your thoughts on driving checkpoints

[oldshadow]

Driving on public roads is privilege not a right and the reason they can within guide lines stop and check.

I believe the guide lines should be strict but they still may set them up.

 

[August West]

Once again, driving a motor vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege.
If you want to freely travel then walk.
If you think you should somehow be exempt from drunk driving laws and random check stops you should have your licence revoked.
This isnt the man holding you down, this is preventing immature adults from harming themselves or more importantly others.

I am gob smacked at the fact this rediculous thread has gone on. If your against dui check stops and feel drunk driving isnt a big deal, i hope some day you get to look at your dead child in the hospital after a drunk driver thought he could handle his liquor.

Wow.

So if someone believes something, having committed no crime, they should lose their ability to drive?

Even worse, if someone believes something, you hope their children die?

 

[panamaican]

The normal method based on reasonable suspicion. Which is the means by which most intoxicated drivers are apprehended and arrested...


Btw, a somewhat related question I'd like your opinion on....

If a drivers spots a checkpoint a half a mile or so in the distance, legally stops and turns around to avoid it. Does this create reasonable suspicion to pull said driver over? The reason I ask is because Ohio has been setting up fake DUI checkpoints and actually pulling over all of the drivers who attempt to avoid it. I, of course, find this practice to be highly illegal.

Does it create reasonable suspicion? Sure but that's the catch-22 in all police inquiries. You're free to go but if you go then the police are allowed to infer from that activities that you have something to hide. It's not unique to these situations.

I'll return to that in a second but back to checkpoints. The police are entitled to use whatever methods they choose so long as they don't violate the 4th. That means they can use multiple methods. Your constant reference to "reasonable suspicion" doesn't invalidate checkpoints.

The point of checkpoints is to briefly question drivers to ascertain if there is enough reasonable suspicion to justify further investigation. The alternative method to ascertain reasonable suspicion is what? Wait until the drunken individual is engaged in risky driving. At which point, the police have abdicated the ability to prevent the crime of drunken driving until after a second motor vehicle violation has occurred. Why must the police wait for a second crime before they can try to stop the first? :icon_conf

Spoiler

It's like saying the police can't stop someone from breaking a window to prevent theft. They must wait until the criminal actually leaves with stolen items. It's farcical. Breaking the window is crime enough to justify intervention. Waiting for the bigger crime just endangers the populace.

Even if the police can stop the motor vehicle before it causes personal or property damage to others, the entire process will far exceed 25 seconds.

So, I ask you again. What is a less intrusive method of determining reasonable suspicion that a motor vehicle operator is under the influence of a banned substance than a 25 second interview? Note: Not a less intrusive method of determining other various traffic violations.

 

[45ACP]

Driving on public roads is privilege not a right and the reason they can within guide lines stop and check.

I believe the guide lines should be strict but they still may set them up.

People who drive without insurance are not only breaking the law but cause a burden to the general population in terms of higher insurance rates.

Would you be OK with checkpoints to ensure drivers are carrying insurance? Why stop there? Why not just stop every car to make sure the driver is licensed? Someone behind the wheel who's never passed a driving test is surely more dangerous than someone with a BAC of .08, no?

 

[45ACP]

So, I ask you again. What is a less intrusive method of determining reasonable suspicion that a motor vehicle operator is under the influence of a banned substance than a 25 second interview? Note: Not a less intrusive method of determining other various traffic violations.

What does "less intrusive" have to do with anything? The 4th doesn't read "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless there is no other "minimally intrusive" means of determining probable cause."

Why not stop every single person leaving the projects and interviewing them in the hopes that you'll find reasonable suspicion enough to search them for drugs and weapons? As long as you search everyone and there isn't a "less intrusive" method of determining probable cause it's Constitutionally permissible?

 

[Snackbar]

Wow.

So if someone believes something, having committed no crime, they should lose their ability to drive?

Even worse, if someone believes something, you hope their children die?

Yes and yes in the case of drunk driving.
If you believe drunk driving is ok and law enforcement out of line for having programs in place to curb it as best possible then you should be barred from operating any motor vehicles, obviously you drive drunk if you are ok with the practice, therefore are committing a crime.

And yes you should feel what countless victims feel daily across america caused by idiots with your train of thought.

I imagine though if you are so immature to drive drunk you probably wouldnt care if your child died due to a drunk driver, YOLO am i right?

Fucking moron

 

[panamaican]

What does "less intrusive" have to do with anything? The 4th doesn't read "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless there is no other "minimally intrusive" means of determining probable cause."

Why not stop every single person leaving the projects and interviewing them in the hopes that you'll find reasonable suspicion enough to search them for drugs and weapons? As long as you search everyone and there isn't a "less intrusive" method of determining probable cause it's Constitutionally permissible?

Well, he and I were discussing the case law and he suggested that there were less intrusive means of advancing the states interest in stopping drunk driving. Hence "less intrusive".

Your understanding of the 4th is a little wrong. People in cars are operating on public roads, not within their private homes. Access to said roads is a conditioned activity. You agree to those conditions when you apply for a driver's license. If you owned private roads then you can do whatever you want. But public roads are quite different and the government has the authority to monitor and control them as they see fit, within reason.

As to the projects example. The Supreme Court already addressed that and said you can't do it.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

Yes and yes in the case of drunk driving.
If you believe drunk driving is ok and law enforcement out of line for having programs in place to curb it as best possible then you should be barred from operating any motor vehicles, obviously you drive drunk if you are ok with the practice, therefore are committing a crime.

And yes you should feel what countless victims feel daily across america caused by idiots with your train of thought.

I imagine though if you are so immature to drive drunk you probably wouldnt care if your child died due to a drunk driver, YOLO am i right?

Fucking moron

Is it possible that one can believe drunk driving is NOT ok, but also be against roadside checkpoints/stops without cause?

 

[45ACP]

Well, he and I were discussing the case law and he suggested that there were less intrusive means of advancing the states interest in stopping drunk driving. Hence "less intrusive".

Your understanding of the 4th is a little wrong. People in cars are operating on public roads, not within their private homes. Access to said roads is a conditioned activity. You agree to those conditions when you apply for a driver's license. If you owned private roads then you can do whatever you want. But public roads are quite different and the government has the authority to monitor and control them as they see fit, within reason.

As to the projects example. The Supreme Court already addressed that and said you can't do it.

So what's to stop police from setting up non-licensed driver checkpoints or non-insurance carrying driver checkpoints?

And what's the difference between my projects example and a DUI checkpoint? Other than the public roads part? You agree to a contract when you accept public housing just as you do when you drive on public roads.

 

[45ACP]

Is it possible that one can believe drunk driving is NOT ok, but also be against roadside checkpoints/stops without cause?

I don't think that guy really put to much thought into his response.

"Obvously" if you are OK with something you do it yourself? What about the millions of people who don't think there's anything wrong with smoking weed but don't actually smoke themselves?

I'm OK with prostitution but I've never banged a hooker.

And I don't think there's a single person here except for maybe the TS who is trying to say drunk driving is "OK".

 

[August West]

Yes and yes in the case of drunk driving.
If you believe drunk driving is ok and law enforcement out of line for having programs in place to curb it as best possible then you should be barred from operating any motor vehicles, obviously you drive drunk if you are ok with the practice, therefore are committing a crime.

And yes you should feel what countless victims feel daily across america caused by idiots with your train of thought.

I imagine though if you are so immature to drive drunk you probably wouldnt care if your child died due to a drunk driver, YOLO am i right?

Fucking moron

You're wishing death on complete innocents here. The child involved could be completely against driving under the influence, but you're hoping they die because their parent didn't believe in random checkpoints?

You have issues man.

 

[August West]

I'm OK with prostitution but I've never banged a hooker.

He will probably respond with "I hope your children catch VD and die!"

 

[panamaican]

So what's to stop police from setting up non-licensed driver checkpoints or non-insurance carrying driver checkpoints?

And what's the difference between my projects example and a DUI checkpoint? Other than the public roads part? You agree to a contract when you accept public housing just as you do when you drive on public roads.

Nothing stops them from setting up non-license and non-insurance checkpoints.

Oh, I missed the part about public housing. People who live in public housing are already subject to a wide variety of searches that others aren't. I'm pretty sure some of them already have metal detectors at the entrances. So, yeah the government can do that already.

The metal detectors are less intrusive than the police inquiry. The SCOTUS went again drug and weapon checkpoints on public roads since there's no relation between general crime and driving on public roads. Which is obviously different from drunk driving which directly impacts driving on public roads.

 

[Snackbar]

You're wishing death on complete innocents here. The child involved could be completely against driving under the influence, but you're hoping they die because their parent didn't believe in random checkpoints?

You have issues man.

I have issues? You think police preventing impaired driving is wrong.

You think driving intoxicated is ok if you can handle your liquor.

You think there is actually a benefit to getting behind the wheel drunk.

Your honestly the lowest form of life. There is no legitimate arguement you can make to back your opinion.

 

[August West]

You think police preventing impaired driving is wrong.

No I don't.

You think driving intoxicated is ok if you can handle your liquor.

Never said that.

You think there is actually a benefit to getting behind the wheel drunk.

Certainly not!

Your honestly the lowest form of life. There is no legitimate arguement you can make to back your opinion.

Funny, the guy wishing death on innocent children is calling me "the lowest form of life"?

Like I said, you have issues man. Get sorted out.

 

[djacobox372]

Nothing stops them from setting up non-license and non-insurance checkpoints.

Oh, I missed the part about public housing. People who live in public housing are already subject to a wide variety of searches that others aren't. I'm pretty sure some of them already have metal detectors at the entrances. So, yeah the government can do that already.

The metal detectors are less intrusive than the police inquiry. The SCOTUS went again drug and weapon checkpoints on public roads since there's no relation between general crime and driving on public roads. Which is obviously different from drunk driving which directly impacts driving on public roads.

Bad comparison, there are alternatives to public housing, there aren't alternatives to public roads.

The use of public roads are required for one to exercise their constitutionally protected right of freedom of movement--there really isn't a viable alternative. Which is why I agree with the 3 supreme court justices that said checkpoints were unconstitutional.

The government cannot require citizens to surrender one right to exercise another.

Luckily in my state the judges understand our rights and have kept checkpoints illegal.

 

[45ACP]

I have issues? You think police preventing impaired driving is wrong.

You think driving intoxicated is ok if you can handle your liquor.

You think there is actually a benefit to getting behind the wheel drunk.

Your honestly the lowest form of life. There is no legitimate arguement you can make to back your opinion.

Sure is easier to argue a point when you just completely make up your opponents' arguments eh? lol

If you can find where anyone, much less the guy you are responding to here, said any of those things go ahead and quote them.

You're making stuff up.

 

[7437]

i The argument here is that drinking=/= unable to drive.

Sure is easier to argue a point when you just completely make up your opponents' arguments eh? lol

If you can find where anyone, much less the guy you are responding to here, said any of those things go ahead and quote them.

You're making stuff up.

The second part was this guy

 

[jlazer]

I have issues? You think police preventing impaired driving is wrong.

You think driving intoxicated is ok if you can handle your liquor.

You think there is actually a benefit to getting behind the wheel drunk.

Your honestly the lowest form of life. There is no legitimate arguement you can make to back your opinion.

It is ok to drive intoxicated if you can handle your liquor. Its people you cant handle it that gives us good folk a bad rep.

The benefit is getting home when you need to get home.

Give me 10 beers and I gaurantee you Im still a better driver than 85% of the population. And much safer because Id drive slow and very careful

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Does it create reasonable suspicion? Sure but that's the catch-22 in all police inquiries. You're free to go but if you go then the police are allowed to infer from that activities that you have something to hide. It's not unique to these situations.


So, I ask you again. What is a less intrusive method of determining reasonable suspicion that a motor vehicle operator is under the influence of a banned substance than a 25 second interview? Note: Not a less intrusive method of determining other various traffic violations.

If you're not stopped for the purposes of the 4th amendment you are free to terminate an encounter with law enforcement and go about your way; to do so does not create reasonable suspicion to be subsequently stopped.

I've already detailed a less intrusive measure that you continually dismiss; namely, looking for signs of impaired driving using usual police methods. The statistics in that SCOTUS case bear out the fact that such usual methods are just as effective, if not more so, than checkpoints while being less intrusive.