Stop whining about "unconstitutional" DUI checkpoints

[member]

it's the 21st century. at least we have paved roads, street lights, illuminated signs, dividers/medians, the WALK/don't walk sign, (oh yeah, they changed that AGES ago to a hand symbol, since alot of people crossing the streets in certain places can't read english - so every single english sign was taken down)........painted lines to divide lanes and highways, traffic signs and traffic cops....and especially LAWS implemented for driving, instead of this disorganized lawlessness that is INDIA......but this is what happens (disorganized lawlessness) when you have backward, corrupted "PEOPLE" in charge of....a country's infrastructure -- and basically, a whole country.

"From what i've read highway driving is a mess everywhere outside of USA, candy, yurp and Oz. One more reason we must only allow immigration from white countries."

"You racist piece of shit."

i dunno, i think we all have those feelings on occasion....(yes, some are worse than others) -- but what you just called Speeders:


"You racist piece of shit."


hey, wouldn't you admit, even you, "Noh-mee" are a taaaaaad...."racist." at least that's how I saw it.


...didn't you say (not too long ago)............ "how it's ok to burn an American flag -- and that it's only a piece of cloth ? what's the big deal..."

yeah, see - after i read that, (i was horrified) + I had that SAME EXACT REACTION (you just had) ooooops... "racist."

i guess racism is in the eye of the beholder....





lol....DUH ! i don't know how to react....is it funny ? am i supposed to just stand still and have NO Reaction as I watch the flag of my country being burned ?? Let me think about how i should feel. ok..."IT'S JUST A PIECE OF CLOTH."

yah.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Fourth Amendment then goes on to outline what a reasonable search would entail, your own opinion notwithstanding.

"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."

In other words, a warrant is required, and these checkpoints are, in fact, unconstitutional.

Incorrect.

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and that includes the 4th Amendment.

In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court ruled DUI checkpoints to be Constitutional – there was no 4th Amendment search and seizure violations as the state established a compelling governmental interest in addressing the problem of drunk driving and introduced equally compelling evidence in support of the policy.

Where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant [p450] or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

The ruling was 6-3, with Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall dissenting.

And the Court can be wrong. Shocker.

Actually it has little to do with the Court being ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’

It has to do with the fact that no right is absolute, including those enshrined in the 4th Amendment. Government may place reasonable restrictions on a given right provided those restrictions are rationally based, are predicated on facts and evidence, and pursue a legitimate legislative end, such as DUI checkpoints.

Moreover, the Court’s ruling is within the context of existing precedent:

(b) A Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556. Thus, the question here is whether such seizures are "reasonable." P. 450.

(c) There is no dispute about the magnitude of, and the States' interest in eradicating, the drunken driving problem. The courts below accurately gauged the "objective" intrusion, measured by the seizure's duration and the investigation's intensity, as minimal. However, they [p445] misread this Court's cases concerning the degree of "subjective intrusion" and the potential for generating fear and surprise. The "fear and surprise" to be considered are not the natural fear of one who has been drinking over the prospect of being stopped at a checkpoint but, rather, the fear and surprise engendered in law abiding motorists by the nature of the particular stop, such as one made by a roving patrol operating on a seldom-traveled road. Here, checkpoints are selected pursuant to guidelines, and uniformed officers stop every vehicle. The resulting intrusion is constitutionally indistinguishable from the stops upheld in Martinez-Fuerte. Pp. 451-453.

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

In Martinez-Fuerte, concerning the constitutionally of checkpoints established to check vehicles for possible undocumented immigrants, the Court determined:

The defendants note correctly that to accommodate public and private interests some quantum of individualized suspicion is usually a prerequisite to a constitutional search or seizure. 14 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 Page 561 U.S., at 21 , and n. 18. But the Fourth Amendment imposes no irreducible requirement of such suspicion. This is clear from Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)…in Camara the Court required an "area" warrant to support the reasonableness of inspecting private residences within a particular area for building code violations, but recognized that "specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling" was not required to enter any given residence. 387 U.S., at 538 . In so holding, the Court examined the government interests advanced to justify such routine intrusions "upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," id., at 534-535, and concluded that under the circumstances the government interest outweighed those of the private citizen.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The fourth amendment was added specifically to prevent this kind of arbitrary, blanket detention from government. You people supporting road block searches are sellouts and every bit as clueless as the nimrods signing the petition to abolish the Bill of Rights.

For the tenth time the board asks you why then is it ok for the govt to search us at airports or when we enter govt buildings.think

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Really? Stopping people and investigating the contents of their stomachs doesn't constitute a 'search' in your book? Makes me wonder what does...

HAHAHA. No one is searching your stomach, you loonybird. And no one wants to hear about your "right" to drive drunk. You libertarians are such loons.

The fourth amendment was added specifically to prevent this kind of arbitrary, blanket detention from government. You people supporting road block searches are sellouts and every bit as clueless as the nimrods signing the petition to abolish the Bill of Rights.

DUI checkpoints are neither arbitrary nor do they constitute ‘detention,’ considering the fact that the 4th Amendment allows the state to enter individual dwellings absent a warrant pursuant to the investigation of building code violations, clearly DUI checkpoints are Constitutional, as there is considerably less of an expectation of privacy in one’s vehicle as opposed to his home:

We think the same conclusion is appropriate here, where we deal neither with searches nor with the sanctity of private dwellings, ordinarily afforded the most stringent Fourth Amendment protection. See, e. g., McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948). As we have noted earlier, one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S., at 896 n. 2; see Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 -591 (1974) (plurality [428 U.S. 543, 562] opinion).

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

It was the intent of the Framers that the 4th Amendment act as a foundation upon which a balance could be realized between the interests of the state and the privacy rights of the individual. It was not their intent for the 4th Amendment to be perceived in absolutist terms or to completely eviscerate the state of all powers to act in a manner beneficial to society as a whole.

 

[dblack]

DUI checkpoints are neither arbitrary nor do they constitute ‘detention’ ...

I have to stop you right out of the gate because we have a fundamental disagreement on the meaning of these words. If you don't recognize roadblock interrogation as a fundamental violation, of human dignity, if not of our basic rights - there's nothing else to discuss.

 

[dblack]

[
The fourth amendment was added specifically to prevent this kind of arbitrary, blanket detention from government. You people supporting road block searches are sellouts and every bit as clueless as the nimrods signing the petition to abolish the Bill of Rights.

For the tenth time the board asks you why then is it ok for the govt to search us at airports or when we enter govt buildings.think

I'm sorry. I wasn't counting. And honestly, I wasn't reading most of your posts. You seem like kind of an idiot so there didn't seem much point. Anyway, I never said it was ok to do those other things.

 

[Zona]

Every holiday the internet is full of these crybabies even though the DUI searches make more legal sense than the airport searches everyone accepts. The fourth amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and DUI checkpoints seen reasonable to me. Most of these complainers are shills hired by the auto industry. The car makers love drunk drivers, Car crashes mean car sales

Fuck drunk drivers. How dare you put me and my family in jeopardy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every holiday the internet is full of these crybabies even though the DUI searches make more legal sense than the airport searches everyone accepts. The fourth amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and DUI checkpoints seen reasonable to me. Most of these complainers are shills hired by the auto industry. The car makers love drunk drivers, Car crashes mean car sales

The fact that that you think something is reasonable does not make it reasonable. Keep in mind that at the time that the British Army used to set up checkpoints and search people without cause because they thought it was reasonable to do so. If you take the time to read it you will see that the 4th Amendment implies that all searches are unreasonable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I loved road blocks to catch drunks.
I see it this way; I never touched booze when I drove and the seaches took the idiots off the road so I had more chance of a safe journey.

Anyone who complains is very foolish.

They have apps so that drunks can avoid the checkpoints. The only people that get caught in them are idiots that do not know how to avoid them, or who don't know that it is perfectly legal to turn with the sole intention of avoiding them.

Either way, the fact that you get caught in them makes you look stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Fourth Amendment then goes on to outline what a reasonable search would entail, your own opinion notwithstanding.

"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."

In other words, a warrant is required, and these checkpoints are, in fact, unconstitutional.

HAHAHA. You are saying a cop ALWAYS needs a warrant to search someone? That is nonsense.

think

That is what the Constitution says.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

They are unreasonable as the cops are stopping you because you might be doing something illegal not because they have any probable cause.

Same can be said about the searches you undergo when you enter a federal bldg. THINK

Those are also unreasonable, what's your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, I think DUI checkpoints, inspection stick checkpoints, game warden checkpoints (just driving a pick-up truck is the excuse for making you stop) and seat belt stops should all be declared unconstitutional. These stops are akin to police officers walking down the street and knocking on every door to ask for your ID and "just chat" with you for a little while.

Why should all those things be unconstitutional but not airport searches?

I think airport searches are unconstitutional also.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every holiday the internet is full of these crybabies even though the DUI searches make more legal sense than the airport searches everyone accepts. The fourth amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and DUI checkpoints seen reasonable to me. Most of these complainers are shills hired by the auto industry. The car makers love drunk drivers, Car crashes mean car sales

The Fourth Amendment then goes on to outline what a reasonable search would entail, your own opinion notwithstanding.

"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."

In other words, a warrant is required, and these checkpoints are, in fact, unconstitutional.

Incorrect.

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and that includes the 4th Amendment.

In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court ruled DUI checkpoints to be Constitutional – there was no 4th Amendment search and seizure violations as the state established a compelling governmental interest in addressing the problem of drunk driving and introduced equally compelling evidence in support of the policy.

Where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant [p450] or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

The ruling was 6-3, with Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall dissenting.

When are you going to learn that case law exists only in context of the Constitution? You keep saying it backwards despite it being explained to you numerous times. would it help if someone hit you upside the head with a 2x4?

 

[George Costanza]

Every holiday the internet is full of these crybabies even though the DUI searches make more legal sense than the airport searches everyone accepts. The fourth amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and DUI checkpoints seen reasonable to me. Most of these complainers are shills hired by the auto industry. The car makers love drunk drivers, Car crashes mean car sales

Slippery slope, my friend. VERY slippery slope. People who object to Fourth Amendment violations by the government can hardly be classified as "crybabies."

The U.S. Supremes have admitted that DUI checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. They hold, however, that, on balance, the intrusion on the general public is outweighed by the overall good of catching drunk drivers, so they have cut an exception.

Here's the problem, SS - if all the cops did in DUI checkpoints was bust drunk drivers, I might halfway agree with you. But the cops use DUI checkpoints for much more than just catching drunk drivers. What do you think a DUI checkpoint cop is going to do if, in checking a drunk driver, he sees the butt end of a gun sticking out from under the drivers seat, or some meth in a baggie on the console? What if the driver is driving with a suspended license? In California, anyone on probation or parole has a search waiver condition; they can be searched at any time for any reason, no warrant or probable cause necessary. Guess what everyone stopped at a DUI checkpoint gets asked? Are you on probation or parole? If they are, there are three things that generally get searched: the driver of the car, the car and the driver of the car's home. That's right - his/her HOME, because once the cops know someone is on probation or parole, they have a right to go to his/her home and search it. And they do it. All the time.

Still think DUI checkpoints are "minor"intrusions?

And please don't come back with this conservative crap about if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't object to being searched. You seem at least a bit smarter than that.

 

[PratchettFan]

Every holiday the internet is full of these crybabies even though the DUI searches make more legal sense than the airport searches everyone accepts. The fourth amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and DUI checkpoints seen reasonable to me. Most of these complainers are shills hired by the auto industry. The car makers love drunk drivers, Car crashes mean car sales

Well, I doubt they are hired shills but I agree with you on the rest of it. DUI stops are not searches.

Really? Stopping people and investigating the contents of their stomachs doesn't constitute a 'search' in your book? Makes me wonder what does...

Strange. I have been in a few of those stops and not once have I ever had my stomach pumped. They may well look at my eyes to see if the pupils are dilated or smell my breath, but they are not searching my stomach. What they are doing is seeing if you appear impaired and that is not a search. It is no more a search than stopping you because you appear to be driving erratically.

Commercial trucks have to stop at weigh stations. Is that also a search? Is that a violation of their rights as well? If not, what is the difference between the two stops?

In all of the times I have been stopped, either at a DUI stop or because I actually did something wrong, I have never once been hassled. I have no doubt this does happen, police are people and some people are bad at their job. But I expect most hassles arise from the fact that the person stopped had decided they can act like an asshole. If one acts like an asshole, they will be treated like an asshole.

 

[PratchettFan]

Really? Stopping people and investigating the contents of their stomachs doesn't constitute a 'search' in your book? Makes me wonder what does...

HAHAHA. No one is searching your stomach, you loonybird. And no one wants to hear about your "right" to drive drunk. You libertarians are such loons.

The fourth amendment was added specifically to prevent this kind of arbitrary, blanket detention from government. You people supporting road block searches are sellouts and every bit as clueless as the nimrods signing the petition to abolish the Bill of Rights.

No, it wasn't. This is neither arbitrary nor a detention. It is, at most, a minor inconvenience - unless you have a habit of driving under the influence. Objections to it are not patriotic, they are childish.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, I doubt they are hired shills but I agree with you on the rest of it. DUI stops are not searches.

Really? Stopping people and investigating the contents of their stomachs doesn't constitute a 'search' in your book? Makes me wonder what does...

Strange. I have been in a few of those stops and not once have I ever had my stomach pumped. They may well look at my eyes to see if the pupils are dilated or smell my breath, but they are not searching my stomach. What they are doing is seeing if you appear impaired and that is not a search. It is no more a search than stopping you because you appear to be driving erratically.

Commercial trucks have to stop at weigh stations. Is that also a search? Is that a violation of their rights as well? If not, what is the difference between the two stops?

In all of the times I have been stopped, either at a DUI stop or because I actually did something wrong, I have never once been hassled. I have no doubt this does happen, police are people and some people are bad at their job. But I expect most hassles arise from the fact that the person stopped had decided they can act like an asshole. If one acts like an asshole, they will be treated like an asshole.

The cops have no reasonable cause to smell your breath or shine a light in your eyes.

I suppose you'd be OK if everyone walking down the street had their eyes and breath checked because they might maybe possibly smoked a joint.

 

[dblack]

Every holiday the internet is full of these crybabies even though the DUI searches make more legal sense than the airport searches everyone accepts. The fourth amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and DUI checkpoints seen reasonable to me. Most of these complainers are shills hired by the auto industry. The car makers love drunk drivers, Car crashes mean car sales

Slippery slope, my friend. VERY slippery slope. People who object to Fourth Amendment violations by the government can hardly be classified as "crybabies."

The U.S. Supremes have admitted that DUI checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. They hold, however, that, on balance, the intrusion on the general public is outweighed by the overall good of catching drunk drivers, so they have cut an exception.

Here's the problem, SS - if all the cops did in DUI checkpoints was bust drunk drivers, I might halfway agree with you. But the cops use DUI checkpoints for much more than just catching drunk drivers. What do you think a DUI checkpoint cop is going to do if, in checking a drunk driver, he sees the butt end of a gun sticking out from under the drivers seat, or some meth in a baggie on the console? What if the driver is driving with a suspended license? In California, anyone on probation or parole has a search waiver condition; they can be searched at any time for any reason, no warrant or probable cause necessary. Guess what everyone stopped at a DUI checkpoint gets asked? Are you on probation or parole? If they are, there are three things that generally get searched: the driver of the car, the car and the driver of the car's home. That's right - his/her HOME, because once the cops know someone is on probation or parole, they have a right to go to his/her home and search it. And they do it. All the time.

Still think DUI checkpoints are "minor"intrusions?

And please don't come back with this conservative crap about if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't object to being searched. You seem at least a bit smarter than that.

Exactly. This kind of law enforcement is what the fourth amendment was intended to prevent. Much like the NSA spying, the roadblock interrogations are 'fishing expeditions' where no actual suspicion of wrongdoing prompts the detentions. And yes, they are detentions - motorists are stopped and detained until they can prove their innocence.

In isolation, as the 'exception' to the rule, DUI checkpoints might not seem so bad. But, as GC points out - the slippery slope argument isn't simply paranoid fantasy. Especially when we can track a growing trend in our society where we are allowing, more and more, our government to proceed with "guilty until proven innocent" as their modus operandi.

 

[PratchettFan]

Really? Stopping people and investigating the contents of their stomachs doesn't constitute a 'search' in your book? Makes me wonder what does...

Strange. I have been in a few of those stops and not once have I ever had my stomach pumped. They may well look at my eyes to see if the pupils are dilated or smell my breath, but they are not searching my stomach. What they are doing is seeing if you appear impaired and that is not a search. It is no more a search than stopping you because you appear to be driving erratically.

Commercial trucks have to stop at weigh stations. Is that also a search? Is that a violation of their rights as well? If not, what is the difference between the two stops?

In all of the times I have been stopped, either at a DUI stop or because I actually did something wrong, I have never once been hassled. I have no doubt this does happen, police are people and some people are bad at their job. But I expect most hassles arise from the fact that the person stopped had decided they can act like an asshole. If one acts like an asshole, they will be treated like an asshole.

The cops have no reasonable cause to smell your breath or shine a light in your eyes.

I suppose you'd be OK if everyone walking down the street had their eyes and breath checked because they might maybe possibly smoked a joint.

If you walk by a cop and you reek of marijuana, you are going to get stopped. Sorry about that. If you are driving 1 1/2 tons of steel at high speeds down the highway, then there are certain expectations of you. Stopping you briefly just to check that you aren't about to kill someone is perfectly ok with me. My preference is you go to jail before you kill someone.

 

[earlycuyler]

They dont allow them in Texas. Thank God. If it was about public safety they should arrest them as they come out of the bars. But public intoxication doesnt pay as much as a DUI.

If it was about public safety, we'd make DUI an automatic felony. That's what i'd love to see.

I think thats a little harsh,and it's hard for the prosecution to convict on something that might have happened.
You get in a wreck and hurt someone,thats a different story.

And you would really screw up a lot of peoples lives who for the most part are normal citizens.
If the new law passes where .05 gets you a DUI restaurants are toast. Come on man,thats ONE beer.
So if you really want to keep everyone safe,restaurants should only be allowed to serve you one drink.

Drunk drivers are normally habituel offenders most of the time. There are only taken off the road when they kill people. A felony is not no harsh when you conside how many people are killed by DUI yearly.