DUI CheckPoint? Or an excuse to ticket people for OTHER things?

[nevadamedic]

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070530/NEWS/105300093

At a DUI checkpoint all those people introuble for breaking various laws but none for GUI, what idiots.

[5stringJeff]

Hooray for police states! NOT!

[shattered]

Adams said each vehicle was checked to determine if the drivers were under the influence of alcohol, were driving with valid licenses and were wearing their seat belts.

Thirty-four people were issued $187 tickets for driving without valid licenses. Twelve people were issued $67 tickets for seat-belt violations. Four people were issued $82 tickets for making illegal U-turns in an attempt to avoid the checkpoint. Three people were arrested on various warrants, and one person was arrested for driving on a license suspended for DUI.

Apparently, if people can't police themselves, they need to be policed.

Apparently, it's not JUST a DUI checkpoint, since the article specifically outlined the things they were checking for..

[JohnDoe]

In many states it is against the Law to be stopped and checked for wearing a seatbelt, while in other states it is a clear " money maker".

I am not certain that this check point was not set up "just for money" and if some good part came out of it, then fine.

These are not stops for Felonies, or crimes that hurt people, these are stops to see if one is breaking a Civil Offense, and many people consider this an invaision of privacy by our government, or an over reach of control by the Police.

[darin]

MOST traffic laws are designed to bring in money. :(

[Monkeybone]

when they have the 'seat belt zones' or 'dui checkpoints' they are usually state programs and such. teaches ppl to wear the seatbelt which is law in most states.

and what does it matter if they got them for other things? so if a cop stops you for speeding and sees a joint or that you don't have a liscence or expired plate they can't do anything else becasue they stopped you for speeding?

[JohnDoe]

when they have the 'seat belt zones' or 'dui chechpoints' they are usually state programs and such. teaches ppl to wear the seatbelt which is law in most states.

and what does it matter if they got them for other things? so if a cop stops you for speeding and sees a joint or that you don't have a liscence or expired plate they can't do anything else becasue they stopped you for speeding?


You are absolutely right, that when a cop "stops you for speeding" he can also nail you for having a joint in his view, or not having a seatbelt on or expired tag etc.

PLEASE NOTE! The cop stopped you for SPEEDING. You were breaking the Law, then and only then, in many states can he issue you a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt. Some states have laws that prevent Police from pulling you over JUST for NOT wearing your seatbelt.

A Check Point to look for those things can be considered an invaision of privacy and a police over reach for just civil offenses, tag expired, not wearing a seatbelt....When a zillion innocent people are pulled over for a "check" for no reason at all.

[Doniston]

Hooray for police states! NOT! I have always beleived that such check points (FOR ANY REASON) were inconstitutional (comes under illegal search and seizure and invasion of privacy)

[Monkeybone]

I have always beleived that such check points (FOR ANY REASON) were inconstitutional (comes under illegal search and seizure and invasion of privacy)

so pulling you over come sunder that too then.

if nothing is wrong, then you are fine. if you aren't fit to drive then they get that hazard off of the road. it ain't like they are selecting certain ppl, everyone is getting it.

[Mr. P]

I don't have a problem with DUI checks at all, or other charges that may result.

You are licensed to drive on public roads by the state, your obligation is to abide by the law. The State/ Police responsibility is to enforce the laws. There are no privacy or constitution issues involved in the case of a DUI check.

[manu1959]

I don't have a problem with DUI checks at all, or other charges that may result.

You are licensed to drive on public roads by the state, your obligation is to abide by the law. The State/ Police responsibility is to enforce the laws. There are no privacy or constitution issues involved in the case of a DUI check.

exactly....your license gives you the privledge of driving on roads owned by the govt. if you don't like their rules don't drive on their roads....

[JohnDoe]

exactly....your license gives you the privledge of driving on roads owned by the govt. if you don't like their rules don't drive on their roads....your ''thinking'' is dangerous.

''The government'' is not the owner of the roads as you say, WE THE PEOPLE, the public is the owner of the roads...and last i looked, that's you and me! ;)

[Abbey Marie]

Its not like people were cavity searched, implanted with a tracking device, or asked to swear an oath of fealty to the government. If this gets even one drunk driver off the road, who could have injured or killed someone, it's a good thing.

[Doniston]

so pulling you over come sunder that too then.

if nothing is wrong, then you are fine. if you aren't fit to drive then they get that hazard off of the road. it ain't like they are selecting certain ppl, everyone is getting it. if they have a reason to pull you over, no. only thecheck points to learn if the general public is doing something wrong.

[Doniston]

Its not like people were cavity searched, implanted with a tracking device, or asked to swear an oath of fealty to the government. If this gets even one drunk driver off the road, who could have injured or killed someone, it's a good thing. Your opinion. ----certainly NOT mine.

[Abbey Marie]

Your opinion. ----certainly NOT mine.

Your objection is duly noted for the record. :)

[Mr. P]

your ''thinking'' is dangerous.

''The government'' is not the owner of the roads as you say, WE THE PEOPLE, the public is the owner of the roads...and last i looked, that's you and me! ;)

Yup, and 'WE THE PEOPLE' have passed laws that 'WE THE PEOPLE' are expected to abide by. 'WE THE PEOPLE' have employed law enforcement to insure 'WE THE PEOPLE' are doing so.

[JohnDoe]

Yup, and 'WE THE PEOPLE' have passed laws that 'WE THE PEOPLE' are expected to abide by. 'WE THE PEOPLE' have employed law enforcement to insure 'WE THE PEOPLE' are doing so.
yep, "we the people" need to follow all those civil laws OR ELSE, but we the people businesses can hire illegals and break those laws left and right, but you think law enforcement should waste their time and our money on enforcement of a seatbelt law...real smart and efficent, aren't you?

[Mr. P]

yep, "we the people" need to follow all those civil laws OR ELSE, but we the people businesses can hire illegals and break those laws left and right, but you think law enforcement should waste their time and our money on enforcement of a seatbelt law...real smart and efficent, aren't you?

Where did I say such a thing Einstein?

[Yurt]

MOST traffic laws are designed to bring in money. :(

Pedestrian traffic? Vehicle traffic? What traffic are you talking about? There are numerous vehicle traffic laws that are "fix it" laws. Sure there are "some" petty laws, but IMHO most laws are for safety. Which ones are you referring to? Seems like you are saying that the majority of traffic laws are solely for money.

Maybe I read your post wrong...

[Yurt]

I don't have a problem with DUI checks at all, or other charges that may result.

You are licensed to drive on public roads by the state, your obligation is to abide by the law. The State/ Police responsibility is to enforce the laws. There are no privacy or constitution issues involved in the case of a DUI check.

There are, they must not be for "no reason" at all. They must be reasonable.

[shattered]

I don't have a problem with DUI checks at all, or other charges that may result.

You are licensed to drive on public roads by the state, your obligation is to abide by the law. The State/ Police responsibility is to enforce the laws. There are no privacy or constitution issues involved in the case of a DUI check.

DING! DING! DING! I agree 1000000000000%. Driving is not a *right*.

[Mr. P]

There are, they must not be for "no reason" at all. They must be reasonable.

If the police have probable cause they'll ask you if they can look in the car..If you refuse and they have reason they will hold you an obtain a search warrant. Believe me, if they don't have probable cause they are not going to a Judges home at say 11:30 P.M. for a warrant.

So take yer chances..in this state they can lock you up for various violations, period
.
Hint...if they wanna look in the car yer probably going to jail anyway.

[Gunny]

yep, "we the people" need to follow all those civil laws OR ELSE, but we the people businesses can hire illegals and break those laws left and right, but you think law enforcement should waste their time and our money on enforcement of a seatbelt law...real smart and efficent, aren't you?

I agree with the premise of your argument where rights are concerned, but I disagree with your argument in this specific instance because drinving is a privilege given by the state, that the state can revoke if you do not adhere to its driving policies. It isn't a right.

[Yurt]

If the police have probable cause they'll ask you if they can look in the car..If you refuse and they have reason they will hold you an obtain a search warrant. Believe me, if they don't have probable cause they are not going to a Judges home at say 11:30 P.M. for a warrant.

So take yer chances..in this state they can lock you up for various violations, period
.
Hint...if they wanna look in the car yer probably going to jail anyway.

Ok, not sure what your post has to do with checkpoints.

I said DUI checkpoints can be up if they are reasonable. If the checkpoints are set up, the reasonable cause to check you (and of course anything else in plain view) is within this "reasonable cause" check point.

Read up on check point law....

[Abbey Marie]

I'd say a DUI checkpoint set up on a holiday weekend, such as this one was, it de facto reasonable.

[Mr. P]

Ok, not sure what your post has to do with checkpoints.

I said DUI checkpoints can be up if they are reasonable. If the checkpoints are set up, the reasonable cause to check you (and of course anything else in plain view) is within this "reasonable cause" check point.

Read up on check point law....

Don't need to 'read up' the wife is a Judge..I know how it works. :poke:

[Gunny]

I'd say a DUI checkpoint set up on a holiday weekend, such as this one was, it de facto reasonable.

Just to play Devil's advocate ... doesn't a DUI checkpoint presume the public guilty until proven innocent?

[shattered]

Just to play Devil's advocate ... doesn't a DUI checkpoint presume the public guilty until proven innocent?

Consider it "preventative measures to help further ensure public safety".

[Yurt]

Don't need to 'read up' the wife is a Judge..I know how it works. :poke:

Ask her.... Don't hide behind your wife.

Edit:

Oh, and ask her if anything I said was false.

[Abbey Marie]

Just to play Devil's advocate ... doesn't a DUI checkpoint presume the public guilty until proven innocent?

I would argue that it isn't. It is just a public safety precaution, like a luggage and person search before boarding an airplane. No legal pre-judgements made.

[Gunny]

Consider it "preventative measures to help further ensure public safety".

That doesn't answer the question. Even in the interest of further ensuring public safety, are we allowed to violate a basic tenet of the US Constitution?

[nevadamedic]

Just to play Devil's advocate ... doesn't a DUI checkpoint presume the public guilty until proven innocent?

Yup good point.

[shattered]

That doesn't answer the question. Even in the interest of further ensuring public safety, are we allowed to violate a basic tenet of the US Constitution?

You're asking the wrong person - I'm all for nailing anyone doing anything illegal. :)

[Gunny]

I would argue that it isn't. It is just a public safety precaution, like a luggage and person search before boarding an airplane. No legal pre-judgements made.

Both, IMO, prejudge guilt, safety precaution or no.

Do you agree with the premise that once one serves his time for crime(s) committed, that one's debt to society has been paid?

[Gunny]

You're asking the wrong person - I'm all for nailing anyone doing anything illegal. :)

Right. I bet you get out on the highway and push that little grocery-getter until all 3 cylinders are clanging against the cylinder walls and it tops out at 45 mph.

[shattered]

Right. I bet you get out on the highway and push that little grocery-getter until all 3 cylinders are clanging against the cylinder walls and it tops out at 45 mph.

65 is the speed limit; they won't pull you over if you're doing 74, or less. :)

[Gunny]

65 is the speed limit; they won't pull you over if you're doing 74, or less. :)

Guess you have no worries in that Barney Rubble mobile you drive then, huh?

[shattered]

Guess you have no worries in that Barney Rubble mobile you drive then, huh?

:fu:

[nevadamedic]

65 is the speed limit; they won't pull you over if you're doing 74, or less. :)

That's not always true!

[Mr. P]

Ask her.... Don't hide behind your wife.

Edit:

Oh, and ask her if anything I said was false.

Ask her what?

[Gunny]

:fu:

:D

[shattered]

That's not always true!

Sure it is, in WI. Unless you're doing something illegal, or potentially dangerous.

[Yurt]

Ask her what?

I said:


Ok, not sure what your post has to do with checkpoints.

I said DUI checkpoints can be up if they are reasonable. If the checkpoints are set up, the reasonable cause to check you (and of course anything else in plain view) is within this "reasonable cause" check point.

Read up on check point law....

You said:


Don't need to 'read up' the wife is a Judge..I know how it works.

So I said:


Oh, and ask her if anything I said was false.



You gave a post that IMO had nothing to do with DUI checkpoints. I said read up on it. You said you don't have to because you wife is a judge. I said, ask her if what I said is false.

Not sure what you are getting at Mr. P. Are you agreeing with me or not? And what does your wife have to do with what I said? The way you said it, it seems as if because your wife is a judge, that I am wrong, as you don't need to read up on it.

You can clear it up real easy.

[nevadamedic]

I said:



You said:



So I said:





You gave a post that IMO had nothing to do with DUI checkpoints. I said read up on it. You said you don't have to because you wife is a judge. I said, ask her if what I said is false.

Not sure what you are getting at Mr. P. Are you agreeing with me or not? And what does your wife have to do with what I said? The way you said it, it seems as if because your wife is a judge, that I am wrong, as you don't need to read up on it.

You can clear it up real easy.

It really doesn't matter what she has to say as laws vary from state to state, hell from county to county.

[Yurt]

It really doesn't matter what she has to say as laws vary from state to state, hell from county to county.

MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

[chum43]

exactly....your license gives you the privledge of driving on roads owned by the govt. if you don't like their rules don't drive on their roads....

this is EXACTLY the problem being perpetrated by the movement towards a police state... the idea that we the people are ALLOWED to occupy land, and we the people are ALLOWED to drive on roads by the government we are supposed to SERVE and FUND to no end, THAT IS FACSISM... that is not how it is SUPPOSED to work, that is unconstitutional... the government serves us, we put it there, we paid for it, we are supposed to run the show... if these checks are okay because the state issues us drivers licenses ALLOWING us to drive on THEIR roads without any just cause and you think this isn't an invasion of privacy and illegal search than how about police going house to house searching every house on a certain block systematically searching a whole city under the guise of a marijauna watch arresting people for any little thing they find illegal just because the state issues the land and the building permits ALLOWING us to occupy the land and hold a state issued title... where does it end... if you are argueing the "state issued licences/state funded roads" argument then there really is no privacy you wouldn't be willing to give up and no search you would be willing to turn down because the state currently has their hand in REGULATING(or OWNING as you people like to think of it) everything... under that argument they can search your land, your home, your clothes, your person, your computer, anything they like and for no good reason... enjoy your little police state and feel safe because 7 out of 10 people would be in prison.

the key here is reasonable search... keeping drunks off the roads through checks is reasonable, they are a direct threat to the safety of all on the road, but the checking of the license and the seatbelts and the contents of a car when the person was not noticably endangering anyone or breaking any law is an unreasonable search and is an invasion of privacy, pure and simple... you give them a slice and they'll take the cake, it has been proven time and time again throughout history.

[Pale Rider]

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070530/NEWS/105300093

At a DUI checkpoint all those people introuble for breaking various laws but none for GUI, what idiots.

I hate this. I don't think the Gestapo, er... I mean the POLICE, have any damn right to stop you if you're not doing anything wrong.

I mean, they can set up a road block to stop cars to see if the driver has had a couple beers, but not to see if they're an ILLEGAL ALIEN?

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???!!!

[JohnDoe]

this is EXACTLY the problem being perpetrated by the movement towards a police state... the idea that we the people are ALLOWED to occupy land, and we the people are ALLOWED to drive on roads by the government we are supposed to SERVE and FUND to no end, THAT IS FACSISM... that is not how it is SUPPOSED to work, that is unconstitutional... the government serves us, we put it there, we paid for it, we are supposed to run the show... if these checks are okay because the state issues us drivers licenses ALLOWING us to drive on THEIR roads without any just cause and you think this isn't an invasion of privacy and illegal search than how about police going house to house searching every house on a certain block systematically searching a whole city under the guise of a marijauna watch arresting people for any little thing they find illegal just because the state issues the land and the building permits ALLOWING us to occupy the land and hold a state issued title... where does it end... if you are argueing the "state issued licences/state funded roads" argument then there really is no privacy you wouldn't be willing to give up and no search you would be willing to turn down because the state currently has their hand in REGULATING(or OWNING as you people like to think of it) everything... under that argument they can search your land, your home, your clothes, your person, your computer, anything they like and for no good reason... enjoy your little police state and feel safe because 7 out of 10 people would be in prison.

the key here is reasonable search... keeping drunks off the roads through checks is reasonable, they are a direct threat to the safety of all on the road, but the checking of the license and the seatbelts and the contents of a car when the person was not noticably endangering anyone or breaking any law is an unreasonable search and is an invasion of privacy, pure and simple... you give them a slice and they'll take the cake, it has been proven time and time again throughout history.

well said.

[Sitarro]

You're asking the wrong person - I'm all for nailing anyone doing anything illegal. :)

"65 is the speed limit; they won't pull you over if you're doing 74, or less."

So, let me get this straight, you are in favor of everyone else getting "nailed" for "anything" illegal. Seems a little disingenuous of you to break "the law" just because the cops who constantly break "the laws" which they are sworn to uphold, decide they won't bother with you for breaking "the law' by 9 mph rather than 10. What a load of shit. The police drive around like they are totally immune to the laws that are set up for just us, the pathetic little citizens. When do I get to stop their hypocritical, law breaking, fat asses. They set the worst examples of all with their stop sign running and speeding.

As for these check points, another load of horse shit. If they want to catch drunks, sit a few blocks from the bars and pull the patrons of those establishments over. Who do they think they are to waste my innocent ass's time pulling me over like a jack booted Nazi to "check my papers"? I don't trust the police further than I can throw their lard asses.

I got sucked into one of those check points one night in Florida(this was a year before 2001 so they couldn't use the terrorism excuse). I was minding my own business driving back to my motel from Kinkoes. It took 45 minutes of my time to have some smart ass punks behind badges search my rental car and question me about what I was doing in Ft. Meyers. I couldn't believe my eyes. Here were these red neck cops in knee high black boots and German Sheperds forcing us to go through a gauntlet of their prying eyes, I thought that I had become a time traveler and ended up in World War Two Germany....... WTF. Drunk driving searches are an excuse to harass innocent citizens, they need to come up with something better that won't make me late for work because they want to play their bullshit games. If they do catch a drunk driving asshole, in between their trips to I-Hop and yaking on a cell phone, maybe they should make sure that irresponsible asshole doesn't return to the street. On top of that, if that drunk just happens to be an off duty cop, I want his/her name published in the newspaper and have them go through the same garbage and expense of all of us ordinary citizens(they would also be kicked off of the force....first offense).

I just finished watching "The Patriot"...... I don't think a fucking police state is what our forefathers had in mind, I know I certainly don't want to live like that.

Oh and Shattered, you might be careful about what you wish for because tomorrow it may be you that is nailed for breaking some arbitrary bullshit law you didn't even know about.

[nevadamedic]

I hate this. I don't think the Gestapo, er... I mean the POLICE, have any damn right to stop you if you're not doing anything wrong.
I mean, they can set up a road block to stop cars to see if the driver has had a couple beers, but not to see if they're an ILLEGAL ALIEN?

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???!!!

Your right, they should do major road blocks looking for illegal immigrants!

[shattered]

"65 is the speed limit; they won't pull you over if you're doing 74, or less."

So, let me get this straight, you are in favor of everyone else getting "nailed" for "anything" illegal. Seems a little disingenuous of you to break "the law" just because the cops who constantly break "the laws" which they are sworn to uphold, decide they won't bother with you for breaking "the law' by 9 mph rather than 10. What a load of shit. The police drive around like they are totally immune to the laws that are set up for just us, the pathetic little citizens. When do I get to stop their hypocritical, law breaking, fat asses. They set the worst examples of all with their stop sign running and speeding.

As for these check points, another load of horse shit. If they want to catch drunks, sit a few blocks from the bars and pull the patrons of those establishments over. Who do they think they are to waste my innocent ass's time pulling me over like a jack booted Nazi to "check my papers"? I don't trust the police further than I can throw their lard asses.

I got sucked into one of those check points one night in Florida(this was a year before 2001 so they couldn't use the terrorism excuse). I was minding my own business driving back to my motel from Kinkoes. It took 45 minutes of my time to have some smart ass punks behind badges search my rental car and question me about what I was doing in Ft. Meyers. I couldn't believe my eyes. Here were these red neck cops in knee high black boots and German Sheperds forcing us to go through a gauntlet of their prying eyes, I thought that I had become a time traveler and ended up in World War Two Germany....... WTF. Drunk driving searches are an excuse to harass innocent citizens, they need to come up with something better that won't make me late for work because they want to play their bullshit games. If they do catch a drunk driving asshole, in between their trips to I-Hop and yaking on a cell phone, maybe they should make sure that irresponsible asshole doesn't return to the street. On top of that, if that drunk just happens to be an off duty cop, I want his/her name published in the newspaper and have them go through the same garbage and expense of all of us ordinary citizens(they would also be kicked off of the force....first offense).

I just finished watching "The Patriot"...... I don't think a fucking police state is what our forefathers had in mind, I know I certainly don't want to live like that.

Oh and Shattered, you might be careful about what you wish for because tomorrow it may be you that is nailed for breaking some arbitrary bullshit law you didn't even know about.


Bit-ter, bit-ter..

Just as a FYI, IF I happened to get pulled over for doing 74 in a 65 when it's perfectly acceptable any other time, guess what? I'd take the responsibility, suck it up, and deal with it. I've actually gotten 2 speeding tickets in my life, and I paid them both - I didn't go to court and complain that it was unfair, it was someone elses fault, the devil made me do it, or any other load of shit. It's called taking responsibility.

Here's the fun part.. You KNOW it's illegal to drive without a seatbelt - you do it anyway, but get mad if you're ticketed for it.

You know DUI is illegal, but you do it anyway (Every single one of you that has even a single drink, and then gets in your car and drives is driving while under the influence.

You know driving while suspended is illegal, but you do it anyway..
Yet you have the nerve to get offended when the cops do things to crack down on it.

(You being collective)

Listen, Sitarro, instead of sitting here bitching and moaning about how these checkpoints are wasting your time, and how they're such an inconvenience to you, try looking at it this way.. The guy that just got arrested 15 mins before you got there *could* have been the guy to sideswipe you out of nowhere, killing you, because he was driving while drunk, and without a license.

As for your smarmy little comment about what I "wish for", I don't believe I said I wished for this - I merely asked what the big deal was? I still don't see it.

As for what our "forefathers wanted", do you REALLY think they'd be proud of what we've become? I don't. And it's not because people keep taking things away from us. It's because we're abusing the privledges we're given.

[Gunny]

this is EXACTLY the problem being perpetrated by the movement towards a police state... the idea that we the people are ALLOWED to occupy land, and we the people are ALLOWED to drive on roads by the government we are supposed to SERVE and FUND to no end, THAT IS FACSISM... that is not how it is SUPPOSED to work, that is unconstitutional... the government serves us, we put it there, we paid for it, we are supposed to run the show... if these checks are okay because the state issues us drivers licenses ALLOWING us to drive on THEIR roads without any just cause and you think this isn't an invasion of privacy and illegal search than how about police going house to house searching every house on a certain block systematically searching a whole city under the guise of a marijauna watch arresting people for any little thing they find illegal just because the state issues the land and the building permits ALLOWING us to occupy the land and hold a state issued title... where does it end... if you are argueing the "state issued licences/state funded roads" argument then there really is no privacy you wouldn't be willing to give up and no search you would be willing to turn down because the state currently has their hand in REGULATING(or OWNING as you people like to think of it) everything... under that argument they can search your land, your home, your clothes, your person, your computer, anything they like and for no good reason... enjoy your little police state and feel safe because 7 out of 10 people would be in prison.

the key here is reasonable search... keeping drunks off the roads through checks is reasonable, they are a direct threat to the safety of all on the road, but the checking of the license and the seatbelts and the contents of a car when the person was not noticably endangering anyone or breaking any law is an unreasonable search and is an invasion of privacy, pure and simple... you give them a slice and they'll take the cake, it has been proven time and time again throughout history.

I disagree with the premise of your post. As has been pointed out by several members, driving is a privilege, not a right. Rights are God-given and inalienable. Privileges are EARNED, not endowed at birth.

The latter negates your argument.

[JohnDoe]

I disagree with the people that say the government owns the roads as if they themselves are not the government...

These are Public Roads, and they are OUR roads, and searching a car after giving someone a speeding ticket is illegal and unconstitutional because it is an invaision of privacy and because it is a "search" without a warrant, without probable cause that you are breaking a criminal law.

Check points for DUI, near an exit from a bar, or a park, where people are known to be in a party hardy situation is okay PERHAPS.

To set up check points for no real specific reason or cause to do such other than to hear the "ChaChing" on the cash register is unconstitutional imo.

[Monkeybone]

except when they search cars they get consent to do so and the person in the vehicle is usually giving them reasons with the way that they are acting.

[JohnDoe]

yes monkey, if you give them permission they can search your car or your house. YOur car is considered an extension of your house, under the law I believe...?

Most people do not know that when a cop asks to search your car, that you simply can say no.

Unless of course you have a loaded gun or a joint in clear view when he has pulled you over for speeding already, he can search your car on the spot...but it must be something criminal, not a civil offense, to warrant this taking place.

[Gunny]

I disagree with the people that say the government owns the roads as if they themselves are not the government...

These are Public Roads, and they are OUR roads, and searching a car after giving someone a speeding ticket is illegal and unconstitutional because it is an invaision of privacy and because it is a "search" without a warrant, without probable cause that you are breaking a criminal law.

Check points for DUI, near an exit from a bar, or a park, where people are known to be in a party hardy situation is okay PERHAPS.

To set up check points for no real specific reason or cause to do such other than to hear the "ChaChing" on the cash register is unconstitutional imo.

Legally, you are incorrect. The roads are for public use unless otherwise posted. The state/fed gov't owns them and is reposnsible for maintaining them, and ensuring good order and discipline prevails on them just as much as they are sidewalks downtown.

Regardless WHO the roads belong to, it does not negate the fact that driving is STILL a privilege, not a right.

If your vehicle is searched without yuor consent, regardless the circumstances that pulled you over, anything found is inadmissible in a court of law, unless it's in plain view of the officer when he looks into your vehicle.

I also disagree that setting up DUI checkpoints is unconstitutional, for the reason you imply becuase it is merely personal opinion, not fact.

If I was going to question the consitutionality, I would question what I already have .... the presumption of guilt.

[Doniston]

Your right, they should do major road blocks looking for illegal immigrants! They do, and I'm 160 miles from the border

I am still opposed.

[Doniston]

I disagree with the people that say the government owns the roads as if they themselves are not the government...

These are Public Roads, and they are OUR roads, and searching a car after giving someone a speeding ticket is illegal and unconstitutional because it is an invaision of privacy and because it is a "search" without a warrant, without probable cause that you are breaking a criminal law.

Check points for DUI, near an exit from a bar, or a park, where people are known to be in a party hardy situation is okay PERHAPS.

To set up check points for no real specific reason or cause to do such other than to hear the "ChaChing" on the cash register is unconstitutional imo. Me too---also HEH HEH.

[Pale Rider]

Well, if they're going to set up road blocks to "check your papers," like WWII Nazi Germany, and everybody thinks that's just fine and dandy, then get ready. People read these blogs. People in the government. They'll see here that most everybody thought, "oh gee, go ahead and pull me over and harass the shit out of me anytime for as long as you want, it's OK with me," and they'll just take it to the next level. Next, they'll have jack booted Gestapo pigs setting up blocks at the doors at malls, and you'll HAVE to stop and PROVE you paid for everything in your bag or cart. And after that they'll be doing neighborhood sweeps knocking on your door asking for I.D.. No I.D. on hand? We'll they'll just take your ass to JAIL until they can figure out who you are. Isn't that what we keep hearing the government CAN'T DO when it comes to illegal aliens? Doesn't that fall under "round them up?" Well what the fuck do you call rounding people into "road blocks?" Sounds a whole lot like rounding people up to me. I should think the liberals and the aclu would outraged at Gestapo style road blocks. One is every bit the same thing as the other. How can we allow one and not the other? Why is one OK and not the other?

I totally and absolutely think to just set up a road block and indiscriminately stop people for no reason other than to "check them" sounds WAAAAAAAY to much like Nazi Germany of WWII. Talk about the Patriot Act. Shit, road blocks make the Patriot Act look like a preschool program, and liberals bitch about the Patriot Act?

People are far to forgiving. You're letting the government presume you're guilty before you're even suspected of anything. You're letting government FORCIBILY detain you as if you were guilty even though they have no reason to. I tell you, it's bad, real bad, and it's even worse that some of you think it's OK.

[Yurt]

yes monkey, if you give them permission they can search your car or your house. YOur car is considered an extension of your house, under the law I believe...?
Most people do not know that when a cop asks to search your car, that you simply can say no.

Unless of course you have a loaded gun or a joint in clear view when he has pulled you over for speeding already, he can search your car on the spot...but it must be something criminal, not a civil offense, to warrant this taking place.

This is not right.

[JohnDoe]

The Supreme Court Ruled that they are NOT unconstitutional in 1990, but many disagreed with them.

So, absolutely, you are right Gunny, they are not unconstitutional if they follow the Federal Law on them which requires notification that they are going to be set up, and where they will be set up at, and WHY they chose the particular location they chose etc...


What are DWI checkpoints, and are they legal?

DWI checkpoints are roadblocks set up by law enforcement agencies on selected roads and highways to stop and detain individuals suspected of driving while intoxicated. Much like a roadblock that is established for border crossings or agricultural checks, officers use a neutral policy in which to stop vehicles and check the sobriety of the driver. If the driver appears intoxicated (with slurred speech, glassy eyes, etc.) officers will ask the driver to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. If the driver is deemed intoxicated, appropriate detention will follow.

Although there has been much debate over whether such roadblocks constitute illegal search and seizure, in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if sobriety checkpoints comply with federal requirements, they do not violate any constitutional amendments and are considered legal. In fact, many states have established their own guidelines to comply with federal rules including providing public notice on the location of checkpoints with reasons why particular locations are selected. Also, the Supreme Court found that the need to reduce alcohol-related accidents more than justified the minimal intrusion accompanying checkpoint procedures, thus allowing sobriety roadblocks to remain in effect.

[Pale Rider]

The Supreme Court Ruled that they are NOT unconstitutional in 1990, but many disagreed with them.

So, absolutely, you are right Gunny, they are not unconstitutional if they follow the Federal Law on them which requires notification that they are going to be set up, and where they will be set up at, and WHY they chose the particular location they chose etc...

They're not going to give up such a rosie cash cow as road blocks. They'll justify it with whatever means necessary. Left up to government to decide whether or not something THEY are doing is OK or not, what out come WOULD you expect when the bottom line is about money?

[JohnDoe]

They're not going to give up such a rosie cash cow as road blocks. They'll justify it with whatever means necessary. Left up to government to decide whether or not something THEY are doing is OK or not, what out come WOULD you expect when the bottom line is about money?

I agree Pale Rider. I am not even sure if there is solid evidence that proves these check points even work to stop Drunk Drivers or deter Drunk Drivers.

It's a money making machine is what it is imo.

Btw Pale, we know eachother from the past, I believe it was Fullpolitics, and politics.com before it went under.

I will remain JonDoe for a bit, but just wanted to say HI ! :) lol

[Pale Rider]

I agree Pale Rider. I am not even sure if there is solid evidence that proves these check points even work to stop Drunk Drivers or deter Drunk Drivers.

It's a money making machine is what it is imo.

Btw Pale, we know eachother from the past, I believe it was Fullpolitics, and politics.com before it went under.

I will remain JonDoe for a bit, but just wanted to say HI ! :) lol

I've never been on fullpolitics, or politics.com. I was on another board called celiberal.com, but my nick there was High Plains Drifter.

I doubt we know each other.

[JohnDoe]

I've never been on fullpolitics, or politics.com. I was another board called celiberal.com, but my nick there was High Plains Drifter.

I doubt we know each other.my mistake then, must have been another Pale Rider!

[Gunny]

The Supreme Court Ruled that they are NOT unconstitutional in 1990, but many disagreed with them.

So, absolutely, you are right Gunny, they are not unconstitutional if they follow the Federal Law on them which requires notification that they are going to be set up, and where they will be set up at, and WHY they chose the particular location they chose etc...

One thing I find particularly annoying about this, doesn't apply to just DWI checkpoints, but lane closures period.


Also, the Supreme Court found that the need to reduce alcohol-related accidents more than justified the minimal intrusion accompanying checkpoint procedures, thus allowing sobriety roadblocks to remain in effect.

I do NOT consider an hour and half wait in line a "minimal intrusion." It's hard enough to get anywhere nowadays just because of all the morons allowed to operate motr vehicles that are out there without roads under perma-construction, or some checkpoint that presumes me guilty until I prove myself innocent.

[chum43]

It's not so much that I disagree that it is a priviledge to drive on public roads, I know it's not exactly a right... but we pay for the roads and we decide what rules we want to enforce on them and we give certain guidelines that need to be followed to earn that priviledge, so we do have the right to drive on public roads and be left alone to do so without invasion of privacy so long as we aren't doing anything wrong, and that is my problem with check points like these where everything is taken into consideration... the government is a hired security guard for the people, not our parents, yet they act more like our parents and less like our public servents, police are there to enforce the law, not harass everyone THEY(at least that is the way they see it) gave the priviledge too... so it's not so much that i disagree with the driving is a priviledge idea, it's WHO gave the priviledge, public roads, that's us, the law abiding citizens who give the priviledge for the police to enforce, not for them to harrass everyone who goes through a certain street on a certain day.

[Yurt]

One thing I find particularly annoying about this, doesn't apply to just DWI checkpoints, but lane closures period.



I do NOT consider an hour and half wait in line a "minimal intrusion." It's hard enough to get anywhere nowadays just because of all the morons allowed to operate motr vehicles that are out there without roads under perma-construction, or some checkpoint that presumes me guilty until I prove myself innocent.

What if it was proven that the inconvenience saved just one life?

[chum43]

What if it was proven that the inconvenience saved just one life?

ANY inconvenience could be proven to have saved one life... one life isn't always worth it, I hate to sound cynical but it's more than just well one life was saved, it's got to be worth the inconvenience and the inconvenience has to be reasonable, lawful, and be kept within our rights.

hell think how many lives could be saved if only one car was allowed on a given mile of road at a time, that doesn't mean it was worth it... my point is the number of lives saved is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether or not the inconvenience was reasonable, and dui checks where licenses and registrations are looked at and tickets written out for seatbelts, is not reasonable, a quick look over to see if the driver is intoxicated and then on your way, thats reasonable once in a while... anything more is too much.

[shattered]

ANY inconvenience could be proven to have saved one life... one life isn't always worth it, I hate to sound cynical but it's more than just well one life was saved, it's got to be worth the inconvenience and the inconvenience has to be reasonable, lawful, and be kept within our rights.

hell think how many lives could be saved if only one car was allowed on a given mile of road at a time, that doesn't mean it was worth it... my point is the number of lives saved is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether or not the inconvenience was reasonable, and dui checks where licenses and registrations are looked at and tickets written out for seatbelts, is not reasonable, a quick look over to see if the driver is intoxicated and then on your way, thats reasonable once in a while... anything more is too much.

Well, what if that one life were your SO, or child? THEN would it be worth it? Who defines worth, anyway?

[Gunny]

What if it was proven that the inconvenience saved just one life?

You cannot prove it saved a life because you have preempted the process. Yes, a drunk driver may cause an accident that kills someone. Then again, he might not. An idiot with a license might though, after passing the checkpoint.

[Yurt]

ANY inconvenience could be proven to have saved one life... one life isn't always worth it, I hate to sound cynical but it's more than just well one life was saved, it's got to be worth the inconvenience and the inconvenience has to be reasonable, lawful, and be kept within our rights.

hell think how many lives could be saved if only one car was allowed on a given mile of road at a time, that doesn't mean it was worth it... my point is the number of lives saved is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether or not the inconvenience was reasonable, and dui checks where licenses and registrations are looked at and tickets written out for seatbelts, is not reasonable, a quick look over to see if the driver is intoxicated and then on your way, thats reasonable once in a while... anything more is too much.


So, your answer is:

one life saved, fuck the life, because fuck the checkpoint?


????

[Yurt]

You cannot prove it saved a life because you have preempted the process. Yes, a drunk driver may cause an accident that kills someone. Then again, he might not. An idiot with a license might though, after passing the checkpoint.

I said:


What if it was proven that the inconvenience saved just one life



If, it was proven Gunny, would that time you lost spent at the checkpoint be worth it?

[Gunny]

I said:





If, it was proven Gunny, would that time you lost spent at the checkpoint be worth it?


And again, you cannot legitimately prove it, so your attempt to trap me is illegitimate as well. It is a non-factor.

[chum43]

So, your answer is:

one life saved, fuck the life, because fuck the checkpoint?


????

so what is your solution? save every life possible no matter the cost... everyone live in a bubble with reinforced plush walls and never do anything?

yes I say fuck any life that needs to be saved through unreasonable and annoying inconveniences to every other person on the planet... some are worth it, some aren't... I already said the checkpoint was worth it, but not the way it was carried out, like i said get the drunks off the road, fine by me, just don't go through searching every car on the road, that is not reasonable.

[Yurt]

And again, you cannot legitimately prove it, so your attempt to trap me is illegitimate as well. It is a non-factor.

Are you sure?

Why can't you answer the question? You are a straightforward guy, why is a life a non-factor?

It is not about proof Gunny, but whether the balance of your time, the intrusion, is worth the life.

I want to know from you, is 90 minutes worth one life......

[chum43]

I want to know from you, is 90 minutes worth one life......


it's actually a very valid point... I guess for me it's just an issue of where the 90 minutes is being enforced... the problem is if you start giving up rights to the government in order to save lives, at any level and any amount, you open the flood gates... when it comes to government and peoples rights you almost have to forget about saving lives and start thinking about what your freedom is worth and it's a hard distinction to make... personally I would think the number of cops it takes to do a dui checkpoint could spot drunk drivers who endangered lives without even stopping the cars, or at most stopping the cars briefly for a hello or maybe a question as to how much they had to drink, where they are going and such, so if you are talking about lives being saved it is definitely not necessary to be writing tickets for every little thing and asking to see licenses and registrations of people who have not done anything wrong...

the problem is a lot of people get so caught up in the lives being saved number that they are blind to what the government and police are really doing here, and that is stopping law abiding citizens and writing lofty tickets for no reason at all under the veil of dui checks, dui checks can be done a lot more efficiently and still save lives... so in this case specifically I don't think lives being saved is even relevant... it isn't a non-issue, it's just a non-issue here. even when it is an issue, people have it backwards, rights and freedom first, saving a few lives second.

[Mr. P]

This thread has gotten ridiculous..Lost rights? You don't have the right to start with. LOL.

Tell yea what..Government is out, the roads are all yours to build, maintain and control. I can't wait to see the 10 year old pass me at 70 mph on a country road. Geezzzz..But then that's their right, right?

[Pale Rider]

This thread has gotten ridiculous..Lost rights? You don't have the right to start with. LOL.

Tell yea what..Government is out, the roads are all yours to build, maintain and control. I can't wait to see the 10 year old pass me at 70 mph on a country road. Geezzzz..But then that's their right, right?

Yup... and since we've gone completely hypothetical, I can't wait for another 10 years for when they go house to house knocking on doors, asking for I.D., asking if you have anal sex with your wife, checking to see if you guns, making sure you're house is up to code, etc., etc.. Because hey, if it's OK for them to stop you for no reason out on the road, then you really don't have any reasonable objection to them going house to house. One's not any different than the other.

[Mr. P]

Yup... and since we've gone completely hypothetical, I can't wait for another 10 years for when they go house to house knocking on doors, asking for I.D., asking if you have anal sex with your wife, checking to see if you guns, making sure you're house is up to code, etc., etc.. Because hey, if it's OK for them to stop you for no reason out on the road, then you really don't have any reasonable objection to them going house to house. One's not any different than the other.

Sure it is, one's private property, although some local govs 'try' to access homes now to assess value for tax purposes and code stuff..last I heard it ain't working very well.

That I have a problem with..What they do on the road is not a problem IMO.

[Pale Rider]

Sure it is, one's private property, although some local govs 'try' to access homes now to assess value for tax purposes and code stuff..last I heard it ain't working very well.

That I have a problem with..What they do on the road is not a problem IMO.

My point is, it's the slippery slope. If there's no outrage over Gestapo tactics on the roads, it WILL lead to further incursions on your privacy. Mark my words.

[Mr. P]

My point is, it's the slippery slope. If there's no outrage over Gestapo tactics on the roads, it WILL lead to further incursions on your privacy. Mark my words.

They have been conducting DUI blocks for many many years. It hasn't expanded to anything else I am aware of.

[gabosaurus]

I think this is a pretty awesome thing. I wish California would do the same type of checkpoints.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. No seat belt, no license, no registration -- fork over the cash and/or go to jail.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[chum43]

They have been conducting DUI blocks for many many years. It hasn't expanded to anything else I am aware of.

haha... did you even read the original post?

and as for it all being ok because breaking the law is breaking the law then why don't we all undergo drug tests on a daily basis? because breaking the law isn't the issue, people never understand that, it's the way in which law enforcement catches the people breaking the law, and it's not even about the people breaking the law, it's the 10 innocent people's rights they intrude upon in the process of catching one person breaking the law, now if that law is drunk driving and all they did was stop your car, thats fine, but they didn't, NO DUI arrests were made, all they did was harrass a bunch of innocent people for no purpose other than writing tickets to people who were causing ABSOLUTELY NO TROUBLE, regardless of which innane laws(seatbelt bullshit) they were breaking.

[chum43]

Sure it is, one's private property, although some local govs 'try' to access homes now to assess value for tax purposes and code stuff..last I heard it ain't working very well.

That I have a problem with..What they do on the road is not a problem IMO.

vehicles are private property in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as a home is... i'm not sure if you are familiar with title law, but the deed to land is essential owned by the government in the same way the roads are, you own the house built on it... it's the same for a car on a road.

[chum43]

This thread has gotten ridiculous..Lost rights? You don't have the right to start with. LOL.

Tell yea what..Government is out, the roads are all yours to build, maintain and control. I can't wait to see the 10 year old pass me at 70 mph on a country road. Geezzzz..But then that's their right, right?

so you are saying we have absolutely no rights on "government owned" roads? you can't walk out of a house in this country without ending up on a government owned road, so we only have rights in our homes, which is on land that is government owned... my god we have no rights.

you have absolutely no logic... the government is out?... guess what happens... we would appoint and elect people to enforce the laws we choose to put in place and give them our taxes and have them maintain the roads, that is how it would work, that is the way it works now or is supposed to based on how we set things up in the first place, so lets stop with all the moronic hypothetical situations that don't make any sense... this way of thinking IS the problem, the government is not in charge of us, we(law abiding citizens) are in charge of the government.

[Pale Rider]

They have been conducting DUI blocks for many many years. It hasn't expanded to anything else I am aware of.

I don't recall one any less than 10 years ago. DUI road blocks are relatively new, and just another incursion, another step, another brick in the wall, against yours and mine personal rights, and you are inviting it, even embracing it. It will get worse. The Gestapo sees the apathy towards road blocks, and it won't take them long to take it to the next level. It WILL happen. You just remember that I was against this type of thing when they knock on your door. It's not herding you into a Nazi style, where's your papers, road block anymore. Now they're standing at your front door knocking. I hope you realize then that you should have been against the road blocks as well.

[JohnDoe]

so you are saying we have absolutely no rights on "government owned" roads? you can't walk out of a house in this country without ending up on a government owned road, so we only have rights in our homes, which is on land that is government owned... my god we have no rights.

you have absolutely no logic... the government is out?... guess what happens... we would appoint and elect people to enforce the laws we choose to put in place and give them our taxes and have them maintain the roads, that is how it would work, that is the way it works now or is supposed to based on how we set things up in the first place, so lets stop with all the moronic hypothetical situations that don't make any sense... this way of thinking IS the problem, the government is not in charge of us, we(law abiding citizens) are in charge of the government.

DAMN chum! Well said, again. I tried to give you some more Rep points but it said I had to spread some around

[Doniston]

Yup... and since we've gone completely hypothetical, I can't wait for another 10 years for when they go house to house knocking on doors, asking for I.D., asking if you have anal sex with your wife, checking to see if you guns, making sure you're house is up to code, etc., etc.. Because hey, if it's OK for them to stop you for no reason out on the road, then you really don't have any reasonable objection to them going house to house. One's not any different than the other. This is a good point. I agree.

[Sitarro]

How funny that so many that pretend to be conservative are so in favor of government intrusion. I added it up, those wonderful boys in blue are really highway robbers. They didn't catch any real criminals, they stole innocent citizens time, harassed innocent citizens, pirated $7490 in fines(where does that money go?) and I'm sure that they confiscated numerous cars which will be auctioned off or used by the cops themselves.

Again, why allow a drunk to even make it that far if that is really what they are after? Why not set up check points at 2AM outside the huge dance clubs on the street? You know that is where drunks are coming from, why do they not do it? Are they being bribed by the bars to not harass their customers? How about stopping the "well to do" driving out of the Country Club parking lot? There are people that drink for 5 hours while playing a round of what they pretend is golf, the club provides a beer cart that drives around serving alcohol(the cute girls with the short skirts driving them..... are they 21?). These people drink all day on the course and then end up in the lounge drinking more.

Let's get real, DUI check points are nomore successful at stopping drunk driving as the check points in West Texas and California are at stopping illegal aliens. Same goes for the "drug war", these geniuses have taken the least serious drug(including the legal ones) and made it more difficult to get by making crack and meth easier to get. If you are a smuggler, what are you going to bring in......a strong smelling, bulky, lower priced substance or the powder and rock that is easier to conceal and doesn't have a smell that humans can detect? Of course the police are going to spend the time to bust pot dealers, they are much less violent than speed or coke dealers and a bunch of pounds of grass is much more impressive to the ignorant citizen..... it make the police look like they are accomplishing something. The fact is more crime is done while people are under the influence of alcohol or meth and cocaine.

Oh and Shattered.......bitter??? Kettle accussing the tea pot of being black?

[Sitarro]

Oh and Shattered.......bitter??? Kettle accussing the tea pot of being black?

Problem with the truth Shattered, if you want to start a rep. war with me have at it. Judging from the picture you have posted that looks like you have smelled the rather foul broccoli fart you just let loose, I would say that it is you that is the bitter old lady that sits at her computer all night. :fu:

[shattered]

Problem with the truth Shattered, if you want to start a rep. war with me have at it. Judging from the picture you have posted that looks like you have smelled the rather foul broccoli fart you just let loose, I would say that it is you that is the bitter old lady that sits at her computer all night. :fu:

"Rep war"? You sound like a moron. I neg repped you because not only do I disagree with your entire post, I also disagree with the asinine manner in which you presented your point.

Don't like it? Deal with it, report it, or rep back.

In any case, stop being a sniveling baby about it.

[Sitarro]

"Rep war"? You sound like a moron. I neg repped you because not only do I disagree with your entire post, I also disagree with the asinine manner in which you presented your point.

Don't like it? Deal with it, report it, or rep back.

In any case, stop being a sniveling baby about it.

You are just such a badass, I'm scared to death.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I disagree with many of your posts, your attitude, your rudeness..... yet I have always let it slide, not anymore.

So far you have claimed I am a moron, envious, an ass, bitter..... what else? Seems that you can shovel it in every post but as soon as anyone talks back your true self emerges. I have seen it plenty of times.

You know what you are, I don't need to call you names.

[shattered]

You are just such a badass, I'm scared to death.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I disagree with many of your posts, your attitude, your rudeness..... yet I have always let it slide, not anymore.

So far you have claimed I am a moron, envious, an ass, bitter..... what else? Seems that you can shovel it in every post but as soon as anyone talks back your true self emerges. I have seen it plenty of times.

You know what you are, I don't need to call you names.

:salute:

[Doniston]

You are just such a badass, I'm scared to death.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I disagree with many of your posts, your attitude, your rudeness..... yet I have always let it slide, not anymore.

So far you have claimed I am a moron, envious, an ass, bitter..... what else? Seems that you can shovel it in every post but as soon as anyone talks back your true self emerges. I have seen it plenty of times.

You know what you are, I don't need to call you names. Well said.

[Missileman]

How funny that so many that pretend to be conservative are so in favor of government intrusion. I added it up, those wonderful boys in blue are really highway robbers. They didn't catch any real criminals, they stole innocent citizens time, harassed innocent citizens, pirated $7490 in fines(where does that money go?) and I'm sure that they confiscated numerous cars which will be auctioned off or used by the cops themselves.



I don't see law enforcement as government intrusion. As a matter of fact, that's what we pay the cops for...to enforce the law. That no drunk drivers were popped at this particular checkpoint is irrelevant. A local one here nabbed six. Those of us who wear our seat belts, keep our license, registration, and insurance current, and who don't drink and drive have nothing to fear from a DUI checkpoint.

[chum43]

I don't see law enforcement as government intrusion. As a matter of fact, that's what we pay the cops for...to enforce the law. That no drunk drivers were popped at this particular checkpoint is irrelevant. A local one here nabbed six. Those of us who wear our seat belts, keep our license, registration, and insurance current, and who don't drink and drive have nothing to fear from a DUI checkpoint.

I just personally think we pay them to enforce the law and check up on things when they are suspicious... not to check everyone and weed out the criminals... people who don't drink and drive should have nothing to fear from a dui checkpoint, the rest of the stuff should never be brought up...

anyway get ready next year for federal I.D. checkpoints... apparently it's part of the true I.D. plan... how will you like having to show ID(and god knows what else) to the fbi just to leave the state?... my point is this isn't about dui checkpoints, it's about a serious problem which seems to be under the radar of most folks.

[Missileman]

I just personally think we pay them to enforce the law and check up on things when they are suspicious... not to check everyone and weed out the criminals... people who don't drink and drive should have nothing to fear from a dui checkpoint, the rest of the stuff should never be brought up...

Are you suggesting that cops ignore the breaking of any law other than DUI at DUI checkpoints?

[Sitarro]

I don't see law enforcement as government intrusion. As a matter of fact, that's what we pay the cops for...to enforce the law. That no drunk drivers were popped at this particular checkpoint is irrelevant. A local one here nabbed six. Those of us who wear our seat belts, keep our license, registration, and insurance current, and who don't drink and drive have nothing to fear from a DUI checkpoint.

Again, if nabbing drunk drivers is actually what they are supposedly doing, why aren't they setting up near the giant dancehalls that invariably have fights and almost every weekend, murders..... especially the ones that are frequented by illegal Mexicans. In Houston we can count on a minimum of 2 every weekend and that is a slow weekend(the names are almost always Hispanic). Hell, they could pop numerous illegals, drugs, knives, guns and probably even illegal alcohol. Instead they set up where the money is..... on the highway. That way the drunk driver has a chance to do all sorts of havock on the way to the highway from the bar.

There is really no defending this waste of man hours and resources....not when murders are happening, rapes are occuring, gang violence is constantly going on and other cops are breaking every law everytime they get in their car. I will start respecting the police when they start respecting themselves and the citizens they are suppose to serve.

[Mr. P]

Again, if nabbing drunk drivers is actually what they are supposedly doing, why aren't they setting up near the giant dancehalls that invariably have fights and almost every weekend, murders..... especially the ones that are frequented by illegal Mexicans. In Houston we can count on a minimum of 2 every weekend and that is a slow weekend(the names are almost always Hispanic). Hell, they could pop numerous illegals, drugs, knives, guns and probably even illegal alcohol. Instead they set up where the money is..... on the highway. That way the drunk driver has a chance to do all sorts of havock on the way to the highway from the bar.

There is really no defending this waste of man hours and resources....not when murders are happening, rapes are occuring, gang violence is constantly going on and other cops are breaking every law everytime they get in their car. I will start respecting the police when they start respecting themselves and the citizens they are suppose to serve.

Sounds like a local issue, Sitarro. Really, it does. Here they address the problem areas. The blocks when they do them can be anywhere.

[chum43]

Are you suggesting that cops ignore the breaking of any law other than DUI at DUI checkpoints?

I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm simply saying they do the same thing they do when they are out patrolling the streets, only asking for verification and searching vehicles when they witness someone either doing something suspicious or breaking the law... asking for license, registration, and insurance at a dui checkpoint is more than just not ignoring people breaking the law... again it's not about catching the few people who have suspended licenses, it's about the fact that they had to harrass many people who did nothing wrong in order to get those few.

[Mr. P]

I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm simply saying they do the same thing they do when they are out patrolling the streets, only asking for verification and searching vehicles when they witness someone either doing something suspicious or breaking the law... asking for license, registration, and insurance at a dui checkpoint is more than just not ignoring people breaking the law... again it's not about catching the few people who have suspended licenses, it's about the fact that they had to harrass many people who did nothing wrong in order to get those few.

You think a block is harassment?

[Monkeybone]

I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm simply saying they do the same thing they do when they are out patrolling the streets, only asking for verification and searching vehicles when they witness someone either doing something suspicious or breaking the law... asking for license, registration, and insurance at a dui checkpoint is more than just not ignoring people breaking the law... again it's not about catching the few people who have suspended licenses, it's about the fact that they had to harrass many people who did nothing wrong in order to get those few.

you mean three things that are required to drive?

i can understand some of the points, like why they don't do it closer to the bars, but that would have to be every weekend or even night in some places. that would be a little too far i think, but not a random checkpoint.

[chum43]

you mean three things that are required to drive?


I Just believe in all instances of government and law enforcement that if you aren't doing anything wrong you should be left alone.

and no the dui check specifically isn't really harrassment, but it is an uncalled for inconvenience when you have to prove you belong on the road when you haven't done anything wrong by showing documents... it's more the principal of the thing, you have to show papers to prove you belong somewhere when you haven't done anything wrong and you aren't suspicious in any way and no one has any specific reason to believe you don't belong there, that is intrusive and shouldn't be happening on any level.

[Mr. P]

you mean three things that are required to drive?

i can understand some of the points, like why they don't do it closer to the bars, but that would have to be every weekend or even night in some places. that would be a little too far i think, but not a random checkpoint.

Random an discrimination are key regarding 'checkpoints'.

Random: They can't set one up outside a club and be effective at curbing DUIs.The only result of that would be the closing of a business. Folk ain't going there if they know what's waiting just outside.

Discrimination: There can't be any charge of discrimination at a checkpoint because EVERYONE that comes along is asked for the same information. It doesn't matter where you came from, what color or sex you are everyone is equal.

[Monkeybone]

Random an discrimination are key regarding 'checkpoints'.

Random: They can't set one up outside a club and be effective at curbing DUIs.The only result of that would be the closing of a business. Folk ain't going there if they know what's waiting just outside.

Discrimination: There can't be any charge of discrimination at a checkpoint because EVERYONE that comes along is asked for the same information. It doesn't matter where you came from, what color or sex you are everyone is equal.

i know that. and that is what i meant (understand not agree), these things are random, they aren't set up to pick on a certain group of ppl. it's these ppl that are going on about nazi's and such.

[Mr. P]

I Just believe in all instances of government and law enforcement that if you aren't doing anything wrong you should be left alone.

and no the dui check specifically isn't really harrassment, but it is an uncalled for inconvenience when you have to prove you belong on the road when you haven't done anything wrong by showing documents... it's more the principal of the thing, you have to show papers to prove you belong somewhere when you haven't done anything wrong and you aren't suspicious in any way and no one has any specific reason to believe you don't belong there, that is intrusive and shouldn't be happening on any level.

Inconvenience? Maybe. Papers to prove you belong somewhere? No. It's paper to prove you are legally on the road, nothing more.

[Missileman]

I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm simply saying they do the same thing they do when they are out patrolling the streets, only asking for verification and searching vehicles when they witness someone either doing something suspicious or breaking the law... asking for license, registration, and insurance at a dui checkpoint is more than just not ignoring people breaking the law... again it's not about catching the few people who have suspended licenses, it's about the fact that they had to harrass many people who did nothing wrong in order to get those few.

I don't believe that vehicles are being searched without probable cause. The cops can tell whether you are in comliance with seatbelt laws just by looking at you when you roll up. The only additional thing being done is a license check. I'd hardly call it harrassment to be asked to look at your license. And I'd much prefer non-insured drivers get identified at a checkpoint than after they've hit me.

[chum43]

I don't believe that vehicles are being searched without probable cause. The cops can tell whether you are in comliance with seatbelt laws just by looking at you when you roll up. The only additional thing being done is a license check. I'd hardly call it harrassment to be asked to look at your license. And I'd much prefer non-insured drivers get identified at a checkpoint than after they've hit me.

like i said it's just the principal of it... unjustified checking of documentation... I don't need to constantly prove myself as a law abiding citizen, given this is just a once in a while thing checkpoints here and there, but it could get worse if no one has a problem with it, I personally have a problem with it thats all.

[Mr. P]

like i said it's just the principal of it... unjustified checking of documentation... I don't need to constantly prove myself as a law abiding citizen, given this is just a once in a while thing checkpoints here and there, but it could get worse if no one has a problem with it, I personally have a problem with it thats all.

It's not unjustified at all. I'm glad the police are extra vigilant on holidays with checks/blocks etc. when more people are on the road and maybe some shouldn't be.

You don't need to 'constantly prove myself as a law abiding citizen' either, this is not an everyday thing. Regardless, they won't ask for anything other than the standard info you should have at anytime. So it really comes down to "crap 10 more minutes" to get where I'm going. BFD!

Do they have these stops/checks in Nevada? You seem paranoid to me.

[Dilloduck]

like i said it's just the principal of it... unjustified checking of documentation... I don't need to constantly prove myself as a law abiding citizen, given this is just a once in a while thing checkpoints here and there, but it could get worse if no one has a problem with it, I personally have a problem with it thats all.

Constantly ? How many times did you have to prove who you were last month? Get used to it tho----if we want enforcement and cops can't profile then we all get checked.

[gabosaurus]

I am in total agreement with Mr. P. I wouldn't mind having more checkpoints. If my having to be delayed 10 or 15 minutes will remove criminals with warrants out for them from the streets, I am all for it. If you have beer cans or liquor bottles in your car, or if your breath smells of alcohol, you deserve to be tested and/or search. If you are not carrying a license, insurance and vehicle registration, you deserve to be carted off to jail.

[Mr. P]

I like it when both sides agree with me...I get all fuzzy. :laugh2:

Seriously, Gabby..I'm glad you feel that way.

[chum43]

Constantly ? How many times did you have to prove who you were last month? Get used to it tho----if we want enforcement and cops can't profile then we all get checked.

if you read my post you'll notice I said it's just a once in a while thing here and there are actually quite infrequent... my point is that the attitude that most americans have on the issue is a breeding ground for there to be more of them, hell most of you WANT more of them... it's not that I think I have to constantly prove my myself, it's the fear that we're headed there, and I believe we are, if this isn't the start right now, it is definitely a starting point, and if people accept it and allow it to increase we have problems, and yes i'll admit i'm a little paranoid, when you constantly hear about all the corruption in government you stop trusting it to "just do the right thing" when given the option of the doing the wrong thing, and no it's not the bush administration, it's the whole damn world in the whole of modern times... governments are corrupt when given the option, THATS a fact, i'm just advocating minimizing those options, thats all... i've said from the beginning occasional dui checks are fine by me, it's the increasing requirements(although very small as of yet) of such a check that have me paranoid.

[chum43]

If you have beer cans or liquor bottles in your car, or if your breath smells of alcohol, you deserve to be tested and/or search. If you are not carrying a license, insurance and vehicle registration, you deserve to be carted off to jail.

who doesn't agree with that? everyone agrees with that, that isn't the issue, the issue is how often and to what extent is it ok for them to stop innocent people doing nothing wrong to make sure they aren't one of those people who should be carted off to jail?... my answer would be as little as possible while still keeping the roads safe, I just don't see how much more safe the roads really are if they do anything more than check for drunks at a dui checkpoint.

[nevadamedic]

I like it when both sides agree with me...I get all fuzzy. :laugh2:

Seriously, Gabby..I'm glad you feel that way.

Warm and Fuzzy?

[Gunny]

Inconvenience? Maybe. Papers to prove you belong somewhere? No. It's paper to prove you are legally on the road, nothing more.

If it's a license, registration and insurance check, then DUI Checkpoint is a misnomer, no?