You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sobriety Checkpoints....
- Thread starter JimDiver
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If you want to discourage drunk driving - start imposing real penalties on people that do and get caught with the standard PC, stop and test - and leave everyone else alone.
Exactly.
And no, these checkpoints do not make us Nazi Germany. Checking for DUI is fine, searching without cause isn't.
The author does not know what circumstance surrounded the searches he witnessed. There may have been probable cause. But we only have speculation.
I fail to see how stopping a car and asking the driver questions about whether he's breaking the law constitutes a search. There's no difference between a cop stopping you and a traffic light - they are parts of the agreed upon rules of using public funded roads.
Or are you guys taking the point of view that everytime you come into personal contact with an LEO you are being "searched"?
I fail to see how stopping a car and asking the driver questions about whether he's breaking the law constitutes a search. There's no difference between a cop stopping you and a traffic light - they are parts of the agreed upon rules of using public funded roads.
Or are you guys taking the point of view that everytime you come into personal contact with an LEO you are being "searched"?
Driving is most definitely a privledge. If it is a right, how come you can have your license taken away? We can deny licenses to those that are blind, deaf, those who continue to break the rules. I do not expect the gov't to drop billions into the roads system, and then tell us to go at it, there will be no rules. The fourth amendment argument would probably be better suited for being searched by the government when boarding a privately-owned aircraft.
As for stiffer penalties, absolutely. First offense, loss of license for 6 months. Second offense, lose license for life. Get caught driving after you lose your license to drunk driving? We'll throw some prison sentence in there too.
As for stiffer penalties, absolutely. First offense, loss of license for 6 months. Second offense, lose license for life. Get caught driving after you lose your license to drunk driving? We'll throw some prison sentence in there too.
Driving impaired.
Impaired - Under the influence by alcoholic beverage.
#1 - His or her reason or mental ability has been effected.
#2 - his or her judgment is impaired
#3 - his or her emotions are visibly excited.
#4 - he or she has, to any extent lost control of bodily actions or functions.
Per Se - the statutory alternative of .08 alcohol concentration is sometimes referred to as a per se violation. the statute defines per se as an alcohol concentration expressed in terms of the numbers of grams of alcohol contained in a given volume of blood breath or urine. this definition is complete in itself and does not require the application of any formula to produce a percentage.
12-34hom.
Impaired - Under the influence by alcoholic beverage.
#1 - His or her reason or mental ability has been effected.
#2 - his or her judgment is impaired
#3 - his or her emotions are visibly excited.
#4 - he or she has, to any extent lost control of bodily actions or functions.
Per Se - the statutory alternative of .08 alcohol concentration is sometimes referred to as a per se violation. the statute defines per se as an alcohol concentration expressed in terms of the numbers of grams of alcohol contained in a given volume of blood breath or urine. this definition is complete in itself and does not require the application of any formula to produce a percentage.
12-34hom.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Well, the Fourth states: 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.
That's pretty direct...where's the probable cause, or oath or affirmation in a random check?
Just axin'
Read it again......especially the part with the comma, followed by "and". Nowhere does it say that the police need a warrant to conduct and arrest or seizure. It merely says that warrants will only issue with probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. The part before that says only reasonable searches are constitutional. Again. It does not say that all searches that are not suppored by a search warrant are unconstitutional. Only the "unreasonable ones", and just because you lack a warrant does not make a search unreasonable.
By your reasoning, police would need a warrant to arrest someone who they witnessed blow your head off with a pistol during a liquor store robbery. Do you really think that's what the 4th amendment requires? "You're free to go sir, but make sure you give us your right name while we go to the station, type up the warrant and find a judge to review and sign it if he determines we have probable cause to arrest you. Don't leave the country or anything in the meantime...We'll get back to you in a couple hours."
Also, as I stated before, the checks when properly executed are not "random". Even if you have a chute where 8 cars can fit and the next 3 are stopped when there are room for 3 more, or if you wait for the chute to clear totally and then get the next 8. Random stops are unconstitutional, but not based on the fact that the police lack probable cause.
Shadow its very easy to understand if you can read.. i am not vexed by a sobriety check, but i do have an issue with them asking to search a vehicle if there isn't a valid reason. Yes they are a hassle, yes i do not like being late for work, no i don't think a 12 noon sobriety check useful. Which makes me believe they are using the sobriety check, at a time when not alot drinking is going on, to randomly search a vehicle with no cause whatsoever. Are you telling me house mom was delivering drugs or other illegal items in her middle-class station wagon, with her children in the car. And on the note of the children. Do you think its ok to take a mom out of line to search her car in the hot sun while her children are inside the car. Obviously they are not going to allow you to run the car so they can have air. It would be to easy for you to get in and run. Its misuse of ower. no question. If it had been a holiday or at a more reasonable time, Like when it's more likely to catch someone who has actualy been drinking, I may not feel that way. And how does searching a vehicle hel catch someone who is maybe drunk or stoned or what not.
Well, no sane or sober person can argue against keeping drunks off the road. However, the drunk driving roadblocks are an inefficient use of resources and an intrusion. In my opinion, they set up a situation in which one has to prove to the police they are not committing a crime. The cops should be cruising looking for signs of impaired driving. In Pennsylvania there are standards on when, where and how they can set up the drunk roadblocks. They have begun to sidestep the law and they now set up "Courtesy Safety Stops". I encountered one of these things. There was six State Cops and three cop cars. Ostensibly they were to tell one about wearing seat belts (in PA, not wearing seat belts is not a cause for a primary stop). I always drive with a seatbelt but nonetheless I had the cop stick his head in and ask where I was going, where was I coming from...yadda, yadda.
This encounter was just outside my little tiny town at about 11:00 am on a Saturday. I'm hardly a cop hater, but I believe the PA State Police or any police force should certainly use their resources in a more efficient manner. And yes, while I was not rude, I deeply resented it.
This encounter was just outside my little tiny town at about 11:00 am on a Saturday. I'm hardly a cop hater, but I believe the PA State Police or any police force should certainly use their resources in a more efficient manner. And yes, while I was not rude, I deeply resented it.
I was going to reply before, actually hit the reply button, but didn't. Had to think on this for a while.
The only thing that came to mind was the quote, paraphrased, "those that want security and will give up freedom for it deserves neither".
I put my life on the line each second that I live. My life can be taken from me at any moment, any time, any second. To give up or give in to these types of tactics only removes more and more of my freedoms, my time.
As time has shown, behavior cannot be regulated. People, for whatever reason, will do as they see fit for themselves. We, no matter the laws, will never stop drunk driving, those who use tools to kill, or just the thoughts and actions that they may have. We could say that being proactive on these issues will help, but at what cost? Are the cost and the loss of freedom worth it in the long run?
Freedom, true freedom, is a very scary concept. You don't know what others will do with it, how they will respond to it, or if they will abuse it. While we all wish to feel secure and to be guaranteed a life, those are things that can never be obtained, no matter what law is pushed into being. True freedom is a blessing as well as a curse.
With all the aspects of life, and knowing that death will result in the end no matter what, I choose freedom. Freedom to live my life as I see fit, to be punished for crimes that affect the freedoms of others, and the only one that I feel that can judge me won't be seen until after my death.
Wayne
The only thing that came to mind was the quote, paraphrased, "those that want security and will give up freedom for it deserves neither".
I put my life on the line each second that I live. My life can be taken from me at any moment, any time, any second. To give up or give in to these types of tactics only removes more and more of my freedoms, my time.
As time has shown, behavior cannot be regulated. People, for whatever reason, will do as they see fit for themselves. We, no matter the laws, will never stop drunk driving, those who use tools to kill, or just the thoughts and actions that they may have. We could say that being proactive on these issues will help, but at what cost? Are the cost and the loss of freedom worth it in the long run?
Freedom, true freedom, is a very scary concept. You don't know what others will do with it, how they will respond to it, or if they will abuse it. While we all wish to feel secure and to be guaranteed a life, those are things that can never be obtained, no matter what law is pushed into being. True freedom is a blessing as well as a curse.
With all the aspects of life, and knowing that death will result in the end no matter what, I choose freedom. Freedom to live my life as I see fit, to be punished for crimes that affect the freedoms of others, and the only one that I feel that can judge me won't be seen until after my death.
Wayne
I'm torn badly on the issue.
On the one hand, I can tell you that they WILL reduce the number of fatalities related to DWI if it's implemented.
On the other hand, I can tell you that it is absolutely an intrusion into the rights of an individual to travel unhindered, and is an unreasonable detention of individuals who have the Constitutional expectation not to be detained or searched unreasonably.
I'm afraid I've just figured out which side of the fence I'm on, which means that I'm willing to let a few drunks get away... (shrug) ...and some innocent people are going to die (ouch), if my opinion matters on this issue.
The best solution, to me, is to make DWI a SERIOUS crime, from the get-go. A first offense means a year in jail, revocation of a DL for 3 years, and a breath-interlock device on the offender's ignition for 10 years. Sound serious? Well, when people are dying from DWI, and other people are having their rights trampled by governments trying to react to DWI, I'd have to say that DWI is a VERY serious act.
Here in TX, a first offense is an utter joke. You'll do no jail time other than when you were booked in. You'll get probation. You'll lose your license for no more than 6 months, but you can get an occupational license in the meantime to get to work, go to the store, etc. Talk about a slap on the wrist. I've run across guys in TX with 7 DWIs on their record. How are they still walking around on the outside, more less legally driving?!?
On the one hand, I can tell you that they WILL reduce the number of fatalities related to DWI if it's implemented.
On the other hand, I can tell you that it is absolutely an intrusion into the rights of an individual to travel unhindered, and is an unreasonable detention of individuals who have the Constitutional expectation not to be detained or searched unreasonably.
I'm afraid I've just figured out which side of the fence I'm on, which means that I'm willing to let a few drunks get away... (shrug) ...and some innocent people are going to die (ouch), if my opinion matters on this issue.
The best solution, to me, is to make DWI a SERIOUS crime, from the get-go. A first offense means a year in jail, revocation of a DL for 3 years, and a breath-interlock device on the offender's ignition for 10 years. Sound serious? Well, when people are dying from DWI, and other people are having their rights trampled by governments trying to react to DWI, I'd have to say that DWI is a VERY serious act.
Here in TX, a first offense is an utter joke. You'll do no jail time other than when you were booked in. You'll get probation. You'll lose your license for no more than 6 months, but you can get an occupational license in the meantime to get to work, go to the store, etc. Talk about a slap on the wrist. I've run across guys in TX with 7 DWIs on their record. How are they still walking around on the outside, more less legally driving?!?
i agree, make it more serious. I think longath has a good solution. But i think it should be ok to do it when it is realy warrated, When there is a major holiday and there is alot of drinking. But searching cars at random and knowng full well the driver is not intoxicated should be illegal and leo organizations should be held accountable for abusing a once useful tool originaly meant to save lives, not as a another convenient way to see what we are doing in our day to day lives.
Sobriety Checkpoints
1- True the drunks should be taken off the highways.
2- True the same old drunks are arrested time after time.
3- True MADD and teetotalers have made a lot of noise.
4- True the above have tried to make all drinkers look bad.
5- True there is not really room in prison for all the DUIs.
6- True they get five years and only serve 12-18 months.
7- True that more revenue is collected with .08 than .10 .
8- True a lot of cops drink when off duty.
9- True a good percent of the above drive in that condition.
10-True its nobodys business where I have been or am going as long as I am sober, obeying the law, not being beligerant or smart mouthed, and being curteous.
And last but not least, todays Cops have to put up with a lot more criminals, smart mouths, jackrabbits who run, and all the other undesirables you can imagine. Also some of which will kill them if given a chance. Try to cut the Cops a little slack when you can.
1- True the drunks should be taken off the highways.
2- True the same old drunks are arrested time after time.
3- True MADD and teetotalers have made a lot of noise.
4- True the above have tried to make all drinkers look bad.
5- True there is not really room in prison for all the DUIs.
6- True they get five years and only serve 12-18 months.
7- True that more revenue is collected with .08 than .10 .
8- True a lot of cops drink when off duty.
9- True a good percent of the above drive in that condition.
10-True its nobodys business where I have been or am going as long as I am sober, obeying the law, not being beligerant or smart mouthed, and being curteous.
And last but not least, todays Cops have to put up with a lot more criminals, smart mouths, jackrabbits who run, and all the other undesirables you can imagine. Also some of which will kill them if given a chance. Try to cut the Cops a little slack when you can.
And last but not least, todays Cops have to put up with a lot more criminals, smart mouths, jackrabbits who run, and all the other undesirables you can imagine. Also some of which will kill them if given a chance. Try to cut the Cops a little slack when you can.
We do cut them some slack, but remember, the applied and wanted to do the job.
The sobriety check points are just a lazy way to get around having to justify the stop, and eliminates the need for the arresting officer to demonstrate in the report (and court) that the driver's actions were indicative of driving impaired warranting the stop.
You can bypass all the police work by having a check point stopping everybody and having a driver submit to a FST and breath test if they exibit any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Easy, quick, efficient and damn near defense attorney proof since the reason for the stop will never be questioned.
Unfortunately you also bypass Constitutional protections by setting up these check points.
You can bypass all the police work by having a check point stopping everybody and having a driver submit to a FST and breath test if they exibit any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Easy, quick, efficient and damn near defense attorney proof since the reason for the stop will never be questioned.
Unfortunately you also bypass Constitutional protections by setting up these check points.
So what if they set it up that the only thing they could do, is the driver pulls up, blows the test, and only gives license and registration or can be searched if they blow over the legal limit?
Simple. I do not have to prove that I am sober. They have to prove that I am intoxicated. Also, your idea violates the 4th amemdment. It is still a search. Not to mention those tests are not reliable. If you just used Listerine or another mouth wash, they will test positive.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.