Quoted: Quoted: 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.

According to AR15Fan, roving patrols work better. Your opinion?

Perhaps in his area. His agency obviously has a different set-up for processing DWIs than we do here and that can affect things greatly. The area I work in is known as a honey hole for DWIs due to the high number of them.  If a patrol unit could process a DWI as quick as a checkpoint could, they might be close to being equal.


The key to succesful DWI checkpoint is putting it where it is needed.

Quoted: 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.

Gotta call BULLSHIT on that one - I read the paper front to back daily, watch/listen to the news, and listen to the radio for a good part of every day - never -NOT EVEN ONCE have I EVER heard such an "announcement" - maybe you're thinking of the announcement at the station, so your buds who *might* be DWI know which roads to take??? Oh, wait, you guys often let each other go....



  - georgestrings

Quoted: 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.

And theres nohing wrong with that,either.Those are still valid cites. As far as the money,here in NYS, the money goes to the state generalfund.Its not like the officer writing the ticket gets any benefit from it.

Quoted: maybe you're thinking of the announcement at the station, so your buds who *might* be DWI know which roads to take??? Oh, wait, you guys often let each other go....   - georgestrings

- Hmmm, that isn't completely true, especially when it comes to DWIs.  I can think of atleast 3 guys from one department that were arrested for DWI last year alone.  

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

There you go counterdicting yourself again. With 2nd Amendment Rights, you want to let the "people's opinion" decide. Now you want to leave it up to the courts. Make up your mind.

First off, I will agree with your "the peoples opinion decides" to the extent that if we let the people decide, we have just dissolved our Republic to a true democracy. And to the fact that governmental systems "do" change if the people let it or some people force it. So what I see with America? We are heading towards a dictatorship hidden in a "democracy", just like what happens to every Republic.

Now on to your other point. If you "honestly" believe in the system set up by our Founding Fathers that is actually based on Freedom. You have to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not just some but all. Otherwise you working within some other systems, probably made up in your own head. And that's where the courts are at this point. They DON'T abide by the Constitution or Bill of Rights for the most part and we have gone down the wrong road. And just because these people make a ruling doesn't mean they are using the Constitution to base their opinions. Sandra Day O'Connor said that we as a body of people should base our legal decisions on World opinion and not as much on our Constitution, would you agree with that? Even if it went against upholding our Freedoms?

The only "authority" I see fit is the Constitution, because I believe in it and why it was set up. If you believe in our system of governing, you even have to recognize that the Constitution says that "it" will be the surpreme rule of the land, not any opinion that people want to through out there. And I personally would like to live in Freedom. Even though there are issues you'll have to deal with that as well. Yes, we live in a "society" but if the "people" (which is the courts, government, etc.) in that society go against the very fabric in which the society was set up, then they are not living within that fabric and are a danger too it. Which, your way of thinking and many others is leading us too.

So with your statement, "And would you only support their legitimacy if they only ruled as you see fit?Thats not how things work." Would you support the legitimacy of a court or governmental office if that office went against the system that has been set up for over 200 years? What if all of a sudden we because a dictatorship? Would you still support that court system?

I support and give authority to any court or governmental office that upholds the governing of our society by the Constitution which is a legal contract and has been in effect for over 200 years. If they go against that, even if it's the "opinion" of the majority of a bunch of morons in this country, then I won't recognize it and use every resource at my means to get it back in line with the system of law that supports Freedom and our Constitution.

You fail to realize that "we", you and me, are here for only a short time, but our "country" and our rule of law has been in effect WAY before you and I got here and hopefully will be around WAY passed the time we have left. What YOU seem to be suggesting is, "while we are here, we can change anything we want, no matter what the consequences". I for one, WANT to see that my children and grandchildren have the opportunity to live under the authority of the Constitution and it's way of running a country. And to that end, WE, NOW, must uphold that document and it's fabric of our rule of law, so it can be passed down to the next and next generations. You think of the immediate here and now, and not with the past history, it's lessons learned, nor with the future in mind. I on the other hand WANT to learn from the lessons of the past and look to the future when I am not here, while trying my best during the present to uphold the Rights and Freedom of EVERYONE that I live with, within this society.

I get what you are saying and the way you think. But you have a "very" different "opinion" of Freedom and our society than I do.

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

Thank you and yes, you are right. Thanks for explaining in detail.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. Gotta call BULLSHIT on that one - I read the paper front to back daily, watch/listen to the news, and listen to the radio for a good part of every day - never -NOT EVEN ONCE have I EVER heard such an "announcement" - maybe you're thinking of the announcement at the station, so your buds who *might* be DWI know which roads to take??? Oh, wait, you guys often let each other go....   - georgestrings

I think they do put an announcement in the paper (which fewer & fewer people get anymore), have never seen one but am told they are buried in the back pages. Just like the "alternate route" availability, legally all the i's are dotted & t's crossed, but it's still a sham.

All those other tickets (burnt out lights, expired inspections etc.) generate bucks for city hall (and "justification" for more checkpoints, because it is all about the money) but drive a wedge between the community & LE - people want to see drunks & robbers tossed in the slammer, not pay $100 tickets (don't forget the "court costs") for having a burnt-out left blinker.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. And theres nohing wrong with that,either.Those are still valid cites. As far as the money,here in NYS, the money goes to the state generalfund.Its not like the officer writing the ticket gets any benefit from it.

for the record, I am not an LEO, I just happen to be buddies with a bunch.

yes there is something wrong with that, these are not "compliance checkpoints" or "safety checkpoints"  they are using the cover of "saving the public from those evil bad drunk drivers" in order to generate revenue for the state.  its a waste of my time and its is a waste of police manpower.  it is also more like the gestapo "your papers please...".  why not toss all those cops in cruisers and drive around looking for drunks like they should be?

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

Gotta call BULLSHIT on that one - I read the paper front to back daily, watch/listen to the news, and listen to the radio for a good part of every day - never -NOT EVEN ONCE have I EVER heard such an "announcement" - maybe you're thinking of the announcement at the station, so your buds who *might* be DWI know which roads to take??? Oh, wait, you guys often let each other go....


(PSSSST)  You do know that whether checkpoints are used is specific to the state in question?  Could it be that "NOT EVEN ONCE"  is because they are not done in your jurisdiction?

Quoted: There you go counterdicting yourself again. With 2nd Amendment Rights, you want to let the "people's opinion" decide. Now you want to leave it up to the courts. Make up your mind. First off, I will agree with your "the peoples opinion decides" to the extent that if we let the people decide, we have just dissolved our Republic to a true democracy. And to the fact that governmental systems "do" change if the people let it or some people force it. So what I see with America? We are heading towards a dictatorship hidden in a "democracy", just like what happens to every Republic. Now on to your other point. If you "honestly" believe in the system set up by our Founding Fathers that is actually based on Freedom. You have to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not just some but all. Otherwise you working within some other systems, probably made up in your own head. And that's where the courts are at this point. They DON'T abide by the Constitution or Bill of Rights for the most part and we have gone down the wrong road. And just because these people make a ruling doesn't mean they are using the Constitution to base their opinions. Sandra Day O'Connor said that we as a body of people should base our legal decisions on World opinion and not as much on our Constitution, would you agree with that? Even if it went against upholding our Freedoms? The only "authority" I see fit is the Constitution, because I believe in it and why it was set up. If you believe in our system of governing, you even have to recognize that the Constitution says that "it" will be the surpreme rule of the land, not any opinion that people want to through out there. And I personally would like to live in Freedom. Even though there are issues you'll have to deal with that as well. Yes, we live in a "society" but if the "people" (which is the courts, government, etc.) in that society go against the very fabric in which the society was set up, then they are not living within that fabric and are a danger too it. Which, your way of thinking and many others is leading us too. So with your statement, "And would you only support their legitimacy if they only ruled as you see fit?Thats not how things work." Would you support the legitimacy of a court or governmental office if that office went against the system that has been set up for over 200 years? What if all of a sudden we because a dictatorship? Would you still support that court system? I support and give authority to any court or governmental office that upholds the governing of our society by the Constitution which is a legal contract and has been in effect for over 200 years. If they go against that, even if it's the "opinion" of the majority of a bunch of morons in this country, then I won't recognize it and use every resource at my means to get it back in line with the system of law that supports Freedom and our Constitution. You fail to realize that "we", you and me, are here for only a short time, but our "country" and our rule of law has been in effect WAY before you and I got here and hopefully will be around WAY passed the time we have left. What YOU seem to be suggesting is, "while we are here, we can change anything we want, no matter what the consequences". I for one, WANT to see that my children and grandchildren have the opportunity to live under the authority of the Constitution and it's way of running a country. And to that end, WE, NOW, must uphold that document and it's fabric of our rule of law, so it can be passed down to the next and next generations. You think of the immediate here and now, and not with the past history, it's lessons learned, nor with the future in mind. I on the other hand WANT to learn from the lessons of the past and look to the future when I am not here, while trying my best during the present to uphold the Rights and Freedom of EVERYONE that I live with, within this society. I get what you are saying and the way you think. But you have a "very" different "opinion" of Freedom and our society than I do.

I am not contradicting myself on anything.Only you see  a contrdiction.The only time I have said anything about "letting the peopel decide" as it relates to the 2A is when peoplethrow up the Second as some sort of roadblock to any gun laws,and I have said that THAT particular excuse wont survive a n amendment action by the majority of citizens if thats what they wish to do.

It was I who made the choice of direct democarcy or Republic; that was someone elses post. I simply said soemone else had confused posters.

So basically you justa dmitted that if the court rules in accordance with your oinion, you'llsupport it,otherwise you choose not to.It doesn't work that way.You don't get government strictly according to your definition of what it should be. Even the FF did not get the kind of gov't that each of them wanted. It was a creation of compromise.

Nobody is threatening the Constitution just because you happen to not agree with every ruling.Your children and grandkids are not going to wind up in some gulag because you dont agree with every court ruling.

Quoted: Quoted: maybe you're thinking of the announcement at the station, so your buds who *might* be DWI know which roads to take??? Oh, wait, you guys often let each other go....   - georgestrings - Hmmm, that isn't completely true, especially when it comes to DWIs.  I can think of atleast 3 guys from one department that were arrested for DWI last year alone.

I have no reason to doubt your word, but we both know that what I'm saying is true, also...


There was a NY State Supreme Court Judge in my county that pretty much started the practice of "restricting" NYS Pistol Licenses - seems he didn't believe that people have the RKBA for self defense... Well, I sat on a barstool next to this jackass one night, and watched him get so drunk he almost fell off his stool - then, he got in his car and drove off... now, how many people do you think this asswipe sent to jail for DWI??? Know what happened??? He was removed from the bench for judicial misconduct - and in less than a year's time had a DWI arrest - so how many times do you think some officer let him slide on DWIs during the TEN YEARS or so he was a State Supreme Court "Justice"???? There are PLENTY of good reasons why many of us have a jaded view of the judicial system...


Now, take 'ol tacd1235 - I mean tc556guy - he pointed out how the courts upheld the constitutionality of DWI roadblocks - but doesn't want to think about how the same traitors ruled the same way on Eminent Domain - go figure???!! Personally, I don't think he's ever seen a restrictive - potentially unconstitutional - law that he didn't like - and cheerfully enforce... I'd also bet he'd gleefully start confiscating guns, if given the order....



  - georgestrings


PS - The former judge's name I mentioned was J. Kevin Mulroy - and fortunately, he's dead now... I'd be all too happy to piss on his grave, and hope he rots in hell!!!!

I've wondered this about 'DUI Checkpoints,' and this is probably about the only chance I'll get to say it.

I wonder why LEOs don't set up checkpoints just down the road from a bar?  

If the intent of the city, police chief, etc, is to get drunk drivers off the road, seems like the operation would have a higher success rate closer to the bar.

Hell, you don't go to D.C. to buy an AR, right?

Never understood this...

Quoted: Now, take 'ol tacd1235 - I mean tc556guy - he pointed out how the courts upheld the constitutionality of DWI roadblocks - but doesn't want to think about how the same traitors ruled the same way on Eminent Domain - go figure???!! Personally, I don't think he's ever seen a restrictive - potentially unconstitutional - law that he didn't like - and cheerfully enforce... I'd also bet he'd gleefully start confiscating guns, if given the order....

I have already stated that you dont get to pick and choose whether you support our judicial system because of the way it happens to rule.There are enough layers to the judicial system that if you have one bad judge as in the one you describe,the wrong gets corrected on appeal at some level.Once you get to the top level,you pretty much have to accept that thats the law of the land unless you propose to completely do away with our system of government.

I have never advocated taking guns away from law abiding citizens,so thats your own paranoia showing through.

Not trying to stir a pot that is already whirling, but, Why would LEO be allowed to even check a Drivers' License at these DWI checkpoints. I mean they are set up to catch Drunk Drivers, so unless one is suspected of being drunk, what right does LEO have to ask for a License or Insurance?  

Quoted: 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 how it is supposed to work here but in real practice works differently.  

Announcements in the paper: Back page, buried, in a small blurb will be "DUI checkpoints will be put on routes 61, 924, 339, 81, 80, and sr3389 this weekend".  Never mind that each route is hundreds of miles long, travels through numerous counties and even to other states.

Escape route: They put signs by the right within sight of the dui checkpoint for an alternate route.  Police cruisers are on that route and pull over everyone who takes it.

Driving through the checkpoint of your own free will: doesn't happen. If you take the turn off or turn around a police cruiser will pull you over, no RAS or probable cause.  There is no avoiding the checkpoint.

Here they look into almost every car and stop everyone, and will ask you to roll down the windows to answer a couple questions.  Usually "Where are you going?" , "have you been drinking?", etc.  The answers are "None of your business Officer".

They also ask everyone for drivers license and insurance cards.

DUI Checkpoints=unconstitutional.

Quoted: DUI Checkpoints=unconstitutional.

In that case, so are the BP checkpoints.

OK...I'm done talking to myself.

Quoted: I've wondered this about 'DUI Checkpoints,' and this is probably about the only chance I'll get to say it. I wonder why LEOs don't set up checkpoints just down the road from a bar?   If the intent of the city, police chief, etc, is to get drunk drivers off the road, seems like the operation would have a higher success rate closer to the bar. Hell, you don't go to D.C. to buy an AR, right? Never understood this...

Would make sense wouldn't it?  That is, if all your drunks were coming from bars. Most come from private parties. Esp on New Years.

What happens in your scenario is that folks start screaming about "profiling" and "entrapment".  The latter is another Arfcom favorite.

Quoted: This is how it is supposed to work here but in real practice works differently.   Announcements in the paper: Back page, buried, in a small blurb will be "DUI checkpoints will be put on routes 61, 924, 339, 81, 80, and sr3389 this weekend".  Never mind that each route is hundreds of miles long, travels through numerous counties and even to other states.

You want them to spend the money for a half page ad on page 3 or something? Since the local police would be enforcing a local roadblock, who cares where outside the jurisdiction that route goes?

Quoted: Not trying to stir a pot that is already whirling, but, Why would LEO be allowed to even check a Drivers' License at these DWI checkpoints. I mean they are set up to catch Drunk Drivers, so unless one is suspected of being drunk, what right does LEO have to ask for a License or Insurance?

another sign of impairment to observe if you have trouble getting your license out

The first 2 letters in the phrase DUI Checkpoint are DU.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Quoted: Quoted: Not trying to stir a pot that is already whirling, but, Why would LEO be allowed to even check a Drivers' License at these DWI checkpoints. I mean they are set up to catch Drunk Drivers, so unless one is suspected of being drunk, what right does LEO have to ask for a License or Insurance?   another sign of impairment to observe if you have trouble getting your license out

So after someone gets his/her license out without a problem, LEO sends you on your way without checking it because you obviously passed "the test"?

Quoted: if there's a better way to catch drunk or drugged drivers, share it with the police.

Absolutely.  Simply set up down the street from the bars and the clubs.   No, wait, we can't do that.  Let's harass all the legal drivers on the road instead of going aftet the drivers you know are impaired...

I have heard the radio announcements and most likely there is a website you could find where the police anounce their roadblocks.

Around here all avenues of escape will result in you getting pulled over from what I have experienced and heard from others.

Ohio loves the new seatbelt law, a buddy got nailed when he was putting his seatbelt on after he saw a checkpoint sign.  He got a ticket for not having his seatbelt on since they had someone hiding near the checkpoint sign and radioing back who was putting on their seatbelts.

I hate checkpoints and I don't care if they brought peace on earth, they suck.

Quoted: Quoted: I've wondered this about 'DUI Checkpoints,' and this is probably about the only chance I'll get to say it. I wonder why LEOs don't set up checkpoints just down the road from a bar?   If the intent of the city, police chief, etc, is to get drunk drivers off the road, seems like the operation would have a higher success rate closer to the bar. Hell, you don't go to D.C. to buy an AR, right? Never understood this... Would make sense wouldn't it?  That is, if all your drunks were coming from bars. Most come from private parties. Esp on New Years. What happens in your scenario is that folks start screaming about "profiling" and "entrapment".  The latter is another Arfcom favorite.

HA!

The only time in my life I've hit a checkpoint was down in south Miami somewhere between 81 and 85.  LEO asks for my DL and insurance.  My out of state DL had been expired since (??)  77 or so .  He saw the mil sticker, and asked if I was in the mil.  Thought the ex was gonna flip out for a second...HAHA!

Profiling and entrapment?  Yeah.

Was a guy I worked with while we were building the new CPS bldg - he had to blow into a deal attached to his car.  If he blew a BAC of some ? amount, the damn car wouldn't start.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. Gotta call BULLSHIT on that one - I read the paper front to back daily, watch/listen to the news, and listen to the radio for a good part of every day - never -NOT EVEN ONCE have I EVER heard such an "announcement" - maybe you're thinking of the announcement at the station, so your buds who *might* be DWI know which roads to take??? Oh, wait, you guys often let each other go....   - georgestrings

No BS. I see small articles in both of the local papers, as well as press releases on police department websites detailing the date, time and even location of the checkpoints. As for the actual checkpoints, every single one I've seen in my area has had signs posted way in advance on the road, with atleast one or two streets that a driver could turn onto in order to avoid the checkpoint. And yes, there are usually motor officers nearby watching people turning around. Why? Because frequently people will do illegal u-turns or flat out stop their car in the middle of the street contemplating whether to drive through it or not. These checkpoints are farely rare to begin with, cities around here maybe have 2 a year if that. They receive the funding from NHTSA, so when there is money, they hold a checkpoint.

-d

Quoted: 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

actually yes,

aren't alot of them repeat offenders?
, look up there records and go to their homes and wait for them to drive

Quoted: Quoted: Now, take 'ol tacd1235 - I mean tc556guy - he pointed out how the courts upheld the constitutionality of DWI roadblocks - but doesn't want to think about how the same traitors ruled the same way on Eminent Domain - go figure???!! Personally, I don't think he's ever seen a restrictive - potentially unconstitutional - law that he didn't like - and cheerfully enforce... I'd also bet he'd gleefully start confiscating guns, if given the order.... I have already stated that you dont get to pick and choose whether you support our judicial system because of the way it happens to rule.There are enough layers to the judicial system that if you have one bad judge as in the one you describe,the wrong gets corrected on appeal at some level.Once you get to the top level,you pretty much have to accept that thats the law of the land unless you propose to completely do away with our system of government. I have never advocated taking guns away from law abiding citizens,so thats your own paranoia showing through.

Then why won't the Surpreme Court rule on the 2nd Amendment?


tc556guy wrote...

"The constitutionality thing is a non-issue. Everyone has an opinion as to the constitutionality of any given issue. Lots of people here claim that something is unconstitutional in spite of the courts saying that it is, simply because they think it is unconstitutional."


WHO do you think the "courts" are anyway? People. Yeah, you know that, but what happens when the educational system and the judicial system in this country becomes so corrupt or happens to "lean" towards the liberal that their, "opinion" decides to take away our 2nd Amendment Right or any of our other Rights as WRITTEN down on a piece of paper for ALL to see?

And you might not come right out and say or think, "It's ok to take away the Right to own a weapon by a law abiding citizen", but your thought process and way of thinking sure does.


And I know what you are going to say, "that's your opinion", but you can't back anything up. You don't show proof of any argument or statement you make. I can go aback and SHOW you where you contradict yourself all day long, but you'll just tell me, "NO I didn't."


*Oh and by the way, EVERY elected official, government agent and military service member SWEARS to uphold the Constitution. But according to you...a person doesn't "know" what the Constitution means, so they have to abide by every court ruling, even if it is clearly wrong? And if that "Constitution" is corrupted by one agent of the government, isn't the responisbility of the rest to set it straight? Or if the majority of the government officials, is in direct conflict of reality, just because, that's their "opinion..does that make it ok?

Quoted: I've wondered this about 'DUI Checkpoints,' and this is probably about the only chance I'll get to say it. I wonder why LEOs don't set up checkpoints just down the road from a bar?   If the intent of the city, police chief, etc, is to get drunk drivers off the road, seems like the operation would have a higher success rate closer to the bar. Hell, you don't go to D.C. to buy an AR, right? Never understood this...

Because there are too many bars. There are over 52 bars in my city alone. Not to mention that the law prescribes where you can place the checkpoints.

-d

Quoted: Not trying to stir a pot that is already whirling, but, Why would LEO be allowed to even check a Drivers' License at these DWI checkpoints. I mean they are set up to catch Drunk Drivers, so unless one is suspected of being drunk, what right does LEO have to ask for a License or Insurance?

Because legally anyone driving a motor vehicle has to provide a law enforcement officer their identification and proof of insurrance when asked in our state. The drivers are randomly stopped at a checkpoint, and asked for their license and proof of insurrance. This allows the officer to observe the driver in their motor skills to take an id card out of a wallet and their insurrance ouf of a glove box. The officer also can smell the occuppants for any alcohol. Usually the officers don't even run their license through the system if there are no signs that the driver is impaired at all. Just hand them the brochure and let them go.

-d

Quoted: Quoted: Not trying to stir a pot that is already whirling, but, Why would LEO be allowed to even check a Drivers' License at these DWI checkpoints. I mean they are set up to catch Drunk Drivers, so unless one is suspected of being drunk, what right does LEO have to ask for a License or Insurance?   Because legally anyone driving a motor vehicle has to provide a law enforcement officer their identification and proof of insurrance when asked in our state. The drivers are randomly stopped at a checkpoint, and asked for their license and proof of insurrance. This allows the officer to observe the driver in their motor skills to take an id card out of a wallet and their insurrance ouf of a glove box. The officer also can smell the occuppants for any alcohol. Usually the officers don't even run their license through the system if there are no signs that the driver is impaired at all. Just hand them the brochure and let them go. -d

this has prolly been brought up but
probable cause?

"DUI Checkpoints" are a worthless waste of time and money

Mostly all that gets handed out is tickets for busted taillights and forgotten driver's licenses,  and guess what,  you fix it/find it before your court date and you don't pay jack.


There has also been some contention over what constitutes "legally drunk", since states have a tendency to try and legislate biology, regardless of the practical application.  i.e. .08% and you are impaired (presumed guilty), which of course is total BS since some people are no where near impaired at that level.

so hypothetically if you stop someone without PC, like at a roadblock, and they blow over the "legal" amount they are presumed guilty regardless of whether or not they are impaired.  This nation is full of laws whose sole intent is to take the "work" out of "police work".

Quoted: 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.

I dont know how it is in Arizona, but here things like b/o tail lamps and expired reg are fix-it-tickets.  Meaning no fine as long as you correct the violation. there is usually a $12.00 court processing fee when you show proof of correction. That $12.00 doesnt even cme close to covering the cost associate with writing and processing that ticket.  so its a net loss for the taxpayer, but the gain is safer roadways from properly maintianed and insured cars.

You might be able to make a case for speeding tickets as a source of revenue, but the same cannot be said for correctable violations.

Quoted: 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.

If you drove past it, then it was not a very effective road block.

ETA driving is not a right. You have no right to transportation. On my licence is says that by having it, I agree to DUI checkpoints. If I have issues with it, I can turn in my licence and take the bus.

Quoted: All those other tickets (burnt out lights, expired inspections etc.) generate bucks for city hall...

Are you sure about that?  As I have already explained burnt out lights are usually a fix it ticket that carries no fine.  How much is the fine in your state for a burnt out light?  What percentage of that fine cgoes to court cost?  what percent to the state general fund?  What percent actualy goes to City Hall?  Lets see some hard facts and numbers.

Perhaps mythbusters needs to do a show on traffic citations as a source of city revenue?

BTW:  Did the internet traffic experts know that LE agencies track injury traffic collisons, non injury traffic collisions, and moving citations and compare them?  Its called the traffic collision index.  One thing always holds true in the end results.  More moving citations always results in less injury traffic collisions.  

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

tc  Would "RS' come from a driver being uncooperative? ie: literally cracking the window,handing the papers, not answering any questions, possibly doning a pair of sun glasses,or not looking at the officer face to face?


Roy

Quoted: I've wondered this about 'DUI Checkpoints,' and this is probably about the only chance I'll get to say it. I wonder why LEOs don't set up checkpoints just down the road from a bar?

The case law on DUI checkpoints is well established at this point.  for the arrests to be lawful the checkpoints must be done in the approved maner.  that means they are positioned where there is a documented history of DUI related traffic collisions and an escape route.

The other issue is bars/restaurants are "respectable" businessness and city leaders would not like the local cops targeting the customers of specific business.  The checkpoint should not target the customers of any single establishment as doing so would violate the equal protections issues of the constitution.

If I am driving drunk on the road, why is that any of the government's business?

Quoted: Then why won't the Surpreme Court rule on the 2nd Amendment?

Nothing obligates the Court to rule on a particular case or legal dispute. Only they can answer why they choose or decline a particular case that is offered to them for consideration.

tc556guy wrote... "The constitutionality thing is a non-issue. Everyone has an opinion as to the constitutionality of any given issue. Lots of people here claim that something is unconstitutional in spite of the courts saying that it is, simply because they think it is unconstitutional." WHO do you think the "courts" are anyway? People. Yeah, you know that, but what happens when the educational system and the judicial system in this country becomes so corrupt or happens to "lean" towards the liberal that their, "opinion" decides to take away our 2nd Amendment Right or any of our other Rights as WRITTEN down on a piece of paper for ALL to see?

I believe that the Court members have a better idea as to what is "constitutional" than many of the people who post on an internet board,based on their legal training. The Court in its decisions gives very clear cut reasons why it makes the decisions it does and on what legal grounds. Uusally around here the basis for belief that something is wrong or Unconstitutional is usually a case of "it oughtta be so" or because some poster has collected  a list of quotes from their favorite  FF that they think supports their viewpoint.

Sorry you think that our educational and judicial systems are corrupt. All that does is give you in your mind personal carte blanche to complain endlessly about how wrong and how bad things are. Exactly WHAT is not happening in our country that you want to see happen? Hmm? You think it was so great 100 years ago?It wasn't.

And you might not come right out and say or think, "It's ok to take away the Right to own a weapon by a law abiding citizen", but your thought process and way of thinking sure does.

How?

And I know what you are going to say, "that's your opinion", but you can't back anything up. You don't show proof of any argument or statement you make. I can go back and SHOW you where you contradict yourself all day long, but you'll just tell me, "NO I didn't."

What exactly do you expect me to back up that you say I am not backing up? I certainly back things up as well as any of the internet  Don Quixotes here who go off tilting at their favorite Second Amendment windmills and expect their personal opinions to be taken as some sort of gospel,and that includes you.
If you want to patch together a variety of quotes culled from posts about different issues to "prove" that I am conflicting in my responses,you probably could. But my posts should be taken in the context of the thread being discussed, not in some patchwork of excerpts you've made with an agenda in mind.

*Oh and by the way, EVERY elected official, government agent and military service member SWEARS to uphold the Constitution. But according to you...a person doesn't "know" what the Constitution means, so they have to abide by every court ruling, even if it is clearly wrong? And if that "Constitution" is corrupted by one agent of the government, isn't the responisbility of the rest to set it straight? Or if the majority of the government officials, is in direct conflict of reality, just because, that's their "opinion..does that make it ok?

There is a wealth of court opinion on every disputed issue  thats ever come up concerning the Constitution. Yes, there are plenty of cases where the average person may very well have to refer back to some sort of legal advice for what may or may not be Constitutional . Your statement that something is 'wrong"in a Court decision is yet another example of you injecting your personal opinion on a court decisions lawfulness.Nothing more.

Quoted: actually yes, aren't alot of them repeat offenders? , look up there records and go to their homes and wait for them to drive

Unrealistic.Too many of them,not enough officers to do that. If you could even figure out where they are. Some of them are awfully good at NOT having current information on file so you can find them.

tc556guy, I don't understand where you come-up with the "minimal delay" part.  How is the officer going to ask for you papers, you find them, him call in all of the information, call-in info from your license, do a check for outstanding warrants, check on your license plate, check all of the lights, (sometimes) measure the tread on the tires, go through all of the usual questions (where are you going, where are you coming from, do you have anything illegal in the car, do you have any weapons, and so on), and often have an animal search the car from the outside by smell.  Then multiply that times the number of people in front of you.  I've been through several that took a long time when the police stopped more than one city bus in front of me to pat-down all of the passengers.  The last one I went through took about two hours.  Two hours isn't a "minimal delay" by any stretch of the imagination.

AR15fan wrote:

The checkpoints must be announced to the public in advance

Where did you come-up with that one?  I'm sitting here in my office with a retired highway patrolman, three city cops retired on disability, and a former state DNR guy that participated in many roadblocks during hunting season, and not a one of us has ever heard of one being announced before hand.

have to be held in locations that have a history of DUI arrests and/or alcohol-related crashes.

Like in the neighborhood behind my office that's not near any bars?  Like in the middle nowhere miles from the nearest bar?  Out of the hundreds of these I've seen, I've never seen one close to a bar.

An escape route is left so that anyone driving through the checkpoint has decided of their own free will to do so.

Again, never seen that one.  Out of the dozen or so I've been through in the past year, most of them were placed where you couldn't see them until you were past the place you could turn-off or turn around.  So if you do turn-around, then you'll be nailed by the cops for a worse offense.  Just watch the roadblocks.  You'll the cops place other units where they can see and stop the people that try to avoid them.  You'll see a lot of tickets being given-out at the roadblock, but you'll see more arrests from the people that are stopped for avoiding it.

If they want to avoid the checkpoint they simply take the detour.

And get nailed hard by the police.  The city cops like to put roadblocks in the street behind my office since it's only a block from their office, and I've been stopped several times for pulling into work since the cops thought I was trying to avoid them.  It makes it even worse since two of the times I had my gun in my had to remove it from the glove compartment where I have to keep it to be legal according to SC law to move it to my pocket where I can keep it concealed at work.  Having a gun really pisses-off those cops.z

Quoted: tc556guy, I don't understand where you come-up with the "minimal delay" part.  How is the officer going to ask for you papers, you find them, him call in all of the information, call-in info from your license, do a check for outstanding warrants, check on your license plate, check all of the lights, (sometimes) measure the tread on the tires, go through all of the usual questions (where are you going, where are you coming from, do you have anything illegal in the car, do you have any weapons, and so on), and often have an animal search the car from the outside by smell.  Then multiply that times the number of people in front of you.  I've been through several that took a long time when the police stopped more than one city bus in front of me to pat-down all of the passengers.  The last one I went through took about two hours.  Two hours isn't a "minimal delay" by any stretch of the imagination.

Tahts funny.Every checkpoint *I* have ever gone through around the holiday time was simply me  rolling up,them asking me where came from, going to, and getting a "have a nice day". This is the case  since wayyyy back before I started doing what i do now,so thats not even a factor. Do you really expect us to believe that *every* car going through a checkpoint is delayed for 2 hours? Not!

Quoted: Quoted: All those other tickets (burnt out lights, expired inspections etc.) generate bucks for city hall... Are you sure about that?  As I have already explained burnt out lights are usually a fix it ticket that carries no fine.  How much is the fine in your state for a burnt out light?  What percentage of that fine cgoes to court cost?  what percent to the state general fund?  What percent actualy goes to City Hall?  Lets see some hard facts and numbers. Perhaps mythbusters needs to do a show on traffic citations as a source of city revenue? BTW:  Did the internet traffic experts know that LE agencies track injury traffic collisons, non injury traffic collisions, and moving citations and compare them?  Its called the traffic collision index.  One thing always holds true in the end results.  More moving citations always results in less injury traffic collisions.

Local stops over Turkey Day weekend:

Link

(KDKA) PITTSBURGH Pittsburgh Police have announced the results of their holiday weekend DUI checkpoints and roving patrols. During the three day DUI Task Force enforcement period, city police had an additional 10 marked police cruisers on the streets with the sole purpose of looking for and taking impaired drivers off the roadway. In all, 104 vehicles were stopped: 13 drivers arrested for DUI 2 drivers arrested for possession of narcotics 2 pedestrians arrested for urinating in public 6 drivers cited for driving with a suspended license 2 drivers cited for driving without a license 84 drivers cited for summary vehicle code violations 23 vehicles towed In addition to the 13 DUI task force arrests, Pittsburgh Police arrested an additional 14 drivers for DUI over the holiday weekend. The DUI crackdown was part of PennDOT's Western Alliance/Team DUI program. The checkpoints and roving patrols were held in the Strip District, South Side and East End.

out of 100 odd cars stopped, over 80% got a "vehicle code violation ticket"

The areas targeted were the spots that have what little remains of local night life.

The city's finances are a wreck and they are doing everything humanly possible to drive people & businesses out of the city (our parking taxes are 50%, highest in the country). People don't want to work downtown and don't want to go downtown and shop & maybe stop off for a beer afterwards because of nincompoop initiatives like "DUI task force checkpoints" (set up precisely in the areas trying to rekindle growth)

It is sucking up to Federal grants who in turn suck up to politicians trying to curry favor with soccer moms. We will legislate and control ourselves into oblivion at the rate we are going, of course, if you are part of the system, then it's job security - who cares if it entails wiping one's boots on the Constitution.

How much do tickets bring in? Millions Big business in a city that is driving legitimate business out (and population to surrounding counties)

Do the cops get a cut? Only when they get caught

You want real safety? Have legitimate driving tests and pull people over for legitimate impairment (like talking on the cellphone), not cold war era checkpoints.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. If you drove past it, then it was not a very effective road block. ETA driving is not a right. You have no right to transportation. On my licence is says that by having it, I agree to DUI checkpoints. If I have issues with it, I can turn in my licence and take the bus.

Driving may not be a right but:   I just renewed my liscence and where it asked for my signature it stated by signing this i agree to such and such. I crossed out agree and inserted DISagree, initialed it, then signed.  They processed my appl. and new DL was issued. Would be intresting to see what happens if i refuse said requests seeing as I signed that I would not agree to them.



Roy


ets: corect typing error

The real question.......

Is it really necessary to give up our freedoms so that the government can catch a few drunks to line their pockets with?

All checkpoints are is a money grab.................for that matter that's all most traffic violations are......

The problem is that at the legal limit, many if not most people aren't impaired enough to have it show up in their driving.  Certainly not enough to give a cop a legal justification for stopping them.  So how are you going to catch the "drunks" if you don't do something arbitrary like stopping everybody?

Quoted: The problem is that at the legal limit, many if not most people aren't impaired enough to have it show up in their driving.  Certainly not enough to give a cop a legal justification for stopping them.  So how are you going to catch the "drunks" if you don't do something arbitrary like stopping everybody?

so ure saying that because some people you would want to arrest for drunk driving are actually driving safely, everyone should be stopped?

Quoted: The problem is that at the legal limit, many if not most people aren't impaired enough to have it show up in their driving.

I disagree.  A a.08% BAC there will be indicators.  Stopping over the limit line/crosswalk (Time/Depth perception).  Following too close (Time/depth perception).  Failing to signal, signalling wrong way, driving with no headlights (multitasking).  Of course plenty of people do those things becuase they are shitty drivers even if not impaired by alcohol, drugs, Rx meds, fatigue, disease or age.

Quoted: tc556guy, I don't understand where you come-up with the "minimal delay" part.  How is the officer going to ask for you papers, you find them, him call in all of the information, call-in info from your license, do a check for outstanding warrants, check on your license plate, check all of the lights, (sometimes) measure the tread on the tires, go through all of the usual questions (where are you going, where are you coming from, do you have anything illegal in the car, do you have any weapons, and so on), and often have an animal search the car from the outside by smell.  Then multiply that times the number of people in front of you.  I've been through several that took a long time when the police stopped more than one city bus in front of me to pat-down all of the passengers.  The last one I went through took about two hours.  Two hours isn't a "minimal delay" by any stretch of the imagination.

I suggest you move out of your city then. I'd venture to say that I've been at or through atleast 20-24 checkpoints. The following statements apply to each one I've witnessed. They don't "run" anyone's license unless they have RS that the driver has been drinking and is impaired. At most it took 3-4 minutes per car that was randomly stopped, if that. Officer motions for the car to stop. Officer then tells the driver why they are there, and asks the drive for the license and insurrance. While the driver is getting these items, the officer talks about dui's, etc. Takes a quick look at the license and registration. If there is RS, the officer has the driver pull to the side. If there isn't, a brochure is handed to the driver, and bid a goodnight. Every single dui checkpoint that I've been a witness to has happened as I just described. None of this two hour crap that you talk about.

Like in the neighborhood behind my office that's not near any bars?  Like in the middle nowhere miles from the nearest bar?  Out of the hundreds of these I've seen, I've never seen one close to a bar.

DUI checkpoints are not allowed by law to just be placed anywhere. Do you only consume alcohol at a bar? I know I don't. Friend's parties, resturants, etc. I've seen plenty of officers that sit around the corner from line of bars and watch for something that indicates the driver is impaired. But setting up a checkpoint a block from a bar isn't going to catch a whole lot of people who are impaired. They are put in areas where previous arrests have been made for DUI.

Again, never seen that one.  Out of the dozen or so I've been through in the past year, most of them were placed where you couldn't see them until you were past the place you could turn-off or turn around.  So if you do turn-around, then you'll be nailed by the cops for a worse offense.  Just watch the roadblocks.  You'll the cops place other units where they can see and stop the people that try to avoid them.  You'll see a lot of tickets being given-out at the roadblock, but you'll see more arrests from the people that are stopped for avoiding it.

Again... take that up with your city police or move. I have yet to see a checkpoint that doesn't have signs a block or two away stating that there is a checkpoint ahead. They don't hide the checkpoints around winding roads and try to suprise drivers by them. Not to mention all the flashing lights and the 1000w halogen lamp stands to light up the area. There is no denying that other officers are outside the checkpoint area watching for drivers making illegal u-turns in order to avoid a checkpoint. Usually it is either because they are scared about being caught with something or they were just too damned impatient to wait 3-4 mins.

And get nailed hard by the police.  The city cops like to put roadblocks in the street behind my office since it's only a block from their office, and I've been stopped several times for pulling into work since the cops thought I was trying to avoid them.  It makes it even worse since two of the times I had my gun in my had to remove it from the glove compartment where I have to keep it to be legal according to SC law to move it to my pocket where I can keep it concealed at work.  Having a gun really pisses-off those cops.z

Again... take it up with your city police. Sounds to me that your city's cops have a chip on their shoulder for some reason. Have you asked the police why they put the checkpoint on that same street over and over? Just curious since you seem to know the reason, or are you just speculating? If you feel that you've been stopped for no reason, did you file a complaint with the city or police dept?

-d

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not trying to stir a pot that is already whirling, but, Why would LEO be allowed to even check a Drivers' License at these DWI checkpoints. I mean they are set up to catch Drunk Drivers, so unless one is suspected of being drunk, what right does LEO have to ask for a License or Insurance?   Because legally anyone driving a motor vehicle has to provide a law enforcement officer their identification and proof of insurrance when asked in our state. The drivers are randomly stopped at a checkpoint, and asked for their license and proof of insurrance. This allows the officer to observe the driver in their motor skills to take an id card out of a wallet and their insurrance ouf of a glove box. The officer also can smell the occuppants for any alcohol. Usually the officers don't even run their license through the system if there are no signs that the driver is impaired at all. Just hand them the brochure and let them go. -d this has prolly been brought up but probable cause?

For?? This is the law we are talking about here, you need to be specific.

-d