Sobriety check points and the 4th amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
But it is.

If you approach a road block and turn to avoid it, they will come after you. That means by the time you see it, you do not have a choice but to submit to the road block.

But it you're saying it's not compulsory because driving is not required, then I'll make the argument that owning a home isn't required either, so they should be able to search your home, too
 
Nobody is forcing you to drive, or to even take the route that leads through the checkpoint.

If there are squad cars with flashing lights and road cones and officers flagging down through-passing vehicles, and you chose to drive into this situation rather than around it (or for that matter not at all), you should stop, as by volunteering your way into the checkpoint it's pretty clearly implied that you're volunteering yourself for some simple, lawful contact.
 
...in any case, the "reasonable suspicion" is that, despite there being squad cars blocking the road way, and road cones funneling folks into a lane lined with officers flagging motorists down, the individual in question decided to proceed through the checkpoint.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, everything about the checkpoint is voluntary. The cops aren't picking you out of a crowd, they're stopping everyone who opts to go through that intersection or down that street.
 
I know you like to whine about Minnesota and all that. But I'm pretty sure that Minnesota is one of the few states that bars sobriety checkpoints. Furthermore your rant about them pulling you over for no reason is baseless. I have never been pulled over in MN for no reason and I doubt you have anything to back that claim.
 
first, they're not my arguments, but I do agree with them.

and I'm talking about legal rights acquired through court decisions, not granted in the constitution. you can call it a de facto "right" to drive if you want, but it became a "right" a while ago even though the state refers to it as a privilege.
 
I don't hate. If we both are drunk, encounter a road block, you are on your Schwinn Stingray, and I take the John Deere 4040 cross-country, plowing as I go, who are they going to nab first, bikeboy?
 
Are you sure this is the argument you want to make, when your whole position is "a judge said it's constitutional so it's true"?
 
You, almost literally, have the right to drive NOTHING, because you not have the right to a car or other personal property.
 
Yes it is.


Driving drunk does not meet the requirements for assault. The two are fundamentally different. A guy that fires a gun into a crowd is doing it with a "criminal mind" (see: mens rea). A guy drinking and driving isn't necessarily doing it to be faggot, and therefore his frame of mind can only be determined retrospectively (if he hits someone, then he was irresponsible; if he makes it home safe, then he was adequately compensating for his impairment).

Also, it should be noted that if there was no intent to do harm or cause apprehension, it isn't assault, either.



gg. thx4playing. go fuck yourself.
 
If you don't do anything illegal in the process of evading the checkpoint (say by either making an illegal u-turn, or cutting through a parking lot), then they shouldn't pursue you. If they do, you'd be right to take offense to it, but that's an entirely different matter - that isn't inherent in checkpoint procedure.

And the comparison to home ownership is absurd. If you want to pursue it further, I can explain why, or we can call it a straw man and leave it at that.
 
It's unreasonable because it assumes guilt and that's not how the justice system works.
 
AND, it's the judge who decides constitutionality who's saying it's unconstitutional, not just "a judge".
 
Great. Therefore, you must think that driving at a certain hour constitutes reasonable suspicion?
 
Back
Top