DUI Check Point Constitutionality.

We should have a group buy on tin foil hats.

 

I was trying to disagree, not be disagreeable. Meant no offense.

I think statistically it's probably ineffective at actually catching people using drugs. I haven't seen statistics (not even sure how accurate they would be if I found some) but I think it's more important as a deterrent. Anecdotally, there are certain substances (pot) that I would use, but I know I'm eligibile for testing at work (random, and if someone thought I might be high, and also if there's an accident or injury at my work location) so I do not partake. The chances I would get caught are slim, but the risk isn't worth it to me. A couple hours stoned isn't worth giving up my job.

 

I guess some people clap at funenals too...

 

No, you didn't offend me at all (and I hope I have not offended you). I enjoy a good debate when it's based on fact (and can be fact checked by provided link when needed). I was looking forward to someone posting something more then just a "snippy" opinion.

 

I have never understood why people act like this. I have nothing to hide, ask me all the questions you want, ask to see any papers you want. I think DUI checkpoints are a great idea, I wish there were more of them.

 

Only when the eulogy is AWESOME.

 

You did not get the memo telling you that was the new policy? I'm sure that informed you that it was going to take place. The country is full of lawyers hire one see where that gets you after you lose then you can join the long list of those that have tried, it is legal. By the way I'm glad the bleeding heart do gooders got it passed even if it only got one drunk off the road. Where were you when they said it would be all right to do a DUI check apparently more people then you thought it was a damn good ideal. I'm 66, I have had random testing guess what I'm OK with that I don't like having a druggy watching my back, I don't think that was what was on their mind when the 4th amendment was written that was a long time ago things change.

 

And that's okay because the same document that allows you to voice your thoughts is the same document being side stepped in the DUI check points and random drug testing. Good news is, they've not yet found a way around the 1st Amendment yet (unless you include the fairness doctrine which was only used a short time and eliminated a while back but continues to be a subject of conversation or you include the 6 reporters currently being sued by certain people in public office, bare in mind in all the history of the US it's only happened 3 times prior).

To help you better understand (if not agree), I suggest you become familiar with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

True, but in California you are not required to take the FST and refusal to take it doesnt qualify as a violation of the implied consent law.

Also, refusal to take the any FST cant be used as reasonable suspicion to support a violation of CA DUi laws.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Thanks for the feefback.

1.) I don't need to hire a lawyer for advice or go along with the crowd.

2.) The courts have overturned plenty of laws of which I'm happy to provide you information & case numbers if you are unaware or want to read but can't find.

3.) I did not say it was unenforceable or not currently viewed ads legal.

4.) If you do some research you will find where the courts have already ruled it's not consistent with the intent of the 4th & 14th Amendments but, also thought there was a need to inact the laws anyway.

5.) People used to think it was a good idea to burn witches at the stake too but just because many people agreed does not make it right.

If all else fails, regardless of how many people don't agree with me I will CONTINUE to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against others who fail to uphold it.

What I would really like to see is someone making a good arguement showing how it doesn't violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights or that the laws are in the scope of what the Constitutution allows.

 

Agreed...while sometimes we might sacrifice our rights a tiny bit with all the questions and such..i will gladly do it cause they always arrest idiots who are drunk! What yall want them to do? stop doing checkpoints? lol

 

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to stop doing random suspicionless checkpoints. However, if law enforcement wont stop the check points, I think it would be a good idea if law enforcement, and the general public, respected the rights of citizens to remain silent and not consent to be searched or seizures during the detainment.

The vote to allow check points was 6-3 and many people today think if the case was heard before the present supreme court it would be 5-4 to outlaw them.

"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"

Does this sound like something that would allow a random citizen to be stopped, questioned, searched and detained for no other reason than they were driving down a street ?

 

It's discouraging that so many posters fail to understand what has been so clearly stated: opposing unlawful search and seizure on constitutional grounds does not mean you are in favor of drunk driving. I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread supports that.

Drunk driving is illegal, as it should be. Trampling rights in pursuit of drunk drivers, even when done with good intentions, is also illegal.

Be careful before you acquiesce your constitutional rights. You never know which rights the ruling political class will come for next. I'm certain this is what the architects of the constitution were trying to protect us from.

 

And it's discouraging to me that people want to classify a question or two at a checkpoint as falling under unlawful search and seizure. Do I have a problem answering a couple of questions about my sobriety if I am in fact sober? Not at all. Would I give permission for an officer to search my vehicle during said checkpoint? Absolutely not. Asking to search my vehicle for no reason and asking me, and every other motorist I'm around whether I'm drinking are two completely different things to me. I just don't find a couple questions as "trampling my rights."

What about a situation where there has been say a mass murder or child abduction and police have a checkpoint up regarding that. Do you also feel that your rights are being trampled?

 

I don't see the big effing deal. So you get inconvenienced at a checkpoint for a minute...whoopie. Since I believe I also have the constitutional right to not be murdered by some drunken asshole I'm all for the checkpoints. I bet peoples opinions change when they lose someone.

 

Once again, I couldn't agree more.

 

What part of answering a couple of questions or even blowing into a tube is "unreasonable search and seizure"?

Do you realize that some states where the law requires state-run liquor establishments they require you to do just this before purchasing liquor? Being able to buy liquor is not a constitutional right, nor is driving a car.

Driving a car is a privilege granted to those who have shown that they can do so safely and have agreed to do so while abiding by certain conditions. One of those conditions, at least in my state, is that you must submit to an alcohol test if asked. You are clearly told this when applying for a license.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. As such, it carries great responsibility. Driving is a serious and sometimes dangerous business.​

IMPLIED CONSENT TO ALCOHOL TEST
1. Kansas law (K.S.A. 8-1001) requires a driver to submit to and complete one
or more test of breath, blood or urine to determine if the driver is under the
influence of alcohol or drugs or both.
2. The opportunity to consent to or refuse a test is not a constitutional right.
3. There is no constitutional right to consult an attorney regarding whether to
submit to testing.
4. A refusal to submit to and complete any test requested by a law enforcement
officer will result in a driver license suspension of 1 year.​

The above is the law in my state. If you want to contest this you better not do so by violating the law but by changing the law.

Also, you are not "stopped, questioned, searched and detained" at DUI checkpoints -- I've been through a few, showed by my polite response to a couple of polite questions that I was obviously not drunk, then was on my way in less than two minutes.

How many of you have actually been sworn to defend the Constitution and have served as a member of the civilian or military services I wonder? How many of you have seen the eyes of a teenage girl glaze over in death while the drunken idiot who killed her is screaming in the next cot about having his rights violated because you have ignored his tiny bumps and scratches while you were desperately trying to save a life? How many of you would have wished said idiot had been stopped 30 minutes prior to this at a DUI checkpoint?