrong), shouldn't the correct thing be to do it completely in the opposite direction? Since we don't want to infringe on your rights AT ALL, we better not check you for anything at any time unless you actually get caught int he act of committing said crime. But then it would be too late, wouldn't it?

There is a gray area of what's okay and not okay to do. Things like airport screenings, dui checkpoints, and the like are acceptable searches for everyone's safety. Having an absurd 5 mph speed limit on every road or wrapping people in bubble wrap is clearly not acceptable in the eyes of a rational human being.

If you were at all familiar with the writing of not only the Constitution itself but it's supporting documents and musings of those who influenced and wrote the document, you'd understand that not only was safety a non-concern, but that lives were considered expendable for the sake of liberty.

The concept is liberty at all costs, safety when it's convenient and not at odds with liberty. Not the other way around.

Oh, and airport security would not be an issue if individual liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution were not violated on planes in the first place.

 

[61mmstang94]

If you were at all familiar with the writing of not only the Constitution itself but it's supporting documents and musings of those who influenced and wrote the document, you'd understand that not only was safety a non-concern, but that lives were considered expendable for the sake of liberty.

The concept is liberty at all costs, safety when it's convenient and not at odds with liberty. Not the other way around.

Oh, and airport security would not be an issue if individual liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution were not violated on planes in the first place.

Haven't drunk drivers done the same thing to innocent people that the terrorists did to the people on the airplanes?

 

[Outlaw99]

I don't drink at all.



If we locked everyone up in padded bubbles from the day they were born and controlled their every action, we could save a few hundred thousand lives a year.

i would love to see people rolling around in bubbles....it would entertain me

 

[lilyyin99]

not sure :burn::burn:

 

[thomas91169]

i dont mind them when only used as DUI checkpoints.

now i hear they are also on-the-spot ref stations. Thats total bullshit imo, you pull up in a minivan slightly buzzed but make your way through, yet you pull up in a DSM/Mustang/Etc with an exhaust and are sober as **** and you get hassled like you just murdered someone, asked to pull over to the side and they pop your hood and search your shit.

 

[DaleM]

I wonder if that is an implied consent when you get your license or drive in another state's jurisdiction?

 

[mswaim]

i dont mind them when only used as DUI checkpoints.

now i hear they are also on-the-spot ref stations. Thats total bullshit imo, you pull up in a minivan slightly buzzed but make your way through, yet you pull up in a DSM/Mustang/Etc with an exhaust and are sober as **** and you get hassled like you just murdered someone, asked to pull over to the side and they pop your hood and search your shit.

I agree with you 100% !! If a department goes to all of the trouble to build a DUI suppresion program that includes education, increased enforcement and checkpoints; they should walk the walk. Don't use the checkpoints as a method to combat simple mechanical violations. Suspended licenses, outstanding warrants, expired registrations (past a year & a day) are fair game but jacking an operator for no front plate or altered exhaust is just not in line with the spirit of the process.