[Fr_Chuck]

DUI check points are legal in many states, they still do them every weekend here in Atlanta.

[oneguyinohio]

It may be a matter of different state laws. In Ohio, they do it frequently. For years, they (highway patrol) have had the right to pull a car over for a safety inspection to check for such things as working horns or emergency breaks... You get a sticker good for one year to show your car passed. I have only ever gotten one of those stickers in over twenty years and that was because I asked to have my car inspected. But, it is legal for them to do it here at any time.

[excon]

Hello again:

It ISN'T a matter of state law. It's Constitutional law which covers every state in the union. Below is the Fourth Amendment for your perusal:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What I love about our Constitution is its clarity.

Certainly one, you wouldn't argue that because Bush does what he does, it's legal simply because he does it. That's a Gonzales theory. It doesn't wash.

What these stops are, is a matter of state policy. When they're challenged in court, as they regularly are, the Supreme Court has in the past ruled that the Fourth Amendment matters. States know, of course, that as the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, the law does too. If it makes it this time, they're hoping that Scalito, Thomas and Roberts will give the cops what they want.

I think they will too.

None of that changes my belief that these stops are illegal, and I don't care how much anybody wants to change what our founding fathers wrote.

excon

[oneguyinohio]

Certainly one, you wouldn't argue that because Bush does what he does, it's legal simply because he does it. That's a Gonzales theory. It doesn't wash.

I sure would not argue about Bush doing things legally... I see your points related to the constitutionality of the state laws. Not trying to argue that either.

Only telling what happens regularly. The police seem to think they have the right to inspect vehicles for safety purposes because the law states that each car must pass those criteria. In the process they can say things like I thought I smelled alcohol or weed... then they feel cause for further investigation...

I agree that it seems pretty far from the ideas in the constitution, but there are so many loopholes... that it happens regularly... doesn't make it right, just not unusual.

[JudyKayTee]

I sure would not argue about Bush doing things legally... I see your points related to the constitutionality of the state laws. Not trying to argue that either.

Only telling what happens regularly. The police seem to think they have the right to inspect vehicles for safety purposes because the law states that each car must pass those criteria. In the process they can say things like I thought I smelled alcohol or weed... then they feel cause for further investigation...

I agree that it seems pretty far from the ideas in the constitution, but there are so many loopholes... that it happens regularly... doesn't make it right, just not unusual.

Nothing to do with this conversation but I have a problem with the entrapment laws -

I had 3 investigations, all involving what may or may not have been illegal stops, all involving alcohol. In the course of looking into things I discovered they all were coming from the same restaurant. So I went in and sat at the bar (which is interesting because I don't drink so I dragged my all-to-willing-to-work-with-me husband along to keep me company while I drank diet Pepsi). And, sure enough, the BARTENDER was calling the Police when intoxicated patrons left. Keep in mind the BARTENDER was the one "over serving" the customers.

The DWI arrests stuck, entrapment or no entrapment!

On one hand, intoxicated drivers were off the street and maybe one of them would have killed me; on the other, well, is it entrapment? I do a fair number of bar surveillances and have never done one since that time without keeping a close eye on the bartender for a number of reasons. I still have no idea what the involvement of the bartender was - or the why's?

As a side note - the bar got sued on the entrapment cause of action but went bankrupt long before anything was settled.

[oneguyinohio]

Don't think it would take patrons long to find another establishment if word ever got out that the bar tender was doing that!