[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by ClydeG19

SCOTUS upheld the use of dui checkpoints 6-3 back in the early 90's. They called it a slightly invasive stop similar to checkpoints conducted by Border Patrol while looking for illegals and drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/us...ted=all&src=pm

I'm not sure they are as effective as they once were now that there are "checkpoint apps" and other methods of hearing about and then avoiding checkpoints. We tend to due the saturation patrol method and pull drivers over for any violation of the vehicle code we find. Then if the officers has reason to suspect the driver is impaired after observations and fst's, he takes them to a centrally located dui van for a blood draw.

Oh I have no doubt the court has managed to find legal justification for stopping citizens without cause. Never doubted that for a moment. The court has found justification for lots of BS.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Bren

Yeah, the police state.

The police may actually get more DUIs without checkpoints somewhere. That's certainly not true here when I was a cop. A checkpoint would fill every available car with drunks very quickly - we'd actuaslly gather as many cops as possible from various departments, fill all the cars with drunks, then take them all to jail together.

However, even if they catch more drunks on patrol, the checkpoint is a better deterrent. Eevery drunk believes he can drive well enough to fool the police, but there is no getting around the checkpoint, so the idea is that it causes them to make a diferent decision, if they know checkpoints are likely.

If they can drive well enough to fool police, aren't they driving "well enough"?

[Pawcatch@aol.co]

Originally Posted by w30olds

I went through one of the GA State Patrol checkpoints last weekend. Let's just say they were not the most pleasant officers to deal with. I pull up and when it was my turn the first question was "How much have you had to drink?" Really??? Guess they automatically assume you've been in the sauce all day.

So I replied "1 Mountain Dew." Obviously it pissed off the cop. I was wearing my seatbelt, have valid ID and insurance. Not much they could do.

It was setup in a curve in the road with nowhere to turn off. Total ambush. so once you rounded the curve bam! Your in the roadblock with nowhere to go.

I don't mind them, but damn be a little more professional about the way you conduct yourselves!

The only road blocks that you ever see in my county are done by the Ga Sate Patrol.It's a rural county where everyone knows the Sheriff and Deputies doing a road block doesn't fly.
We have one trooper in this county that is known to come to an accident and just take over from the local leo.

[OctoberRust]

Hey why not just real the fourth and fifth amendment. I mean if you have nothing to hide what's the harm, right?

Also to those who are for checkpoints, it starts little like this, just how like you very same people like too preach when govt takes a look at gun control and then all of a sudden any little step for security by giving up freedoms you don't want to do. I love the gt double standards here. If it doesn't affect me, I'm all for repealing liberties, by golly though, if it does give me liberty or death!

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Hey why not just real the fourth and fifth amendment. I mean if you have nothing to hide what's the harm, right?

Also to those who are for checkpoints, it starts little like this, just how like you very same people like too preach when govt takes a look at gun control and then all of a sudden any little step for security by giving up freedoms you don't want to do. I love the gt double standards here. If it doesn't affect me, I'm all for repealing liberties, by golly though, if it does give me liberty or death!

Thats the prevailing attitude on Glocktalk. Most of these posters are VERY anti-liberty. They're just pro-2A.

[MAC702]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Driving isn't included in the Bill of Rights. It is licensed and regulated. ...

Most state laws have restrictions on when police can stop drivers. In my state, the DUI checkpoints often violate these laws.

Some states do not allow them, period.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

Thats the prevailing attitude on Glocktalk. Most of these posters are VERY anti-liberty. They're just pro-2A.

That's a very good way to put it.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

If they can drive well enough to fool police, aren't they driving "well enough"?

That is as stupid as saying, if you shoot in the air and don't manage to maim or kill someone, are you shooting "well enough"?

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by ray9898

I don't think you are comprehending what you read.

Submitting to the breath test is part of the implied consent agreement you entered into when you obtained your drivers license. If you refuse the breath test LE can still obtain the evidence by blood draw with a search warrant as long as they can show the judge their is probable cause which indicates intoxication and the evidence in the blood would support that charge.

Refusing the breathalyzer is not what gives the probable cause for the warrant, the indicators of intoxication and probable cause needed for arrest are. No different that a request to take any other type of sample such as DNA, bite impressions, hair samples, ect.

Just don't "cooperate" at checkpoints. Simple as that. Don't answer questions, don't take tests. Put your window down a half inch, enough to slide license and reg out, and wait.

You have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent and not provide any evidence against yourself. Use it or lose it.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by MAC702

Most state laws have restrictions on when police can stop drivers. In my state, the DUI checkpoints often violate these laws.

Some states do not allow them, period.

So, in your state, you are allowed to drive without an inspection sticker, a license plate, proof of insurance, or a license?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Hey why not just real the fourth and fifth amendment. I mean if you have nothing to hide what's the harm, right?

Also to those who are for checkpoints, it starts little like this, just how like you very same people like too preach when govt takes a look at gun control and then all of a sudden any little step for security by giving up freedoms you don't want to do. I love the gt double standards here. If it doesn't affect me, I'm all for repealing liberties, by golly though, if it does give me liberty or death!

It is perfectly legal to check for inspection stickers, proper licensing, proof of insurance, and driver's license. Neither of those things are your property.

[Hauptmann6]

Originally Posted by lunarspeak

so your saying we should be more relaxed on fighting driveing while intoxicated???????

Only if there is some sort of cause. Stopping everyone is NOT the answer.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

I'm many if you guys would have no problem
if the BATF showed up at your door for a quick random "safe check". After all if you have nothing to hide.....


I'd take DWI laws much more seriously if there was some sort of sliding scale - .08 $1,000 fine, .10 $2,000, .12 $3,000 and 3 mos in jail - something like that. Treating people who have had three glasses of wine like someone who had a .750 of vodka is rally stupid.

Also I'd love to see reaction/decison making dara comparing younger people who've had a couple of drinks with older drivers.

I think you should face the same penalties as getting drunk and firing a weapon indiscriminatly in your neighborhood. You should face the same pentalties when you kill someone driving drunk as if you got drunk and decided to murder someone. Because, you did.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Hauptmann6

Only if there is some sort of cause. Stopping everyone is NOT the answer.

There is a solution. Walk.

[AK_Stick]

Fortunately though, your knee jerk reaction isn't what law and/or penalties are based upon.

[Hauptmann6]

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Gotta love gt double standards.

Exactly. If they were stopping everyone looking for guns think of the uproar.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

That is as stupid as saying, if you shoot in the air and don't manage to maim or kill someone, are you shooting "well enough"?

Yes apparently you are

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Yes apparently you are

That didn't even make any sense. Try again.

[Hauptmann6]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Oh I have no doubt the court has managed to find legal justification for stopping citizens without cause. Never doubted that for a moment. The court has found justification for lots of BS.

I don't agree with you often. But I very much agree with you on this.

[Kingarthurhk]

The only thing you constructively own is your vehicle. And, honestly, the bank probably still owns that.

You don't own your license plate, inspection tag, or driver's license. They are issued by the state in which you reside.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I think you should face the same penalties as getting drunk and firing a weapon indiscriminatly in your neighborhood. You should face the same pentalties when you kill someone driving drunk as if you got drunk and decided to murder someone. Because, you did.

If you think driving home after 3 glasses of wine is the same thing as firing a gun indiscriminately you really shouldn't own a gun.

As for the penalty for killing someone with a car, if it was intentional you are correct.

[OctoberRust]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

It is perfectly legal to check for inspection stickers, proper licensing, proof of insurance, and driver's license. Neither of those things are your property.

Yep, but to pull someone over without probably cause ? Then to try to get them to submit to a test and wasting more man hours and jamming up traffic. Wait, it's the government. I forgot they aren't about efficiency.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

That didn't even make any sense. Try again.

I read it again. It's very clear

[KommieforniaGlocker]

Originally Posted by Random

Now, I'm against checkpoints in general. By my luck of the draw I've never met an honest cop at any of them. Like 'em or not sometimes you have to tip your hat.

I really dig where refusing to take a breathalyzer equals enough probable cause for a judge to sign a warrant giving them permission to take your blood by force. That is pimp.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Holiday-DW...184986081.html

NEW ORLEANS -- "Drive sober or get pulled over." Louisiana State Police are backing up that slogan with action in the form of DWI checkpoints across the state during the ramp up to New Years Eve.

Checkpoints were scheduled in Terrebonne and Tangipahoa parishes Thursday night.

"We will have additional state police troopers that will be at the checkpoints," said Trooper Melissa Matey. "We'll also be working with other area law enforcement agencies that will assist on those checkpoints."

Many of the DWI checkpoints across the state across the state will be no refusal. That means law enforcement will be able quickly get a search warrant to take a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver who refuses to take a breathalyzer test.

"We produce a search warrant for the judge to sign showing that we have probable cause," said Matey. "Once the judge signs that warrant, then at that point we're able to take blood from that individual."

The Louisiana ACLU opposes the no-refusal policy.

"Of course, everybody has an obligation not to drive impaired and potentially harm someone else," said LA ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman. "The question is whether this is an appropriate use of governmental power to take people's blood without their consent."

New Orleans, where more than a third of the fatal accidents are alcohol related, has yet to implement no refusal. But the city's top cop says the practice has merit.

"It's being done by virtually all the parishes in the state and we're looking at for our city," said NOPD Superintendent Ronal Serpas. "What it does, it further incentivizes you, under the implied consent law, to take the breath test."

Serpas said all of his traffic officers, including the motorcycle patrol are engaged in DWI enforcement during the holiday season.

State police in Troop B who patrol the New Orleans area are expected to set up a DWI checkpoint sometime during the four day New Year's Eve weekend.

Stopped Reading right there

[TBO]

1. They are looking at the operator of the vehicle.

2. The layman's version of the court's take on checkpoints is: You can't randomly stop individual vehicles w/o RS or PC, but conducting checkpoints for specific reasons (DUI/equipment) by stopping all cars for quick/short/shallow checks was acceptable.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2