STiForFun

iTrader: (6)

I must have missed that one (I'm by the casino)

DUB

iTrader: (2)

Yes, if you ask, they are required to tell you when and where a sobriety check point will be set up.
The PD doesn't buy ad space in newspapers and radio, it is the other way around. These news outlets call and ask, then tell us.
The point of sobriety checkpoints is to act as a deterrent. If the public knows there will be checkpoints they are less likely to drink and drive. Preventing the crime is better than catching someone who has already committed it.

Spoolin415

iTrader: (4)

I don't buy it, if I'm thinking of robbing a bank and you tell me the cops will be sitting in front of Bank A, then I'm going to Bank C. Avoiding those checkpoints is as simple as going one block out of your way.

DUB

iTrader: (2)

yup *shrugs*

saqwarrior

I just thought of this, but do these checkpoints strike anyone else as vaguely illegal? Police officers can't just pull you over and detain you for no reason, yet that's exactly what these checkpoints do: indiscriminately accost and detain every single citizen that happens to cross their path.

Ahh, it would seem I'm not completely off-base:

cracker1252

good knowledge.

DUB

iTrader: (2)

It's not just you. The question of sobriety checkpoints come before the supreme court. Their opinion (which was dissented) was basically that the very minor violation of your civil rights was outweighed by the important service to the community.
So, they are legal on a federal level, however as your link pointed out, many states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state's constitutions.
A couple key points relating to the legality if the checkpoints in most states:
-As discussed previously, the time, place and duration must be predetermined and available to the public in advance.
-They must be decided upon by "management" in advance. A few officers in he field can't just get together and decide to do it.
-They must have an objective formula for stopping cars, ie every nth car. The officers in the field cant just use their judgment when deciding who to test and who to let go by.

Joe250

Excellent point. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Driving down the road is not probably cause! As nice as getting drunks off the street is, it is far less important than respecting our rights.

The other poster was correct - the Supreme Court has ruled DUI Checkpoints legal, ignoring the Constitution completely. This isn't the first time though. Look up Plessey v. Ferguson where they ruled it Constitutional to segregate minorities. Thankfully that decision was eventually overruled and hopefully this one will as well.

DUB

iTrader: (2)

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Joe250

And the United States Constitution agrees with me. If you read or understood my comments above, you'll see that I already made the same point you did, along with the fact that the SC is far from infallible.

So far they have violated...

The First Amendment: Schenck v. United States and Debs v. United States

the Fourth Amendment:

ATWATER v. LAGO VISTA (99-1408) : April 24, 2001 (5-4) A woman was stopped for not wearing her seatbelt while driving with her children. The police officers "pulled Atwater over, verbally berated her, handcuffed her, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the local police station, where she was made to remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets. Officers took her 'mug shot' and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about an hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on bond." Atwater sued, arguing that this type of treatment as unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Souter, writing for the 5-4 majority said that the police may arrest and mistreat them at any time, so long as they have reasonable suspicion that even the smallest infraction has been committed.

Plenty more examples here: http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts..._privacy.shtml

The 5th Amendment:

Kelo vs. City of New London

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120765.html

I don't have time to cover all the other egregious errors by the highest court in the land but there are plenty more, like these:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/rac...eme_racism.htm

And this one:

“The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1245...=djemalertNEWS

So if you are blindly following the Court's ruling, I would say you are chasing your tail. Thomas Paine said it best: “Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”

And specifically addressing those in favor of DUI Checkpoints I'll drag out Benjamin Franklin's quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

cracker1252

serious research. thank you.

subie OCD

iTrader: (11)

Awesome quote.

Gibz

iTrader: (7)

Thats all great and all but once you your self gets hit by a drunk driver and have your life ****ed up for the rest of your life you might think differently. I for one will always be for the SC points. I dont drink and drive and if you do you deserve to be caught before you hurt or kill someone. I may have gotten the drunk driver that hit me 40 years jail time but i would have much rather he got caught at a SC than hit me and have my life messed up for life from it and can die easily from all the complications i now have.

Joe250

I'm very sorry to hear that you are a victim of drunk driving. However, you are making a lot of false assumptions in your argument.

-Having sobriety checkpoints will never completely curb drunk driving.
-Not all innocent people killed or maimed in accidents were hit by inebriated drivers. So ending ALL drunk driving immediately still won't mean an end to accidents.
-Checkpoints are not the only way (and arguably are not the most effective way) to catch drunk drivers. Ending checkpoints will not mean that drunk drivers won't be caught.
-And who cares how many drunk drivers are caught when they're never punished severly enough to not repeat the same mistake? How many DUI offenders in the US are repeat offenders? SCREW THAT! I'm especially not giving up my rights to assist the Executive Branch to hand over drunks to the Judicial Branch for a slap on the wrist.

Beyond all that, you are upset that you were punished for someone else's mistake, and rightly so. But you then advocate all innocent (i.e. sober) drivers should then be punished due to the actions of drunk drivers. Where's the consistency in your logic?

This country was build upon the sanctity of inalienable rights - rights that every human possesses and that can never be denied (except when infringing upon other's inalienable rights). This entire concept is arguably THE fundamental reason the USA is/was the greatest nation in the history of man. Accidents are horrible things, but are nothing in the face of losing our rights. How many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or wounded fighting for these rights? Ask yourself why they would be willing to give up everything they have to be free, throwing themselves in harm's way, completely at the expense of their safety?

saqwarrior

You should check out this thread.

Enjoy.