Sobriety check points and the 4th amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
And if enough people attack them, they won't be able to arrest everybody. What's your point? The fact that they aren't equipped to deal with mass rebellion doesn't change the fact that the checkpoint is not voluntary.
 
You know labeling people with the letter A (for adulterer) back when the Constituion was framed, was outlawed by the Constitution...well this state makes you get "Whiskey" plates (plates that are White with a single letter+numbers) if you get multiple DUI's...esentially labling you as a drunk.....and Im pretty sure they have been challenged under constitutional guidelines.

So yeah when it comes to public safety, they will do whatever it takes against drunks
 
I say it shouldn't matter if I'm blind and unconscious. As long as the vehicle is being operated safely, then leave me alone.
 
The supreme court ruling stated that as a given.

As I cited earlier:


United States Supreme Court, Michigan State Police v. Sitz (1990)
 
By that reasoning, NOBODY should be allowed to drive. Because we can all be sure that every driver will eventually hurt somebody or cause damage. Everybody with a license should be thrown in jail.
 
I obviously can't speak for every checkpoint that's set up across the union. Around here, they make sure you're aware of it long before you get there. If you're paying attention at all to where you're going and what's ahead of you, you'd certainly have time to bail, and you'd have legal means of doing it (which is to say, there'd be a road you can turn off of, not just a wide spot in the road where you'd commit an illegal u-turn and then get stopped for that).

They aren't surprise stops by any means. To the extent that they can, the police give advanced notice, both to motorists on approach and to citizens in general - around here, they put the upcoming checkpoint information in the newspaper! So they're not like the motorcycle cops that hide behind trees, signs, and buildings with a radar gun and try to trap speeders... the checkpoint is more like a camp that the police set up in some street somewhere to check on people who decide to drive through. And if you decide you don't want to be party to the checkpoint, unless you do something to give the necessary reasonable suspicion for a stop (e.g. the illegal u-turn), they do not and should not pursue - at least not by SOP. If they do, it might be worth getting in touch with a lawyer, especially if something significant came of it.
 
According to the criminal justice system drinking while driving is something you "HAVE DONE" and is a punishable offense. You can drink, that's fine. You can drive, that's fine. But if you do both it is against the law. That is an act that is illegal. You don't have to something extra to make that illegal, like driving into a building.
 
I would agree with this if evidence gathered at checkpoints was inadmissible in criminal proceedings. If that were the case, then the owner of the road (the state) is simply exercising his proprietary right to enforce usage rules of his roads. But since the evidence can be used against you in a criminal case, then it would seem as though there is insufficient evidence to justify what can only be described as temporary detainment of all drivers passing through the checkpoint.


The "driving drunk is already illegal" (combined with "people are just stopping, not being arrested") argument doesn't sit well with me either. Public intoxication is also illegal, as is theft, as is carrying certain firearms. By this reasoning, it should be perfectly constitutional for an officer to set up a pedestrian checkpoint outside of a bar and issue tickets to anyone leaving intoxicated, and also search everyone for possible stolen property, illegal firearms, etcetera. Hell, by this line of reasoning, the Fourth Amendment can pretty much be ignored.
 
But that's not the same as a right to drive. To say "I have a right to drive" is to drop context.
 
Some of you knuckle heads have never had a drunk driver injure your loved ones I see...

I don't care how inconvenient or how it violates your "rights" if it takes some of you drunk clowns off the road. The constitution was set before retards decided that it was okay to get drunk and drive home. If they knew how stupid some of humanity is they would have made those rights a bit more flexible.
 
I feel like the act of driving drunk shouldn't be a criminal offense with huge fines, fees and possible jail times etc. But maybe the RMV/DMV should have the right to suspend your license or give you a limited license.
 
Only if you're arguing against driving cars at people and missing them by inches while drunk.
 
Back
Top