Sobriety Checkpoints....

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAK:

Toll roads were always the method by which the States maintained the highways. It's the original "pay-as-you-go" system.
Forced insurance is nothing more than corporate-government socialism.
Yeah, I was surprised when I first began to read Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago. It's probably the best case that illustrates that while the State may impose traffic regulations, it can't impose much else upon citizens right to travel.

Consider this ruling from Ca: "The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.." Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).

See the Date? 1972! While most of the cases are from the early part of the century, there are many recent cases that continue to say the same thing! Licensing and vehicle registrations are for commercial purposes only and can not be applied to the common man who is about his ordinary purposes.

I see this reflected in the Texas Transportation Code; while doing a little research a ways back I couldn't find anything to indicate private vehicles are subject to the codified restrictions on public highways - they all seem directed at commercial vehicles (someone please cite it if they know where it can be found).

Here's the tibit that links all state vehicle codes directly to commercial purposes:

On August 20, 1926, the first version of the Uniform Vehicle Code (U.V.C.) was published by the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This was an attempt (by the D.O.T.) to set federal standards for the regulation of motor vehicles and drivers for interstate commerce. By examining the Statutes At Large, Volume 44, one finds the prior session (first) ran from December 7th, 1925 to July 3rd 1926, the last act of that session being approved July 13th. The next (second) session started December 6th 1926 and ran to March 4th 1927, with acts being enacted as early as December 8th. Since Congress was not in session to pass the U.V.C., and also, being that an examination of the table of laws of the first session does not reveal the U.V.C., it appears it was published under authority of the D.O.T. It is therefore strictly United States commercial law. Since that time it has been revised thirteen times. The states have adopted the U.V.C. into their statutes as a comparison between it and your State's regulation statutes will reveal, and as is claimed by the U.V.C. itself.
 
If I were to be an LEO and saw somebody just crack their window to give me the paper work, I would feel that they are hiding something. I have a friend that just got out of the Marine Corps. A few years ago, coming onto the base at 6 in the morning, after sleeping at his friends place after a party, got pulled over for a DUI while driving onto the base. This was after the MP had given him his ID back. All he did was say "Thanks", and the MP told him to pull over. He blew a .08, the legal limit, but was still railed in the system. Got demoted, lost base driving privaleges for a year, and was not recommended for promotion for 9 months. Cost him about $13,000 in the endstate with lost income and insurance rates. And here is my official position on drunk driving. If you can gurantee that when I get behind the wheel that no one else will be on the road for me to hurt, then and only then would I think about doing it(closed track not open to public). I will take my own life into stupid realms as long as no one else will be hurt, but I could not live with myself for killing another person/family because I wanted to drive. GET A TAXI! It will save you exponential amounts of money in the long run.
 
If I were to be an LEO and saw somebody just crack their window to give me the paper work, I would feel that they are hiding something.
I can hide anything I want as long as it isn't somewhere on the criminal statutes. If I crack the window I can still answer any question that's addressed to me. If the officer asks me to exit the car for a field-sobriety test, I will hear that command and comply. Fact is, everytime you hear about criminals posing as officers, you'll hear the usual PD spokesman reminding you only to crack your window. Nothing said of the irrational anger this engenders in an officer, as FrankDebrin's post confirms. Heck, they seem willing to vandalize private property because you upset them...
 
What would you guys do when you give someone a lawful order and they refuse? Wait around for him to shoot you in the head with the gun he doesn't want you to see while you're hoping he's just some jerk who read on an internet forum than you don't have to get out of your car when ordered on a traffic stop? Refusing a lawful order is not normal. When someone refuses to exit a car and the officer breaks the window to get him out, the contempt is on the part of the driver of the car, not the officer.



Say you have a car load of guys who fit your stereotype of what a scumbag looks like. You stop them and the guy cracks his window and lets his license and registration remain pinched in the window as he rolls it up. Just enough for you to grab it. You tell him to get out of the car and he sits their staring straight ahead. He was lucid enough to roll down his window and stick his license out there, but now when you order him out his sits their apparently catatonic. You then yell through the window that you're going to remove him from the car one way or another and he still sits their ignoring you. What would YOU experts do when you give the driver an order to exit the car and he refuses?

And folks wonder why some people dislike LEO's.

Well now you know why some of them get their windows broken.

That'll teach him to respect you won't it?

I'm not trying to teach him anything, I'm trying to get him out of his car. It's not a compromise, it's an order.

Try reading Pennsylvania V. Mimms and Maryland V. Wilson before you tell me how contemptible I am for enforcing the law within the boundaries set by the 4th amendment. You're going to get out of the car one way or the other if I legally order you to, and you sit there passively refusing with your window open an eighth of an inch. After I make the decision to have you and/or your passengers exit the car, it's YOUR/THEIR choice whether you go through the window or through the door. I'll explain this ONCE at the scene, and if you still persist in being an internet lawyer, you can discuss it with the judge in the morning.

Meanwhile, please post the case law that says you don't have to get out of your car when ordered on a traffic stop.

One thing you COULD do in such a stop is to not roll down your window further than necessary to slide license and registration out. I don't know what the law is on that, but you've satisfied the stop requirement without actually presenting anything to search aside from what is could be seen at any time, and you're speech. At that point the cop would have to establish probable cause to demand more.

The guy just said he didn't know what the law was. I just told you what the law was and posted the cases. If I want to get a look at what you might be sitting on and order you out of the car on a legal traffic stop, and have to break your window to get you out because you refuse, how exactly is that "contemptible"? Try to FIND the words.
 
Last edited:
Wow you can almost see the rage building for contempt of cop just in this thread. I wonder how many people have had there windows broken....

Almost seems like an anger management issue.

In any case back to the topic at hand. Roadblocks for anything other then to stop a known murderer or attempted murderer suck, plain and simple, legal or not they suck and those that plan them or put them there have very little respect or regard for the public at large, in my opinion. Key there is known - as in specific suspect known to be in the area with a reasonable suspicion that the person will use this road in the immediate future as in setting up a perimeter after a very recent crime.
 
I'm not trying to teach him anything, I'm trying to get him out of his car. It's not a compromise, it's an order.
by "making the window opening bigger." You need some basic Emily Post instructions, and if you follow them you'll fin little trouble with compliance...
 
Does it work?

Is there even any proof that these work, or is all this arguing (or should I say Debating) an "Us vs Them" thing?
 
by "making the window opening bigger." You need some basic Emily Post instructions, and if you follow them you'll fin little trouble with compliance...

You still haven't told me how you'd handle it when the guy refuses to get out. Maybe play coy little games like pretend you're calling for a wrecker? What next? What would officer Emily Post tell the guy? How long are you going to let him control your traffic stop before you actually do something?

I don't find it the least bit surprising that someone who would barely crack his window to slip his license out, refuse to talk to the officer, and refuse a lawful order to exit the car would get upset when he wasn't treated with "Emily Post" gloves and the utmost respect on a traffic stop.

Is there even any proof that these work, or is all this arguing (or should I say Debating) an "Us vs Them" thing?

Alcohol checkpoints catch a lot of drunk drivers. They're more efficent than driving around to find them...Unless you want the cops to sit on bars and start pulling people over for equipment violations or pretextual traffic stops as soon as they pull out of the parking lot. Personally, I'd rather deal with the checkpoints.
 
On a traffic stop it's about control. If you let a subject or subjects take control on a vehicle stop you've made, you need to find a different line of work.

Nobody said you have to like it, but that's the way it works. I'll be courteous and professional, but make no mistakes - i'm calling the shots on every vehicle stop i make, with the driver and passengers.

I would have to back F.D. on his comments, although are methods may vary.

12-34hom.
 
I'll be courteous and professional...QUOTE] Thank you, that's all that most citizens ask for, unfortunately with a discernibly higher number of officers unwilling to oblige as the years go on.
 
Alcohol checkpoints catch a lot of drunk drivers. They're more efficent than driving around to find them...Unless you want the cops to sit on bars and start pulling people over for equipment violations or pretextual traffic stops as soon as they pull out of the parking lot. Personally, I'd rather deal with the checkpoints.

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.

Okay.. lets just toss the 4th Amendment out!

Its completly RIDICULOUS to have EVERYONE stopped and basically searched at a "Check Point". Its reminiscent of Nazi Germany. We have rights. We don't need "baby sitters" who think that everyone citizen is a criminal.
 
Can you imagine the uproar you would cause at a check point? As it stands, even the Supreme Court rulings on sobriety checks, only affect LICENSED drivers and their REGISTERED vehicles.

The landmark case for alcohol checkpoints was Michigan State Police V. Sitz. Also applicable are Brown V. Texas, Delaware V. Prouse, US V. Martinez-Fuerte, and US V. Ortiz. Can you please cut and paste the ruling that says sobriety checks only affect LICENSED drivers and their REGISTERED vehicles?
 
Personally, I feel if they've already got me stopped and sampling my breath, they should do me the service of also taking a urine, blood, and stool sample.

If anything I would like to know if I should up my fiber intake.

Also, I'd like it if they would research my financial statements, receipts, and ledger so they can offer sound financial advice as well.

Lastly, maybe they can hit me with a 14 point oil change while they're at it.

:rolleyes: :( :barf:
 
Okay.. lets just toss the 4th Amendment out!

Lets keep it and not gloss over the word "unreasonable" in our haste to get to the word "warrant". With 25,000 fatalities a year due to drunk drivers, I don't think the Supreme Court was unreasonable in their ruling. Many states, including the state in the landmark case, disagree and still disallow alcohol checkpoints. That doesn't change the fact that they are constitutional if properly executed. How long did it take in Vietnam to rack up a death toll of around 50,000? We do that right here at home in 2 years.

Personally, I feel if they've already got me stopped and sampling my breath, they should do me the service of also taking a urine, blood, and stool sample.

They can't "sample" your breath without reasonable suspicion to believe you're impaired. Do you think they should let you go without testing you if they have reasonable suspicion to believe you're impaired?

I'll be courteous and professional...QUOTE] Thank you, that's all that most citizens ask for, unfortunately with a discernibly higher number of officers unwilling to oblige as the years go on.

As you sit there in your car with the window rolled up, staring straight ahead and ignoring the the professional and courteous officer?
 
With 25,000 fatalities a year due to drunk drivers, I don't think the Supreme Court was unreasonable in their ruling.

With all the Meth/drug deaths, why dont we have meth checkpoints, or residence safety checks to make sure drugs are not there..

With all the gun deaths in this country, why dont we have gun checkpoints, or residence safety checks to make sure firearms are not there.

Sets a dangerous precedent. I know police can set up checkpoints for drunks, but I dont have to like it.
 
With all the Meth/drug deaths, why dont we have meth checkpoints, or residence safety checks to make sure drugs are not there..

With all the gun deaths in this country, why dont we have gun checkpoints, or residence safety checks to make sure firearms are not there.

The supreme court has not addressed the issue of whether narcotics checkpoints are constitutional or not. Lower courts are divided on the issue. You say "all the gun deaths". Can you tell me how many are the result of drunk shooters? Checkpoints are for drunk drivers, not bad drivers. There are over 40,000 motor vehicle fatalities every year, but it is not reasonable to have checkpoints for bad drivers. I suspect we don't have residence safety checks because you're not driving your house around hitting others with it while drunk, and you have a greater expectation of privacy in your house than you do on the road in your car, despite the fact that some posters seem to believe that your car is a legal extension of your house.
 
As already stated(I believe Wayne), you take a risk while driving.

I'd rather have a risk here and there than a police state. Its disgusting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top