Are Roadblocks Constitutional?

[Contumacious]

What is their probable cause to stop me?

1) The state needs revenue

2) the policemen need attaboys rewards

3) the prison industrial complex needs a new inmate

4) you are member of a political minority

5) DUI attorneys need the revenue

.

 

[Navy1960]

Mapp v. Ohio....

If I may, this case concerned the federal exclusionary rule as applicable to the states and answered in the affirmitive, it does not have any bearing on DUI checkpoints as discussed.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.


Has a lot to do with DUI Checkpoints, in that if there is NO reaonable suspicion to stop these automobiles other than the mere assumption that the oficer is trying to catch anyone they happen to stop, any evidence ontained in these so called road blocks should be thrown out under that ruling.

 

[lawbuff]

Mapp v. Ohio....

If I may, this case concerned the federal exclusionary rule as applicable to the states and answered in the affirmitive, it does not have any bearing on DUI checkpoints as discussed.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.


Has a lot to do with DUI Checkpoints, in that if there is NO reaonable suspicion to stop these automobiles other than the mere assumption that the oficer is trying to catch anyone they happen to stop, any evidence ontained in these so called road blocks should be thrown out under that ruling.

Yes, the exclusionary rule applies to the states. But when I meant was if a person is found to be DUI at a checkpoint, that can not be suppressed as evidence, because it was a valid stop, so the exclusionary rule is moot.

 

[xotoxi]

Are Roadblocks Constitutional?

Are you concerned that roadblocks will infringe on your God-given right to drive a car?

 

[uscitizen]

Are Roadblocks Constitutional?

Are you concerned that roadblocks will infringe on your God-given right to drive a car?

To drive in an illegal manner seems to be the issue.

Ie impaired.

 

[bobbcat]

Ie impaired.

That is a relative term. With the current alcohol level limit being at 0.08, a single drink consumed over the course of an hour can raise some people's levels higher than that. IOW, what the law has deemed as 'impaired' (i.e. the 0.08 level) is not really impaired at all for most people. They set the bar waaaay too low. Bottom line, don't drink at all before you drive. Is this fair? Some say 'yes,' others say 'no.' I think it is an infringement to stop people at random and investigate them for possibly driving under the influence. It strikes me as being a bit like searching one's property without a warrant.

 

[Liability]

Are Roadblocks Constitutional?

Yes.

It's all right there in the section referring to penumbras!

 

[xotoxi]

Ie impaired.

That is a relative term. With the current alcohol level limit being at 0.08, a single drink consumed over the course of an hour can raise some people's levels higher than that. IOW, what the law has deemed as 'impaired' (i.e. the 0.08 level) is not really impaired at all for most people. They set the bar waaaay too low. Bottom line, don't drink at all before you drive. Is this fair? Some say 'yes,' others say 'no.' I think it is an infringement to stop people at random and investigate them for possibly driving under the influence. It strikes me as being a bit like searching one's property without a warrant.

Wrong. You will only be searched if there is probable cause (i.e., you smell of alcohol). Otherwise, all you have to do is roll down the window and say hi to the officer. I don't consider that to be "searching property".

 

[lawbuff]

Ie impaired.

That is a relative term. With the current alcohol level limit being at 0.08, a single drink consumed over the course of an hour can raise some people's levels higher than that. IOW, what the law has deemed as 'impaired' (i.e. the 0.08 level) is not really impaired at all for most people. They set the bar waaaay too low. Bottom line, don't drink at all before you drive. Is this fair? Some say 'yes,' others say 'no.' I think it is an infringement to stop people at random and investigate them for possibly driving under the influence. It strikes me as being a bit like searching one's property without a warrant.

Just being at .08 is per se intoxicated, without any outward signs to enforce it, it may not hold up in court, and possibly, the case law in some ares may bear that out.

Controlled roadblocks are not a random pullover as was done in Delaware v. Prouse to check for a driver's license, which was ruled unconstitutional.

What about border searches or adminstrative searches such as at airports. Many screeners are now government employees. Is it practical to secure a search warrant for every passenger or every car at a border crossing??

 

[lawbuff]

Wrong. You will only be searched if there is probable cause (i.e., you smell of alcohol). Otherwise, all you have to do is roll down the window and say hi to the officer. I don't consider that to be "searching property".

If it is a frisk for weapons, or a Terry frisk, PC is not needed, only a reasonable atriculation they may be armed, and the courts generally grant a lot of wiggle room for officers on this doctrine.

 

[HUGGY]

No moreso than the cops blocking roads and such during a big sporting event.

Being asked to deture around an obstical such as a sporting event is light years from being stopped en masse without probable cause and forced to be tested for substances. Anyone that believes that this is constitutional is an enemy of our countries foundational instruments. This is not the former soviet union sport. If you concede that this is a police state then perhaps it is high time to start nourishing our failing freedom with the blood of tyrants.

They both use the same excuse. Public safety.

If you are not doing something wrong why worry?

Wrong on the first count. A detour, even a temporary one is not detainment without probable cause. Pulled over is police detainment and according to the constitution requires probable cause. The nourishment of tyranny on the second count. You are a dictators dream. Ever hear of this litle glitch in your sheep mentality? It's called presumed innocense. Learn it...know it...love it.

Government does not need your cheerleading. Greedy and power intoxicated people will always try to take more and control more for the taking.

 

[Liability]

Being asked to deture around an obstical such as a sporting event is light years from being stopped en masse without probable cause and forced to be tested for substances. Anyone that believes that this is constitutional is an enemy of our countries foundational instruments. This is not the former soviet union sport. If you concede that this is a police state then perhaps it is high time to start nourishing our failing freedom with the blood of tyrants.

They both use the same excuse. Public safety.

If you are not doing something wrong why worry?

Wrong on the first count. A detour, even a temporary one is not detainment without probable cause. Pulled over is police detainment and according to the constitution requires probable cause. The nourishment of tyranny on the second count. You are a dictators dream. Ever hear of this litle glitch in your sheep mentality? It's called presumed innocense. Learn it...know it...love it.

Government does not need your cheerleading. Greedy and power intoxicated people will always try to take more and control more for the taking.

Actually, driving is not a "right." It is a privilege. It requires that a license be issued by the State.

In order to protect the people on the roads (and close enough to it to be affected by motorists), the State has a very well defined and long recognized interest in issuing such licenses with conditions. One is that people amy not drive without a license. Another is that one may not obtain a license without passing certain tests. Another is that one may not drive at all under certain conditions (such as when one is intoxicated). And if a motorist violates these provisions, in order to fulfill its obligations to other people on (or near) the road, the State has valid legal authority to cancel licenses and to meet out punishment.

DWI is an area of overlap in that regard. Driving while drunk can get your license punched and get you criminally sanctioned.

To enforce the DWI laws, the State does have the legal authority to conduct traffic stops in a manner that is not otherwise inconsistent with our notions of fairness and justice. It's just one of the impositions one has ALREADY ACCEPTED as a condition of getting and keeping a driver's license. This is why roadblocks are considered Constitutional. Nothing about them allows for the officers to be arbitrary. ALL motorists get pulled over. No race consciousness. No sexism. No profiling. Equal application to all.

Can you make an argument that being "forced" to accept the conditions is somehow a violation of your liberty interests? Yeah. You can say it. But don't count on your argument being found persuasive.

 

[jillian]

Our little two-horse town is allegedly going to be conducting a comprehensive roadblock campaign this upcoming weekend, stopping everybody who is unfortunate enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time to be assessed for alcohol levels. They must be really hard up for money. Natch, I had plans to attend someone's BD party, replete with live band and, of course, 'potent' libations.

This whole thing strikes me as a blatant disregard for the 4th amendment. Your thoughts?

Yeah...they should let you drive after having "potent libations"...

And yes, they're constitutional IF done pursuant to an organized plan with set standards (eg, every fifth car)

The Court has already said that roadblock type stops where every driver is interviewed are acceptable.

Delaware v. Prouse

Me? I'm glad that maybe it will keep you off the road after your "potent libations".

 

[HUGGY]

They both use the same excuse. Public safety.

If you are not doing something wrong why worry?

Wrong on the first count. A detour, even a temporary one is not detainment without probable cause. Pulled over is police detainment and according to the constitution requires probable cause. The nourishment of tyranny on the second count. You are a dictators dream. Ever hear of this litle glitch in your sheep mentality? It's called presumed innocense. Learn it...know it...love it.

Government does not need your cheerleading. Greedy and power intoxicated people will always try to take more and control more for the taking.

Actually, driving is not a "right." It is a privilege. It requires that a license be issued by the State.

In order to protect the people on the roads (and close enough to it to be affected by motorists), the State has a very well defined and long recognized interest in issuing such licenses with conditions. One is that people amy not drive without a license. Another is that one may not obtain a license without passing certain tests. Another is that one may not drive at all under certain conditions (such as when one is intoxicated). And if a motorist violates these provisions, in order to fulfill its obligations to other people on (or near) the road, the State has valid legal authority to cancel licenses and to meet out punishment.

DWI is an area of overlap in that regard. Driving while drunk can get your license punched and get you criminally sanctioned.

To enforce the DWI laws, the State does have the legal authority to conduct traffic stops in a manner that is not otherwise inconsistent with our notions of fairness and justice. It's just one of the impositions one has ALREADY ACCEPTED as a condition of getting and keeping a driver's license. This is why roadblocks are considered Constitutional. Nothing about them allows for the officers to be arbitrary. ALL motorists get pulled over. No race consciousness. No sexism. No profiling. Equal application to all.

Can you make an argument that being "forced" to accept the conditions is somehow a violation of your liberty interests? Yeah. You can say it. But don't count on your argument being found persuasive.

No state shall pass a law that will supercede the constitution. I never signed a document relieving myself of my rights and if I was so foolish there is enough precident that I cannot anyway. It wouldn't matter. One cannot sign away ones constitutional rights. The government does not own anything exclusive of its citizens. We own the government..not the other way around. It would be a better government if more americans understood that.

I presume that you drive. If you do you must have good or corrected eyesight. With the gift of sight you should have been able to witness drivers that are not in control of thier vehicles. Police have these same magical powers of vision. Observing a vehicle that appears not in control is presumption and good reason to be stopped for your public safety. I am not inclined to co sign powers not spelled out in the constitution or interpreted so by those with an agenda not parallel with the wishes of the framers. You can lick fascist boots if you wish.

 

[lawbuff]

Wrong on the first count. A detour, even a temporary one is not detainment without probable cause. Pulled over is police detainment and according to the constitution requires probable cause.

Stopping a motor vehicle is a seizure, and does not necessarily require probable cause.

The US SC has ruled that the "touchstone of the 4th AM is reasonableness". They have ruled DUI checkpoints are reasonable, ergo, it is up to an individual state to permit or not permit them.

 

[bobbcat]

Yeah...they should let you drive after having "potent libations"..

Another case of someone putting words in my mouth. I guess you never heard of waiting an hour or two, drinking coffee, a soda or water before leaving the happy party. GMAB.

 

[HUGGY]

Wrong on the first count. A detour, even a temporary one is not detainment without probable cause. Pulled over is police detainment and according to the constitution requires probable cause.

Stopping a motor vehicle is a seizure, and does not necessarily require probable cause.

The US SC has ruled that the "touchstone of the 4th AM is reasonableness". They have ruled DUI checkpoints are reasonable, ergo, it is up to an individual state to permit or not permit them.

"They" decided it was reasonable to tap americans phones and demand the major phone carriers comply before and after 9/11. "They" may decide up is down and "They" can get "Thier" justices to co sign it. Piss on "Them" and any that do not support the US constitution and The Bill of Rights.

 

[lawbuff]

Wrong on the first count. A detour, even a temporary one is not detainment without probable cause. Pulled over is police detainment and according to the constitution requires probable cause.

Stopping a motor vehicle is a seizure, and does not necessarily require probable cause.

The US SC has ruled that the "touchstone of the 4th AM is reasonableness". They have ruled DUI checkpoints are reasonable, ergo, it is up to an individual state to permit or not permit them.

"They" decided it was reasonable to tap americans phones and demand the major phone carriers comply before and after 9/11. "They" may decide up is down and "They" can get "Thier" justices to co sign it. Piss on "Them" and any that do not support the US constitution and The Bill of Rights.

We are not discussing the Patriot Act though and any Progeny of and potential National security issues, we are discussing DUI roadblocks, big difference, at least to me.

I am not saying I agree with what was done due to the PA, etc., but they are two distinct variations of possible 4th AM violations.

 

[HUGGY]

Stopping a motor vehicle is a seizure, and does not necessarily require probable cause.

The US SC has ruled that the "touchstone of the 4th AM is reasonableness". They have ruled DUI checkpoints are reasonable, ergo, it is up to an individual state to permit or not permit them.

"They" decided it was reasonable to tap americans phones and demand the major phone carriers comply before and after 9/11. "They" may decide up is down and "They" can get "Thier" justices to co sign it. Piss on "Them" and any that do not support the US constitution and The Bill of Rights.

We are not discussing the Patriot Act though and any Progeny of and potential National security issues, we are discussing DUI roadblocks, big difference, at least to me.

I am not saying I agree with what was done due to the PA, etc., but they are two distinct variations of possible 4th AM violations.

Every variation is different. Roadblocks presume guilt unless proven otherwise. It seems comonplace to find those that would gleefully take the slippery slope. Finding stallwart americans that will not accept the chipping away of our rights is more ielusive. 9/11 IS rellevant in as there was a significant pussy factor to figure in to the mix.

 

[Contumacious]

Are Roadblocks Constitutional?

Are you concerned that roadblocks will infringe on your God-given right to drive a car?

They infringe upon my right to travel.

.