Sobriety Checkpoints, Patrols Step Up

[dburkhead]

Drinking is a liberty, driving is a liberty. Drinking and then driving is not a liberty, it is against the law. There is no oppressed freedom to drink and drive.

You're not providing probable cause when you turn away, but you are providing reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity is afoot." I don't fault you for wanting to avoid the checkpoint, you just have to do it the right way so your freedom isn't temporarily restricted by the local constabulary. And it won't be the officers working the checkpoint that are watching for you to turn around, it will be the officers assigned to watch for people turning around and heading the other way.

On a related note: When a checkpoint is set up the coordinator decides how many vehicles are going to be stopped at one time. While the checkpoint is full of vehicles, all other traffic will be allowed to pass until it is time for more vehicles to enter. Did you know that EVERY vehicle selected has to enter the checkpoint? This includes all emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance), even if they are on duty, unless they are on an emergency run.

Despite what some lawyers and politicians would have you believe, the Constitution was written in plain English, not "legalese" that needs to be "interpreted."

Amendment IV: 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.

Please tell me how a "sobriety checkpoint" doesn't violate the security of my person. If someone is driving in an unsafe or erratic manner, that's one thing (PC, in fact). But to detain people just so you can "test" them for sobriety (and how can any such test not be considered a form of search)? It takes a lot of twisting, not to mention gall, to try to twist that to not being a violation of the fourth.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Great post rhino...

It would be no different than police having sidewalk check points to check for those individuals that may be carrying a handgun without a permit.

How many of us think that would be a good thing?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Sure, but I don't drink and thus drinking and driving is impossible for me. Stopping everyone is wrong. Stopping me for that reason is not only wrong, it's a stupid waste of taxpayer's money. I have no problem with you enforcing legitimate laws and stopping someone when you have evidence or some reasonable suspicion. I have a huge problem with you stopping me because I might be doing something bad. Why that is unclear to some escapes me. It's just way too close to a blanket presumption of guilt. That's wrong.

If you think it's okay to stop everyone who is driving because they might be drinking too, why not detain and question everyone who has male genitalia? They might have raped someone after all, or they might rape someone in the future since they have all of the necessary tools. In my book, raping is a worse crime than operating a vehicle while intoxiated. The latter is the epitome of irresponsible behavior (and thus adequate justification of at least temporary compromise of that individual's rights after adjudication). The former is a deliberate, predatory and thoroughly evil act. I know you could catch a lot of rapists if you just stopped everyone who is male, forced a cotton swab into their mouth for an epithelial DNA sample, and just kept doing it. You'd save a lot of innocent women, children, and even men from suffering a horrible fate. It would still be wrong to do it.

It troubles me that more people do not object to roadblocks.

Keeping drunk drivers from hurting people is a good thing. Punishing people who are determined to have put others at unnecessary risk by doing so is a good thing.

Stopping everyone who happens to be driving by is not a good thing. It might make it easier to catch some drunk drivers. It might result in catching more of them in a specific time period. The erosion of my rights as someone who does not drink and drive is not worth it.

The ends do not justify the means. I try to sympathize with those who are in careers where they are systematically brainwashed into believing that the ends do justify the means. "The greater good" is an alluring concept and much harm has been done to many people in its pursuit.

I'll repeat myself: the ends do not justify the means.

Checkpoints don't stop everyone. Only a certain number at a time and while that number of cars is in the checkpoint, everyone else is allowed to drive by.

And I take offense that you think that just because we are having a civil conversation about checkpoints that I am "in a career where I am systematically brainwashed into believing the ends justify the means." I haven't given you my opinion on checkpoints, so how do you know I think they are good/bad/legal/illegal etc? I have only stated facts not personal opinions, and you chose to make a blanket statement about police, without coming out and saying you are talking about the police as the career in which officers are brainwashed and everything is done so that the ends justify the means. Don't beat around the bush, say what you mean.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Checkpoints don't stop everyone. Only a certain number at a time and while that number of cars is in the checkpoint, everyone else is allowed to drive by.

And I take offense that you think that just because we are having a civil conversation about checkpoints that I am "in a career where I am systematically brainwashed into believing the ends justify the means." I haven't given you my opinion on checkpoints, so how do you know I think they are good/bad/legal/illegal etc? I have only stated facts not personal opinions, and you chose to make a blanket statement about police, without coming out and saying you are talking about the police as the career in which officers are brainwashed and everything is done so that the ends justify the means. Don't beat around the bush, say what you mean.

My town does checkpoints on a 2 lane highway and everybody goes through the checkpoint. No extra lane to pull a few vehicles over while others are allowed to pass. I avoid them every time I see them and I don't drink and drive. It is a violation of my rights to have to submit to a checkpoint. If they are such a good idea when will you object? Should we be subjected to them everyday? Should we be subject to them every five miles?
When I lived in Colorado they found them to be unconstitutional. So the Colorado Springs Police department invented a new way to pull people over. They printed up a bunch of "Good Driver" certificates. When you were thought to be drunk they would wait for you to do something right.
Signal for a turn, come to a complete stop, any and all lawful road behavior could be rewarded with a Good Driver" certificate.
Then if they thought you to be intoxicated, as they were awarding you they could make you subject to sobriety tests. The court found that LEGAL.