Stop whining about "unconstitutional" DUI checkpoints

[Skull Pilot]

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.

If you are breaking no traffic laws then you are not endangering anyone are you?

The cops are stopping you for no reason.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

If you are breaking no traffic laws then you are not endangering anyone are you?

The cops are stopping you for no reason.

If you are driving while intoxicated, then you are breaking the law and endangering people. You are being stopped for a very specific reason and you are being stopped for reasons all of the time. A traffic light stops you. A stop sign stops you. You are being observed when a cop points a radar gun at you. It is one of life's little inconviences - unless you are intoxicated.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

If you are breaking no traffic laws then you are not endangering anyone are you?

The cops are stopping you for no reason.

If you are driving while intoxicated, then you are breaking the law and endangering people. You are being stopped for a very specific reason and you are being stopped for reasons all of the time. A traffic light stops you. A stop sign stops you. You are being observed when a cop points a radar gun at you. It is one of life's little inconviences - unless you are intoxicated.

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

The whole if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about thing doesn't fly with me.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

HAHAHA. So now it's all about " violating human dignity"!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

That's what i say but these loony libertarians think drunk driving by itself should be legal and the govt should only get involved AFTER the drunk has killed or maimed someone!!!

 

[PratchettFan]

If you are breaking no traffic laws then you are not endangering anyone are you?

The cops are stopping you for no reason.

If you are driving while intoxicated, then you are breaking the law and endangering people. You are being stopped for a very specific reason and you are being stopped for reasons all of the time. A traffic light stops you. A stop sign stops you. You are being observed when a cop points a radar gun at you. It is one of life's little inconviences - unless you are intoxicated.

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

The whole if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about thing doesn't fly with me.

Well, it is not necessary that you be happy about it. On the whole, trying to keep people from getting killed is worth you being very occassionaly inconvenienced.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

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?

What a stupid thing to say. Case law is frequently used to clarify statutes written by congress.

BTW - the principle behind case law was voided in bush v gore 2000. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
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.

Well - what's wrong with that? I don't want meth-heads on the highway nor unlicensed drivers.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

Drunk drivers are super-violent drug criminals. I'd like to see them locked up but that would be too expensive. Hitting them with a felony conviction is reasonable. That means loss of many rights and job opportunities. Nobody wants that.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

.

But they always have probable cause considering how many drunk drivers there are.

think

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you are driving while intoxicated, then you are breaking the law and endangering people. You are being stopped for a very specific reason and you are being stopped for reasons all of the time. A traffic light stops you. A stop sign stops you. You are being observed when a cop points a radar gun at you. It is one of life's little inconviences - unless you are intoxicated.

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

The whole if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about thing doesn't fly with me.

Well, it is not necessary that you be happy about it. On the whole, trying to keep people from getting killed is worth you being very occassionaly inconvenienced.

Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

.

But they always have probable cause considering how many drunk drivers there are.

think

Before you tell me to think you might want to try it yourself.

Research questions effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints

If you were driving one of the 18,747 vehicles Kansas City police stopped at drunken-driving checkpoints last year, odds are you weren't arrested.

In fact, only 1.6 percent of those drivers were arrested for being drunk.

So do you want to THINK about that?

 

[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

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.

You haven't read many of his posts, have you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Is stopping commercial truck at weigh stations a search?

Yes.

Is it a violation of their rights?

Yes.

What is the difference between the two stops?

Nothing, they are both unreasonable and should be illegal.

Any other questions?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You can walk by a cop and not smell of marijuana and still get stopped, and have your face bounced off a nightstick if you ask why. I think it is better to let people walk down the street smelling of marijuana than to let cops beat the crap out of random people for fun. Why do you think cops should be able to hassle innocent people?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you are driving while intoxicated, then you are breaking the law and endangering people. You are being stopped for a very specific reason and you are being stopped for reasons all of the time. A traffic light stops you. A stop sign stops you. You are being observed when a cop points a radar gun at you. It is one of life's little inconviences - unless you are intoxicated.

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

The whole if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about thing doesn't fly with me.

Well, it is not necessary that you be happy about it. On the whole, trying to keep people from getting killed is worth you being very occassionaly inconvenienced.

If they really wanted to keep people from being killed they would devote more resources to stopping reckless driving. The fact that they prefer to hassle everyone tells me they have other goals, like making money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

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?

What a stupid thing to say. Case law is frequently used to clarify statutes written by congress.

BTW - the principle behind case law was voided in bush v gore 2000. THINK

How is it stupid? To take your example, if Congress didn't write the laws there would be no case law to clarify them. Personally, I think it makes more sense for courts to strike down laws that need clarification and let Congress do it over, but I am weird.

By the way, if you think Bush v Gore violated case law you actually agree with me that case law exists in the context of the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

.

But they always have probable cause considering how many drunk drivers there are.

think

Does the fact that someone was killed in Chicago last night give police probable cause to search your home?

THINK!

 

[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.

Is stopping commercial truck at weigh stations a search?

Yes.

Is it a violation of their rights?

Yes.

What is the difference between the two stops?

Nothing, they are both unreasonable and should be illegal.

Any other questions?

Nope. You are at least utterly wrong consistantly. I can respect that.

 

[PratchettFan]

When the cops have probable cause to pull you over they can. If there is no cause then there should be no stop.

The whole if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about thing doesn't fly with me.

Well, it is not necessary that you be happy about it. On the whole, trying to keep people from getting killed is worth you being very occassionaly inconvenienced.

Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

Actually, the quote was sacrifice liberty for security - not safety. And Franklin would tell you to get over it. Your liberty is not being sacrificed or even slightly impinged. Your just being slightly inconvenienced and that only rarely.