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 ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

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