What do you think about DUI checkpoints?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
I went through one of these Friday night. I dunno, from the very brief conversation I had with the officer, unless I was stumblingly blacked out drunk, I don't know that he could have really known if I was drunk or not. I did notice there was a cop on the other side, checking each car's plates and inspection stickers...what does that have to do with keeping the public safe from a DUI? Felt like a revenue generator and/or scare tactic to me, the cop basically just said "this is a DUI checkpoint, here is a pamphlet on DUI in pennsylvania, have a nice night".
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
i'd prefer they fly those unmanned planes (predator?) over the highway, with some kind of detector, and when they get a lock on drunk, they could just blast them off the road with their missiles
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: rpkelly
Originally posted by: Mojoed
For some strange reason, this thread reminds me of that Best Buy thread where someone threw a fit over being asked to show their receipt.

I'm willing to bet the people who think DUI checkpoints are a bad idea are the same people who would refuse to show their receipt when asked.

DUI checkpoints save lives. Period. You are selfish if you think checkpoints are stupid just because it costs you a few minutes of your time. It seems some of you take this personally.

It's about saving lives, not about your convenience. Get over yourselves.
Really? Care to show proof? Fact of the matter is, DUI checkpoints do NOT work. A more effective use of money would be more roving patrols.
:roll:. Call your state patrol and ask them how many drunks they hauled off to jail with their latest check point.

show me proof it doesnt work.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Support them. I think they're the top of a very slippery slope of privacy invasions, but since the courts are so lenient on DUI something has to be done.
your right to privacy is thrown out with the bathwater when you get behind the wheel drunk and use public streets.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: altonb1
I think they are crap. The avg checkpoint does NOT get many impaired drivers off the road. They are a nuisance in that they cause traffic snarls and the cops spend most of their time writing seatbelt violations, etc.

My family was heading home from the in-laws about a year or so ago--it's about 2.5 hours from South Jersey to our house in Pennsylvania. We got stuck in a backup on a HIGHWAY in Delaware for a checkpoint that delayed us by about 30 minutes. We didn't leave the in-laws until 10pm or so, expecting to be home by 1am at the latest. Driving on back country roads in Pennsylvania late at night sucks, but when the trip is extended it sucks even more.

Conveniently, I realized what it was about 5 cars before we got there and buckled up in time. Kids, of course, were sleeping.
oh booo hooo.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
its a public road and you signed your drivers license.... nuff said.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Entrapment.

Cops know where all the bars are all they have to do is sit there at closing time and follow you out onto the road.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,812
8,036
136
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because he/she was induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit those acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.

 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
81
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.

The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.

A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,713
11
56
Originally posted by: piasabird
Entrapment.

Cops know where all the bars are all they have to do is sit there at closing time and follow you out onto the road.
really, you make yourself look stupid by saying, "entrapment". no one put the bottle to your lips except yourself.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,808
50
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: Mojoed
For some strange reason, this thread reminds me of that Best Buy thread where someone threw a fit over being asked to show their receipt.

I'm willing to bet the people who think DUI checkpoints are a bad idea are the same people who would refuse to show their receipt when asked.

DUI checkpoints save lives. Period. You are selfish if you think checkpoints are stupid just because it costs you a few minutes of your time. It seems some of you take this personally.

It's about saving lives, not about your convenience. Get over yourselves.
Banning Taco Bell and McDonalds would save lives too...

 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.

The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.

A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
I love the SCOTUS says it is legal so it must be ok response. By that logic slavery was OK, Jim Crow laws were OK, separate but equal was OK. Read Rehnquist's opinion and what you will see is a so called "strict constructionist" proving that he is not immune to the passions of the day when rendering a decision.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.

The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.

A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
I love the SCOTUS says it is legal so it must be ok response. By that logic slavery was OK, Jim Crow laws were OK, separate but equal was OK. Read Rehnquist's opinion and what you will see is a so called "strict constructionist" proving that he is not immune to the passions of the day when rendering a decision.
If I came off as a person who thinks just because something is legal it's ok, that wasn't my intention.

I was merely pointing out that it is legal, but does indeed violate your rights.
 

oogabooga

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2003
7,806
3
81
if driving was a right and not a privilege this might be different. I'm sure the founding fathers would recognize that and agree there is a small difference between a dui checkpoint while you are exercising a privilege you've acknowledged is a privilage vs having your home seized and searched without cause. But I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied this very much so what do I know.

That said : I don't care either way. I've only been through one, it took less then 2 minutes of my time, they had a sign that says "roll down your window" and the officer just asked how I was doing that evening, I said fine, they asked If i had been drinking, I said no, they apologized for the inconvenience and then let me go.

Granted had the experience been different (IE hostile officer/longer wait) I'm sure I'd have a different opinion.
 

Onita

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,158
0
71
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
its a public road and you signed your drivers license.... nuff said.
You're wrong. Nuff said.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.

The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.

A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
I love the SCOTUS says it is legal so it must be ok response. By that logic slavery was OK, Jim Crow laws were OK, separate but equal was OK. Read Rehnquist's opinion and what you will see is a so called "strict constructionist" proving that he is not immune to the passions of the day when rendering a decision.
If I came off as a person who thinks just because something is legal it's ok, that wasn't my intention.

I was merely pointing out that it is legal, but does indeed violate your rights.
No I was actually kind of piggy backing on your response to the guy that you responded to. I actually agree with what you said.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.

The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.

A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
I love the SCOTUS says it is legal so it must be ok response. By that logic slavery was OK, Jim Crow laws were OK, separate but equal was OK. Read Rehnquist's opinion and what you will see is a so called "strict constructionist" proving that he is not immune to the passions of the day when rendering a decision.
If I came off as a person who thinks just because something is legal it's ok, that wasn't my intention.

I was merely pointing out that it is legal, but does indeed violate your rights.
No I was actually kind of piggy backing on your response to the guy that you responded to. I actually agree with what you said.
:thumbsup:
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
0
76
Originally posted by: oogabooga
if driving was a right and not a privilege this might be different. I'm sure the founding fathers would recognize that and agree there is a small difference between a dui checkpoint while you are exercising a privilege you've acknowledged is a privilage vs having your home seized and searched without cause.
You are assuming here that just because something is a privilege you are giving up some of your basic rights. The idea with the basic rights granted in the constitution is that they can not be revoked.
 

BabaBooey

Lifer
Jan 21, 2001
10,476
0
0
I have no problem with a DUI checkpoint as long as it is not abused like I am sure many are but overall since there are absolute fucking morons that insist on driving drunk and since we can't shoot them on the spot,they are needed.


I have nothing to hide,but there many that do so deal with it,you wanna play you ( and and who ever you involve in it) will pay for it.. eventually,trust that.


Thing I cannot understand is why you do it in the first place ....how brain dead does one have to be.....:confused:


 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: rpkelly
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
its a public road and you signed your drivers license.... nuff said.
You're wrong. Nuff said.
Actually, he is right. You are obligated to perform any and all tests I COMMAND you to take in regards to a DUI. refusal to do so revokes your driving privilege. Checkpoints have been upheld by the supreme court as long as they meet certain guidelines. The combination of a checkpoint along with decreased constitutional protection while driving pretty much allows me to make you get into the checkpoint.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: rpkelly
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
its a public road and you signed your drivers license.... nuff said.
You're wrong. Nuff said.
Actually, he is right. You are obligated to perform any and all tests I COMMAND you to take in regards to a DUI. refusal to do so revokes your driving privilege. Checkpoints have been upheld by the supreme court as long as they meet certain guidelines. The combination of a checkpoint along with decreased constitutional protection while driving pretty much allows me to make you get into the checkpoint.
All I'm saying is, at one of these Constitution Raping checkpoints, I wouldn't mind if the cops illegally searched an SUV to find about 500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel with an electrical igniter wired to rear hatch. :thumbsup:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY