What do you think about DUI checkpoints?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Onita

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,158
0
71
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.
I read it as saying its a public road, cops can do whatever they want, which is wrong. At checkpoints, we have to obey police, obviously.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: rpkelly
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.
I read it as saying its a public road, cops can do whatever they want, which is wrong. At checkpoints, we have to obey police, obviously.
You'd best obey the police wherever you are.

Whether you're peacefully protesting at school

Or just trying to mind your own business in your home.

They are our overlords. So show them respect. And papers, never forget to show them your papers.
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: rpkelly
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.
I read it as saying its a public road, cops can do whatever they want, which is wrong. At checkpoints, we have to obey police, obviously.
Ah...i read it as merely pertaining to checkpoints. Well then...we are in agreement. Can we make out now?
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
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:
grow up.
 

wkabel23

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2003
2,505
0
0
amazing how Vic and Amused's posts have been glossed over by most of the posters.

but honestly, i would give up all of my rights if we could have a utopian society where no one ever died from a drunk driver!

:roll:
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
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.
Now you're walking down a difficult road.

Situation 1: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home with incident.
Situation 2: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home except on the way there I hit and kill some guy walking his dog.

Only situation #2 is a crime. Why? The decisions I made in both situations are identical. The only difference is someone was unfortunate enough to cross my path on the way home. We punish people who kill someone differently depending on what their decisions were in the course of committing the crime - why do we take a different stance with drunk drivers?
 

Pantoot

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2002
1,764
30
91
Originally posted by: FallenHero
You are obligated to perform any and all tests I COMMAND you to take in regards to a DUI.
That must vary by the state, and certainly isn't true in AZ.

You are only required to comply with the breath/blood/urine test, as a field sobriety test cannot accurately discern BAC. It is simply a tool that an officer can use to present a probable cause.

Performing for an officer's enjoyment is not required.

[Edit: Just for completeness, you are likely to get arrested if it gets to this point anyway, so don't think that you can just refuse the test and be on your way]
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,856
8,077
136
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoomerD
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.
Now you're walking down a difficult road.

Situation 1: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home with incident.
Situation 2: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home except on the way there I hit and kill some guy walking his dog.

Only situation #2 is a crime. Why? The decisions I made in both situations are identical. The only difference is someone was unfortunate enough to cross my path on the way home. We punish people who kill someone differently depending on what their decisions were in the course of committing the crime - why do we take a different stance with drunk drivers?


How is it a difficult road?

In your example, BOTH acts are illegal...if you get caught.

Entrapment only occurs if you are enticed or coerced into breaking the law. In DUI checkpoints, the cops haven't enticed or coerced into driving under the influence...that's strictly your decision.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoomerD
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.
Now you're walking down a difficult road.

Situation 1: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home with incident.
Situation 2: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home except on the way there I hit and kill some guy walking his dog.

Only situation #2 is a crime. Why? The decisions I made in both situations are identical. The only difference is someone was unfortunate enough to cross my path on the way home. We punish people who kill someone differently depending on what their decisions were in the course of committing the crime - why do we take a different stance with drunk drivers?
Both are a crime, but I don't agree with the law. Same way you can travel with a firearm or you can do the same yet shoot people randomly.

 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: Pantoot
Originally posted by: FallenHero
You are obligated to perform any and all tests I COMMAND you to take in regards to a DUI.
That must vary by the state, and certainly isn't true in AZ.

You are only required to comply with the breath/blood/urine test, as a field sobriety test cannot accurately discern BAC. It is simply a tool that an officer can use to present a probable cause.

Performing for an officer's enjoyment is not required.

[Edit: Just for completeness, you are likely to get arrested if it gets to this point anyway, so don't think that you can just refuse the test and be on your way]
Ah, I should clarify. Blood/breath/urine as well here in IL. My bad. However, if im asking you to step out of the vehicle, I have enough PC to arrest you anyway.
 

altonb1

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2002
6,433
0
71
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.
Badge gone to your head lately? :roll:

No one is arguing whether someone has the right to refuse tests at a checkpoint. At issue is whether they should even be legal or not as they violate your rights regarding illegal search.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
It's interesting that Russia used to have road checkpoints every few miles to check people's papers and such. Isn't it ironic that after the end of the cold war, the US has checkpoints and is tapping phones and reading everyone's email?
These checkpoints are complete BS and are unconstituional despite the USSC's idiotic decision that they are constitutional.
Anyone that supports these checkpoints should also be fine with door to door checks for guns, to make sure they are all registered and stored properly. After all, if you aren't breaking the law you have nothing to worry about, right? ;)
 

boomhower

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2007
7,228
19
81
I did not read this whole thread as I was getting to pissed off at some of the posts. There is an argument against them for privacy reasons, it also depends on how it is performed. I will admit that I may be a bit biased as I work in law enforcement, though I am not an officer.

When our department does them we do not scrutinize every one. We dont typically check for local warrants. If you are not breaking a law at the time you are fine. Evey one knows the law, do not drink and drive, wear your seatbelt, pay you registration and insurance, if you do not have a license dont drive, have your inspection current.

Other than getting drunks off the road my favorite personal side effect of the checkpoints are getting everyone with no insurance. This is a bigger issue than most people realize. How many people on here have only liability on there car? Quite a few I bet. Now if you or a loved one gets in an accident you are screwed. You car is now you problem to get fixed. Do you have health insurance? I hope so, if not get ready for some big bills and no rehabilitation.

Anyways enough of my rant. Well almost. You complain that this only gives money to the local government, it does and you know that goes. To hire more officers, no we don't want that now do we.
 

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
There is nothing at all that gives a cop the right to do anything to me at all unless I give him reason too. It's not like their training puts them 'above' the rest of us when it comes to life.

If you do not agree with that statement then move to another country where they much different policies..
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
Originally posted by: Insomniator
There is nothing at all that gives a cop the right to do anything to me at all unless I give him reason too. It's not like their training puts them 'above' the rest of us when it comes to life.

If you do not agree with that statement then move to another country where they much different policies..
What if FallenHero COMMANDS you to get him a donut?
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,832
86
91
Originally posted by: Insomniator
There is nothing at all that gives a cop the right to do anything to me at all unless I give him reason too. It's not like their training puts them 'above' the rest of us when it comes to life.

If you do not agree with that statement then move to another country where they much different policies..

..your mistaken and out of touch. catch up on the numerous supreme court decisions concerning police since 1989. If your going to get behind the wheel know and understand you have a diminished expectation of privacy.

 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: Nebor
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:
grow up.
*sigh* Personal attack eh? Sounds like a high school bully to me. What do you do now? :D
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoomerD
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.
Now you're walking down a difficult road.

Situation 1: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home with incident.
Situation 2: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home except on the way there I hit and kill some guy walking his dog.

Only situation #2 is a crime. Why? The decisions I made in both situations are identical. The only difference is someone was unfortunate enough to cross my path on the way home. We punish people who kill someone differently depending on what their decisions were in the course of committing the crime - why do we take a different stance with drunk drivers?
Both are a crime, but I don't agree with the law. Same way you can travel with a firearm or you can do the same yet shoot people randomly.
Both are a crime, but why are they not punished equally? Why does the drunk driver that games home safely, who made the SAME choices as the other one, get a slap on the wrist, while the other gets to rot in jail?

When someone was explaining this situation to me, my knee-jerk reaction was to think it was stupid, but if you think about it the law really is strange. Both individuals make the same choice, yet one gets punished much, much more harshly than the other. Unlike in murders, where your actions dictate the punishment - here the outcome dictates the punishment.

I don't actually condone putting DDs away for 15 or 20 years, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoomerD
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.
Now you're walking down a difficult road.

Situation 1: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home with incident.
Situation 2: I go out to a bar, get drunk and drive myself home except on the way there I hit and kill some guy walking his dog.

Only situation #2 is a crime. Why? The decisions I made in both situations are identical. The only difference is someone was unfortunate enough to cross my path on the way home. We punish people who kill someone differently depending on what their decisions were in the course of committing the crime - why do we take a different stance with drunk drivers?
Both are a crime, but I don't agree with the law. Same way you can travel with a firearm or you can do the same yet shoot people randomly.
Both are a crime, but why are they not punished equally? Why does the drunk driver that games home safely, who made the SAME choices as the other one, get a slap on the wrist, while the other gets to rot in jail?

When someone was explaining this situation to me, my knee-jerk reaction was to think it was stupid, but if you think about it the law really is strange. Both individuals make the same choice, yet one gets punished much, much more harshly than the other. Unlike in murders, where your actions dictate the punishment - here the outcome dictates the punishment.

I don't actually condone putting DDs away for 15 or 20 years, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
This is not hard to understand.

It's similar to why homicide and attempted murder don't have the same punishments.

I shoot a guy in the head (with full intention of murdering him), he lives.
vs.
I shoot a guy in the head (with full intention of murdering him), he dies.

I honestly don't think this is too difficult of a concept to understand.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
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.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized... except when traveling on public streets, in which case, everything in the aforementioned amendment does not apply."

I swear these amendments change every time I read them.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
This thread is proof the power MADD/SADD has on brainwashing people into thinking the DUI problem is really a problem.
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: altonb1
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.
Badge gone to your head lately? :roll:

No one is arguing whether someone has the right to refuse tests at a checkpoint. At issue is whether they should even be legal or not as they violate your rights regarding illegal search.
way to read the entire thread.
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: Nebor
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:
grow up.
*sigh* Personal attack eh? Sounds like a high school bully to me. What do you do now? :D
It sounds like you are mentally retarded and instead of attacking the issue, you throw petty insults and state that you would love to see cops die. That's what it sounds like.

it also sounds like you have an issue with authority in general.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,223
11,726
146
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.
The act of driving should no more void my rights to be secure in my person and effects than walking down a public sidewalk.

By your logic, stopping people walking down the sidewalk and searching them for no reason whatsoever should be legal too, since they are on public property.

I am sorry, but no stretch of logic makes DUI or any other arbitrary "safety" road blocks legal. None whatsoever.

"nuff said" my ass.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY