Posted: 1/5/2007 11:55:37 AM EDT
| Rather than hijack another thread about checkpoints, I thought we could debate their legality here. Do you think it is - or should be - legal for police departments to set up DUI checkpoints and stop either random cars or every car passing that point to check for intoxicated drivers? What if the checkpoint were for drugs? What about unlawfully concealed firearms, illegal aliens or anything else? |
it should *not* be, and they don't square up real well with the whole concept of "probable cause" being required for a search, but they are legal and will be until our government is dismantled and replaced by somethign else. they are a way of life now. that's just how it is. oh, and IBTL.  |
|
Like in the other thread, these are a trend that will be forced on PDs to keep state and federal funds. Don't hate the PD, they will soon be forced to comply by holding a minimum amount per year. DUI checkpoints are not supposed to be for enforcement, but are for public awareness. Any cop will agree that roving patrols will net more DUI arrests. They are mainly to get the word out, strike some fear, get the media talking, and get the contacts talking to friends about the pamphlets they receive. Checkpoints should not be abused for fishing expeditions. Public watchdog vigilance is a necessity! |
one can always "find something" illegal to get you with. i firmly believe that the reason the founding fathers put restrictions on searches and warrants for search or arrest was exactly because it is so easy to find something illegal on a person. if someone isn't attracting attention to themselves then they obvioulsy aren't a problem for society and we shouldn't go looking for something to bust them on. for instance, in my home right now i have a couple of expired prescriptions for pain meds and antibiotics, illegal (in my state) fireworks and an sks that i purchased used that may or may not make the 922 (r) parts boogie - i don't know. there are probably other things in my home that are illegal that don't come to mind right now. there may be things in my truck that are illegal, especially if we want to get really anal about equipment laws. |
Should it be legal? No Is it legal? No.
Eleven states is plenty to choose from. Quit your bitchin' and moanin' and move to one. Oregon is nice. We're also sbr/suppressor/machine gun friendly.  ETA: The reason we don't have checkpoints in Oregon is because our constitution is better than yours. 
|
|
Oh they are "legal"... just like federal welfare is legal, the 2nd amendment doesnt mean what it says and the tenth amendment doesnt mean what it says. Scummy government lawyer types dig and dig for loopholes and then when they find one they ream it out untill the loophole is so big a solar system can exist inside and never touch the edges. But just because they are legal under the current definitions as defined by case law, does not make them right. I have absolutely no respect for any LE who conducts such "fishing expiditions". I think those of us here who are against this kind of government tyranny, should make it a note to give the police as hard as a go as possible yet still be within the law at every checkpoint we come across. I have gone so far as to make giant signs that we hung at the last intersection before the roadblock warning our fellow citizens of the police harrassment point ahead, giving them an oppertunity to take another route and avoid the hassle and possible murder of their dog. |
|
Here is a breif history of how it came to be. www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/fedstate_casestudy.htm Facts of the Case Michigan Department of Police v. Sitz There are actually two separate cases involved in this case study, though both have the same parties, issues, and set of facts. The first case is known as Michigan Department of Police v. Sitz. This case was a civil (not criminal) class action suit. It arose when the Michigan Department of Police began using random sobriety checkpoints on state roads in an attempt to crack down on drinking and driving. Litigation was initiated by a group of licensed drivers. The drivers alleged that such checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The named party in the class action suit that sought to stop the actions of the Michigan State Police in this matter was a man named Rick Sitz. The trial court ruled in the drivers' favor. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Michigan Department of Police then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. When the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the police petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Michigan Court of Appeals' interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the police department's request and agreed to hear the case. Since the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the sobriety checkpoints did constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the only question for the Court to resolve was whether the "seizure" was "unreasonable." Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that "... the State's interests in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon the individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program." The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Michigan Court of Appeals erred in saying that the sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded (sent back) the case to that court with instructions to act in a manner consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. Sitz v. Michigan Department of Police After losing in the federal courts, the licensed drivers of Michigan continued to pursue their suit in the Michigan state court system. This time, they alleged that the sobriety checkpoints violated Article 1, Section 11, of the Michigan Constitution, which also prohibited "unreasonable searches and seizures." On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals recognized that while the checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it agreed with the drivers and held that the checkpoints did violate the Michigan Constitution. When the case came before it, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision saying that: ... [the] Constitutional liberties include the right to travel, and automobiles generally may not be searched absent probable cause. In this case, the state police erected sobriety checkpoints along state highways, at which all vehicles were required to stop. While stopped, the drivers were briefly inspected by officers for signs of intoxication, and permitted to resume their travels if no signs were detected. This warrantless, suspicionless stop of vehicles for the purposes of criminal investigation violated the Michigan Constitution." Furthermore, the court tried to reconcile its decision with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in this matter by stating that federal constitutional law provides a "floor" for state court litigation, and while "...state judges must not adopt state constitutional rules which fall below this floor; courts may, however, appeal to the relevant state constitution to establish a higher 'ceiling' of rights for individuals." In other words, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the Michigan Constitution provided a higher "ceiling" for individual rights than did the U.S. Constitution in this particular case. |
|
Where i live (right next to an indian reservation) they are a nessecary part of life. Our rate of drunken drivng incidents is WAY higher than most palces in teh state, and many indians drive onto our side of the river that sperates the res from the town without insurance or even a license. THe police use the checkpoints to help keep our roads safe. In many cases a 8 hour checkpoint can catch as many as 75 drunk drivers here. All that said i know they arent legal but the police manning them are always polite and many just want to see that you aren't drunk and they send you on your way. I run into the often after working afternoon or night shifts at the plant. I have never had a problem nor ever needed to exit my vehicle. Usually it goes like this. Officer: Evening. How are you today? Me: Good, good. Just headed home from work. Officer: Had anything to drink today? Me: No sir, none at all. Officer: OK, have a nice night. Drive safe. And away i go. Lasts 30-45 seconds at the most. I can give less than a minute of my time if they tag and bag as many drunks as they have been. Im no teetotaler, i like a few beers as much as the next guy, but i do it at home or find someone to drive me home afterwards whethere i have one beer or 10. SW |
|
It should be legal if the mere act of driving on a road is probable cause. Yeah, it's a minor thing. I've been through a few of them, and was on my way quickly. But I still dislike them. Death of freedom by 1000 cuts. It really doesn't seem to be much of a free country when you are being stopped at checkpoints by armed government officials. Freedom or security, I choose Freedom. |
i got news for ya: you aren't giving them anything. did you have a choice? would you be as happy about it if they were looking for drugs? explosives? homosexuals? is a little evil permissible in order to counter a greater evil? if there is such a high percentage of drunk drivers on the road, wouldn't a surprise checkpoint make it more likely that you would be struck by a drunk while stopped by the nice policeman? i guess what i'd like to know is: for those of you that don't have a problem with police checkpoints, how far would the cops have to go before you thought it was unconstitutional or just plain wrong?
amen. |
Same here. My bigger problem is that it holds you up for so long. If you're on your way to work or school, you're going to be late. I don't see how it could be considered reasonable to make someone wait for 20 or more minutes at 7:55AM when they're trying to get to work by 8AM. The last one I went through was on a Tuesday morning near an elementary school. There were a lot of impatient soccer moms. As usual since I was driving a white panel van, I was asked to pull over to the side and exit my vehicle, so I got to be entertained by watching a bunch of pissed off mothers yelling at cops.z |
|
"guess what i'd like to know is: for those of you that don't have a problem with police checkpoints, how far would the cops have to go before you thought it was unconstitutional or just plain wrong?" The cops have a right, if they stop you for whatever reason, to make sure you and your vehicle are safe for them to approach. All i will allow them is to walk up to my vehicle and talk to me. They may shine a light into the cabin to make sure i am not holding any kind of weapon. Past that is illegal search. SW |
Unfortunately, that's how the whole thing was set-up. Blame Madison and all those commie revolutionaries. The major problem is that the BoR includes the word unreasonable. And to most people, unreasonable doesn't include ALL as a definition. |
it would bother me just as much. however, i would like to see more enforcement of immigration law. i'd like to see folks go to jail on a simple traffic stop if they were discovered to be an illegal alien. this is why citizenship should be a prerequisite for driver's liscences. btw, did i just hijack my own thread? 
|
do it for the children! The problem is that while the drunks are avoiding the steering wheel, the innocent drivers are being threatened with arrest if they don't comply. |
edit. but you do realize its the EXACT same argument the anti- "assualt weapons" crowd uses. "If its saves just one child its worth it" Infringing on others rights is not the answer, strict mandatory sentencing would be a great start though. |
Unfortunately for your answer, DUI checkpoints are not infringing on anybodies rights. No matter what you care to believe or hope. |
Apparently it does infringe in one of the 11 states where it is illegal, but I guess you are referring to the 70-some percent of the states where it is considered a right of the state to stop and question before you may proceed with your lawful business. |
 so when SCOTUS rules that the 2nd is a collective right and only provides for militia's, and the feds start banning guns, they won't be infringing on your rights, correct? |
| Back when I was a sworn officer and we had a good sheriff we would do saturation patrols and utilize overtime officers in their POV with a portable and we would get tons of good DWI arrests and convictions that way, term limits kick in and the politics of race result in a sheriff that is a assclown we do checkpoints and get perhaps 3 or 4 DUI's 8 Suspended/Expired and a warrant or 2 while tying up patrol resources and causing calls to be held due to the shortage of manpower |
In CA they have to be somewhat specific on the date, time and where. And most of the time when the cities have them they are in the same place. You would be surprised at how many they scoop up, even with the advertising and the signage and opportunities to avoid. I should have clarified my earlier statement, they are constitutional on the Federal level as they clearly fall in the police power of the states. And as noted 11 states forbid them and the rest regulate them as they see fit and as allowed by their state constitutions. Some are pretty strict and some are pretty lax. My city uses them about once a quarter or sop. Roving patrols are probably best because the City Council won't let them wait outside the Veterans Club (combined AL/VFW) and that is about the only hard drinking bar in town any more. |
|
Personally I dont think we should be required to speak with officers or be interfered with while driving unless they suspect a crime has happened or witness a crime take place. We shouldnt have to stop while driving legally. I thought we had freedom of travel..? |