Posted: 11/29/2009 7:45:00 AM EDT
|
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? |
|
Started looking into it, found this little tidbit: in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.  |
|
I've thought this before as well. While I choose not to drink and drive because I like being alive, I've always wondered how they are able to stop you (or everyone else that is there) with ZERO probable cause simply because you are driving your car on that specific public road.
|
|
By this logic, wouldn't setting up checkpoints in bad neighborhoods to run every third car for warrants be justifiable? I mean, do that in the hood and you'll be pulling a lot of criminals off the street. Quoted: Started looking into it, found this little tidbit: in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Courtfound properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutionalright, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducingdrunk driving outweighed this minor infringement. |
|
Quoted:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. This... According to the JBT apologists in here, anything a cop feels like doing should be constitutional, as long as it ingratiates them to their superiors and keeps bringing in the cheese. Think seizures without due process or compensation, NOLA style gun confiscations, etc... The only real difference between modern America and the old stereotypes of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia is that most of the checking here is done surreptitiously so as not to scare the sheep. Think license plate scanners, stop light cameras, etc... I wonder what will happen when every move we make is monitored and zero tolerance laws ensure we will be charged for every offense, no matter how minor or unintentional... |
| I don't know, but they piss me the fuck off. I was stopped at one on a MAJOR highway by the most po-dunk shithole police force in the state (Hwy 30, by Byrnes Mill PD for those in MO) once when I had places I had to be. They waved me over, had me stop, then let me sit for a half hour without ever speaking to me. I drove off, fuck them. |
| Do you mean "Constitutional" "follows the constitution" or "constitutional" "Follows whatever the Supreme Court pretends the constitution says, like banning random guns does not infringe upon the right to bear arms"? Any 6th grader can tell you it's not Constitutional, sadly the Supreme Court is of the "As Long As The Officer Got Home Safe" school of "thought". |
|
Quoted:
By this logic, wouldn't setting up checkpoints in bad neighborhoods to run every third car for warrants be justifiable? I mean, do that in the hood and you'll be pulling a lot of criminals off the street. Quoted:
Started looking into it, found this little tidbit: in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Courtfound properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutionalright, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducingdrunk driving outweighed this minor infringement. By "hood" do you mean "inner city depressed area" or "redneck country"? I suspect "Redneck country" would be fine, as they're not "specially protected". |
|
I believe they are constitutional. If you aren't drinking and driving, then you have nothing to worry about. It isn't like they are conducting vehicle searches.
Asking that is like asking if metal detectors, x-ray machines, and security checkpoints in airports are constitutional. |
|
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... |
|
That's an interesting analogy actually. But the measures you mention are employed uniformly and consensually. Quoted: I believe they are constitutional. If you aren't drinking and driving, then you have nothing to worry about. It isn't like they are conducting vehicle searches. Asking that is like asking if metal detectors, x-ray machines, and security checkpoints in airports are constitutional. |
|
Quoted: I believe they are constitutional. If you aren't drinking and driving, then you have nothing to worry about. Horseshit. Stopping a citizen in transit when there is no proof of any wrongdoing is an infringement upon that person's time, and an unconstitutional use of the LEA/O's authority. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... i think so... the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." do you see anything in the constitution that describes the ability to travel over public land as a privilege? |
|
They did a fish and game checkpoint here in Ripton. Netted a vehicle. The guy driving the vehicle was let go to run down the road after the dogs barked at his trunk and they impounded his vehicle. Apparently he is part of Embassy of Heaven, a anti govt group that issues its own passports, licenses etc.
Its been 2 weeks and no word on whats in that trunk. |
|
Quoted: The only real difference between modern America and the old stereotypes of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia is that most of the checking here is done surreptitiously so as not to scare the sheep. Think license plate scanners, stop light cameras, etc...   If you honestly believe that, then every teacher that you ever had has let you down, big time. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... i think so... the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." do you see anything in the constitution that describes the ability to travel over public land as a privilege? I love these guys who always say "show me in the Constitution where it gives you the right to whatever"....you would think they would read the damned thing before popping off. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... Nice try... the "privilege" thing is bullshit. Once they made it impossible to get around any other way but by using roads built by the government the whole privilege argument became BS. |
|
Quoted: That's privilege. You're welcome.Quoted: Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so...The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A?  If we confine ourselves to assuming LE at this DUI-checkpoint will only arrest people who are DUI, then there would not be an issue, because 'Hey, roll your windows down: you don't smell like alcohol or appear visibly intoxicated; you are free to go" should be the entire range of contact between LE and citizen. Emphasis on should. Issuing any other tickets, going fishing for violations beyond the initial premise, etc, should be verboten. I still think you're confusing the right to travel and the use of the roads. If it was merely an issue of privilege, than you should not have any problems with LE stopping you for no reason: after all, it's the 'state' allowing you to use 'their' roads, so the LEO has the 'right', right? Considering the weight of decisions that support the 'random motorist's' protection from LEO detaining citizens on a will-nilly basis, I'll go with unconstitutional. After all, if this is allowed because of 'xxxxxxxxx'(safety), than what is to stop LE from stopping anyone in the near future? Operating a vehicle is inherently 'not safe'(think about it: you can receive a moving violation for sitting in car and listening to the radio!), so here is the slippery slope that dumps us right into "Ihre papiere, bitte".  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... i think so... the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." do you see anything in the constitution that describes the ability to travel over public land as a privilege? No, but traversing someone else's property is....ARFCOM is big on property rights, ain't it? Well, those roads are in the care/custody/control of USDOT and (yourstate)DOT.....they make they rules...don't like the rules? Travel in a method that does not require use of their property... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... i think so... the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." do you see anything in the constitution that describes the ability to travel over public land as a privilege? I love these guys who always say "show me in the Constitution where it gives you the right to whatever"....you would think they would read the damned thing before popping off. I've read it and sworn a few oaths to defend it....I love the guys that say everything they don't like is Unconstitutional....... Guns? yup, that's a constitutional issue. Drunk driving? not so much... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: That's an interesting analogy actually. But the measures you mention are employed uniformly and consensually.I believe they are constitutional. If you aren't drinking and driving, then you have nothing to worry about. It isn't like they are conducting vehicle searches. Asking that is like asking if metal detectors, x-ray machines, and security checkpoints in airports are constitutional. I would argue that any checkpoint that you are required to go through by a government agency is unconstitutional and restricts public travel. Private checkpoints, such as a bag check at a ball game, do not fit into this category since you could avoid them by simply not going there. |
|
Quoted:
I believe they are constitutional. If you aren't drinking and driving, then you have nothing to worry about. It isn't like they are conducting vehicle searches. Asking that is like asking if metal detectors, x-ray machines, and security checkpoints in airports are constitutional. No, it isn't. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: The only real difference between modern America and the old stereotypes of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia is that most of the checking here is done surreptitiously so as not to scare the sheep. Think license plate scanners, stop light cameras, etc...
If you honestly believe that, then every teacher that you ever had has let you down, big time. Why, does this conflict with what the government schools taught you, or did you get enlightened at the police academy? In all seriousness, I'm obviously exaggerating but you have to admit we are under much closer surveillance and scrutiny now than ever before... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's privilege. You're welcome.Quoted:
Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so...The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? thanks, haven't hit the coffee yet..
If we confine ourselves to assuming LE at this DUI-checkpoint will only arrest people who are DUI, then there would not be an issue, because 'Hey, roll your windows down: you don't smell like alcohol or appear visibly intoxicated; you are free to go" should be the entire range of contact between LE and citizen. Emphasis on should. Issuing any other tickets, going fishing for violations beyond the initial premise, etc, should be verboten. as was covered in the 'can cops do this' thread, the state of Texas allows a stop to determine whether you are a licensed driver, so that is also an acceptable thing to check for....ins. as well, beyond that, I agree, you're fishing and wasting people's time and pushing the limits of your authority...are you drunk? No, cool, have your operators license and ins.? Yup, great, you have a nice evening sir, and drive safely. I still think you're confusing the right to travel and the use of the roads. If it was merely an issue of privilege, than you should not have any problems with LE stopping you for no reason: after all, it's the 'state' allowing you to use 'their' roads, so the LEO has the 'right', right? Considering the weight of decisions that support the 'random motorist's' protection from LEO detaining citizens on a will-nilly basis, I'll go with unconstitutional. After all, if this is allowed because of 'xxxxxxxxx'(safety), than what is to stop LE from stopping anyone in the near future? Operating a vehicle is inherently 'not safe'(think about it: you can receive a moving violation for sitting in car and listening to the radio!), so here is the slippery slope that dumps us right into "Ihre papiere, bitte".
|
|
"I will make it legal." Started looking into it, found this little tidbit: in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement. In other words, the Supreme court knows it is unconstitutional and they don't care. |
|
Quoted: The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? In my opinion yes, but my opinion does not matter. |
|
Have you ever wondered how police can stop you at a DUI roadblock (aka "sobriety checkpoint")? Doesn't the Constitution require them to have "probable cause before stopping you"? Yes and no.
The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible. Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for –– and effectiveness of –– DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means. This and presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent. So 'Papiere, die Papiere gefallen, haben Ihre Papiere'. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... i think so... the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." do you see anything in the constitution that describes the ability to travel over public land as a privilege? No, but traversing someone else's property is....ARFCOM is big on property rights, ain't it? Well, those roads are in the care/custody/control of USDOT and (yourstate)DOT.....they make they rules...don't like the rules? Travel in a method that does not require use of their property... Well I suppose I could saddle my horse and ride it across the open range to get to town and... oh wait... We have no choice but to use public roadways, do we? |
|
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? had a few to many had you!
|
|
Quoted:
There is a big difference between what the Constitution ACTUALLY says and what the scotus THINKS it says. I would be willing to bet any amount that the founders would NOT agree with the scotus on many issues. Hell, Jefferson disagreed with them from the get go in Marbury vs. Madison. (which allowed the supreme court to decide what was "constitutional") He felt it was undemocratic that a few pinheads could decide a "law" that were unelected and unanswerable to anyone. It was basically like Englands "Law Lords". He felt laws should be made or unmade by the legislature....PERIOD!! He felt the constitution was clear and needed no "interpretation". 
From Wiki: At the time Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."(AKA LAW LORDS) Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution. Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases— You know, basically like a decision that cannot be undone and could lead to civil war. (phew, luckily that has never happened in real life though!  )
|
|
Quoted:
No, but traversing someone else's property is....ARFCOM is big on property rights, ain't it? Well, those roads are in the care/custody/control of USDOT and (yourstate)DOT.....they make they rules...don't like the rules? Travel in a method that does not require use of their property... I hate to break it to you...but that is OUR fucking property.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Drunk driving? not so much... Reading and comprehending what you read are not synonymous. You clearly do not have sufficient reading comprehension or critical thinking skills. Let's break this down. Stopping to check for a DL? Legal and reasonable according to the legislature and those that put them there. Stopping to check if you're drunk? Legal and reasonable according to the legislature and those that put them there. Constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. Think DL and DD checkpoints are unreasonable? Your state legislature is interested....let them know....checks are removed from law, deemed unreasonable, constitutional protection then applies.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "Can Cops Do This..." thread got me thinking. How is it legal to set up DUI checkpoints? I've been through them several times in the past few years, and I generally don't really care one way or the other, but couldn't stopping people with no PC/reasonable suspicion and asking for ID/looking in their vehicle be construed as at the very least a violation of the 4A? Do you see anything in the constitution covering your PRIVELEDGE to use the roads built by USDOT or your (state)DOT? Didn't think so... i think so... the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." do you see anything in the constitution that describes the ability to travel over public land as a privilege? No, but traversing someone else's property is....ARFCOM is big on property rights, ain't it? Well, those roads are in the care/custody/control of USDOT and (yourstate)DOT.....they make they rules...don't like the rules? Travel in a method that does not require use of their property... Well I suppose I could saddle my horse and ride it across the open range to get to town and... oh wait... We have no choice but to use public roadways, do we? We have many choices for travel. |