Hello:

Here we are in the holiday season. Drinking and driving is on everybody's mind.

My state is only one of 18 that do NOT allow sobriety check points. Does yours? Do you like them? Have you been stopped? Do you think they're legal?

The cops say that the check points work, and I'm sure they do. There is pressure by MADD to change our law. Should we?

I don't think so. My argument would be that random searches of peoples homes would reduce crime, too. But, I don't think we should do that either.

excon

My state does allow them and I have been stopped. I was on my way home from work 4th of July weekend. It only took about five minutes. They asked where I was going where I had been and for linsence,proof of insurance.

Since they block off the road and make everyone go through I am pretty sure they are legal. I have no problem with them as I never drink and drive and am insured.
The night I went through there were sevarel people who were sent to an enclosed area where the police were either ticketing them or arresting.I sure most were because of no insurance or no valid license.

Stopping people on the road which are public is different than going into private homes.Which is why a warrant is nessicary.

My state [ky] it is legal.

Are speed traps legal?
Talk about invasion of privacy.

If the cops are going to have sobriety check points and the lawyers okay it, what is the next step?

Texting? Or are you eating and driving? Or non blue tooth cell phone use? [law in some states ]

My argument would be that random searches of peoples homes would reduce crime, too. But, I don't think we should do that either.

While this is a good point, I think that having checkpoints of people's cars is a fabulous idea. Having random searches of everyone's home would likely reudce crime, but why waste time on searching homes which aren't presently causing danger to others?

When people are driving intoxicated, it can be a HUGE danger to others, obviously, no matter how much they have had to drink. By having these checkpoints it brings MANY dangerous people off the road and saves many innocent people's lives. In addition, these checkpoints may also prevent people from getting on the road in the first place, being a danger there.

Homes being searched would reduce a lot of crime, however there is no point wasting time doing so while there are dangerous people on the roads in the midst of causing problems. These checkpoints will save many peoples lives.

What I hate worse is now they make up reasons to stop you and then harass you and write up false citations. But they need the money so we are suppose to accept that they being the authority figures and you can't fight the law you just take it.

I don't care if they want to do checkpoints sometimes they actually do find something worthwhile. I have more of a problem with these organizations that sit around with nothing better to do than think of things to make into laws when I think we are doing fairly well with the laws we have. If they are so concerned with changing something why don't they start programs that reach out to young adults and teenagers in a way that would somehow keep them from getting into trouble.

I've never been stopped for one, but I'm pretty sure VA does them. I don't tend to go out on the nights when they would be set up, so I miss them.

I have a hard time with the checkpoints - on the one hand, drinking and driving is illegal, and these checkpoints no doubt get drunks off the road. On the other hand, it's a trap. I don't like traps.

On a similar note, while sitting in traffic to and from work, I regularly see state police parked on the side of the road checking for valid emissions and inspection stickers. They also park at the end of the HOV ramps to stop the cheaters and ticket them. The most frustrating thing about it is the backup it causes from all the rubbernecking...

I don't drink and drive. I don't have a reason to feel uncomfortable but something tells me this isn't right. I know if I were pulled over I would feel as if I were a suspect till I was let go and not charged with anything. That is so weird, even though I didn't do a damn thing, I would feel as if I did in a strange sort of way...

ON THE OTHER HAND, I would be willing to feel uncomfortable if they could catch a few people that could have otherwise killed someone or injured someone... To me its worth it...
Now my house is another story... I would not want them to do this to all homes, no farkin way. That is way too personal. I say we rely on peoples "heads up calls to the station" start there then see what happens.

Hello again:

Seems as though we're split.

In my view, they're NOT legal. The Fourth Amendment is clear on the subject. In fact, from a legal perspective, your car is just like your house. Your house can't be searched without probable cause, any more than your car can be stopped without probable cause either. The cops have to have probable cause to stop you at any OTHER time! I don't know why the Constitution is void on the days the cops decide to set up a checkpoint.

I can tell you WHY it's not legal here. That's because our chief justice is a libertarian by the name of Sanders. He's the guy who yelled at Mucasey during his recent speech, that he was a TYRANT. Thank God for HIM.

excon

I'm no lawyer, but don't the police have to establish probable cause before checking?

Probable Cause to Stop, Detain and Arrest (http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/probable_cause.html)


I mean, is there a difference between where the sobriety check point is? Is a checkpoint within a quarter of a mile of where all the bars are at in town more legitimate, than a check point on an interstate miles from any liquor store or bar?








g&p

Nope they do not have to have probable cause any more and
Then if you ask them what the probable cause is they make something up.
The way the patriot act is written they don't have to have probable cause. You would think you could fight that once you get to court but they say that the authorities word sticks and yours accounts for nothing. I have seen old men thrown against fences, children abused and mothers threatened with arrest simply because they asked 'why are you after my son?'
I heard they are going to start stopping a lot more people for no good reason soon. I believe it because I have already seen and heard of it happening quite a few times.

Where I live they do this all the time, epecially on Fridays. I don't have a problem with this because drunk drivers are always causing accidents and they never get die but the people they hit do. I still don't understand why people drink and drive.

Hello again:

Seems as though we're split.

In my view, they're NOT legal. The Fourth Amendment is clear on the subject. In fact, from a legal perspective, your car is just like your house. Your house can't be searched without probable cause, any more than your car can be stopped without probable cause either. The cops have to have probable cause to stop you at any OTHER time!! I don't know why the Constitution is void on the days the cops decide to set up a checkpoint.

I can tell you WHY it's not legal here. That's because our chief justice is a libertarian by the name of Sanders. He's the guy who yelled at Mucasey during his recent speech, that he was a TYRANT. Thank God for HIM.

excon

The police have a broad definition of 'probable cause'. While in South Dakota about two years ago, we got stopped leaving a casino. Hubby hadn't had a drop to drink (and I'm not just saying that, it's true), he had not run a stop sign, had not run a stop light, and we hadn't been pulled out of the parking lot long enough to speed or swerve. Yet we were pulled over and he was asked to take a breathlyzer. The probable cause? I don't know - probably that it was 3am and a car pulled out of a casino. Someone probably was drinking. There's your cause. The thing about it is you will be hard pressed to find large-scale support to get rid of these checkpoints, given that if the officers spout off the number of drunk drivers they've caught, people will say it's OK. Then the people from MADD tell their horror stories... who is going to condone drunk driving a dead teenagers by getting rid of a checkpoint?

Hello again, jillian:

I agree that nobody is reaching out to STOP these intrusions. That's why I equated it with randomly searching houses. Certainly, THAT has to reduce crime too in the same way these stops do.

What if they did do that, and it resulted in the accidental capture of a wanted sex offender? Would THAT be the impetus to start doing that?

excon

Well,driving a car is a privilege,not a right.

Owning a home is also a privilege,but you can't drive over someone with your house.(unless your Dorothy from the wizard of oz)

Last time I swerved while moving the house,it fell over.

Sobriety check points are necessary and helpful,and generate a great deal of revenue for the police/local government.

How about the presumption of innocence?


Don't sobriety check point automatically assume some may not be sober, but those that are sober have to prove their sobriety?






g&p

Hello again, jillian:

I agree that nobody is reaching out to STOP these intrusions. That's why I equated it with randomly searching houses. Certainly, THAT has to reduce crime too in the same way these stops do.

What if they did do that, and it resulted in the accidental capture of a wanted sex offender? Would THAT be the impetus to start doing that?

excon

Oh I understand the comparison, and I see it your way. It is an intrusion. It's similar to the sex offender list; if one has served their time, why are they still paying for their crime? All their neighbors know, the entire community knows, isn't that an intrusion of sorts? My only point is when you start throwing around words like "safety" "protection" and "children", you can get people to agree to darn near anything. :)

Good for your state for not allowing them!

How about the presumption of innocence?


Don't sobriety check point automatically assume some may not be sober, but those that are sober have to prove their sobriety?

g&p

The same could be said for any drunk driving stop, really. Let's say you are driving a drunk friend home and you roll through a stop sign and get pulled over. The cop smells alcohol in the car (because of your friend), but YOU get asked to take a sobriety test. You are assumed drunk, but must prove your sobriety.

Well ;if you are one of these originalists then you would think that clearly they were unconstitutional . But ;since you clearly think that the Constitution is living and breathing ;then you surely think that in the penumbras formed by eminations of the words "probable cause", that the constituionality of sobriety checks next to roads where a bar is packed exist in the Constitution.

Of course they are unconstitutional .

There was a time when our police and other government agencies were not allowed to "spy" on citizens.

The very fact that the police "lie in wait" (and hide) expecting us to break the law, such as speeding, indeed is spying and an assumption that we WILL break the law. If you are driving within the law, they are watching (spying), assuming that "you" will break the law.

Overriding, primary reason is monetary. I have a friend with the Pennsylvania State Police, he gets pressure if he DOES NOT write a "suggested" number of speeding tickets each month. For example, tonight the 29th of November I left to pick up my son and his family at O'hare International Airport. The drive is about 45 minutes, I counted; 9 cars pulled over by the Illinois State Police within the first 10 miles I traveled. Illinois is in a dire financial situation... income should not be a valid reason however that will never be given as one of the reasons.

I am not however against the sobriety check points, there are crosses all over the place here where innocent people were killed by drunk drivers.

Police USE to escort you home if you were drunk.
Now they even wait for you to even walk outside the door and get you for walking drunk. The drunk is one of their favorite prey for giving a ticket to.
I knew a guy that lived upstairs of the bar. All he had to do was walk out one door and in the next door. They got him for walking drunk from one door to the other. Then they took him to the jail to 'sleep it off'. They let him go while he was still legally drunk and picked him up again while he was walking home from the jail. So then he had two fines. Yes they knew he lived upstairs of the bar.
Oh and in my state legally drunk is around one and a half beers.

My argument would be that random searches of peoples homes would reduce crime, too. But, I don't think we should do that either.

excon

Homes are private property, roads are public property. So there is a difference.

It is allowed in my state (TN) and I have been stopped, I drink, but at home PERIOD.

Working off and on in the ER (when L&D is slow) I see the effects of drinking and driving quite frequently. If it cuts down on the deaths of innocent people, (you do know that it is usually the person(s) in the other car who have not been drinking are the ones injured/dead rather than the drunk, don't you?), then I am all for it.

Yeah in my county bars are going out of business like crazy.
You can drive down a long street with 5 bars and three have For Sale signs in them for the third time in two years. All because people are drinking at home more so they don't get fines.

Homes are private property, roads are public property. So there is a difference.Hello J:

I'd have no problem with the cop searching the road then. But, MY CAR is mine, just like my home is.

And, I might as well attack the other argument IN SUPPORT OF ILLEGAL SEARCHES!! Some of you have said that driving is a privilege, I suppose meaning that in order to drive, you give up your Constitutional rights. What?? I'm sorry fellow drivers - you do NOT!

excon

PS> (edited) My support for the Constitution does NOT mean that I support drunk drivers any more than I support murderers. There's no question in my mind that our streets would be safer if we allowed the cops to search our cars any time the mood strikes them... That's called a POLICE STATE, and I'm not for it.

Now, where I live, Ex, the cop does not have the right to search the vehicle without probable cause. However, we do get stopped and asked for license and registration. If the copper smells alcohol, then he has probable cause. The driver is then asked to pull over and he/she is questioned and asked if a search would be allowed.

You see, they don't search for no reason. We get in line, pull up, hand over license, registration and proof of insurance. If the license is suspended/expired, there are consequences... if there is no proof of insurance, there are consequences... if one is drunk/stoned, there are consequences.

Where I live a sobriety checkpoint does not allow for a search unless there is probable cause.

Where I live a sobriety checkpoint does not allow for a search unless there is probable cause.Hello again, J:

Actually, the stop itself, IS the search. And, it's illegal because there was no probable cause to stop you in the first place.

excon

Hello again, J:

Actually, the stop itself, IS the search. And, it's illegal because there was no probable cause to stop you in the first place.

excon

Good point Ex. However, wouldn't the search be looking through the car, trunk, etc without you being in the car?

The cops haul in as many people with suspended licences and no insurance as they do drunk people.

Hello again, J:

Nope. The stop IS the search - plain and simple. According the law, he MUST have probable cause to stop you. That IS established law throughout the country - period!

And, THAT is why I question why the law doesn't apply when the police chief gets a hair up his butt.

excon

They definitely need to go back and define probable cause because like in one of my posts I asked why police are now allowed to stop you for no reason and make up a reason no matter how faulty it is.
My boyfriend got stopped because he is black and has dreadlocks. They claimed it was because he had his high beams on. It was a dark road with no other traffic on it and the police pulled up behind him and stopped him after they turned off the side road. The second cop even knew it was an illegal stop. The cop even searched his car without asking and then impounded his car.
The attitude of his lawyer was 'So what. There is nothing you can do. Of course you can take it downtown and fight it but who do you think the other courts are going to side with you or the cop?'

I have been hearing many stories about how cops are stopping people for NO reason. It is going to be common for them to stop with no probable cause because we have been letting the legal system get away with too much and allowing them to pass new laws to infringe on our freedoms and nobody gets it.

Hello again, J:

Nope. The stop IS the search - plain and simple.

Ex, my dear, I'm not arguing with you hear, just learning... How is the stop the search? This is one of the areas of the law I am not really versed in.

Where I live we have roadblocks. We stop, get in line, and as we pull up we provide our info. Then we are either waived off or asked to pull over if we don't provide the info or if we smell funny.

How is the stop the search?Hello again, J:

Without getting into court decisions and stuff, you should know that in a free country (this one), you are allowed to go about your business WITHOUT interference from the police.

THAT is a given. It is just so. It IS written in stone into the Fourth Amendment. It's the FIRST fact to consider when having a discussion such as this.

Any powers given to the police must be consistent with that fact. Toward that end, our framers made certain that if the cops ARE going to interfere with you at all, and in any manner, they MUST have probable cause for doing so.

They may NOT interfere with you in order to LOOK for probable cause. They must have it to begin with.

Now, if one wanted to say that it's just another Constitutional right that we have to give up in order to be safe, I'd understand that argument. It's certainly the one used when we gave Bush the power to read our email and listen to our phone calls. But, at least we copped out that it WAS a Constitutional violation. Or at least, some of us have.

excon

They have stopped calling them 'sobriety' check points in Dixon Ill.Now they are called 'Safety' check points, nice wording.

They then take the information and do a scrutiny of the exterior of the vehicle.Lights,plates,etc..

If your clean,you leave,no harm,no foul.

My 'right' to drive safely on a public road,according to the laws applied by this state,and accepted by the people who drive as the privileged few,I for one,have no problem with this behavior,on the other hand,I have nothing to be worried about,I haven't broken any laws,and I am responsible to the point of having what the law requires of me to be allowed to drive on their roads.

They haven't done any safety checks on my house for the past 12 years or so,I do them,I am responsible to see that my home is safe from problems,has reliable brake pads,new tires,oil in the furnace room... OH yeah,no pedophiles in the closet.

I am telling you it is a part of their making laws to take away are freedoms. They saw they could make all these laws because people accepted them as 'for our own good/safety now they are overstepping and have no boundaries. They make the laws, they break the laws... they do whatever they want and it is going to get worse. No smoking in public places or even private bars, now they are trying to ban bar b quing in your own back yard, overweight people from eating in restaurants. So yeah illegal stop search and seizure fits right into that.

But it is still better than living in some communist/socialist/police state,we can at least FIGHT with our rights,not get shot for stating this exact argument on any public forum,much less whisper it in the non-smoking bars.

Hello KBC:

It's true, the glass is still half full... But, the Constitution promises us a FULL glass. And, I'm not going to stop until that promise is fulfilled.

Yes, I want it all - and I want it NOW!

excon

I have been subjected to these stops since 1982, what makes it so different from then until now?

I have been subjected to these stops since 1982, what makes it so different from then until now?

Only that it is getting worse and effecting more people.
People don't necessarily complain until they are the ones directly effected by it.
They are for the smoking ban because they do not smoke. Then the law is passed they can't eat in restaurants because they are six lbs overweight then they are effected,

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
And there was no one left to speak out for me.

These check points are one of the things people take as 'for our safety' so they get away with it.

Hello KBC:

It's true, the glass is still half full.... But, the Constitution promises us a FULL glass. And, I'm not gonna stop until that promise is fulfilled.

Yes, I want it all - and I want it NOW!

excon

:)Hey,I totally agree,I would like the system to play by their own rules too.Unfortunately,they have so many who can slick their way through the system.I see the authorities adjusting their tactics,slicking their way through the slicksters,and being questioned by the rest of us as to their behavior/actions.

A conformist ,A non conformist,who can say who is right.The law is blind(looking at the statue of justice)( OK rather it is blindfolded)

I don't agree with all the systems actions,but I will accept their shortcomings as long as I am not violated.As long as I do what they require,nothing more,nothing less,I seem to live a less chaotic lifestyle.Sound like I am a pacifist,maybe I am,I am also a conformist to a point,only till I am forced into non conformity.

That forcing into non conformity hasn't happened since I accepted that some things are not going to change no matter how much I don't like them.The masses have to make the system change,because 'WE' are supposed to be that systems representation.

More conforming,more the non conformer's gripe for their way.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.I wonder how this thought fits in to this topic?

Only that it is getting worse and effecting more people.

Back up for a moment if you will. In the past 25 or so years since I went through my first checkpoint there are more people on the road (effecting more people as you say) and the drunk driving rates are higher than they were 25 years ago.

So, basically your point is moot. It's not effecting more people since we have more people. How can it get worse if we have a higher census than we did that many years ago?

We have to keep up with the times. Census goes up, checkpoints go up. It's a system of checks and balances.

I have been subjected to these stops since 1982, what makes it so different from then until now?Hello again, J:

I don't know. Look, the cops will always try to step over the line. If they're not challenged when they do it, what they do becomes the norm.

Kind of like inserting the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's. It's unconstitutional. It should have been challenged then. It wasn't. Now it's the norm.

Or, it might have to do with you living in a red state. Civil rights seem to take a back seat in some of them.

Or, it might be that the issue WAS decided by the highest court in YOUR state and found to be legal. That argument, of course, doesn't move me. LOTS of state courts say their rules are constitutional when they're clearly not.

excon

But what are you suppose to do? Not conform and run through these checkpoints?

I agree with Ex.

Why can't the cops do what they do with speeders.

One is close to where likely violations are to occur - say in the vivinity of a drinking establishment, videotaping [ I don't know if that is constitutional or legal ] and any suspicious driving that is probable cause for a stop, gets radioed to other cops. They pull over that particular driver over and leaves the rest of us alone?





G&P

Ex,

In this red state, motorcyclists are not required by law to wear helmets ;)



G&P

These check points are one of the things people take as 'for our safety' so they get away with it.

With this statement I invite you to work in the ER with me one holiday weekend, or a full moon, etc. I invite anyone to stand next to me while I bag and/or shock a 4 year old only to tell their parents that we did all we could but the injuries sustained were so much that we extended all of our life sustaining abilities to save their child's life, but the injuries were so extensive that there was nothing left to save... would you like to donate your child's organs, while the drunk in the other room is asking why they are in the hospital... what happened, etc.

You see, you all look at it from the legal point of view, I did once too, but now I see it from the medical point of view. Where the drunk does not even get a bruise from an accident, yet a young child is dead.

In this red state, motorcyclists are not required by law to wear helmets ;)
Hello in:

In my blue state, they are. Go figure.

excon

With this statement I invite you to work in the ER with me one holiday weekend, or a full moon, etc. I invite anyone to stand next to me while I bag and/or shock a 4 year old only to tell their parents that we did all we could but the injuries sustained were so much that we extended all of our life sustaining abilities to save their child's life, but the injuries were so extensive that there was nothing left to save....would you like to donate your child's organs, while the drunk in the other room is asking why they are in the hospital....what happened, etc.

You see, you all look at it from the legal point of view, I did once too, but now I see it from the medical point of view. Where the drunk does not even get a bruise from an accident, yet a young child is dead.

Yeah I do understand that and I don't have much problem with checkpoints it is more the way they go about things that bothers me. Like if you ARE driving safely down the street and they have no probable cause to stop you why do they. I can see the checkpoints but I just think there has to be a better way to go about it. Like while they have a bunch of police at one check point who's to say that they are missing the drunk that drove home in the opposite direction and did get into an accident.
I went to the bar with my boyfriend a few months ago and the bar announced exactly where the checkpoint was. We went through it no problem. The crazy thing was that there was not only the Coraopolis police there but also the Crescent, Glen Willard, Moon and Sto Rox police. At least 12 policemen for one checkpoint?

The checkpoints where I live are more like roadblocks. The road is blocked and each car is stopped, asked for license, registration and insurance.

It's not like you are just driving down the road and you are stopped. Also, these checkpoints are published well in advance as to when they will occur and where.

So, if you are driving "safely down the street" they don't just stop you, you know way ahead of time when and where this will happen.

If you don't want to be searched at a checkpoint,stop operating your vehicle and wait till the police leave the site.

This advice was given to me in New Orleans many years ago.

If your worried you might be not able to comply with the cops demands(info,insurance,being drunk... ) stop doing the one thing they can nail you on,pull over and wait.

And by the way,if you CAN'T pull off somewhere,then you can get out of the tickets anyway,THAT is a violation of your rights.At least here in Illinois.

I don't know about them being published here cause I don't read much of anything in papers. Ours are roadblocks and each stopped and asked for license, registration and insurance too.

If you don't want to be searched at a checkpoint,stop operating your vehicle and wait till the police leave the site.

Or, better yet, find an alternative route.

Here as I said in a previous reply you can not get out of a ticket no matter how unjust it was.
Years ago when I lived in Texas I was riding on a motorcycle with my now x husband. I said we turned down the wrong road so he went to turn back. There was a checkpoint miles down that road.
They thought he turned around because of the road block and came after him. Took him in for an old warrant and left me stranded miles from anything and I was 7 months pregnant.

Some of us are just more tolerant and some of us are more sensitive to laws concerning our RIGHTS.

I understand that I am a little more tolerant... I have been reading all of your posts, but what makes more sense? Catching drunk drivers or not? I am not dumb to the fact that it is a little weird, but... I would rather that than have people killed because someone doesn't want to be responsible.
Ex, why is it that we have to make issues of things... I mean more of an issue than it already is? Is that how we keep our rights? Is it how we make a stink? Is it how we start frivilous law suits? Is it how we start commotion so we can get our way and don't need to follow the rules?
Nohelp, I can't see where you are coming from, I don't have the or live in the same circumstances as you. I don't see the unfairness that you always seem to be able to point out.
Also... J, I noticed you brought in the medical profession... I had an incident, I was having a baby and it was going all natural... they insisted on an IV and I had to insist a million times that I wanted to refuse it. They were very upset with me. BUT, it is my right so I took advantage of it, and I knew all the reasons they wanted to give me one, for my safety;) I understand where you are coming from.

In the box, we are required to wear helmets here, on bikes and motorcycles;)

Ex,

In this red state, motorcyclists are not required by law to wear helmets ;)


G&P

In this blue state you no longer are required by law to wear a helmet and
I found out when Roethlisberger wrecked his motorcycle you are not required to wear shoes either. But when I get stopped driving my truck I better have my shoes on. Go Figure!

Before I go to bed after being awake 20+ hours, almost as bad as drunk driving, I used to be totally against these checkpoints until I had to stand next to the doctor as he told the parents of a 4 year old that he had exhausted all of his expertise on saving the life of the child while the drunk in the other room didn't even have a scratch on him (there are medical reasons as to why this happens). I now have a slightly, notice I said slightly, different viewpoint as to why the cops do this.

It may be an infringement on our rights, but what about the rights of the innocent person who was killed or permanently impaired? Did they ASK for a head on collision after coming home from a movie?


.I had an incident, I was having a baby and it was going all natural.....they insisted on an IV and I had to insist a million times that i wanted to refuse it. They were very upset with me. BUT, it is my right so I took advantage of it, and I knew all the reasons why they wanted to give me one, for my safety;) I understand where you are coming from.

That's another story in an of itself. LOL

Before I go to bed after being awake 20+ hours, almost as bad as drunk driving, I used to be totally against these checkpoints until I had to stand next to the doctor as he told the parents of a 4 year old that he had exhausted all of his expertise on saving the life of the child while the drunk in the other room didn't even have a scratch on him (there are medical reasons as to why this happens). I now have a slightly, notice I said slightly, different viewpoint as to why the cops do this.

it may be an infringement on our rights, but what about the rights of the innocent person who was killed or permanently impaired? Did they ASK for a head on collision after coming home from a movie?



That's another story in an of itself. LOL
I know... if I were to do it again (which I have two more times) I would opt for the IV... ;)

Years ago when I lived in Texas I was riding on a motorcycle with my now x husband. I said we turned down the wrong road so he went to turn back. There was a checkpoint miles down that road.
They thought he turned around because of the road block and came after him. Took him in for an old warrant and left me stranded miles from anything and I was 7 months pregnant.

He didn't stop operating the motor vehicle,he was suspected of running,this is probable cause.

Ex, why is it that we have to make issues of things...I mean more of an issue than it already is? Is that how we keep our rights? Is it how we make a stink? Is it how we start frivilous law suits? Is it how we start commotion so we can get our way and dont need to follow the rules? Hello starty:

I don't know who WE is. All I know is who I am, and I'm not so sure about that sometimes. But, I don't speak for any constituency except for the common citizen. I don't know if the issues I raise have already been made issues. If so, I don't think that means I should keep quiet about them.

It IS how we keep our rights. Read what N0help wrote above.

You may call what I do here making a stink. Others might not characterize it as such.

I don't know why you would consider ANY lawsuit aimed at forcing the cops to obey the Constitution to be frivolous. Personally, I don't think the Constitution is frivolous. I don't think the Constitution is a "technicality". I also don't know what you mean by commotion, or how that relates to not following the rules.

Frankly, I think most of your statement relates your personal political bias. It sounds like Rush Limprod.

Well, let me sound like CONSTITUTIONAL talk radio for a minute. You DO know that this country of ours was founded on dissent. You HAVE heard of the tea party they had in Boston. You DO KNOW that dissent is the HIGHEST form of patriotism, don't you?

No, you don't know that. You think that going along is patriotic; that not offending our president is patriotic; that not making a commotion is patriotic. You think that standing up for YOUR right to drive along our roadways UNFETTERED by the police is somehow a frivolous endeavor. You believe that people who do this, do it so they can break the rules.

Let me say, unequivocally, that you are WRONG.

excon

Hello starty:

I dunno who WE is. All I know is who I am, and I'm not so sure about that sometimes. But, I don't speak for any constituency except for the common citizen. I don't know if the issues I raise have already been made issues. If so, I don't think that means I should keep quiet about them.

It IS how we keep our rights. Read what N0help wrote above.

You may call what I do here making a stink. Others might not characterize it as such.

I dunno why you would consider ANY lawsuit aimed at forcing the cops to obey the Constitution to be frivolous. Personally, I don't think the Constitution is frivolous. I don't think the Constitution is a "technicality". I also don't know what you mean by commotion, or how that relates to not following the rules.

Frankly, I think most of your statement relates your personal political bias and it sounds like Rush Limprod.

Well, let me sound like CONSTITUTIONAL talk radio for a minute. You DO know that this country of ours was founded on dissent. You HAVE heard of the tea party they had in Boston. You DO KNOW that dissent is the HIGHEST form of patriotism, don't you?

No, you don't know that. You think that going along is patriotic; that not offending our president is patriotic; that not making a commotion is patriotic. You think that standing up for YOUR right to drive along our roadways UNFETTERED by the police is somehow a frivolous endeavor, and that people do this, do it so they can break the rules.

Let me say, unequivocally, that you are WRONG.

excon

Hold on Ex, I agree that we have to bring up issues to make sure the government and the cops are doing the right thing. I DO get that... I REALIZE the importance of it. But when they want to make sure people aren't getting killed by stopping your car for a few minutes? I just don't see anything wrong with it, especially if you are being a law abiding citizen! If you have something to worry about, then I see why one would make a "stink"
Otherwise, for once we should let them do their jobs...

Nohelp made a great point I think it was post 35 or 36...
If that is what you were talking about, then all right, lets get to the point. We can stand up and fight for what is right for EVERYONE. I want to stand up for you and for my kids, and for my friends and for the fellow people that live near and far from me. But this certain issue makes me feel as if I don't really need to make a big deal because I don't disagree with the law. Sorry if my opinion differs from yours.

Next, with my personal bias... alright I can take that. Fine with me. (funny I tend to want my cake and eat it too and sometimes I just can't make up my mind, so I am not sure where you put me.)
Ex, you have your own opinion and I don't say you are wrong to have it. Actually, you have changed the way I look at SOME things... and I know you bring up issues so us "common women" might get a look and start thinking a little deeper. I am telling you I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.


I suppose the lawsuit thing, I wasn't very clear... I was meaning the more issues we make the more people think they can sue people for serving them hot coffee. That is where I was going with that whole thing.

If I am wrong... then you tell me what we should do about those people who seem to think we shouldn't have rules and what innocent people should do to protect themselves from drunk drivers. Should we let the drunks take over the road because it is there right? Should the innocent stay off the roads at times where you are most likely to see a drunk driver or be smooshed by one?
I don't think it is wrong for a few "proud" people to feel uncomfortable for our safety. I don't mind road safety at least because like I said before, I would draw the line at my home... Then they would have to drag me kicking and screaming;)
So ex, I understand the issue, I just don't agree that it really is one.

Should we let the drunks take over the road because it is there right? Hello again, Starty:

What I said above bears repeating here. My support for the Constitution should NOT be confused with support for lawbreakers. My posts are NOT aimed at hamstringing the police any more than the Constitution already does.

Certainly, the cops can't be TOO hamstrung or we wouldn't have achieved the record as the worlds largest jailer.

excon

It seems everyone forgets that the cops are endangering their lives with these stops. I am sure they have many a story to tell where they almost got run over by a drunk in his big car. They want to take the drunks and drug impaired people off the roads over the holidays and let the law abiding families drive to and from their festivities safely.

Also, correct me if I am wrong but most road blocks take place at night - usually after midnight. Most drunks and drug impared people are driving cars at that hour. Yes, the cops have uncovered a lot of people on warrants, recovered a lot of illegal drugs, illegal weapons. Drug couriers love holidays to transport drugs due to the extra traffic.

Driving a car is a privilege. Having a driver's license is a privilege. The privilege should not be abused by the intoxicated or drug impaired person. If you run the risk of being stopped if you are drinking then stay home or have someone else drive.

I do not believe in police stops without probable cause or at least reasonalbe belief.

While I am sure it stops a few and others, I believe it is against the US Constitution of the search and sezuire law. But then the courts hae allowed it because of hard lobby of the courts and polictical fall out.

Police can still stop suspected drunk drivers, weaving, crossing line and other reasons.

I do not believe in police stops without probable cause or at least reasonalbe belief.

While I am sure it stops a few and others, I beleive it is against the US Constitution of the search and sezuire law. But then the courts hae allowed it because of hard lobby of the courts and polictical fall out.

Police can still stop suspected drunk drivers, weaving, crossing line and other reasons.

I agree instead of them all being concentrated in one area that the drunks already very likely heard about and went the long way home they should be out patrolling various streets
Looking for probable cause such as weaving.
Like I said in my reply earlier there were at least 12 cops from at least 5 jurisdictions at one check point that I went through this summer... what is the purpose in that??

To transport the offender to the proper jurisdiction,if the person has warrants in another area?

To not over burden the one locations whole force?

Routine patrols where police observe erratic drivers are more effective at finding dangerous drunken drivers than checkpoints. Drivers using cell phones can report erratic driving and assist the police in this effort.

Coming into this late - NYS DOES allow them. I worked as a cocktail waitress, sometimes drove home in costume, always in the early hours of the morning, had a hot car, not unusual to get stopped. I wasn't drinking so it didn't matter much to me, other than I didn't always feel like spending 5 minutes on the side of the road explaining myself. I never got hassled or treated unfairly and, yes, there were times I was asked to get out so they could look inside the car.

I'll take things a step farther - and NY is starting to do this. If you are in an accident and you have been drinking beyond the legal limit your insurance disallows. Not fair to the people you've hit but that's what they are doing. Same if you are in a car with a driver who is above the limit and you are injured - no coverage.

My Dad was killed by a drunk driver so I find it hard to be open minded on this subject, constitutional rights or not. My Dad lost his rights because some guy with a past record and a good Attorney was able to exercise his.

Routine patrols where police observe erratic drivers are more effective at finding dangerous drunken drivers than checkpoints. Drivers using cell phones can report erratic driving and assist the police in this effort.

Exactly what I mean.
Where I live the only people that go to the coraopolis bars are people from cory or moon so there are no other jurisdictions that others come from. People drink in their own town or South Side.
And the main bar they go to is the Jailhouse saloon right next to the magistrates. Owned by constables and they catch the ones with warrants and the ones doing drug deals right there.
Yet they keep going there.

Exactly what I mean.
Where I live the only people that go to the coraopolis bars are people from cory or moon so there are no other jurisdictions that others come from. People drink in their own town or South Side.
and the main bar they go to is the Jailhouse saloon right next to the magistrates. Owned by constables and they catch the ones with warrants and the ones doing drug deals right there.
Yet they keep going there.

It's surprising they don't park right at the bottom of the hill up to mooncrest,come to think about it,I have seen them do that.

LOL They have the checkpoint at the bottom of Thorn Run.
One thing about mooncrest is there is only one road in and out so
When they block the road to look for somebody they have to leave their car and go through the woods to get away.
The Chez at the bottom of the hill got shut down cause of too many killings.

Thankfully I didn't drink when I lived there,I did too many drugs to drink... LOL

I guess they never opened that drive from the apartments into the 'crest then,huh?

Nope. Just the road from the cemetery.
Too many crack heads here now.

I lived there when the bridge was blasted and the new bridge installed to Neville island,guess how long ago that was...

My old bf's mom use to tell me about the bridges all the time

Bridges and Tunnels of Allegheny County and Pittsburgh, PA - Coraopolis Bridge 1927-1994 (Sixth St Bridge 1892-1927) (http://pghbridges.com/articles/haer/coraopolis_PA217/coraopolis_HAER_PA217.htm)

Bridges and Tunnels of Allegheny County and Pittsburgh, PA - I-79 Neville Island Bridge (http://pghbridges.com/ambridge/0573-4485/i79nevillemnch.htm)

Coraopolis & Neville Island Bridge Company - 1890's (http://www.scripophily.net/cornevisbrid.html)

My old bf's mom use to tell me about the bridges all the time

Bridges and Tunnels of Allegheny County and Pittsburgh, PA - Coraopolis Bridge 1927-1994 (Sixth St Bridge 1892-1927) (http://pghbridges.com/articles/haer/coraopolis_PA217/coraopolis_HAER_PA217.htm)

Bridges and Tunnels of Allegheny County and Pittsburgh, PA - I-79 Neville Island Bridge (http://pghbridges.com/ambridge/0573-4485/i79nevillemnch.htm)

Coraopolis & Neville Island Bridge Company - 1890's (http://www.scripophily.net/cornevisbrid.html)

Thanks for those links,they brought back a lot of memories.

Egad,I hope there aren't any checkpoints out tonight,I could be stopped for swerving(powerful memories for sure.) :rolleyes:

No problemo KBC

Getting back to the check points.
Here is another thing to think about.

While checkpoints for drunk drivers are set up late at night while they know the highest percentage of drunk drivers will be out
What about the fact that
A higher percentage of accidents are caused by tired drivers that fall asleep at the wheel? They can be out any hour of the day or night.