Checkpoints

[Rob Boudrie]

I would be very careful about forcing the "if I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving" issue.

The appropriate question is "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to leave?"

This also works when you decline to let a store search your personal property, such as bagged merchandise which you recently purchased, and is no longer store property.

There have been some cases where the authorities imply that the civilian is not free to go when, in fact, he is. If you ask politely, you should get a polite answer.

[XRe]

AND the if you choose to avoid the checkpoint the police can not use that as a reason to stop you vehicle as you drive away from the checkpoint.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe in your state - but not everywhere. Another aquaintence of mine decided to take the exit on a highway prior to a checkpoint, only to find several police officers at the top of the ramp. They apparently got a good laugh out of it, telling him that the only reason they set up the checkpoint was so that they could stake out the exit right before it - and stop everyone that took it instead of proceeding through the checkpoint.

And, folsoml, it's definitely the game I'm hating....

[folsoml]

    And, folsoml, it's definitely the game I'm hating....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks.

[Patrick Sweeney]

OK, so we're setting up DUI checkpoints to get drunk drivers off the road? If we're serious about it, set them up downstream of bars. Anyone who has any sense knows if you're hunting, you go to a target-rich environment. And the sooner you catch such people, the less time and distance they have to wreak havoc. If it isn't legal to target bars, then why aren't the police telling the papers why it is unlaeful, and who to vote out to change it?

Anone involved in a feel-good, Looks-like-we're-making-a-difference excerise in circle-jerking deserves all the contempt, derision and scorn we can heap upon them. If those in the front lines can't take the abuse, then find a way to make your bosses feel your pain. Or quit. If you can't change something so oviously stupid, useless and irritating, you shouldn't be on the job anyway, sucking down our hard-earned tax dollars.

Time for more coffee.

[johnhurd]

Hey Pat that tank Commanders hat (inside joke) tight this morning, but I agree finally with you.............

[folsoml]

Anone involved in a feel-good, Looks-like-we're-making-a-difference excerise in circle-jerking deserves all the contempt, derision and scorn we can heap upon them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps they don't feel as though it is a "feel-good, Looks-like-we're-making-a-difference excerise (sic) in circle-jerking." Maybe they feel like every drunk they get off the road is one they KNOW will not kill anyone--even if it's just for tonight. The glass is not always half-empty.

[rubberneck]

Speaking to the airport screening issue, personal privacy has little relevance once you enter private property and a high security zone at the same time (Airports are not Public Property). I would not expect to not be searched before getting into the Federal building downtown either and that's the way that ought be given the realities here.

Accosting me while occupying a public space without just cause is a no-no. Entering, or accosting me in my personally controlled environment (car, or house) without just cause is a really big no-no.

That's what the difference is and believe me, there is a difference there and believe me again, it's huge.

--

Regards,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't speak to all airports in the US but LaGuardia, JFK, Newark and Teterboro are all controlled by the Port Authority of NY/NJ a public entity. Those airports and many more are not private property. Even the ones that are fall under the direct controll of the FAA a public entity.

You are contradicting yourself here. First you say it is ok that you get searched at airports because they are "private" but then say you expect to be searched at a Federal building. Which is it? Do you have the right to privacy in public or don't you? I think you are saying that the state has a compelling reason to search you when you enter a courthouse given todays climate. Considering drunks kill in excess of 10,000 a year don't you think the state has a compelling reason to actively look for drunk drivers?

If you really want to think about it you have much less right to claim the right to privacy when you are in a public space. There are tons of things that you can do in private that would get you arrested for if there were done on the local street corner.

[Flexmoney]

[Reminder]

Hate thread.

Not debate thread.

[davidwiz]

I'm doing this 'Hate' on behalf of my girlfriend:

My gf was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint on the way home from my house on Saturday night. In the 20+ years that I have lived here, I have never seen a sobriety checkpoint in town or in any of the neighboring towns. However, every week, several people are arrested/charged with DWI. I should add that I live in a dry town.

Anyway, my gf was mightly po'ed at getting stopped (they were stopping every car). The cop asked her if she had anything to drink. She says, "no, why do you have some?" He smiled and handed her back her papers and she was on her way.

[George]

What Flex said.

No contradiction at all. I get searched without my consent and without cause, I get rich and become a full time shooting bum (I have a real good lawyer).

No cause, no consent, no hassle, no shjt!

--

Regards,

[pisgahrifle]

Neither pro nor con, but no one's asked the obvious question-

Had you been drinking?

[kellyn]

Not taking any sides but just a bit of law for you all to digest. All U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Sobriety Checkpoint. Ok and not violative of 4th Amendment. No particularized or individualized suspicion required. Michigan Dept. of Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

Immigration checkpoint. Ok and not violative of 4th Amendment. No particularized or individualized suspicion required. Checkpoint may be for questioning but not searching. U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).

Narcotics checkpoint. No joy for the evil State. Violates 4th Amendment. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 121 S.Ct. 447 (2000).

Also police do not need probable cause for a detention or to stop a vehicle. Probable cause is the standard required for a formal arrest, to obtain a search warrant, to search (as opposed to stopping) a car or to obtain an indictment. Investigative detentions such as Terry v. Ohio frisks, brief detentions on the street or standard traffic stops require "reasonable suspicion," a lesser standard than probable cause.

Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that sobriety checkpoints exists outside this requirement although various State Supreme Courts may find that it violates their state constitutions.

Would those who oppose sobriety checkpoints oppose immigration checkpoints near the Az. border? Or truck safety inspection checkpoints at your State border when semis enter your State? Or a roadblock to stop an escaped felon or armed terrorists? Tricky stuff to decide.

[Ted Murphy]

All checkpoints are REQUIRED under Supreme Court rulings to have an exit prior to the checkpoint. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do not do this around here. They make damn sure there is no escape. They either position it at the crest of the hill with no side street or they make a cordon of fire trucks. They also have cars that will chase people doing U turns. I do not know of anyone caught in the checkpoints who ever got off because they did not do the checkpoints. I don't think many of the people in my area can afford the money to appeal, which I think is what the police are counting on.

Also, they are supposed to post the address of the checkpoint in the newspaper. For years they did. Now they just say the checkpoint will be, "in an area of high DUI arrests". Which is not per the law and very weasely.

In my town they had a real shady speed trap that ended after they gave a county solicitor a ticket. After he got through with them the town had to refund over seven grand worth of tickets because the speed trap was found to be illegal. I suspect the same will happen one day with the DUI checkpoints and the refunded fines and conviction overturns will probably bankrupt my podunk town.

Lastly, do not forget that the majority of municipalities in my areas view sobriety checkpoints as revenue generators first, and a means to get drunks off the streets second. The fines and fees for house arrest equipment rental and probation visits are staggering. The court ordered rehab in my county is not certified so people's health insurance will not pay- it's an out of pocket affair. DUI's dump large funds in to county and local coffers. It's a lot more complicated than just fighting drunk driving. Heck that's the main reason Pa legislature will not allow local cops to use radar- too much of a track record of small towns aggressively using the PD to finance the govt.

I think societal acceptance of DUI checkpoints is a very strong step down the slippery slope that erodes rights and ends up with all other sorts of checkpoints and searches being considered "acceptable" for safety and security.

Baah, Baah.

Ted

[Ted Murphy]

Would those who oppose sobriety checkpoints oppose immigration checkpoints near the Az. border?  Or truck safety inspection checkpoints at your State border when semis enter your State?  Or a roadblock to stop an escaped felon or armed terrorists?  Tricky stuff to decide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it isn't.

FWIW, bit of a straw man argument there.

[Jake Di Vita]

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

The first thing I thought of when I read this thread.

[DougCarden]

Guys, I agree with what has been posted, but the problem remains that human beings still are weak, self-indulgent, and still drive drunk. What would you recommend to find them and take them off the road other than Peer pressure and Aggressive enforcement?

I truly value my rights as a citizen as well as others, but I can tell you in 13 years we now aren't pulling dead kids out of cars on the weekends now since we are aggressively stopping and arresting drunks, along with using "roadblocks" that are well publicized, easy to see ahead, have exits so you dont "have" to go through there. Most of the people that get arrested are the Career drunks that are over a .200 that are so out of it that they dont know what is going on day to day. Unless they are involved in an accident we would never find them....... Usually the only people who vehemently complain are the people that dont have insurance, valid licenses, etc.(ie. doing something wrong). We also arrest a lot of outstanding warrants that we are unable to find this way as well. It is minimally intrusive, and for the people that are doing what they are supposed to be doing they are on their way in a manner of minutes. Most people are grateful, and for those who aren't their opinions are just cemented even more.

They aint perfect by a long shot, but I am up for suggestions guys? How do we take the drunks off the road? Not being flippant here, but I am truly interested in new ideas that I can implement, since I have that ability in my area! Thanks, DougC

[johnhurd]

Why bother calling it a DUI CHeckpoint if you are going to check license, Insurance, skid marks in shorts, Warrants and blood type just call it a CHECKPOINT !!!! I would like to know one thing are you screening for illegals and detaining them??? I am so proud to be a American............

[Sam]

Him: This is a sobriety checkpoint.

Me: OK, you look sober to me.

ROTFLAMO!!!!

The big difference in the USof A and a real police state is that you would have been taken into custody for your sense of humor in a land that wasn't free.

Freedom demands responsibility. Attempted murder with a motor vehicle, regardless of how it is discovered, should always result in a jail sentance and a lifetime DQ from driving. If we would quit enabling these potential murderers, we could stop this crazy infringement of our rights. The police don't take away anyone's freedom. Freedom is surrendered to the state when we the people tolerate the criminals in our midst.

Great rant, E!

[George]

Why bother calling it a DUI CHeckpoint if you are going to check license, Insurance, skid marks in shorts, Warrants and blood type just call it a CHECKPOINT !!!!

While you are at it, why not get folks out of their cars and frisk them too! You never know what you might find when you conduct random pat downs. You might get lucky and find some illegal fireworks, or something.

--

Regards,

[John Dunn]

This thread reminds me of the question, "Even if it saves only one child's life, isn't it worth it?"

Well....no. If you want to curtail drunk driving, have the judges do more than a $600 fine, 30 days suspended sentence, and some goofball class. But don't subject the rest of us to so called minor inconveniences. I have a plethora of friends in LE, and wouldn't worry about getting stopped in Wyoming, but I've watched Serpico, Training Day, and read about the Rampart division enough to be wary of the police elsewhere (Barry in Hawaii excluded!).

[folsoml]

I've watched Serpico, Training Day, and read about the Rampart division enough to be wary of the police elsewhere  (Barry in Hawaii excluded!).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...and I've seen enough Looney Tunes episodes to know that a coyote can NOT catch a road runner.

You don't really believe what you see in the movies, do you?

[John Dunn]

Well...there actually was a Serpico, but I had a hard time completely believing the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The Shire was faky as hell.

[folsoml]

Well...there actually was a Serpico, but I had a hard time completely believing the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  The Shire was faky as hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMAO!

[Ted Murphy]

Well....no.  If you want to curtail drunk driving, have the judges do more than a $600 fine, 30 days suspended sentence, and some goofball class. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Round here a DUI will end up costing you over $5,000 first offense, between fines and legal fees.

I don't drink very much and never drink and drive. So it's not that I'm mad at them because they curtail my social life. It's just the whole Police State thing that drives me nuts.

What's going down in NO is going to give Politicians ideas...........

[John Dunn]

Round here a DUI will end up costing you over $5,000 first offense, between fines and legal fees.

Quadruple that and add a public caning and we're almost there.

The figures I used are the punishments most often cited in our local blotter, they don't include legal fees.