What do you think about DUI checkpoints?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,404
11,592
136
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
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.
Because airport searches are apples and oranges in this context.

You don't like the Constitution, then work to have it amended. Unfortunately, people like you seek to criminally subvert the highest law of land with bullsh!t knee-jerk excuses.
 

NL5

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,287
12
81
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
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.
I think I am done with this thread. Everyone supporting them have given not one LEGITIMATE reason for harassing innocent people. Now, the guy quoted above has totally ignored what I posted.

Reading 101 and Constitutional Law - A couple classes ya'll oughta think about.


PS - The Constitution is timeless. Ignoring it's tenets are how Countries become corrupt. It's happened many times before, and will happen again.

I really can't believe that people believe the Constitution is out dated. You all need to go start your own damn country somewhere else.....The Constitution IS OUR COUNTRY!




 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
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.
Because airport searches are apples and oranges in this context.

You don't like the Constitution, then work to have it amended. Unfortunately, people like you seek to criminally subvert the highest law of land with bullsh!t knee-jerk excuses.
Why are they apples and oranges? Why should I be searched to enter an airport to pick someone up? I'm innocent. It's a public place.

I don't need to amend the Constitution since DUI checkpoints are legally allowed where I drive and I have no problem with them. You're the one that needs to do something to ensure the Constitution is upheld.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: NL5
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
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.
I think I am done with this thread. Everyone supporting them have given not one LEGITIMATE reason for harassing innocent people. Now, the guy quoted above has totally ignored what I posted.

Reading 101 and Constitutional Law - A couple classes ya'll oughta think about.


PS - The Constitution is timeless. Ignoring it's tenets are how Countries become corrupt. It's happened many times before, and will happen again.

I really can't believe that people believe the Constitution is out dated. You all need to go start your own damn country somewhere else.....The Constitution IS OUR COUNTRY!
If the Constitution wasn't outdated, why have there been amendments made to it? Why should I be harassed at a public airport to pick someone up? I'm innocent. How can they search me?
 

NL5

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,287
12
81
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: NL5
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
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.
I think I am done with this thread. Everyone supporting them have given not one LEGITIMATE reason for harassing innocent people. Now, the guy quoted above has totally ignored what I posted.

Reading 101 and Constitutional Law - A couple classes ya'll oughta think about.


PS - The Constitution is timeless. Ignoring it's tenets are how Countries become corrupt. It's happened many times before, and will happen again.

I really can't believe that people believe the Constitution is out dated. You all need to go start your own damn country somewhere else.....The Constitution IS OUR COUNTRY!
If the Constitution wasn't outdated, why have there been amendments made to it? Why should I be harassed at a public airport to pick someone up? I'm innocent. How can they search me?
Amendments are part of the Constitution.

You Shouldn't.

I doubt that.

They can't. Ive never been searched picking anyone up.

The fact that they screen passangers has more to do with the contract you agree to when buying a ticket. It's still a somewhat an iffy situation...........

 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
Being a 'public' place is would be a loose definition of an airport. Same thing while on flight you are required to turn off electronic devices until take off/landing. Bad analogy.
 

Jack Ryan

Golden Member
Jun 11, 2004
1,353
0
0
This is for the people who swear that DUI checkpoints do nothing...

Where I grew up..
-Checkpoints are advertised in the local paper 2 weeks in advance.
-Every bar knows about the checkpoint, and either a) posts this is the bathrooms, b) bartender tells everyone, or c) both.
-Checkpoint still gets plenty of people.

Sadly, there are enough people who think they are invincible that it forces police to take these measures. I am glad they are successful where I grew up.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
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.
I didn't say I'd resist arrest, I said I'd be uncooperative with the checkpoint. I think, after careful consideration, that I'd play it this way:

Officer: good evening
Me: hello, can I help you
Officer: this is a dui checkpoint, have you been drinking tonight?
Me: I have not been drinking, however at this point if you wish to continue I demand a blood alcohol screen and will refuse to answer any questions without first consulting my lawyer as I don't believe these check points should be allowed. I will not refuse to follow your instructions, nor will I resist you...I simply will not participate in warrantless blanket accusations and searches or intrusions into my civil liberties. Now then, am I under arrest or am I free to go, because those are the only two options I will accept and cooperate with.

Then I'd happily present myself to be arrested. Having tested my blood and found my BAC to be 0.0 they couldn't move forward with DUI charges. Having not resisted they couldn't charge me with resisting or anything similar. The point is to make the situation as bad as possible for them, and as costly as possible to the county. If enough people did that they would very quickly be forced to abandon the procedure.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,691
146
"The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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."

Implied consent my ass. Stopping and searching people without probable cause is blatently unconstitutional no matter how you spin it. The act of driving does not instantly void your constitutional rights. Simply driving on the road is NOT probable cause to search my person or car anymore than simply walking down the sidewalk is probable cause to search me or my personal effects.

Whether you search me, or my car; it's illegal without probable cause or a warrant.

How about drug checkpoints where searches of the car are OK?

How about intellectual property checkpoints where searches of your MP3 player are OK?

Yes, yes yes, it's about safety, right? Won't SOMEONE PLEASE think of the CHILDREN???

Sorry, I refuse to give up my rights so you may feel a little safer. Wanna stop DUI? Find a way to do it without robbing everyone of their constitutional rights.

The funniest thing??? I bet most of the people in this thread supporting DUI checkpoints oppose the Patriot Act. Talk about hypocrisy.
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Originally posted by: Minjin
I had my first one only two years ago. We never have any around here and when I went to visit a friend, while we were heading back from dinner, we had to stop at a checkpoint. I was PISSED. I don't drink and the fact that they feel they need to stop everyone and make sure they're not breaking the law just gets under my skin. Yes, I understand the societal benefits of it, but I still hate it. Any local politician that supports these checkpoints instantly loses my vote.
And how many have you had to go through since that one 2 years ago? I'm gonna go out on a limb and venture a guess. . .0. Quitcherbitchin'.
 

Dualist

Platinum Member
Dec 5, 2005
2,395
0
86
I support them, because they help to reduce the rate of alcohol-related incidents in almost every state.
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
"The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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."

Implied consent my ass. Stopping and searching people without probable cause is blatently unconstitutional no matter how you spin it. The act of driving does not instantly void your constitutional rights. Simply driving on the road is NOT probable cause to search my person or car anymore than simply walking down the sidewalk is probable cause to search me or my personal effects.

Whether you search me, or my car; it's illegal without probable cause or a warrant.

How about drug checkpoints where searches of the car are OK?

How about intellectual property checkpoints where searches of your MP3 player are OK?

Yes, yes yes, it's about safety, right? Won't SOMEONE PLEASE think of the CHILDREN???

Sorry, I refuse to give up my rights so you may feel a little safer. Wanna stop DUI? Find a way to do it without robbing everyone of their constitutional rights.

The funniest thing??? I bet most of the people in this thread supporting DUI checkpoints oppose the Patriot Act. Talk about hypocrisy.
There is no searching that goes on at a DUI checkpoint. What happens is 9 out of 10 times the officer can smell alcohol merely by asking the person to put down their window. If they search your car it's going to be AFTER they have already detected that the driver may be drinking which is plenty of probably cause IMO.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
0
76
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: Amused
"The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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."

Implied consent my ass. Stopping and searching people without probable cause is blatently unconstitutional no matter how you spin it. The act of driving does not instantly void your constitutional rights. Simply driving on the road is NOT probable cause to search my person or car anymore than simply walking down the sidewalk is probable cause to search me or my personal effects.

Whether you search me, or my car; it's illegal without probable cause or a warrant.

How about drug checkpoints where searches of the car are OK?

How about intellectual property checkpoints where searches of your MP3 player are OK?

Yes, yes yes, it's about safety, right? Won't SOMEONE PLEASE think of the CHILDREN???

Sorry, I refuse to give up my rights so you may feel a little safer. Wanna stop DUI? Find a way to do it without robbing everyone of their constitutional rights.

The funniest thing??? I bet most of the people in this thread supporting DUI checkpoints oppose the Patriot Act. Talk about hypocrisy.
There is no searching that goes on at a DUI checkpoint. What happens is 9 out of 10 times the officer can smell alcohol merely by asking the person to put down their window. If they search your car it's going to be AFTER they have already detected that the driver may be drinking which is plenty of probably cause IMO.
Incorrect. There is a lot of "plain site" searching going on at the checkpoints. If the officers see anything, they will use that as a reason to do a full search of a vehicle. Now before you say it, I know it is legal...but the point is that they are doing it in a way that has not been done before. More people would have a problem if an officer walked around a mall parking lot looking into every car to see if he could find a reason to search it....same thing.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,691
146
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: Amused
"The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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."

Implied consent my ass. Stopping and searching people without probable cause is blatently unconstitutional no matter how you spin it. The act of driving does not instantly void your constitutional rights. Simply driving on the road is NOT probable cause to search my person or car anymore than simply walking down the sidewalk is probable cause to search me or my personal effects.

Whether you search me, or my car; it's illegal without probable cause or a warrant.

How about drug checkpoints where searches of the car are OK?

How about intellectual property checkpoints where searches of your MP3 player are OK?

Yes, yes yes, it's about safety, right? Won't SOMEONE PLEASE think of the CHILDREN???

Sorry, I refuse to give up my rights so you may feel a little safer. Wanna stop DUI? Find a way to do it without robbing everyone of their constitutional rights.

The funniest thing??? I bet most of the people in this thread supporting DUI checkpoints oppose the Patriot Act. Talk about hypocrisy.
There is no searching that goes on at a DUI checkpoint. What happens is 9 out of 10 times the officer can smell alcohol merely by asking the person to put down their window. If they search your car it's going to be AFTER they have already detected that the driver may be drinking which is plenty of probably cause IMO.
The smell of alcohol is NOT evidence of impairment in and of itself and therefore is NOT probable cause to search a person.

You have just violated the rights of every person who had a glass of wine or a beer at dinner. Congratulations.

To test someone for DUI an officer constitutionally needs evidence of impairment. NOT merely evidence of alcohol consumption.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
This is for the people who swear that DUI checkpoints do nothing...

Where I grew up..
-Checkpoints are advertised in the local paper 2 weeks in advance.
-Every bar knows about the checkpoint, and either a) posts this is the bathrooms, b) bartender tells everyone, or c) both.
-Checkpoint still gets plenty of people.

Sadly, there are enough people who think they are invincible that it forces police to take these measures. I am glad they are successful where I grew up.
No one denies a checkpoint doesn't get alot of people...it's a great cash cow. The statistics on who has been drinking at those times of night are staggering....however; in counterpoint there statistically isn't that many more accidents.

It comes down to retaining innocent people. What's next checkpoints to check media players for illegal songs, verify sales tax was paid on all items bought online, etc?

There are no damages one can gain if they miss their movie, concert, flight due to a dui checkpoint.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

I didn't say I'd resist arrest, I said I'd be uncooperative with the checkpoint. I think, after careful consideration, that I'd play it this way:

Officer: good evening
Me: hello, can I help you
Officer: this is a dui checkpoint, have you been drinking tonight?
Me: I have not been drinking, however at this point if you wish to continue I demand a blood alcohol screen and will refuse to answer any questions without first consulting my lawyer as I don't believe these check points should be allowed. I will not refuse to follow your instructions, nor will I resist you...I simply will not participate in warrantless blanket accusations and searches or intrusions into my civil liberties. Now then, am I under arrest or am I free to go, because those are the only two options I will accept and cooperate with.

Then I'd happily present myself to be arrested. Having tested my blood and found my BAC to be 0.0 they couldn't move forward with DUI charges. Having not resisted they couldn't charge me with resisting or anything similar. The point is to make the situation as bad as possible for them, and as costly as possible to the county. If enough people did that they would very quickly be forced to abandon the procedure.
If you understood the law, the cop doesn't have to use BAL to prove anything. He can request you be taken to be observed though for the next 8-12hours.

I would really help if people actually knew about the laws they support or not. DUI law is insane.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

I didn't say I'd resist arrest, I said I'd be uncooperative with the checkpoint. I think, after careful consideration, that I'd play it this way:

Officer: good evening
Me: hello, can I help you
Officer: this is a dui checkpoint, have you been drinking tonight?
Me: I have not been drinking, however at this point if you wish to continue I demand a blood alcohol screen and will refuse to answer any questions without first consulting my lawyer as I don't believe these check points should be allowed. I will not refuse to follow your instructions, nor will I resist you...I simply will not participate in warrantless blanket accusations and searches or intrusions into my civil liberties. Now then, am I under arrest or am I free to go, because those are the only two options I will accept and cooperate with.

Then I'd happily present myself to be arrested. Having tested my blood and found my BAC to be 0.0 they couldn't move forward with DUI charges. Having not resisted they couldn't charge me with resisting or anything similar. The point is to make the situation as bad as possible for them, and as costly as possible to the county. If enough people did that they would very quickly be forced to abandon the procedure.
If you understood the law, the cop doesn't have to use BAL to prove anything. He can request you be taken to be observed though for the next 8-12hours.

I would really help if people actually knew about the laws they support or not. DUI law is insane.
I don't know what the law says where you live, but in Washington you can demand a blood alcohol test if you're arrested for DUI. If you refuse any form of field sobriety they can arrest you for DUI, but if you demand the blood test it trumps everything else. They must comply in a reasonable time (ie as soon as they clear the scene). You'll spend a bit of time at the hospital, especially if they're busy, but nothing serious. I'm not sure if they have to test you before booking you, but I've never seen anyone get processed before getting bled as it would be a COLOSSAL waste of time and money. Even if they booked you first that would only take about 30 minutes around here (an hour if they're super backed up). Bottom line is that every minute they wait after arresting you makes it that much more likely that you'll not only get off, but possibly gain a case against them.

What would really help is if people actually were a part of the process before claiming to know the law. I've worked in an ER, I've worked with police, I've worked with civil liberty and other legal groups.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
Right and that has nothing to do with them still placing you under observation. You don't have to test positive for alcohol to be arrested for DUI.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,291
1,666
126
Wait a min....."Driving Under-Intoxicated"? Is that like saying, you get pulled over for not drinking enough?
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Wait a min....."Driving Under-Intoxicated"? Is that like saying, you get pulled over for not drinking enough?
Driving Under the Influence. Your definition was pre MADD days. :D
 

MetalMat

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
9,691
36
91
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd like to see them used more often, and in more places...like outside every bar or tavern.
Right next to the concentration camps?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Had a coworker friend of mine who's of similarly liberal leanings come across one of these checkpoints in Denton. Knowing what happens if you refuse to comply by showing identification, instead he chose a more time consuming path. The officer asked him if he'd been drinking that night, and he responded "Yes, but only 4 or 5 beers." In truth, he hadn't had anything to drink.

3 hours later, after multiple breathalizers, several field sobriety tests, and a blood test, he was taken back to his car at the road block. He says it was worth it when he told the Sheriff's deputy driving him back, "You guys oughta rethink these roadblock things, they really don't work too well."
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,817
8,039
136
Originally posted by: MetalMat
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd like to see them used more often, and in more places...like outside every bar or tavern.
Right next to the concentration camps?
Whaaa...what better way to catch drunks than to concentrate your efforts where they are?

Or would this be like putting corn/salt licks in your field during deer season? baiting? ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY