Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 13
Posted: 1/1/2006 6:22:47 AM EDT
I passed two "DUI checkpoints" last night. One while I was on my way to where I celebrated the New Year and another one as I was going home.

I think it should be illegal to completely block travel lanes. I'm all for busting drunk drivers, I just don't think the rest of us should be delayed for any length of time in the process.

I just cant help but think that as we as a society become more accepting of this behavior from our .Gov the tighter their grip on us will become.

Discuss.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:24:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:28:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
Back in the 1970's these were un-Constitutional as violations.



But now we know better
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:30:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
Back in the 1970's these were un-Constitutional as violations.


Yes, and then the 'New and Improved' Supreme Court changed its mind on the Constitution.

Yea!

Come the Revolution if there's a federal judge left...we are doomed.

Eric The(Insidious)Hun
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:32:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
I passed two "DUI checkpoints" last night. One while I was on my way to where I celebrated the New Year and another one as I was going home.

I think it should be illegal to completely block travel lanes. I'm all for busting drunk drivers, I just don't think the rest of us should be delayed for any length of time in the process.


So were you Delayed for any length of time in the process"? No?Theres your answer.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:34:35 AM EDT
if there's a better way to catch drunk or drugged drivers, share it with the police. Unfortunately checkpoints work, it's one of those freedom vs. loss of freedom issues
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:36:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
I passed two "DUI checkpoints" last night. One while I was on my way to where I celebrated the New Year and another one as I was going home.

I think it should be illegal to completely block travel lanes. I'm all for busting drunk drivers, I just don't think the rest of us should be delayed for any length of time in the process.


So were you Delayed for any length of time in the process"? No?Theres your answer.



So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:40:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:40:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 7:05:59 AM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
if there's a better way to catch drunk or drugged drivers, share it with the police. Unfortunately checkpoints work...



Actually they are less effective than roving DUI patrol. My agency does both and the roving DUI cars always catch more drunks than the static checkpoint. The checkpoint is better at catching unlicensed/uninsured/suspended drivers though. The FBI seems to agree with my assesment www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_1_72/ai_97857809

Unfortunately the prograsm is funded by federal grant and you have to do it under their terms, which includes static checkpoints.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:44:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
I passed two "DUI checkpoints" last night. One while I was on my way to where I celebrated the New Year and another one as I was going home.

I think it should be illegal to completely block travel lanes. I'm all for busting drunk drivers, I just don't think the rest of us should be delayed for any length of time in the process.


So were you Delayed for any length of time in the process"? No?Theres your answer.



So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?



Every cop knows you need probable cause to arrest. Perhaps you meant "reasonable suspician"?

Your criminal law homework for tonight is to learn the difference betweeen consentual encounters, detentions and arrests. The differences between reasonable suspiciasn, probable cause and beyond a reasonable dout, then how they relate to eachother.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:44:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 6:46:26 AM EDT by lippo]
Ok, I'll be the first to do it in the new year...






While I think busting drunk drivers is a good thing...these "check points" are UnConstitutional! One more set down the slippery slope.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:45:50 AM EDT
AssaultRifler:

if there's a better way to catch drunk or drugged drivers, share it with the police. Unfortunately checkpoints work, it's one of those freedom vs. loss of freedom issues


You know the drill A..R.

[whiney liberal voice] Well if you want to stop gun violence, just go into everyones home and take away the guns [/whiney liberal voice]

Gimme a foogin break
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:46:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:50:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 6:51:17 AM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:51:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.




Well, that's your opinion. Let's put it up the American people and I bet they would do away with your checkpoints.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:53:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:55:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.




Well, that's your opinion.


Nope. Its the courts opinion. Those people the founding fathers decided would rule on such issues.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:55:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.




Well, that's your opinion. Let's put it up the American people and I bet they would do away with your checkpoints.



Actually, the people asked for the checkpoints in the first place. If you asked again, you'd get MORE of them.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:55:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 7:00:27 AM EDT by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.




Well, that's your opinion. Let's put it up the American people and I bet they would do away with your checkpoints.



Actually, the people asked for the checkpoints in the first place. If you asked again, you'd get MORE of them.

BTW: what TC stated is legal fact backed up by case law. Maybe you should look of the definition of "opinion" while you are looking up everything else.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:56:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.




Well, that's your opinion. Let's put it up the American people and I bet they would do away with your checkpoints.



Now that's a radical idea that sounds vaguely familiar.



So the founding fathers were idots and we should turn our contistutional republic into a direct democracy?
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 6:58:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.




Well, that's your opinion. Let's put it up the American people and I bet they would do away with your checkpoints.



Actually, the people asked for the checkpoints in the first place. If you asked again, you'd get MORE of them.




Who? Provide proof.


Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:02:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.[/quote

Well, that's your opinion. Let's put it up the American people and I bet they would do away with your checkpoints.



Actually, the people asked for the checkpoints in the first place. If you asked again, you'd get MORE of them.




Who? Provide proof.



Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:03:28 AM EDT
FWIW The checkpoints must be announced to the public in advance and have to be held in locations that have a history of DUI arrests and/or alcohol-related crashes. An escape route is left so that anyone driving through the checkpoint has decided of their own free will to do so. If they want to avoid the checkpoint they simply take the detour.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:03:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:06:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.




Well, that's your opinion. Let's put it up the American people and I bet they would do away with your checkpoints.



Now that's a radical idea that sounds vaguely familiar.



So the founding fathers were idots and we should turn our contistutional republic into a direct democracy?




tc556guy argument on guns is to put our 2nd Amendment Rights up to a vote with the people and it all relates to "public opinion". Which is about as smart as a football bat.

According to our Constitution...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If you can read and half a brain, this tells me that a police officer has to have "probable cause", which would be erratic driving, driving without headlights on, etc.

The courts may have "ruled" on this, but it doesn't mean they aren't going against the Constitution. They won't rule on 2nd Amendment issues, because they know they would have to strick down 2/3's of the gun laws on the books and they don't want to go against the cops, they control they have or the revenue sceme the government has going.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:07:51 AM EDT
The IV Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am no lawyer but I think this is quite simple. Is it reasonable to stop 100% of all traffic to see if someone is drinking and driving? Is it suspected when doing so that 100% of all the drivers are drinking and driving leading to the probable cause and the reason to check everyone?

In a democratic society if 100% of the people are doing something or want to do something should it not be legal?

Do not take me wrong I do not drink and drive nor do I think it should be legal to do so. I also do not think road blocks are the correct way to go about catching drunk drivers. If they are driving under the influence would it not be obvious, someone is impaired by their inability to drive straight down the road? Leading to the probable cause and the reason why they are being pulled over and then arrested.


Just food for thought

Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:09:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
FWIW The checkpoints must be announced to the public in advance and have to be held in locations that have a history of DUI arrests and/or alcohol-related crashes. An escape route is left so that anyone driving through the checkpoint has decided of their own free will to do so. If they want to avoid the checkpoint they simply take the detour.




If that is the case, then there is no problem. And in that case, I wouldn't see it as UnConstitutional, because you give the the non-drinking person a way to secure his/her Rights.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:10:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:10:32 AM EDT
New years eve is amature night. There is no way in hell I would be out on the road after 10:00.

If you want to catch the guys that drive drunk all the time, set up a check point near a bar between 10:00 and 12:00 on any given weekday.


-HS
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:10:47 AM EDT
The .gov war on everything.
Click it or ticket bitch!
You Drink you drive you lose!
.08 being drunk is crazy. Hell even if your .06 you'll still get a DUI less than safe.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:11:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shootsenmeister:

I am no lawyer but I think this is quite simple. Is it reasonable to stop 100% of all traffic to see if someone is drinking and driving?



No, and DUI checkpoints dont do that. DUI check points typically stop every 5th drivers who choses to drive through the checkpoint after being warned in advance via radio, telivision, newpaper and traffic signs.

If you dont want to participate simply take the first detour when you see the sign stating DUI checkpoint ahead. Its like going into a airport or courthouse with signs saying everyone will be searched, then complaining you were searched. You saw the signs and you entered anyway.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:17:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By shootsenmeister:

I am no lawyer but I think this is quite simple. Is it reasonable to stop 100% of all traffic to see if someone is drinking and driving?



No, and DUI checkpoints dont do that. DUI check points typically stop every 5th drivers who choses to drive through the checkpoint after being warned in advance via radio, telivision, newpaper and traffic signs.


If you dont want to participate simply take the first detour when you see the sign stating DUI checkpoint ahead. Its like going into a airport or courthouse with signs saying everyone will be searched, then complaining you were searched. You saw the signs and you entered anyway.



most dui checkpts aren't announced til you haveno chance to evade. Turning around gives popo the excuse to pull you over.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:18:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 7:35:38 AM EDT by Backstop]



Look, they're only doing this for your own good.

You should be grateful.

They're protecting you.

Like they did for those young ladies in Washington, D.C. on 16 March 1975...ohhh...wait a second here...

----------------

EDIT:

Yes, I know LEOs are just following the law.

And yes, I know that most LEOs would walk naked through a fire pit to help someone.

Gotta be a rough life taking flak for just following orders.



Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:18:40 AM EDT
The one advantage DWI checkpoints have over normal patrol encounters is speed. With a DWI checkpoint (around here) all the processing is done on scene and groups of arrestees are transported to jail together. With the typical patrol DWI stop, the arresting officer is out of the picture for atleast 3 hours when trying to accomplish everything himself at the jail.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:19:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
I passed two "DUI checkpoints" last night. One while I was on my way to where I celebrated the New Year and another one as I was going home.

I think it should be illegal to completely block travel lanes. I'm all for busting drunk drivers, I just don't think the rest of us should be delayed for any length of time in the process.


So were you Delayed for any length of time in the process"? No?Theres your answer.



So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?



Every cop knows you need probable cause to arrest. Perhaps you meant "reasonable suspician"?

Your criminal law homework for tonight is to learn the difference betweeen consentual encounters, detentions and arrests. The differences between reasonable suspiciasn, probable cause and beyond a reasonable dout, then how they relate to eachother.



Thanks for the clarification, and the cutesy troll symbol.

Since you have decided to start off the year with condescension, I will start off the year with being a spelling Nazi.

Your homework for tonight is to locate the "SPELLCHECK" button. It is located on each response page.

Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:21:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
The one advantage DWI checkpoints have over normal patrol encounters is speed. With a DWI checkpoint (around here) all the processing is done on scene and groups of arrestees are transported to jail together. With the typical patrol DWI stop, the arresting officer is out of the picture for atleast 3 hours when trying to accomplish everything himself at the jail.



For roving patrols you set up a field booking location where reserves or explorers can fill out the booking paperwork, admin per se forms ect. Then you hold the drunks there until you have a full car load to transport. You can include a couple reserves in a black & white to respond to the arrest scenes and process the towing paperwork. cutsthe turn around time for the arresting officers down to the amount of time it takes to do FSTs.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:24:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
The one advantage DWI checkpoints have over normal patrol encounters is speed. With a DWI checkpoint (around here) all the processing is done on scene and groups of arrestees are transported to jail together. With the typical patrol DWI stop, the arresting officer is out of the picture for atleast 3 hours when trying to accomplish everything himself at the jail.



For roving patrols you set up a field booking location where reserves or explorers can fill out the booking paperwork, admin per se forms ect. Then you hold the drunks there until you have a full car load to transport. You can include a couple reserves in a black & white to respond to the arrest scenes and process the towing paperwork. cutsthe turn around time for the arresting officers down to the amount of time it takes to do FSTs.

-

wouldnt fly here. All of our Intoxilyzers are at the jail. Also, we only have 1 Reserve officer for this district and he is only good for transporting people, not much else. When it comes to doing tow-in sheets, a second officer handles those which frees up the arresting officer to head on to the jail to start all of his stuff.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:25:24 AM EDT
Here we go again.

Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:31:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
FWIW The checkpoints must be announced to the public in advance and have to be held in locations that have a history of DUI arrests and/or alcohol-related crashes. An escape route is left so that anyone driving through the checkpoint has decided of their own free will to do so. If they want to avoid the checkpoint they simply take the detour.



This is true here as well... However, expect to get followed if you do and probably pulled over. They will post units and generally follow if you turn around.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:31:53 AM EDT
So. How many of you guys posted bail this morning?
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:35:01 AM EDT
I have no problem with roving patrols pulling drunks off the road, if there is cause (or suspicion or however you or the legal system wishes to phrase it). The idea that arbitrarily stopping people (whether it is all or every fifth one) is ok because there is a statistical probability some will be drunk is akin to rummaging through every fifth person's house because there is a statistical probability that someone somewhere will be doing something wrong, growing a pot plant, cheating on their taxes, ripping tags off mattresses.

I have friends who are cops (most retired now) who got plenty of drunks off the road without having to resort to fishing expeditions. The entire concept (of checkpoints) is repugnant.


Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:37:31 AM EDT
Reminds me of one time in the mil...my entire duty section got the 'you have been randomly selected to participate' piss test letter.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:41:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 7:41:56 AM EDT by falaholic1]
It violates the 4th amendment. End of story. Justify it all you want. Want to catch drunk drivers? I'm willing to bet they are swerving or driving eratically. I'm guessing that would involve police work, instead of stopping everyone just because you feel like it.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:43:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
tc556guy argument on guns is to put our 2nd Amendment Rights up to a vote with the people and it all relates to "public opinion". Which is about as smart as a football bat.

According to our Constitution...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If you can read and half a brain, this tells me that a police officer has to have "probable cause", which would be erratic driving, driving without headlights on, etc.

The courts may have "ruled" on this, but it doesn't mean they aren't going against the Constitution. They won't rule on 2nd Amendment issues, because they know they would have to strick down 2/3's of the gun laws on the books and they don't want to go against the cops, they control they have or the revenue sceme the government has going.



You must have misread what * I * posted. I simply commented on what the courts have said;it is others who have asked if you want to go from a Republic to a direct democracy.
Sorry you don't agree with their decision,but they ARE the body that resolves these sorts of legal disputes. If the courts don't decide how to resolve a legal dispute,who would you charge with having that job? And would you only support their legitimacy if they only ruled as you see fit?Thats not how things work.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:50:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.



Just because an action is lawful doesn't make it right.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:53:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By shootsenmeister:

I am no lawyer but I think this is quite simple. Is it reasonable to stop 100% of all traffic to see if someone is drinking and driving?



No, and DUI checkpoints dont do that. DUI check points typically stop every 5th drivers who choses to drive through the checkpoint after being warned in advance via radio, telivision, newpaper and traffic signs.

If you dont want to participate simply take the first detour when you see the sign stating DUI checkpoint ahead. Its like going into a airport or courthouse with signs saying everyone will be searched, then complaining you were searched. You saw the signs and you entered anyway.



And then they have someone waiting to pull you over for trying to elude the roadblock. Don't tell me it doesn't happen. I have seen it happen, not to me, but to the guy who was behind me about a mile before the roadblock. A cruiser took off after him.

I see the roadblock signs on the interstates all the time. What it is in reality is that they have someone waiting at the next offramp to pull you over if you exit. I had that happen in Tenn because I was already planning on exiting to fuel up. It was all pretty assinine.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:54:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
According to our Constitution...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If you can read and half a brain, this tells me that a police officer has to have "probable cause", which would be erratic driving, driving without headlights on, etc.

The courts may have "ruled" on this, but it doesn't mean they aren't going against the Constitution. They won't rule on 2nd Amendment issues, because they know they would have to strick down 2/3's of the gun laws on the books and they don't want to go against the cops, they control they have or the revenue sceme the government has going.



lippo,

I'm on your side about these roadblocks being unconstitutional, but we need to get the wording correct:

What you describe as 'probable cause' is actually RAS: "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion". The police can stop a car if they can 'articulate a reasonable suspiscion' that the person is doing something illegal. So, expired tags, broken/non-functioning lights, etc.

The police can stop you for RAS because you crossed the median several times and your driving seems erratic. Now if they find an open bottle of beer in your cup holder, your breath smells of beer, you are slurring your speech and you fail a field sobriety test then they have probable cause to arrest you for DUI.

RAS = Stop

Probable Cause = Arrest

If I am driving down the road and do not give RAS to the police to stop me, then doing so I interpret is unConstitutional. This is why DUI checkpoints should be unConstitutional.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:54:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
FWIW The checkpoints must be announced to the public in advance and have to be held in locations that have a history of DUI arrests and/or alcohol-related crashes. An escape route is left so that anyone driving through the checkpoint has decided of their own free will to do so. If they want to avoid the checkpoint they simply take the detour.



This is true here as well... However, expect to get followed if you do and probably pulled over. They will post units and generally follow if you turn around.



So going through a checkpoint is "voluntary" then -- kinda like volunteering for work details in the Army is "voluntary."
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:55:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
So they skipped "probable cause" at the academy?

(Legal from the same court that brought us eminent domain, what a track record... )



The courts have ruled that a DUI checkpoint with a minimal delay isn't violating anyones rights, nor do you need probable cause to run a checkpoint,and the "probable cause" needed for a traffic offense is actually "reasonable suspicion", which you obtain from your observations while interacting with the driver.



Just because an action is lawful doesn't make it right.



Just because some people disagree with a law or a court ruling doesn't make it wrong.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:04:22 AM EDT
there is a reason why cops refer to checkpoints as "fishing expeditions" they dont catch drunks, but they write a whole hell of a lot of tickets for saftey violations(burned out bulbs, seat belts, etc...), suspended licenses, expired registration, and lack of insurance. they dont care about catching drunks, most(that I know) dont even want to do the checkpoints, but the cheif loves them, and so does the city due to the huge pile of revenue that it brings in.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 8:07:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
there is a reason why cops refer to checkpoints as "fishing expeditions" they dont catch drunks, but they write a whole hell of a lot of tickets for saftey violations(burned out bulbs, seat belts, etc...), suspended licenses, expired registration, and lack of insurance. they dont care about catching drunks, most(that I know) dont even want to do the checkpoints, but the cheif loves them, and so does the city due to the huge pile of revenue that it brings in.

- must be the people you work with. We have a HUGE dwi problem here so guys try to set u checkpoints whnever possible. Of course we still dont have them that often... maybe every quarter or so.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 13
Top Top