[excon]

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

[mydogquestion]

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.

[inthebox]

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 ]

[VeNN11]

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.

[N0help4u]

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.

[jillianleab]

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...

[startover22]

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.

[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

[inthebox]

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

[N0help4u]

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.

[liz28]

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.

[jillianleab]

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?

[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

[KBC]

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.

[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

[jillianleab]

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!

[jillianleab]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[Stringer]

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.

[N0help4u]

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.