Sobriety check point, whadda think??

dmccarty · Sep 4, 2006

First of all the officers have to have probable cause to make an arrest. They have to develop that from the stop. Nothing has changed there.

There are valid reasons for gun ownership. I really don't think there is a valid reason for being a drunk driver. Again, the courts have decided again and again and again that driving on public roads is a privilage not a right. My state requires minimum levels of insurance coverage. Is that reasonable? Its forcing people to pay for something they may not need. If the chance of being dragged into a check point is so horrible then don't drive on the public roads. Its simple. Hire a taxi that way when The Man casts his net, one can excercise their constitutional right to not say a word. And since the taxi driving will have to show his OL this should not be hard.

Remember the courts have set limits on check points. They have to be planned and documented. They location and length of the checkpoint has to be in the plan. WHICH cars are stopped has to be in the plan and followed. If the check point is not conducted by the letter of the law any arrests made as part of the check point will be thrown out of court. Can't say that would happen in a totalitarian state.

Is a check point valid or a violation of civil liberties to cast a net for a cop killer? Say in NY state?

Later,
Dan

Bill Barrett · Sep 4, 2006

Hi Dan, I'm interested on which cars are to be stopped? I have been in a "safety" stop in Illinois that cars were run through three lanes of police and every car was checked.

MossRoad · Sep 4, 2006

dmccarty said:
What I have seen checkpoints make more arrests and write more citations than patrol with with fewer officers and in less time.

Later,
Dan

So would knocking on people's doors and asking if you could search their house. See how that goes over

Well, people don't drive their house down the road, endangering innocent citizens.

Yes, but people sell drugs out of houses near school zones, endangering young children, so I think it is justified to search houses near school zones for drugs....

See how easy it is to justify anthing? The more liberties we give up the worse it will get. That's why I think we should up the penalties for people that get caught drunk driving the first time. If you read your local paper it seems that most of the folks that are arrested for drunk driving are repeat offenders. Take the car, 3 months in jail followed by 3 months of work release, followed by 6 months of parole for first time offenders if no one else is injured. Folks will adjust and learn to drink responsibly. Just figure the cost of a cab ride into your evening out and it isn't that much more expensive VS the cost of prison time.

Doc_Bob · Sep 4, 2006

dmccarty said:
There are valid reasons for gun ownership. I really don't think there is a valid reason for being a drunk driver. Again, the courts have decided again and again and again that driving on public roads is a privilage not a right.

Dan

Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment if memory serves me right. I find nothing in the BOR about driving a car or car ownership.
Bob

CDsdad · Sep 5, 2006

Drunk driving first offense should be minimum 1 year in jail, 10 years suspended license mandatory.

Second offense 10 years in jail, never another license. And every time caught driving w/o license, add ten years in jail.

How many would chance that? Scary part is it probably wouldn't slow a lot of them down.

I bet if you killed the drunk piece of trash that ran into your wife or kids, you'd probably get life.

dmccarty · Sep 5, 2006

Bill,

If the "plan" say stop every car then that is what has to be done. If it says every fifth car then its every fifth car. What can't be done is check every other car when the plan says check every car. Why do it this way? The courts are making sure that the stop are fair and that people are not being just stopped at the whim of the officer.

If traffic is getting back up the checkpoint can be halted to let things clear up and then resumed.

Later,
Dan

dmccarty · Sep 5, 2006

MossRoad said:
So would knocking on people's doors and asking if you could search their house. See how that goes over

Well, people don't drive their house down the road, endangering innocent citizens.

Asking people to search a house and car is allowed. If they say yes and they rent/own the house its ok to search.

Yes, but people sell drugs out of houses near school zones, endangering young children, so I think it is justified to search houses near school zones for drugs....

See how easy it is to justify anthing? The more liberties we give up the worse it will get.

YOU might think its ok to search houses but that little thing called the Constitution and centuries of court rulings make your opinion wrong.

And if you did conduct a search that was unconstitutional whatever you found would not be allowed in court.

Then you would be sued by the people who own/rent the house.

And most likely you would have lost your job and career.

There are checks and balances.

You and your car are NOT being searched at a checkpoint you are being stopped and asked questions. Since you are driving a vehicle you must show your OL and registration. Now if the officer can develop reasonable suspicion during the stop, parts are all of the vehicle, can be searched. The courts have stated repeatedly over the years that the right to privacy is much less in vehicle. But its still there, its just not as great as in dwelling.

I agree with everything else you said. Except the penalties should be higher.

Later,
Dan

Doc_Bob · Sep 5, 2006

CDsdad said:
How many would chance that? Scary part is it probably wouldn't slow a lot of them down.

.

A true alcoholic would never be deterred by such a measure. But that does not mean it should not be done. Just as the person who has heart disease is never stopped from smoking after they have a stent placed in their coronary artery.
Bob

InlineDieselFan · Sep 5, 2006

I understand the value (even if they do not catch many people perhaps they do not drive drunk knowing there are checkpoints) and need of checkpoints, I hate drunk drivers. I have picked up the remnants of too many car crashes, and the innocent driver that gets hurt or killed and of course the drunk is usually okay.

But I do not support checkpoints, make drunk driving have severe penalties, but which ones work I do not know. Suspensions and defferments do not work. Throwing them all in jail would cost a lot of money, but money would be saved by keeping them off of the street and keeping them from harming others.

I do not have or know the answers but what we have now (at least in WA) does not work.

Just last night onthe news, since 2000 in WA.
200,000 DUI's
30,000 two time DUI's
5,000 three or more DUI's

More than 5,000 people with three DUI's in the last six years, why are they out on the streets they certainly need to be in jail, yes rasie my taxes.

Being an alcoholic is a disease has nt been brought up yet, if your disease is harming others too darn bad!

steve

MossRoad · Sep 5, 2006

dmccarty said:
You and your car are NOT being searched at a checkpoint you are being stopped and asked questions.

Later,
Dan

If that's what you think, that's what you think. I think you are being stopped so the officer can observe your reactions and so he can get a peek inside your car and smell your stinky breath !

I know check points are legal. That wasn't the question that was asked. The question was what we think about them. I think they are wrong. Even though they say they are only asking you questions, we all know that is just a legal way to get you to slow down so they can do the glazed eyes/stinky breath/slurred speech/peek in the car tests. Next, they'll start asking for your papers... "What, no papers? Please pull over there, sir." YIKES!