Sobriety Checkpoints

[Classic]

Judges can say it is constitutional but that doesn't make it so. They have simply ruled for what they somehow see as the Greater Good or something. The problem is, it sets a precedent and future expectations.

I don't like drunk driving either and I hope they catch as many offenders as possible but not like this. The minute you endorse this kind of "checkpoint" mentality where does it stop? As our rights are eroded for expediency what makes us any different from Soviet Russia, China or Venezuela? A police state is a police state regardless of geography.

 

[Denny347]

Okay, is it or is it not PC?

Turning off "in its self" is NOT PC for a traffic stop. But for goodness sakes PLEASE use your turn signal when doing so for that IS PC.

 

[92ThoStro]

I have never had the pleasure to encounter one.

The only CP I have ever encountered was into a school, dropping my sister off for band concert. A cop was stopping everyone within school property, assuming it was to direct them to park in a certain area, or check for seat belts, or something. I didn't stop, I just drove right past, he was a town cop in the county out of city limits, on school property, and he only had his yellow hazard lights on. Figured stopping was optional, and it wasn't a legal checkpoint. He didn't chase after me either, so I guess he didn't care. The people behind me stopped for him though. He was holding up the traffic, that's why I didn't stop.

 

[Survivalcookie]

But where will it stop? Why not have everyone blow into a breathalyzer ala 40 year old virgin, to be able to startup their vehicle?

Another step towards letting the gov be responsible, and not the individual.

Drunk drivers are not responsible....I do not think it will ever come to that...is the police suppose to just do nothing, I don't mind being inconvenienced once in a while to maybe save a live...I have been driving for 40 years and have only went through 1 sobriety check point. Why should they wait until someone is killed.

 

[Survivalcookie]

I doubt that anyone here supports drunk driving, but rather don't accept it as an excuse for violating the rights of one and all. I am in agreement that the problem is not solved by violating the Fourth Amendment rights of anyone who is so brazen as to drive after dark, but rather must be solved in the court room. Generally, a drunk driver in court, even after causing damage, injury, or perhaps even death is given the equivalent of the judge rubbing one index finger over the other as he says 'shame on you' (and collects a modest amount of revenue for the local government). Therein lies the problem.

Most I know who have had DUI's have had to put out several thousands of dollars. And most did not learn, some have even done jail time. A car with a drunk driver behind the wheel is no different than someone driving down the road shooting out the window of the car...he might hit someone, he might not. The difference is you can hear him shooting. You know he is there. I know people do not want any infringements on their rights....but maybe with enough check points people might think twice before driving drunk. I just feel that so many people don't want the government involved in their life's until something happens. Any society has to have some rules and sometimes those rules might infringe on our rights.

 

[Survivalcookie]

People under the influence alsoi commit domestic violence which often results in the death of innocents. Maybe we should start having random home inspections as well... I mean, hey, it's for the children, right.

Well if they are picked up at the check point they wont be going home....last I look my home was not owned by the community like a road, it is private not public. There fore I know who is in my home...I don't know who is on the road.

 

[Survivalcookie]

I'm all for them, my mother was killed by a DD when i was 19. I made the decision to not drink and be a responsible adult. If people want to put that garbage in their body so be it, but I'll spend my money on my family.

Sorry for your lost at such a young age.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sobriety checkpoint tonight in Lafayette.

Police Scorecard:

54 cars stopped

0 drunk drivers

2 OWNRL

1 OWS

Too bad I am banned from checkpoints. Always so much fun.

 

[rambone]

I know people do not want any infringements on their rights....but maybe with enough check points people might think twice before driving drunk. I just feel that so many people don't want the government involved in their life's until something happens. Any society has to have some rules and sometimes those rules might infringe on our rights.

 

[Smokepole]

I was stopped at one once after eating at some place with a ton of garlic and onions. I think the officer paid the price by having to smell my breath.

Jason

^^^^^^^^

I think that I will try to find some garlic & onion gum (and if there isn't any, maybe invent it) so that I will have some olfactory ammunition for the next time I come to one.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Garlic Bubble Gum

 

[Smokepole]

Most I know who have had DUI's have had to put out several thousands of dollars. And most did not learn, some have even done jail time. A car with a drunk driver behind the wheel is no different than someone driving down the road shooting out the window of the car...he might hit someone, he might not. The difference is you can hear him shooting. You know he is there. I know people do not want any infringements on their rights....but maybe with enough check points people might think twice before driving drunk. I just feel that so many people don't want the government involved in their life's until something happens. Any society has to have some rules and sometimes those rules might infringe on our rights.

Feel the same way about your gun rights? AWB, expanded NICS checks? Ammunition purchase lists? Purchase licenses?

Rights is Rights! Which ones are you OK with increased infringements on? Hmmmmmmmmm?

 

[Smokepole]

Well if they are picked up at the check point they wont be going home....last I look my home was not owned by the community like a road, it is private not public. There fore I know who is in my home...I don't know who is on the road.

Two words: Probable Cause. If you condone the abuse of it in one place, then you must condone it in others. Right? It's called precedent. The proverbial slippery slope.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I do not see the difference between sobriety check points and door to door searches for illegal drugs.

On top of my philosophical objections is my knowledge of several people who have been repeatedly busted for drunk driving (crashed cars, swerving all over the road, slobbering drunk, sometimes with kids in the vehicle) who had their hands slapped, sent to "treatment" and back on the streets.

 

[Smokepole]

Garlic Bubble Gum

I like it. I don't see Garlic AND Onion though.

And the liquid a$$ is a little disconcerting.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Most I know who have had DUI's have had to put out several thousands of dollars. And most did not learn, some have even done jail time. A car with a drunk driver behind the wheel is no different than someone driving down the road shooting out the window of the car...he might hit someone, he might not. The difference is you can hear him shooting. You know he is there. I know people do not want any infringements on their rights....but maybe with enough check points people might think twice before driving drunk. I just feel that so many people don't want the government involved in their life's until something happens. Any society has to have some rules and sometimes those rules might infringe on our rights.

Do you consider sobriety checkpoints to be significantly different than checkpoints to control the transportation of illegal explosives, firearms or drugs?

Do you consider sobriety checkpoints to be significantly different than door to door searches of private property?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I didn't read all the pages, but I will tell you there are very strict rules for checkpoints. One is that signage must be present forward of the checkpoint that warn the checkpoint is ahead, and there must be turn offs between the sign and the checkpoint. You cannot be forced to go through the checkpoint, in other words.

They do catch drunks, though. It never failed to amaze me how someone who HAD to know they were going to reek of alcohol and be over the limit could drive past two huge orange signs, not turn off and bypass the checkpoint, then wonder how they got caught. I worked them a few times for overtime when I was a rookie, but found them pretty boring and quickly found it was much more interesting to sign up for mobile DUI enforcement and troll Broad Ripple.

They are about revenue in one sense. That's federal money is used to fund most of them. Not in the sense of writing tickets. Its cheaper and easier just to pull people over if you want to write tickets. I used to run radar in a school zone for an hour each day when the kids were getting out of school. I could write 4 in that hour only stopping cars going 15+ over, and the limiting factor wasn't speeders, it was how long it took to handwrite the tickets.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Feel the same way about your gun rights? AWB, expanded NICS checks? Ammunition purchase lists? Purchase licenses?

Rights is Rights! Which ones are you OK with increased infringements on? Hmmmmmmmmm?

You are splitting hairs....my guns are in my home, We shoot where it is safe to shoot...If I ran down the road shooting my gun off irresponsibly, yes I would expect the police to take my gun and put me in jail before I killed someone. if someone wants to drink who cares...do it in your home, do it where it is safe...but the minute they get in their car and drive down the road they are infringing on my families safety. I do not feel it is anyone's right to get drunk and kill my one of my family members or my who family....just like it is not their right to stand in the front yard and fire shots randomly at my grand kids while they are playing outside. I could say is it an infringement on my rights to have to stop at red lights. I will not protect or defend the rights of a drunk driver or an irresponsible gun owner. I will and have walked the walk for gun owners.

 

[Meezer]

I do not feel it is anyone's right to get drunk and kill my one of my family members or my who family....just like it is not their right to stand in the front yard and fire shots randomly at my grand kids while they are playing outside. I could say is it an infringement on my rights to have to stop at red lights. I will not protect or defend the rights of a drunk driver or an irresponsible gun owner. I will and have walked the walk for gun owners.

You are using Obama's favorite tactic, "the Ole Straw Man argument"

 

[Survivalcookie]

Two words: Probable Cause. If you condone the abuse of it in one place, then you must condone it in others. Right? It's called precedent. The proverbial slippery slope.

I think you are to paranoid for your own good or a drunk who likes to drink and drive. I do not have to any fear about condoning a check point, Use to live in southern CA where they had check points for illegals, use to live on a weapons station where my car was searched every time I entered the base to go home, have had my car searched many times going on military installations. I never considered it abusive. The probable cause is, it is 2 am the bar just closed, and moist people out after 2 am have usually been to a bar. Very few shifts change at 2 am.