Bystanders warning drivers of upcoming DWI checkpoints

[olds]

Nice retort. Care to use your brain now? Keep quoting "Ben Franklin" and I'll keep laughing at you.

I clearly pointed out that it wasn't a Ben Franklin quote. Thanks for proving my point though.

 

[pontifex]

Just ban cars. No more DUI. Won't someone think of the children!

yup

this is exactly like wanting to ban guns because a few people do bad things with them.

 

[twinrider1]

There are still some states that don't tolerate this drinking and driving BS.at.all.
http://expresslane.idrivesafely.com/toughest-dui-laws-us

AZ, OH, WA, and MA don't fuck around....

Yet Ohio is one of the states that require checkpoints be announced ahead of time. Does that make your brain hurt?

 

[Pulsar]

Feel free to provide your "in between" examples any time.

Like I said, you either support drunk driving + no checkpoints or the opposite.

A DUI Checkpoint is a forced stop and an attempted search of my person without any reasonable suspicion. While the supreme court may have managed to bastardize the constitution to make this and NYC's 'stop and frisk' practices 'legal', that doesn't mean I have to support them.

Saying that I must support driving while intoxicated if I don't support checkpoints is just plain stupid.

Would you also suggest that I support armed robbery if I don't support stop and frisk?

 

[SP33Demon]

A DUI Checkpoint is a forced stop and an attempted search of my person without any reasonable suspicion. While the supreme court may have managed to bastardize the constitution to make this and NYC's 'stop and frisk' practices 'legal', that doesn't mean I have to support them.

Saying that I must support driving while intoxicated if I don't support checkpoints is just plain stupid.

Would you also suggest that I support armed robbery if I don't support stop and frisk?

Funny, I've never been frisked at a dui checkpoint. They stopped and asked me some questions while in my car and if they didn't smell alcohol on my breath, I went on my way. No clue what retarded state you live in, but let us know the county too so we don't have to move there.

 

[bradley]

A DUI Checkpoint is a forced stop and an attempted search of my person without any reasonable suspicion. While the supreme court may have managed to bastardize the constitution to make this and NYC's 'stop and frisk' practices 'legal', that doesn't mean I have to support them.

Saying that I must support driving while intoxicated if I don't support checkpoints is just plain stupid.

Would you also suggest that I support armed robbery if I don't support stop and frisk?

Yep, it's sort of like putting locks away from your home rather at the point of entry. Again, I really like the idea of a blow and go "how drunk am I?" ignition system -- not that some won't try to evade it.

A minuscule amount of people are actually stopped at these revenue generating checkpoints, which amount to nothing more than 'feelgood' violations of rights.

Anyhow, the majority of DUI laws themselves are more like suggestions not to drive drunk. Just this week, I saw three otherwise responsible people drive under the influence of alcohol, like it was nothing. The rules always apply to someone else, including stopping me for your right to drive drunk.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yep, it's sort of like putting locks away from your home rather at the point of entry. Again, I really like the idea of a blow and go "how drunk am I?" ignition system -- not that some won't try to evade it.

A minuscule amount of people are actually stopped at these revenue generating checkpoints, which amount to nothing more than 'feelgood' violations of rights.

Anyhow, the majority of DUI laws themselves are more like suggestions not to drive drunk. Just this week, I saw three otherwise responsible people drive under the influence of alcohol, like it was nothing. The rules always apply to someone else, including stopping me for your right to drive drunk.

Violation of rights? That ship sailed a long time ago. No rights violations found, said the Supreme Court in 1990/1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."

Stop whining, all they do is ask you if you've been drinking, just say "No". If you really want to be a dick, ask them if you're legally obligated to answer their questions like this guy: http://youtu.be/LCMMAeg2NYY
But don't be surprised if the cops aren't as nice as the ones in this video. This thread needs more tissues.

 

[bradley]

He who smelt it dealt it, in regard to whining. lol In 2010, the US Supreme Court also ruled in favor of corporate personhood, which is a far more damaging ruling. Yet, whenever I damn well choose, I'll argue against whole corporations having common law and Constitution rights identical to an individual.

BTW, I actually like this link way better. Some interesting stats as well.

https://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkpoints/Sobriety/sobrietyCheckpoints.htm

One of the most ubiquitous forms of suspicionless checkpoints is the sobriety checkpoint. Many folks are under the false impression that sobriety checkpoints are legal throughout the country based upon Michigan Dept. of State Police V. Sitz. While the Supreme Court did in fact carve out a 4th Amendment exception for sobriety checkpoints in this case, legal analysis doesn't stop there. Before a sobriety checkpoint can be considered 'legal', it must not only pass constitutional muster at the federal level, it must do so at the state level as well while abiding by all applicable statutory requirements. What this means is that 11 states currently prohibit sobriety checkpoints within their boundaries. In the remaining 39 States, one or more of the following conditions exist:

Roadblocks are explicitly authorized by statutory law
Courts have upheld them despite the lack of specific statutory authorization
Courts have failed to strike down or review checkpoints conducted unilaterally by local police

What's especially ironic about this scenario is that even though it was a Michigan case that gave rise to the 4th amendment loophole to begin with, Michigan is still one of the 11 State's that explicitly prohibit sobriety checkpoints within its boundaries. After SCOTUS ruled in favor of Michigan's State police regarding their roadblock program, the case was remanded back to the Michigan Supreme Court for further review. The Michigan Supreme Court felt so strongly about the issue, they ruled that regardless of the federal Supreme Court's ruling, the State Constitution still made such roadblock programs illegal within Michigan's boundaries.

In Arizona, there's no state law explicitly addressing the issue of sobriety checkpoints. There are state statutes however that explicitly define when a peace officer may stop an individual. These statutes make it perfectly clear that a peace officer must have reasonable suspicion in order to initiate a stop. Further, the state constitution explicitly recognizes an individual's right to privacy that can only be pre-empted by an explicit act of the legislature. Nonetheless, AZ courts have upheld the legality of sobriety checkpoints mainly based upon SCOTUS's ruling in Michigan V. Sitz. Additionally, AZ courts have relied upon the 'compelling government interest' doctrine, a doctrine commonly used by courts across the country as a basis for justifying otherwise unlawful government behavior prejudicial to individual rights.

Continuing on with an ineffective sobriety checkpoint program designed to intimidate Pima County residents instead of protecting them, the Pima County Sheriff's Department has scheduled additional suspicionless checkpoints in and around Tucson, Arizona for the remainder of 2007.

These operations are paid for in full by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and therefore the program falls outside local budget priorities or constraints. Additionally, sheriff deputies participating in these blatant violations of your traveling rights are paid overtime and have benefited to the tune of $140,000 in overtime pay over the past two years. These facts raise the question of who the sheriff is actually serving - faceless bureaucrats two-thousand plus miles away in Washington, D.C. or local communities..

Why wouldn't police wait outside bars (where people drink) instead of allowing them entrance to major highways, if it wasn't only about power and money? Got me.

 

[SP33Demon]

He who smelt it dealt it, in regard to whining. lol In 2010, the US Supreme Court also ruled in favor of corporate personhood, which is a far more damaging ruling. Yet, whenever I damn well choose, I'll argue against whole corporations having common law and Constitution rights identical to an individual.

BTW, I actually like this link way better. Some interesting stats as well.

https://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkpoints/Sobriety/sobrietyCheckpoints.htm

Why wouldn't police wait outside bars (where people drink) instead of allowing them entrance to major highways, if it wasn't only about power and money? Got me.

In many mid Atlantic States, I've seen cops sitting outside of bars waiting to catch drunks but they aren't going to checkpoint since it would affect local business. In fact, a douchebag roommate of mine who had the breathalyzer in his car was busted for the 3rd time on a trip from a local college bar "less than a mile" to his g/f's dorm. He said cops were waiting for people when they left the bar and he was targeted. I told him good, don't drink and drive idiot.

Regarding states:

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States

80% (40 of 50 states) have not banned sobriety checkpoints so either move to one of those states or stop whining. You're in the minority, most states use them and in fact, many states work together when using them:

Some states combine their efforts in setting up sobriety checkpoint initiatives, such as Checkpoint Strikeforce, jointly run by Virginia, Washington DC, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland[14]

/applause

 

[SlickSnake]

He who smelt it dealt it, in regard to whining. lol In 2010, the US Supreme Court also ruled in favor of corporate personhood, which is a far more damaging ruling. Yet, whenever I damn well choose, I'll argue against whole corporations having common law and Constitution rights identical to an individual.

BTW, I actually like this link way better. Some interesting stats as well.

https://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkpoints/Sobriety/sobrietyCheckpoints.htm

Why wouldn't police wait outside bars (where people drink) instead of allowing them entrance to major highways, if it wasn't only about power and money? Got me.

But they already do this, too, and it's far more effective at getting drunks off the road than roadblocks are. My dad is in a band and leaves clubs and gets followed and pulled over and usually has only had a beer or 2. They have no other reason to pull him over except they see him leave a clubs parking lot. And there will be a long line of cops and tow trucks just waiting around a corner pulling these DUI stings on everyone leaving the clubs.

And in Texas they have the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission office cops who will hang out in bars in plain clothes, then suddenly attack and arrest supposedly drunk bar patrons, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Alcoholic_Beverage_Commission

TABC agents made national news for arresting customers in local hotel bars in the Dallas area. After national criticism the Texas Legislature quickly suspended the program last March pending more review.[3]

On June 28, 2009, TABC officers conducted a raid on the Rainbow Lounge, a gay bar in Fort Worth. Several customers were arrested for intoxication inside of the bar. One patron, Chad Gibson, was hospitalized due to injuries after beaten by officers, because he was intoxicated and unable to stand under his own power.[4] Gibson spent several days in the hospital, receiving treatment for a blood clot in his brain.[5]

Accusations of unnecessary brutality led to a protest outside of the Tarrant County Courthouse. Fort Worth City Councilman Joel Burns appeared on CBS News stating, "Rest assured the people of Fort Worth, or the government of Fort Worth, will not tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens."[6]

An officer responded by stating that an "extremely intoxicated patron made sexually explicit movements," which warranted the arrests.[7]

Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief has said, "It might have been helpful if the owner of the lounge had informed [officers] this day was more than just another day of the week. But at the same time, they have a job to do no matter what day of the week it is, and that job is to protect the public from people who have consumed too much alcohol." [5]

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) has completed the use of force report related to the incident at the Fort Worth Rainbow Lounge occurring on June 28, 2009. The 74-page report takes into account statements by eyewitnesses, expert witnesses, TABC employees, and Fort Worth police officers.

The TABC internal affairs investigation report included two allegations which were both unfounded:

1. Agents Chris Aller and Jason Chapman were accused of participating in a bar check operation with Fort Worth police officers on June 28, 2009, which targeted the Rainbow Lounge specifically because of the bar's gay and lesbian customer base. The allegation that the Rainbow Lounge was targeted for being a gay bar was unfounded.

2. Agents Aller and Chapman were accused of using force beyond what was necessary and reasonable during their contact with Jose Macias, George Armstrong and Chad Gibson when they were placed under arrest at the Rainbow Lounge. The allegation of excessive force was unfounded.

The last part about their so called "internal affairs investigation report" is a particularly misleading whitewash, too. Because the date these glorified office cops decided to raid the gay bar happened to be on the exact anniversary of the gay bar raids in NY known as the Stone Wall Riots in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Obviously, the alcohol office cops only wanted to help all the drunk gays possibly celebrating the Stone Wall Riots with the Texass GOPs brand of forced gay conversion therapy by using billy clubs to the head on cuffed suspects, then charging them with public drunkenness because they couldn't follow their orders and get up with a concussion and bloody head wounds.

And overly aggressive and openly hostile enforcement activities like the TABC deliberately targeting gay bars and gays on what could be considered a national gay holiday, is a good example of why buying excessive equipment like 600k military style assault gun boats for the Texas Highway Patrol to control illegal aliens swimming across the Rio Grande River can't be a very good idea in the long run, too.

 

[shortylickens]

Cops dont give a shit about safety. Traffic violations area easy money for the city.
And drunk driving is the queen-mother of traffic tickets. Its like a new vending machine for the precinct break room and a box of Cubans for the judge.

If the city actually gave a shit about lives they would find some way to actually reduce DWI's instead of making a profit from them.


Last time I was in court (45 in a 35) they had some dude with 4 DWI's and 2 of those he had an infant in the front seat with him. No baby carrier, just sitting there.

Judge let him walk with a big fine and online traffic school.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Basically, a bunch of young people, high school or college kids had written on poster boards and were showing them to passing motorists. "DWI checkpoint on bridge st".

And then, a drunk driver plowed into them.

I can understand warning folks of a speed trap. But, a DWI check? Fuck no.

If you get into a car drunk, you deserve getting busted.