Sobriety check points and the 4th amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
every checkpoint I've seen has been set up in such a way that by the time you see it, you can't choose not to go through without breaking the law. So if you attempt to avoid it they will chase you and (at best) they will give you the checkpoint questions, and (at worst) they will arrest you for avoiding the checkpoint.


feel free to explain...the comparison is valid.
 
again, WHICH FUCKING SEARCH.


Because walking up to your car and talking to someone isn't really a fucking search.
 
The latter, obviously.

Except they actually think that the government GRANTS freedoms.
 
i've heard people bitch about checkpoints since I got my license 10 years ago, and I still have never came across one.
 
Driving is a right. Driving on anyone else's property except your own, however, is not a right.
 
Kind of sounds like the argument that if you refuse to allow the police to search your car that gives them reasonable suspicion that you are hiding something so they can use that to search your car... But in an ideal world it might give them cause to follow you to see if they can catch you swerving or whatever... But in and of itself it wouldn't be enough to stop you.
 
He was riding away on a lawnmower literally moving slower than the officer can walk. Drunk off his ass and they knew each other on a first name basis.
 
Also, if someone drives next to you drunk and doesn't do anything that leads to harm, you would never even know someone drove drunk next to you. If someone fires a gun and misses you by an inch, you sure as fuck are going to know about that, and it sure as fuck can lead to mental trauma etc.
 
Not in Tennessee. They have to notify the public there will be a checkpoint and the departments involved, but they don't have to give the exact location.
 
I don't really need to prove that. The point wasn't to suggest that I know more about the constitution than him or anyone else. The point is, him saying it doesn't actually make it so.
 
The fact that you haven't yet harmed someone doesn't mean that if they let you continue driving home it's guaranteed that you won't harm someone along the way. It's a preventative measure. If they take you to jail you won't have an opportunity to cause damage. I shouldn't even have to explain this but some of you are either ignoring this fact or pretending like it isn't a possibility.
 
They have chaser cars that will run you down and stop you for avoiding the checkpoint. It's definitely not voluntary.
 
Yeah, but it was a 6-3 decision that they are not unconstitutional. So... even with that one judge saying "Well, it violates the 4th amendment, but who cares, lol" it is still 5-4 saying it is not unconstitutional.

Basically, if we throw everything out the window and just go by what the judges who are in charge of determining what is and is not unconstitutional says... then we'd have to conclude that it is not unconstitutional.

cliffs: It would make a short thread to simply cite the judge's opinions and be done with it.
 
please tell me, which is your favorite amendment?

Because I think we should ignore THAT one, just so we can watch you flip flop on how "we HAVE to follow the constitution on THAT issue!!!"
 
You're drunk on a riding mower, trying to evade the police. You've already gone full retard. Trespassing is just the cherry on top. And it would have made for hiLOLarious dash cam footage.
 
Oh. Ok, next time you come up to a checkpoint, don't stop, just drive right through. Let's see how noncompulsory it is.
 
they are ineffective and tie up police resources. i feel that cops could catch more doing lone wolf patrols, than concentrated in one area.
 
Back
Top