User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/17/2002 8:24:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: I thought about it, I wondered how the officers determined who to check? It usually depends on the traffic flow. The one's I've done we check every one of them unles traffic's too heavy, then it's every third or fourth. -It's that simple. To pick and choose who we would check would be unconstitutional. Does this qualify as an unreasonable search if I am pulled over? In spite of the tinfoil hat wearers, no. Besides, you're not being searched. You're asked for your DL, and your car is checked for bald tires, broken / nonfunctioning equipment (lights)... While you're interacting with the driver, you look for obvious signs of impairment. The checkpoints are announced a week in advance in the papers, TV, and radio. Not to mention the signs before the checkpoints that say: SAFETY AND SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT AHEAD. - And that's posted before you can't turn around and go the other way. So, a driver chooses to go through them. I saw stats that stated that 1/3 of all drivers on the road between 10PM and 2AM are legally intoxicated. The stats vary from state to state... Does being out on the road during these prime hours give probable cause? No. When I hunt drunks, I look for the cues that indicate possible impairment. Drifting in the lane, speeding, going too slow, hitting curbs on turns, and many more. It's pretty objective, and the cues have been proven in studies across the USA as being reliable indicators. I always run tape before I make a stop, and throughout the SFSTs (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests). So, to all of you out there that have ever participated in a checkpoint, what are the guidelines? There are many other rules we have to follow, and the checkpoints have to be coned out a certain way, etc. Have you ever had someone challenge the stop on the basis of unconstitutionality? Sure. Due to the planning and research put into these beforehand, most lose. The one's that don't make us further refine the system. P3[pyro][^][heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 1:48:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Does this qualify as an unreasonable search if I am pulled over? In spite of the tinfoil hat wearers, no. Besides, you're not being searched. You're asked for your DL, and your car is checked for bald tires, broken / nonfunctioning equipment (lights)... While you're interacting with the driver, you look for obvious signs of impairment. [red]The checkpoints are announced a week in advance in the papers, TV, and radio. Not to mention the signs before the checkpoints that say: SAFETY AND SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT AHEAD. - And that's posted before you can't turn around and go the other way. [/red] So, a driver chooses to go through them. Not where I'm from! You're driving then, WHAM! Road check! What kind of hypocrite would advertise a sobriety checkpoint anyway? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The troopers here ask for permission and location just prior to setting up the check by requesting a sinal xx from their sergeants. Jake |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 2:09:00 PM EDT
[#3]
In my opinion it is unconstitutional to stop a person without due cause on the highway. They say that they are giving everyone advance notice of the checkpoint in the paper, but if you miss the paper that day you miss it. I am not condoning drinking and driving but I believe the whole concept is bogus and if it were taken to court it would not survive the test. But who is politically incorrect enough to attempt that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 2:24:28 PM EDT
[#4]
In Philly we don't have checkpoints (thank god). I know when they set one up in Bucks Co. they check every tenth car.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 2:32:46 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: In Philly we don't have checkpoints (thank god). I know when they set one up in Bucks Co. they check every tenth car. And you think thats bad? Try every vehicle... Jake |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 4:32:15 PM EDT
[#6]
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers on June 14, 1990.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 4:53:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Didn't the Supreme Court uphold Sobriety Checkpoints again when they recently ruled against Drug Checkpoints?
I belive that they stated it was in the public interest and in the interest of public safety. We do a couple a month in the summer. This is due to a heavy influx of tourist and historic high crash rate with impaired drivers involved. We got 9 impaired drivers during Memorial Day weekend. And we post it in the newspapers and on TV/Radio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2002 1:59:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Well ain't this a bitch! I posted on this thread yesterday then sat in traffic about 10 minutes today waiting for the Russell County deputy to ask for my OL and then thank me and tell me to move on. There were about a half dozen deputies on the check and they had both lanes closed, probably 4 or 5 cars and trucks taken to the side too. Hey it's a headache but it does serve a purpose.
Jake |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2002 4:39:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Here in NY it is legal and used often. As long as you follow a set guidelines, your fine. A supervisor has to approve it. We check with every vehicle. It is a basic, good evening, where are you coming from tonight, then have you had any alcohol to drink tonight. It is very no-obtrusive and it is constitutional. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so if it reduces traffic deaths, then great. If they get abused by police, then it should be challenged, but as a deterrent to DWI and other crimes, keep them going.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2002 10:56:09 AM EDT
[#10]
I have never worked one and hope I never have to. I hate the whole Checkpoint idea and DUI arrest are to time consuming for a midemeanor cite & release.
Figure 3 hours from the time of the stop until clearing the jail. at least an hour of paperwork the next day. Then several days in court. I'm not going to screw my area partners by taking myself off the street that long over some guy who is an .08, thats what those geeks in the highway patrol are for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 3:43:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Thanks guys, that was the kind of stuff I was looking for.
Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 3:52:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Illegal Search and Seizure!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 5:53:45 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Illegal Search and Seizure!!! -----[whacko]----- (Sound of P3 dropping soapbox on tile and stepping up.) Yeah, right. The aforementioned tinfoil hat wearer speaks... Look, being a tricertified officer (cop/medic/firefighter), I look at drunk hunting and DUI checkpoints as proactive emergency medicine. I won't bore or titillate you with the dozens of gross warstories. Suffice to say no one should ever know what a four-year old little girl's intestines smell like while they're roasting on a muffler... I cut no slack when it comes to DUIs. I don't call taxis, I arrest. No slaps on the wrist; I write every possible ticket I can to DUI drivers. Drive impaired? Doom on you. Phuck you very much. There is no legal, ethical, moral, or logical reason why anyone should DUI. DUI is a patently irresponsible, totally inexcuseable, and illegal act. To intended flamers of this post, please spare us the "I can handle it better when I gotta couple in me" and similar ignorant drivel. DUI checkpoints do not violate any manner or form of civil right. Period. Full stop. (Sound of P3 kicking soapbox back into the corner.) P3[pyro][soapbox][heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 7:06:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Rock on P-3!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:14:27 AM EDT
[#15]
Do you read much Marcinko P3?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:36:59 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers on June 14, 1990. Which means what exactly? That in their informed decision they are constitutional? Like so many of their other informed decisions? Having passed the supreme court test does not make it law OR right and proper. think of the multitude of reasons why this is not proper. I am an ultra liberal, in that I wish each of us have the right, so far as it does not infringe the rights and well being of others, to do and seek what his heart desires. This is like a slow bleed by leeches, before you know it your dead. I am so glad everyone is watching out for ME, don't know what I would do without you'all. Having said that I am not condoning drunk driving or anything of the sort, and yes I have seen the statistics on drunk driving my brother was a cop for many years when I was much younger. But, if there is such a danger in alcohol why not just make it illegal, wouldn't be any skin off my nose, I don't drink and while we are at it guns and pencils as well. Yah I am on a rant, but try not to take this as a personal attack. Parapyropig: "Tin foil hats," that is rather insulting considering the importance of the constitution we are talking about, don't you think? Thanks, Kentlik |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 11:38:43 AM EDT
[#17]
Kentlik,
Having been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States does, in fact, make DUI Checkpoints constitutional, legal and proper law enforcement activity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 11:40:40 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers on June 14, 1990. Which means what exactly? That in their informed decision they are constitutional? Like so many of their other informed decisions? Having passed the supreme court test does not make it law OR right and proper. think of the multitude of reasons why this is not proper. [red]I am an ultra liberal, in that I wish each of us have the right, so far as it does not infringe the rights and well being of others, to do and seek what his heart desires.[/red] This is like a slow bleed by leeches, before you know it your dead. I am so glad everyone is watching out for ME, don't know what I would do without you'all. Having said that I am not condoning drunk driving or anything of the sort, and yes I have seen the statistics on drunk driving my brother was a cop for many years when I was much younger. But, if there is such a danger in alcohol why not just make it illegal, wouldn't be any skin off my nose, I don't drink and while we are at it guns and pencils as well. Yah I am on a rant, but try not to take this as a personal attack. Parapyropig: "Tin foil hats," that is rather insulting considering the importance of the constitution we are talking about, don't you think? Thanks, Kentlik So last December when the drunk driver who hit me and my wife head on fracturing my neck at C2, and leaving severely beaten and bruised while tearing multiple tendons, ligaments, and muscle in my wife's right shoulder that driver wasn't infringing the rights and well being of others? And you don't think that a little more stringent DUI enforcement wouldn't have saved me a lot of pain, suffering, and monetary loss??? Jake |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 12:32:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Do you read much Marcinko P3? Not in a while, Dave. The Marcinkonian brand of vulgarity / ranting fit my mood, though. [b]kentlik[/b]: My dear, poor, misinformed antagonist... When I refer to the tinfoil hat wearers I refer to the ignorant fools and their knee-jerk, pseudopavlovian-conditioned wordspew. I'm talking about the USC, too. And, as all will agree here, the phrase "your rights end where they infringe on me" is all too apropos. So, I also don't want to hear (in nasaly liberal whinevoice): "It's my choice if I DUI and it only affects me, ossifer squarenuts, you facist, you!" Bullshitte. It affects EVERYONE. Wanna know one of the reasons your insurance is so high? DUIs. (To self) Goddamn, P3, way tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much caffine today.... P3[pyro][pissed][heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 12:51:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: When I hunt drunks, I look for the cues that indicate possible impairment. Drifting in the lane, speeding, going too slow, hitting curbs on turns, and many more. It's pretty objective, and the cues have been proven in studies across the USA as being reliable indicators. I always run tape before I make a stop, and throughout the SFSTs (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests). Two, not supporting DUI, but I believe the .08 was derived as a revenue collection device. The scientific studies showed that .10 is the point where someone is impaired, given that their might be some variations defending on the person. Many states went to .08 when they succumbed to the hypotcritical MADD (in my book, they are the same as MMM) and they also saw where it would generate additional revenue. I call MADD hypocritical because I read something a while back showing that quite a few of their members have been busted for DUI, including the founder. Three. You say that speeding and driving too slow are signs of impairment. Well, if that's the case, my leadfooted ass must be drunk all the time and I very rarely have a drink. One night I got pulled over on I85 in Gwinnett (NE suburb of Atlanta) for 85 in a 65. He had me blow in a portable breathalizer. When it came up ZERO, he didn't even write me a speeding ticket, just thanked me for doing the breathalizer and told me to be on my way, but to cool it. As for too slow, y'all need to be out on the expressways busting all those slow drunks[:D] in the left lane. If driving too slow is a sign, there are a lot of drunks in the left lane not being busted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 12:57:30 PM EDT
[#21]
I couldn't ignore this:
Quoted: I am an ultra liberal, in that I wish each of us have the right, so far as it does not infringe the rights and well being of others, to do and seek what his heart desires. Addressed in my above post #400. I am so glad everyone is watching out for ME, don't know what I would do without you'all. -Not worthy of any response other than to aknowledge this. But, if there is such a danger in alcohol why not just make it illegal, wouldn't be any skin off my nose, yadayadayada... We tried that once already. It a poor decision, and, thanks to a bunch of misguided and deluded Biblehuggers, it made organized crime what it is today. While you claim to be ultraliberal, you say to the effect: "Phuck it - I don't drink - so banning alcohol won't affect me..." This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy seeing as though you wrote everyone should have the right ...to do and seek what the heart desires... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... With rights come responsibilities. Be responsible when you choose to chemically alter / degrade your mental abilities. - And I won't lock your ass up. P3[pyro][(:)][heavy] Is the sedative ready? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: One, not knocking cops. If you check my posts, 95 percent of the time I am supportive. I know, bro. So noted. Thank you. Two, not supporting DUI, but I believe the .08 was derived as a revenue collection device. - And I have seen much differently with my own four eyes. The "live drunks" (some were even my fellow, liquored-up cops) we had in our DUI class for the SFSTs proved much differently. Three. You say that speeding and driving too slow are signs of impairment. Well, if that's the case, my leadfooted ass must be drunk all the time and I very rarely have a drink. I apologize if I wasn't clear. Those are signs, but there are many others. The cues are assessed [i]en toto[/i], not individually, although the two you referred to do give me enough reason for a stop in themselves. Many other variables are taken into account before I decide to stop. BTW, I do pull over the left lane hoggers. [:D] P3[pyro][^][heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 1:49:09 PM EDT
[#23]
larry,
I arrested something like 800 to 900 drunk drivers in 8 years on the road. Based solely on my personal experience, .08 to .10 drivers are involved mostly in multi-car accidents, while drivers over .14 are mostly involved in solo accidents. Many drivers, especially in the 16 to 22 age bracket are impared enough at .08 to be dangerous in a car. The FAA will nail you for flying under the influence at .04. .08 is a good number. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 8:49:43 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers on June 14, 1990. Which means what exactly? That in their informed decision they are constitutional? Like so many of their other informed decisions? Having passed the supreme court test does not make it law OR right and proper. think of the multitude of reasons why this is not proper. [red]I am an ultra liberal, in that I wish each of us have the right, so far as it does not infringe the rights and well being of others, to do and seek what his heart desires.[/red] This is like a slow bleed by leeches, before you know it your dead. I am so glad everyone is watching out for ME, don't know what I would do without you'all. Having said that I am not condoning drunk driving or anything of the sort, and yes I have seen the statistics on drunk driving my brother was a cop for many years when I was much younger. But, if there is such a danger in alcohol why not just make it illegal, wouldn't be any skin off my nose, I don't drink and while we are at it guns and pencils as well. Yah I am on a rant, but try not to take this as a personal attack. Parapyropig: "Tin foil hats," that is rather insulting considering the importance of the constitution we are talking about, don't you think? Thanks, Kentlik So last December when the drunk driver who hit me and my wife head on fracturing my neck at C2, and leaving severely beaten and bruised while tearing multiple tendons, ligaments, and muscle in my wife's right shoulder that driver wasn't infringing the rights and well being of others? And you don't think that a little more stringent DUI enforcement wouldn't have saved me a lot of pain, suffering, and monetary loss??? Jake I certainly would not condone drunk driving in the slightest. I have great sympathy for your accident as I would have for any such circumstance. I am not a calus person and have had freinds hurt by all manner of accidents by other people as I am sure you have as well. The point being we all have our point that we will not cross, both literally and politically and philosophically. Do I want drunks off the street yes, do I want drug dealers off the street yes, do I want the Washington county sherriffs office coming in my house and checking to make sure I am none of the above? No. Where do we draw the line on invasion, obviously good reasons abound, at what cost, I don't believe in gray areas, it is black or white. You made it sound as though I was the drunk that hit you and your wife? Why would you pose such a loaded statement? Because I don't support triger locks does that mean I don't care if young kids are hurt by neglegent gun owners who do not properly contain their arms? No. I am one of many that support our men in blue or brown out here for that matter. Having my brother as a cop put me in unique position, family in the family. Kentlik |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 8:55:37 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Do you read much Marcinko P3? Not in a while, Dave. The Marcinkonian brand of vulgarity / ranting fit my mood, though. [b]kentlik[/b]: My dear, poor, misinformed antagonist... When I refer to the tinfoil hat wearers I refer to the ignorant fools and their knee-jerk, pseudopavlovian-conditioned wordspew. I'm talking about the USC, too. And, as all will agree here, the phrase "your rights end where they infringe on me" is all too apropos. So, I also don't want to hear (in nasaly liberal whinevoice): "It's my choice if I DUI and it only affects me, ossifer squarenuts, you facist, you!" Bullshitte. It affects EVERYONE. Wanna know one of the reasons your insurance is so high? DUIs. (To self) Goddamn, P3, way tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much caffine today.... P3[pyro][pissed][heavy] Point taken. Fascists, shit the young people throw that around, they have no idea what a Fascist is. My grandfather, three uncles, and my dad fought the fascists, one on the rainbow brigade, they no fascists. I hate whinny liberals. I am no super computer, but I am not misinformed in this single instance. Kentlik |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:13:14 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: I couldn't ignore this: Quoted: I am an ultra liberal, in that I wish each of us have the right, so far as it does not infringe the rights and well being of others, to do and seek what his heart desires. Addressed in my above post #400. I am so glad everyone is watching out for ME, don't know what I would do without you'all. -Not worthy of any response other than to aknowledge this. But, if there is such a danger in alcohol why not just make it illegal, wouldn't be any skin off my nose, yadayadayada... We tried that once already. It a poor decision, and, thanks to a bunch of misguided and deluded Biblehuggers, it made organized crime what it is today. While you claim to be ultraliberal, you say to the effect: "Phuck it - I don't drink - so banning alcohol won't affect me..." This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy seeing as though you wrote everyone should have the right ...to do and seek what the heart desires... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... With rights come responsibilities. Be responsible when you choose to chemically alter / degrade your mental abilities. - And I won't lock your ass up. P3[pyro][(:)][heavy] Is the sedative ready? Hypocracy? You read what you wanted to hear. Not drinking and saying F** it, are quite different. You take the statement totally out of context. No you took it out of context and combined two seperate points of my statements. which were banning alcohol and my not drinking. My point being for the hearing impaired, is that even thought I don't drink I still hold these things important! Holy cow pie Batman! As for "anything your heart desires" that is to say for those that know right from wrong. We all do whether we choose to listen to do the right thing is up to the individual. I love that "lock your ass up" line, smacks of the statist power trip we see all the time. Statements like that give all good cops a bad name. I would have never heard verboreah like that form my brother or his fellow officers. With rights come responsibilities, very true, unfortunately most insert liability rather than personal reponsibility, rather than the inverse. Kentlik |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:17:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Kentlik, Having been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States does, in fact, make DUI Checkpoints constitutional, legal and proper law enforcement activity. I might make them legal, but not proper, IMHO. Kentlik |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 1:52:45 PM EDT
[#28]
The opinion of the US Supreme Court on matters legal supercedes all other opinions. They say Sobriety Checkpoints are legal and proper law enforcement activities. You can still have and express yours here and elsewhere if that is your wish.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2002 9:24:00 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: The opinion of the US Supreme Court on matters legal supercedes all other opinions. They say Sobriety Checkpoints are legal and proper law enforcement activities. You can still have and express yours here and elsewhere if that is your wish. fair enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2002 10:12:33 PM EDT
[#30]
hell i've been charged twice and convicted twice of d.w.i.(plead guilty both times)
i support checkpoints .I think they should check every car/truck that goes thru,hell why not set up near bars,even better set up in the bar parking lot and tell the drunks if u start that car u will be arrested,i'll bet u still get 2 outta 10 for dwi as for one that got over H.U.A.syndrome keep up the good work |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2002 8:12:56 PM EDT
[#31]
dave g
here's a theory on why over .14 drivers have single car wrecks,they can't see the other cars |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2002 11:25:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Actually, when a drunk tops .14, their driving is bad enough that the average driver recognizes them as a drunk and avoids them. They still get in multi-car accidents, but the majority are solos.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2002 7:46:13 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I love that "lock your ass up" line, smacks of the statist power trip we see all the time. If locking the guy's ass up who just crashed into the family of four (one KIA, three WIA & one in a wheelchair) means I'm on a statist power trip, then I'm remorselessly guilty as charged. -As shall I continue to be as long as I wear a badge. Statements like that give all good cops a bad name. In M. Jacko falsetto: "I'm bad, I'm bad, ya know it - woooooo!!! Eeee-hee-heeee!!! I would have never heard [red]verboreah[/red] like that form my brother or his fellow officers. I think the term you were looking for was [i]logorrhea[/i]. Maybe [i]polyphasia[/i]... P3[pyro][whacko][heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2002 11:21:10 PM EDT
[#34]
I just worked a "sobriety checkpoint" for overtime the other night. And we set it up under the NHSTA guidelines and also input from out state's attorneys. There are alot of impaired and intoxicated people driving out on the roads everyday. Most are first time offenders and learn after their first arrest and others never get it. And most guilty people turn off on a road after reading a well lit sign stating their is a Sobriety Check Point ahead. Alcohol effects people differently and body weight has a factor. Bur most states adopted a .08BAC so they could get more government money for their state. We used to have two charges in this state with two levels of impairment .08 was dwi driving while impaired and .10 was driving under the influence.
I think it works and we actually had a majority of the people driving through the check point thanking us and stated we should be doing more and one or two complained about the traffic it caused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2002 7:21:07 AM EDT
[#35]
Perhaps you gents would think differently of this if you lived in a firearms-intolerant state like Illinois. I have heard radio announcements to the effect of--"The Task Force X will be conducting safety/sobriety checkpoints this weekend." No mention of where, exactly when, etc. They are always held in locations with no chance to avoid them, as mentioned by several in this thread. You crest a hill, often on a one-way street and are there. Anyone who turns around is chased/stopped, even if not on a one way street. Like it or not, we have the IVth amendment and it means what it says. There is no probable cause to warrant these stops. The SCOTUS decision says that stopping one driver would violate the Fourth, but stopping many drivers at once would not. Say what?!! The SCOTUS does not always get it right, and I fervently believe this is one of those times. FWIW, I don't drink and drive (rarely drink at all) and maintain my vehicles in a safe state. I have also never been arrested for DUI, in case anyone wondered. P3, I applaud your tough position regarding drunks driving. I despise them. I just take issue with this one method of catching them, that's all. In Illinois, we have a State Police (aptly named!) who printed and distributed a flyer to FFL's, demanding it be posted in a prominent place that listed several laws, including one "law" which stated "loaded magazines are the same as a loaded gun, and may not be carried in your vehicle." Illinois has no such law. This was made up, and enforced, by one Terrance Gainer, formerly Director of the ISP, now in DC. As I said, if you lived in a state where the Gestapo made up laws, bypassing the legislative process, you would perhaps feel differently about no-PC stops. [V]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2002 7:36:18 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Here in NY it is legal and used often. As long as you follow a set guidelines, your fine. A supervisor has to approve it. We check with every vehicle. It is a basic, good evening, where are you coming from tonight, then have you had any alcohol to drink tonight. It is very no-obtrusive and it is constitutional. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so if it reduces traffic deaths, then great. If they get abused by police, then it should be challenged, but as a deterrent to DWI and other crimes, keep them going. The driver has no obligation to tell you where s/he has been or what they were drinking. They dont have any obligation than to give you thier papers (Mein Herr!). If their papers and subsequent record check turn up good, you cannot even drag them out of the car unless they appear intoxicated. As far as driving being a privilege. Wrong. Everybody is given the opportunity to drive. If they are financially unable or break a law that results in revocation, then they cannot drive. Im not saying its a constitutional right, Im just saying that the American people are being told that EVERYTHING is a 'privilege', which in most cases, is bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2002 7:42:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Kentlik, Having been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States does, in fact, make DUI Checkpoints constitutional, legal and proper law enforcement activity. Constitutional? No. Legal? Yes. The Constitution (which is the only thing preventing this country from becoming an oppressive police state) is weighted more towards this practice as being illegal search and seizure. Only a fool would believe that EVERY law imposed by the Court is right and/or constitutional. Judges are human, and ALL humans are biased in some way or another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2002 7:18:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Well DA, you may think it is unconstitutional. That is your privilege. (kind of like driving, huh?) You, however are wrong. When the Supreme Court of the United States say's it's Constitutional, it is! It's just that simple.
New studies of impairment, not intoxication, show that .08% BAC/BrAC are too high. They are suggesting the standard for impairment be lowered to .05% BAC/BrAC. In Florida, as of 1 July, it is now a misdemeanor to refuse a legal test for impairment. So while I sit here massaging my aching knee, which was blown out when I was T boned by an impaired driver, I am proud of our traffic division. This past Friday night, the 5th, they went on a joint sobriety checkpoint and bagged 8 impaired drivers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2002 7:46:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: P3, I applaud your tough position regarding drunks driving. I despise them. I just take issue with this one method of catching them, that's all... As I said, if you lived in a state where the Gestapo made up laws, bypassing the legislative process, you would perhaps feel differently about no-PC stops. I hear ya bro - I grew up in the PRI (Libertyville). I share your concern. That's one of the reasons why I never moved back to the PRI. BTW, I bagged the only drunk at a S+SCP on the 5th. Got him sloppy on the videotape during the SFSTs, although he refused to blow. OFW. P3[pyro][^][heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2002 7:22:09 AM EDT
[#40]
Like I said, only a fool would let other people do all of his thinking for him. You're already biased on the issue.
Will it be constitutional when they come and get your guns when they are banned, or will you bend-over and grab your ankles and say "Yes! Massah!" As far as BAC...Who cares. I am a LIGHTWEIGHT. I will NOT drive if I have more than 3 beers. Personally, I would lilke to see another prohibition and ban on tobacco sales. As far as "refusing" a legal test. There has to be REAL suspicion (cause) for the officer to want to give you the FSTs. The check-points are to allow an officer to look at you and check your papers. Anything else needs probable cause for action. A misdemeanor for refusing a FST is nothing and easily dismissed in court. A misdemeanor for refusing a FST when there is no probable cause is worth big money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2002 8:36:48 AM EDT
[#41]
I think this one has run it's course. Time to lock.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
