I have no problem sending drunk, at fault drivers to prison, maybe even the death penalty.
I have a feeling you’ll change your mind when we have a police state.
Well, the information from Wikipedia is part of the public record of the US Supreme court, feel free to check it yourself if you don’t believe it. As is the info from NHTSA ( I checked both, and the info is correct).
I have looked over your posts and do not see any questions in them. If you are asking me if it is acceptable for Police to ticket someone for something they see wrong during a DUI checkpoint stop, then my answer is no they should not. It’s obvious you disagree, and that’s fine. I posted some factual information, as well as my own personal opinion. The fact that the checkpoints violate the 4th amendment is not my opinion, it is a fact that was admitted by the chief justice who OK’d it. You feel it’s OK because it is for “the greater good”. I do not. Difference of opinion, not an argument.
As to your contention that my tune would change if I or someone i loved got smashed by a drunk diver, well you are incorrect. I lost someone very close to me 18 years ago because of a drunk driver.
Drunk drivers are a bad thing. Catching them is a good thing. I think we agree on that. I just don’t think that these checkpoints are a very effective way to do that.
Our forefathers warned us about complacency and the violation of their Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
You will all reap what you’ve sown, my dear sheep who think that these are lawful. Lawful and necessary are not always in agreement.
[QUOTE=Bravada 442;607277][/QUOTE]
I do not believe in the legality of a “safety checkpoint”, any more than i believe in the DUI checkpoints. However, we are talking about a matter of degrees. If a drunk driver is identified during a “safety checkpoint”, then of course you arrest him because he represents a clear and immediate threat. However, someone having a burned out left tail light does not represent a clear and immediate threat to ANYONE, so therefore no tickets should be handed out. A warning is sufficient. According to the supreme court, the “excuse” for skirting the 4th amendment is to arrest impaired drivers. That should be their ONLY task at checkpoints…NOT handing out $100 tickets.
If the police secure a search warrant for your home they have to stipulate what it is they are looking for and present reasonable evidence why they believe it is there. If they find something else during the search that is illegal…THAT is inadmissible evidence. (of course they could put it back and go get another warrant and hope it was still there. Checkpoints are similar…they are stopping cars looking for impaired drivers. Nothing else should be bothered with. If they saw some problem with your car that presented a danger to others, then they should impound your vehicle. Short of that, they should inform you of the violation and let you go on your way.
Again, just my opinion as a Libertarian, and i do recognize it is a minority opinion…oh well…LOL
If the government around here cared about keeping drunks off the road…they would…HAVE THE “T” RUN TILL 3:00 AM. There is no way around that arguement. Checkpoints = $$$ and have a side effect of getting rid of some asshole drunk drivers.
they are safety checkpoints. As i’m sure you’ve noticed, the right to drive is not a right at all. It’s a privilege. You do not have to drive, and in choosing not to you absolve yourself from ever having to stop at a safety checkpoint. I don’t know how it is up in PA, but down here in MD it’s illegal for the cops to set up a checkpoint without having a clear and able path for you to turn around to avoid the checkpoint. So that’s a double whammy of being able to avoid these “searches” should you choose to do so. It’s not a violation of your 4th amendment rights.
this is such a stupid argument. DUI checkpoints are obviously not a violation of the 4th amendment. It’s not stripping you of any liberty or freedom.
lol I’m a libertarian as well and I think you’re dead wrong on this. because, well… you are. Having to stop at a checkpoint and have a cop look at you for a few seconds and see that you’re not drunk is far from the Gestapo tactics you’re making it out to be.
I think DUI checkpoints are absolute crap.
I can’t think of any reasonable explanation as to why they should not be allowed to sit outside of bars, or clubs, or Steeler games and prevent drunks from getting behind the wheel in the first place.
Oh wait…money.
They’d much rather someone get behind the wheel drunk and then throw the book at them and collect their fines than prevent it from happening in the first place.
They can’t sit at outside a bar and prevent John Doe from getting behind the wheel if he’s impaired but it’s perfectly fine to sit on further down the road and nail him for a DUI and fine him. Don’t think for a minute that they’re looking after your rights, all they’re doing is protecting their paychecks.
It’s the same reason why cops hide to catch speeders. They could easily sit in a visible spot and prevent everyone from speeding and creating a dangerous situation, but they’d rather hide and catch you in the act so they can hand out their tickers.
Just be careful out there people. I have no sympathy for you if you get busted for driving drunk. There are plenty of good cops out there but there are plenty of dicks out there too and you know they’re gonna do at these checkpoints in full force busting people for tint and who knows what else.
That’s your opinion, thank you for offering it.
Really?
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that stopping someone at such a roadblock does constitute a seizure of that person under the Fourth Amendment.
One “however” further and the language of the Constitution gets tangled up in the thicket of constitutional interpretation and case law. The Supreme Court could have claimed that these stops without probable cause are constitutional under the doctrine of exigent circumstances. The Court has repeatedly held that when an officer believes evidence is about to be destroyed, he can perform a search without a warrant. However, this doctrine seems only to apply to searches. Instead, it appears as though the Court used a balancing test, common in other areas of constitutional law, whereby the “minimal intrusion on individual liberties” was weighed against the need for and efficacy of roadblocks and found to be less important.
And you say you’re all for protecting civil liberties.
The Court’s justification for the exception rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks are necessary and effective. However, there is some controversy as to whether this is true. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released data on alcohol-related deaths in 2003 and 2004. There was a decline in such fatalities in 2004, and most of the drop occurred in states that don’t use sobriety checkpoints. Critics already concerned about the large outlay of resources required to operate checkpoints are doubly concerned if spending the resources does not even necessarily prevent DUI offenses.
So these things waste both time and resources, fail to accomplish the intended outcome, and violate the 4th amendment, but some of you still want to keep them.
The above quotes are from http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-Sobriety-Checkpoints-Legal?&id=177292
Furthermore…DUI checkpoints are clearly a step in the wrong direction, and are in definite opposion to the liberty-oriented principals this nation was founded on. Free, uninhibited travel by citizens is a critical key to any free society.
If nothing else, DUI checkpoints are the start of a slippery down-ward slope- once we’ve all accepted them, will we be more prone to accept the requirement to show “papers” when crossing state lines, or to comply with security checkpoints at all state borders, in order to reduce the threat of narcotics traffic or terrorism?
Yeah, WTF is with Northern Regional Cops? They seem to think they are the Nazi SS reborn.
My wife works at the Gibsonia Giant Eagle and my son and I went up to pick her up after work a few weeks ago. She wanted to stay after work to pick up a few things so I decided to wait out in the car (I’d rather listen to sports talk then walk around Giant Eagle any day). My son comes out and stands in front of the store and waves at me to come over. I drive up and he tells me that my wife can’t find her stupid advantage card and she wants mine. I go back and park in the same place. A NR cop was sitting in front of the store. He drives over and pulls up behind me, turns on the lights, comes over to my window, wants my “papers” (license, regs, insurance), wants me out of the car, wants to search my vehicle, etc. I’m like WTF? What exactly are you looking for? He thought I was running a shoplifting ring or something. All because I gave my wife my stupid advantage card. Those NR cops need to take a pill and calm down a little or something. :wtf:
I’d file harassment charges against them.
there is one every friday on rt. 65 at the end of the west end bridge, when you turn left to merge onto 65, there is a cop sitting there, just as you pass him, the line starts, it takes 45 minutes to get thur, 10 to 4 am, beware!!!
Now that’s an unreasonable search!
I thought so! :madfawk:
bump -added locations
Beware the bottom of Pillow hill near Cheswick, got hit last year in the GP.
Northern Regional Cops must be in need of some luv’em…:idb: :wackit: :spank:
Wow, it’s pretty bad when I’m the one laughing at you all for being paranoid conspiracy theorists.
As long as we’re quoting statistics:
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 17,602 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 42,642 total traffic fatalities. Drunk (those at or above an illegal BAC of .08) drivers were involved in 13,470 fatalities in 2006.
This is about the same as 2005, when 17,590 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes and 13,582 people were killed in crashes involving drunk drivers.
so let’s see. Since September 11th, 2001 ~2,000 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks. We’ve totally circumvented the constitution and trounced on civil liberties, got thousands of American troops killed in an effort to “fight the global war on terrorism”.
Since then, ~90,000 people have been killed in alcohol-related crashes. And you’re all worrying about them setting up checkpoints like 2 or three times a year. Checkpoints that you dont even have to drive through if you don’t want to.
^
/thread