What do you think about DUI checkpoints?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
I do not need to have police (or anyone) checking me for anything unless they have reason to.

I'll take my chances for freedom.
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Alkemyst is conveinently ignoring my post. Probably too much to read let alone respond to. Still spewing mindless garbage as usual.
How long is that DUI conviction going to stay on your record anyway? I'm sure the insurance companies love you.

How about this scenario for you guys. What if a DUI checkpoint was set up at all immediate areas surrounding a crowded bar?
Let's say it's a bar that does not serve food and the only intent of the establishment is to serve alcohol in vast quantities. Some may say that is borderline entrapment, but as the letter of the law stands it's most likely not. So would setting up a checkpoint directly in the path of exiting bar patron traffic be warranted? There could be plenty of probable cause. I think that would be a dirty tactic, but what do you think?

I know you guys are arguing heavily about the 4th amendment, but has anyone actually read the supreme courts decision on the constituionality of theses checkpoints, as well as their documented opinions? Would someone please read them and get back to arguing about the topic and not a very broad 4th amendment context?
Eleven states have made DUI checkpoints illegal under grounds of constitutional violations. If you went through a checkpoint and refused to provide any ID and refused any contact with the officer by fully exercising your miranda rights, you could and would be arrested. But you could, and should, bring the municipality policing authority to court. DUI checkpoint legality has been relegated to the individual states. This is not to say that you could have a case that would make its way before the supreme court.

So many are passionately arguing in this thread about constitutional violations and how this country is moving towards a police state. While I definitely agree that this country is moving in the wrong direction, how many of you would actually have the conviction and balls to stand up for what you believe? How many would make excuses that the legal aspects would take too much time, money or effort? Finding a civil rights lawyer to take this type of case pro bono would probably be fairly doable if just a few ounces of effort were put in.

What I think is that most of you arguing so vehemently against DIU checkpoints wouldn't do a damn thing if you were faced with one. Most would just act nice and comply with what Mr. Officer asks you to do, then go on your merry way. When it comes down to the nitty gritty most will just not inconvenience themselves to fight for their civil rights. Talk big, walk small.

On a side note, I went through a checkpoint just a few hours ago. It might have been a seatbelt/inspection check though, I'm not really sure. The state trooper didn't ask for my license or anything, just said "how you folks doing", I responded with "fine, how about you", he said "fine thanks, just go ahead".
I thought about this thread as I was going through. Then I had a fantasy about pulling the .45 out of my glove box and filling that cops chest with lead!
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
11,736
310
126
jersey cops are a bunch of scumbags and only use them to write tickets for seat belt violations and harassing the general public, and they cause traffic jams.
 

altonb1

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2002
6,433
0
71
Originally posted by: SampSon
On a side note, I went through a checkpoint just a few hours ago. It might have been a seatbelt/inspection check though, I'm not really sure. The state trooper didn't ask for my license or anything, just said "how you folks doing", I responded with "fine, how about you", he said "fine thanks, just go ahead".
I thought about this thread as I was going through. Then I had a fantasy about pulling the .45 out of my glove box and filling that cops chest with lead!
Why didn't you do so in an effort to protect your rights? :roll:

I wouldn't go through the hassle of refusing a checkpoint just so I could get arrested, etc because my job would be affected by my arrest, plus my wife and kids would be affected since they would more than likely be in the car with me. Getting yourself arrested is not necessarily the only way to fight "the man" through this. Regardless, it sounds like you just simply accepted your checkpoint with a smile. The last one I went through was on a HIGHWAY that merged 3 or 4 lanes into 1. It was a state road (highway) that was setup about a mile from the I-95/I-295/I-495 interstates in Delaware. We got onto the road from the interstate and then sat for about 20-30 minutes in the backup. Since I actually lived in that area at one time, I am well aware that there are NOT any bars near that general vicinity, so I'm not sure why they chose that location other than being right off the interstates. I did comply, but it was a major inconvenience and I still don't like the fact they were there. A roving patrol within the vicinity of a popular nightspot would make more sense to me.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
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.
Seriously...

Mojoed is a fucking tool. Here in Indiana they are used frequently. We just ignore them and take a quick detour if you will. It's a joke really...

Guilty until proven innocent I guess... :laugh: What a joke!
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,884
1,013
126
Originally posted by: Squisher
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.

I see things that say "shall not be violated" not things that say "if we think it's important enough well then just be a good sport."
I understand how warrants work. What I'm asking you is, what is unreasonable? The way the Fourth Amendment reads to me is that searches and seizures are fine as long as they aren't unreasonable. It really seems like this...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
...is somewhat separate from the part about warrants, just like the idea of the right to bear arms is somewhat separate from the right to form a militia.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nope. I firmly believe that there should ONLY be interference by government when there is reasonable cause with regards to a specific individual/group and incident. In other words you have to be able to prove that you had reason to suspect an individual or group of breaking a specific law at a specific time, etc in order to investigate them, arrest them, detain them, or whatever.

There should NEVER be a case where innocent people are inconvenienced in any way by blanket attempts to catch 'someone' doing 'something'.
Exactly. Someone who actually understands the issue. DUI checkpoints are a form of general warrant. The equivalent of "the suspect was last seen in such-and-such neighborhood, therefore we should search every house until we find him." At best, it's an excuse for sloppy and ineffective police work. At its worst (and yet truest intent), it is authoritarian propaganda designed to keep the people in fear under a flimsy pretense of protecting them.
The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.
Mind you, I'm heavily opposed to DUI itself. I firmly believe on your third DUI conviction you should be executed by firing squad within 72 hours of the trial end (no, I'm not joking), and that any victim of your DUI can claim the 'excused homicide/justified homicide' line of reasoning if they choose to kill you after you cause them an accident (again, no I'm not joking). As far as I'm concerned DUI is premeditated attempted murder of every individual who is on the road in your vicinity. But that still doesn't excuse trampling individual civil rights with blanket stops.
So? The fact that you feel you even have to say this, in this context, and in such an obviously overblown manner (DUI is rightfully a crime, but it's hardly deserving of the punishment you suggest as there are far worse ones, believe it or not, like actual murder, rape, etc.) merely demonstrates how far from rationality this whole argument is.
I just didn't want to be associated in any way with people who didn't see DUI as a serious matter. However 'overblown' you feel my statements are that's the way I feel about it, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

Also for what it's worth I have never been through any kind of checkpoint (other than at the borders of the country). I would probably be EXTREMELY uncooperative if I ever encounter one however.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
I have a huge problem with DUI checkpoints. I do not think it is automatically the government's right to pull me over when they feel like it to check if I may be impaired. Cops should only be allowed to pull people over that look noticeably impaired.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,207
65
91
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: Squisher
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.

I see things that say "shall not be violated" not things that say "if we think it's important enough well then just be a good sport."
I understand how warrants work. What I'm asking you is, what is unreasonable? The way the Fourth Amendment reads to me is that searches and seizures are fine as long as they aren't unreasonable. It really seems like this...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
...is somewhat separate from the part about warrants, just like the idea of the right to bear arms is somewhat separate from the right to form a militia.
Probable cause is an implied necessity for searches and seizures as one requirement to be met to remove the expectation of privacy. Although the a specific doctrine of privacy is not in the Constitution the tone of the entire document is to preserve all rights to privacy except under certain circumstances. The right to privacy has a long legal history showing up in many of the documents that the framers used as blue prints for the framework for the Constitution, the many writings of the framers, and can even be somewhat extracted from the ninth amendment.


 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Originally posted by: altonb1
Originally posted by: SampSon
On a side note, I went through a checkpoint just a few hours ago. It might have been a seatbelt/inspection check though, I'm not really sure. The state trooper didn't ask for my license or anything, just said "how you folks doing", I responded with "fine, how about you", he said "fine thanks, just go ahead".
I thought about this thread as I was going through. Then I had a fantasy about pulling the .45 out of my glove box and filling that cops chest with lead!
Why didn't you do so in an effort to protect your rights? :roll:

I wouldn't go through the hassle of refusing a checkpoint just so I could get arrested, etc because my job would be affected by my arrest, plus my wife and kids would be affected since they would more than likely be in the car with me. Getting yourself arrested is not necessarily the only way to fight "the man" through this. Regardless, it sounds like you just simply accepted your checkpoint with a smile. The last one I went through was on a HIGHWAY that merged 3 or 4 lanes into 1. It was a state road (highway) that was setup about a mile from the I-95/I-295/I-495 interstates in Delaware. We got onto the road from the interstate and then sat for about 20-30 minutes in the backup. Since I actually lived in that area at one time, I am well aware that there are NOT any bars near that general vicinity, so I'm not sure why they chose that location other than being right off the interstates. I did comply, but it was a major inconvenience and I still don't like the fact they were there. A roving patrol within the vicinity of a popular nightspot would make more sense to me.
Right, what I'm saying is that most people will talk big about their rights until something inconveniences them, then it's nothing more than a smile and a nod.

There are always roving patrols around nightclubs. What I was asking is if a checkpoint was setup surrounding a popular nightclub, or cluster of nightclubs. Would that type of situation warrant 'probable cause'?

I didn't want to shoot the cop, he was a nice guy and had a great haircut.
 

altonb1

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2002
6,433
0
71
Originally posted by: SampSon
Right, what I'm saying is that most people will talk big about their rights until something inconveniences them, then it's nothing more than a smile and a nod.

There are always roving patrols around nightclubs. What I was asking is if a checkpoint was setup surrounding a popular nightclub, or cluster of nightclubs. Would that type of situation warrant 'probable cause'?

I didn't want to shoot the cop, he was a nice guy and had a great haircut.
:D
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
DUI is out of control, something has to be done.

I know Checkpoints scared my friends and I when we use to go out drinking, especially during the holidays we always would try to have someone that would stay sober to drive.

From the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006).

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

In 2005, nearly 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice 2005). That?s less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol?impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).

Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003).

More than half of the 414 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 were riding with the drinking driver (NHTSA 2006).

In 2005, 48 children age 14 years and younger who were killed as pedestrians or pedalcyclists were struck by impaired drivers (NHTSA 2006).

Each year, alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion


Sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes
Fewer alcohol-related crashes occur when sobriety checkpoints are implemented, according to a CDC report published in the December 2002 issue of Traffic Injury Prevention. Sobriety checkpoints are traffic stops where law enforcement officers systematically select drivers to assess their level of alcohol impairment. The goal of these interventions is to deter alcohol-impaired driving by increasing drivers? perceived risk of arrest. The conclusion that they are effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes is based on a systematic review of research about sobriety checkpoints. The review was conducted by a team of experts led by CDC scientists, under the oversight of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services?a 15-member, non-federal group of leaders in various health-related fields. (Visit www.thecommunityguide.org for more information.) The review combined the results of 23 scientifically-sound studies from around the world. Results indicated that sobriety checkpoints consistently reduced alcohol-related crashes, typically by about 20 percent. The results were similar regardless of how the checkpoints were conducted, for short-term ?blitzes,? or when checkpoints were used continuously for several years. This suggests that the effectiveness of checkpoints does not diminish over time.

 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,847
8,067
136
I'm still OK with DUI checkpoints. Anything that helps to get drunks off the roadways, whether it be by catching them in these checkpoints, or by keeping them from driving out of fear of being caught in a checkpoint. I also think that catching unlicenced and/or uninsured drivers, drivers who have outstanding warrants this way if fine too.

Might it be a bit inconvenient to have traffic stopped for one? Yes, but for me at least, it's not a big deal. I don't see the slippery slope of losing any of my constitutional freedoms in this. IMO, there's no unreasonable search & seizure...the several dozen that I've gone through entail stopping the car, rolling the window down and speaking to the cop for a minute, ("Good evening sir, have you been drinking this evening?") then going on my way. Sure, I've seen a few cars pulled off to the side with the drivers in handcuffs, but if they're DUI, then I applaud that.
Driving under the influence should have MUCH stricter penalties than it does. First offense...OK, we might all screw up once or even twice, and a stiff fine and maybe some jail time should be enough to get the point across that drinking and driving isn't tolerated. 3rd offense, loss of licence for 5 (or more) years, a MINIMUM of 1 year in jail, and any subsequent violations should be treated as felonies with severe prison time.

However, the alcoholic beverage industry in this country has far too much pull in Washington D.C. for that to happen.
 

SacrosanctFiend

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,269
0
0
Originally posted by: SampSon
I know you guys are arguing heavily about the 4th amendment, but has anyone actually read the supreme courts decision on the constituionality of theses checkpoints, as well as their documented opinions? Would someone please read them and get back to arguing about the topic and not a very broad 4th amendment context?
Here's a dissenting opinion from Michigan v. Sitz that makes more sense than any of the consenting opinions.

The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures. . . . On the other hand, the Court places a heavy thumb on the law-enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits. Perhaps this tampering with the scales of justice can be explained by the Court's obvious concern about the slaughter on our highways, and a resultant tolerance for policies designed to alleviate the problem by ''setting an example'' of a few motorists. . . . Sobriety checkpoints are elaborate, and disquieting, publicity stunts. The possibility that anybody, no matter how innocent, may be stopped for police inspection is nothing if not attention-getting. The shock value of the checkpoint program may be its most effective feature; Lieutenant Cotton of the Maryland State Police, a defense witness, testified that ''the media coverage . . . has been absolutely overwhelming. . . . Quite frankly we got benefits just from the controversy of the sobriety checkpoints.''

This is a case that is driven by nothing more than symbolic state action - an insufficient justification for an otherwise unreasonable program of random seizures. Unfortunately, the Court is transfixed by the wrong symbol - the illusory prospect of punishing countless intoxicated motorists - when it should keep its eyes on the road plainly marked by the Constitution.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,425
11,661
136
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nope. I firmly believe that there should ONLY be interference by government when there is reasonable cause with regards to a specific individual/group and incident. In other words you have to be able to prove that you had reason to suspect an individual or group of breaking a specific law at a specific time, etc in order to investigate them, arrest them, detain them, or whatever.

There should NEVER be a case where innocent people are inconvenienced in any way by blanket attempts to catch 'someone' doing 'something'.
Exactly. Someone who actually understands the issue. DUI checkpoints are a form of general warrant. The equivalent of "the suspect was last seen in such-and-such neighborhood, therefore we should search every house until we find him." At best, it's an excuse for sloppy and ineffective police work. At its worst (and yet truest intent), it is authoritarian propaganda designed to keep the people in fear under a flimsy pretense of protecting them.
The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.
Mind you, I'm heavily opposed to DUI itself. I firmly believe on your third DUI conviction you should be executed by firing squad within 72 hours of the trial end (no, I'm not joking), and that any victim of your DUI can claim the 'excused homicide/justified homicide' line of reasoning if they choose to kill you after you cause them an accident (again, no I'm not joking). As far as I'm concerned DUI is premeditated attempted murder of every individual who is on the road in your vicinity. But that still doesn't excuse trampling individual civil rights with blanket stops.
So? The fact that you feel you even have to say this, in this context, and in such an obviously overblown manner (DUI is rightfully a crime, but it's hardly deserving of the punishment you suggest as there are far worse ones, believe it or not, like actual murder, rape, etc.) merely demonstrates how far from rationality this whole argument is.
I just didn't want to be associated in any way with people who didn't see DUI as a serious matter. However 'overblown' you feel my statements are that's the way I feel about it, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

Also for what it's worth I have never been through any kind of checkpoint (other than at the borders of the country). I would probably be EXTREMELY uncooperative if I ever encounter one however.
And solely by being uncooperative, you would be arrested and treated like a drunk driver (if not worse). And most likely charged with felony resisting arrest, which has penalties even more serious than DUI.
 

sniperruff

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
11,644
2
0
Originally posted by: NL5
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Originally posted by: altonb1
Originally posted by: joshsquall
If checkpoints are worthwhile because they can stop a few drunks, why not install breathalyzers on all cars? The only people who should care are drunk drivers. Why not take your keys when you walk into a bar, and make you blow to leave with them? Why not make each group entering a bar declare a designated driver and track that person's drinking so that either they have none, or keep their BAC below the legal limit? The only people who should care are drunk drivers.
Woah...where's this thread going now? :eek:

I do agree with this post, though. I find it absurd that I am automatically a suspect just because I happen to be driving my car at a certain time of night during a holiday season.


Exactly. What happened to "innocent unil proven guilty" and probable cause?

Ever hear of the Patriot act?????

BTW - How has this turned into a discussion of whether drunk driving is OK or not? The question is whether or not it's ok to stop innocent people and search them for NO CAUSE.
are you going to start complaining about going through the customs at the airport as well?
 

NL5

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,287
12
81
Originally posted by: sniperruff
Originally posted by: NL5
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Originally posted by: altonb1
Originally posted by: joshsquall
If checkpoints are worthwhile because they can stop a few drunks, why not install breathalyzers on all cars? The only people who should care are drunk drivers. Why not take your keys when you walk into a bar, and make you blow to leave with them? Why not make each group entering a bar declare a designated driver and track that person's drinking so that either they have none, or keep their BAC below the legal limit? The only people who should care are drunk drivers.
Woah...where's this thread going now? :eek:

I do agree with this post, though. I find it absurd that I am automatically a suspect just because I happen to be driving my car at a certain time of night during a holiday season.


Exactly. What happened to "innocent unil proven guilty" and probable cause?

Ever hear of the Patriot act?????

BTW - How has this turned into a discussion of whether drunk driving is OK or not? The question is whether or not it's ok to stop innocent people and search them for NO CAUSE.
are you going to start complaining about going through the customs at the airport as well?
I went through customs dozens of times before 9/11. Was never searched. Besides, entering the country is different than being a citizen within. And, as far as the checkpoints in an airport, I think they are ridiculous for interstate travel. Ineffective and a waste of time.


 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: manowar821
As long as the only thing they'll EVER be allowed to do is check the DRIVER for intoxication, and that's it. No searching, no checking other passengers, no peeking inside the vehicle.

If you want me to respect your checkpoint, respect my privacy, too.
Once you allow that...next comes new rules. Assuming you are never DUI, how many times are you willing to be detained to see if you are? How much time do you expect each to take?
I voted no, only because of what you're saying. The circumstances that I mentioned would never be allowed, therefor, I do not support it. :p
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: rpanic
DUI is out of control, something has to be done.

I know Checkpoints scared my friends and I when we use to go out drinking, especially during the holidays we always would try to have someone that would stay sober to drive.

From the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006).

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

In 2005, nearly 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice 2005). That?s less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol?impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).

Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003).

More than half of the 414 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 were riding with the drinking driver (NHTSA 2006).

In 2005, 48 children age 14 years and younger who were killed as pedestrians or pedalcyclists were struck by impaired drivers (NHTSA 2006).

Each year, alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion


Sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes
Fewer alcohol-related crashes occur when sobriety checkpoints are implemented, according to a CDC report published in the December 2002 issue of Traffic Injury Prevention. Sobriety checkpoints are traffic stops where law enforcement officers systematically select drivers to assess their level of alcohol impairment. The goal of these interventions is to deter alcohol-impaired driving by increasing drivers? perceived risk of arrest. The conclusion that they are effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes is based on a systematic review of research about sobriety checkpoints. The review was conducted by a team of experts led by CDC scientists, under the oversight of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services?a 15-member, non-federal group of leaders in various health-related fields. (Visit www.thecommunityguide.org for more information.) The review combined the results of 23 scientifically-sound studies from around the world. Results indicated that sobriety checkpoints consistently reduced alcohol-related crashes, typically by about 20 percent. The results were similar regardless of how the checkpoints were conducted, for short-term ?blitzes,? or when checkpoints were used continuously for several years. This suggests that the effectiveness of checkpoints does not diminish over time.
Before you go spouting those "alcohol related" statistics you ought to research exactly what constitutes an "alcohol related" crash. It is not what your common sense would lead you to believe it is unless, for example, common sense tells you that a driver that has had nothing to drink carrying a passenger who has had something to drink and has an accident somehow constitutes an "alcohol related" crash.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
164
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: evident
jersey cops are a bunch of scumbags and only use them to write tickets for seat belt violations and harassing the general public, and they cause traffic jams.
Jersey must be full of idiots who don't realize, "uh oh, there's a road block ahead, and I don't have my seatbelt on. Maybe I should put it on now."

Originally posted by: waggy
whats scary is how many are willing to give up personal privacy and freedom so easy.
Yes, it is too easy to get a driver's license these days. They're not stopping people walking down the sidewalk - they're stopping people who are driving. It's not a constitutional right to drive a car.

Originally posted by: alkemyst
The ny vs nj vs $150k vs $250k I wasn't part of this guys life other than him sharing it one day about 5 years ago. Thanks for remembering this better than me. :confused:
Are you kidding me? You're spouting this nonsense as if it's the absolute truth, now you come out and reveal that it's just a story some guy told you 5 years ago? (probably over a few beers)

 

NL5

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,287
12
81
Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's not a constitutional right to drive a car.
You are absolutely right!

It is a Constitutional right to not be unduly searched.


The Constitution - A must read for many of the posters in this thread.


Saying drunk driving is bad, so violating the Constitution is OK is just plain crazy to me. Of course in this day and age, the Constitution is becoming more and more irrelevant. Sad really, many of my family fought and died for it. And for what?

 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: NL5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's not a constitutional right to drive a car.
You are absolutely right!

It is a Constitutional right to not be unduly searched.


The Constitution - A must read for many of the posters in this thread.


Saying drunk driving is bad, so violating the Constitution is OK is just plain crazy to me. Of course in this day and age, the Constitution is becoming more and more irrelevant. Sad really, many of my family fought and died for it. And for what?
Why aren't you complaining about airport searches?

Unfortunately, the Constitution was created in a time period different than the world we live in today.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY