Dui checkpoints: How to proceed when the gistapo ask for your paperz

[PeyoteReligion]

Watch Washington State,If MJ.passes in Nov.checkpoints will go through the roof.If they can make U blow in a meter,they can make U give a cheek swab,that with some sort of a tester(already invented I believe} + the 5 whatever it is threshold will mean sure U can smoke in Wash.but U can't drive.Prohabition under another name.

Washington is one of the 14 states I mentioned that checkpoints are unconstitutional in. They cannot go through the roof because they can't do it. Period.

But get pulled over talking on the phone and your fucked!

 

[PeyoteReligion]

i asked for an explanation of how this violates your rights and mine, your reply is "people are being harassed and you're a communist police officer!"

Its unconstitutional because they do it without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “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.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped withoutreasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Its unconstitutional because they do it without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “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.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped withoutreasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

what amendment allows for you to operate (and endanger other citizens) heavy machinery on public highways while under the influence?

 

[eyesky]

I am feeling the love

 

[UncleBuck]

Its unconstitutional because they do it without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “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.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped withoutreasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

implied consent.

i win.

 

[PeyoteReligion]

what amendment allows for you to operate (and endanger other citizens) heavy machinery on public highways while under the influence?

Sigh...None. Drinking and driving is illegal. But just because people do it anyways dos not give cops the right to just stop anyone willy nilly. With that logic, cops would be able to start raiding people homes without warrants, because there is no amendment saying yu can grow it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sigh...None. Drinking and driving is illegal. But just because people do it anyways dose. It give cops the right to just stop anyone willy nilly. With that logic, cops would be able to start raiding people homes without warrants, because there is no amendment saying yu can grow it.

if it is being done "willy nilly", that is where it violates rights.

as i said when i first chimed in, it is perfectly legal and constitutional if done properly.

 

[PeyoteReligion]

implied consent.

i win.

Basically probable cause...drive like a drunk then it's ok to pull you over. But random stops, no. No winning Charlie.

 

[NLXSK1]

Sigh...None. Drinking and driving is illegal. But just because people do it anyways dos not give cops the right to just stop anyone willy nilly. With that logic, cops would be able to start raiding people homes without warrants, because there is no amendment saying yu can grow it.

They dont stop anyone willy nilly... That WOULD be against the 4th amendment. They stop everyone equally in a particular place and that is how they get around it.

And I agree with Uncle Buck on this one. Driving is a privilege that involves public safety and as such can come under greater scrutiny than other activities people do.

 

[PeyoteReligion]

if it is being done "willy nilly", that is where it violates rights.

as i said when i first chimed in, it is perfectly legal and constitutional if done properly.

Im not against stopping drunk drivers. I just don't think lining people up and visually profiling them and choosing people to check in that fashion, which is what checkpoints really are, is doing it "right".

 

[overgrowem]

14 OK 36 iffy.Supremes :decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances:.+Supremes just ruled that unwarranted GPS.was a search and illegal.Govts.case was that U have no expectation of privacy when U are not in your house.Court didn't say U had privacy in public. Only applied to GPS. Cops will make sure checkpoint Mj. goes through Supremes again.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Im not against stopping drunk drivers. I just don't think lining people up and visually profiling them and choosing people to check in that fashion, which is what checkpoints really are, is doing it "right".

breathalyze everyone going thru check point ok then?

 

[PeyoteReligion]

They dont stop anyone willy nilly... That WOULD be against the 4th amendment. They stop everyone equally in a particular place and that is how they get around it.

And I agree with Uncle Buck on this one. Driving is a privilege that involves public safety and as such can come under greater scrutiny than other activities people do.

EVERYONE in these check points is being stopped willy nilly. Driving down the road---BOOM--chech point! That's willy nilly. I do agree that driving is something you earn, and can lose just as readily. But many people don't agree with unwarranted stops like that are unconstitutional, and this countries government decided to leave decisions like this up to the state (checks and balances). It is pointless to debate if you think it's "okay" or not. Either become a politician and change some things or write a bill good enough to go all the way to the federal government convincing them to change the constitution so states don't have that right anymore. Which creates a whole new problem of the federal government having too much power. And I'm willing to bet you think the Feds already overstep their boundaries (ie pot is ferally illegal despite state laws.) with too much power.

 

[UncleBuck]

Basically probable cause...drive like a drunk then it's ok to pull you over. But random stops, no. No winning Charlie.

it's not random. they choose certain locations and certain days/times.

i had to go through one in bakersfield, california, on christmas eve, in the shitty part of town (well, all of bakersfield is shitty, so let's say the shittier part of town).

probable cause right there. is there a bar in the area? probable cause.

there's a good reason you don't see sobriety checkpoints on the interstate highway at 8:30am on june 12th.

 

[UncleBuck]

EVERYONE in these check points is being stopped willy nilly. Driving down the road---BOOM--chech point! That's willy nilly.

you are clearly speaking ad hoc and have no idea how sobriety checkpoints are administered.

if they truly did it "willy nilly", that would be one thing, and it would be counterproductive for the LEOs trying to get drunks off the road, as well as unconstitutional.

these checkpoints are targeted, and rightly so.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

DUI checkpoints are not a violation of your rights in any way if conducted properly, and there are many ways to conduct them properly.

if someone wants to explain exactly how this violates their rights, feel free to make an attempt. spell it out for me. otherwise, stop with the sand-in-the-vagina routine and comparing public safety measures to hitler's germany, ya hyperbolic bunch of shits.

The police have no right to stop you if you aren't violating any laws. The police have no right to demand a driver's license. You must only show a driver's license iff you are a driver and therefore have a contract with the dmv. Your instrument of travel, whether by foot, animal or mechanical locomotion, is a right and my not be deprived if for person use of traveling from point A to point B. A driver is a person of hire. A motor vehicle is a means of locomotion used by the driver. If your means of locomotion use id for personal travel, then you aren't a driver. If your means of personal travel is not a motor vehicle, which it isn't if you're not for hire, then your means of transportation is personal property. Your use of public roads is a right under the 5th amendment due process clause and the 14th amendment right to interstate travel.

 

[UncleBuck]

The police have no right to stop you if you aren't violating any laws. The police have no right to demand a driver's license. You must only show a driver's license iff you are a driver and therefore have a contract with the dmv. Your instrument of travel, whether by foot, animal or mechanical locomotion, is a right and my not be deprived if for person use of traveling from point A to point B. A driver is a person of hire. A motor vehicle is a means of locomotion used by the driver. If your means of locomotion use id for personal travel, then you aren't a driver. If your means of personal travel is not a motor vehicle, which it isn't if you're not for hire, then your means of transportation is personal property. Your use of public roads is a right under the 5th amendment due process clause and the 14th amendment right to interstate travel.

the only things you left out were astral planes and auras.

there is no right to interstate travel in the 14th amendment that i can find. enlighten me.

and the cops can stop you if they have probable cause, whether you are violating a law or not.

seriously, this reads like some hippy crap, no offense.

 

[Carne Seca]

I'm lucky to live in a state where these were deemed unconstitutional, and they do not execute them. Along with 13 other states if I remember correctly.

we have DIU checkpoints and border patrol check points. Lovely.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

the only things you left out were astral planes and auras.

there is no right to interstate travel in the 14th amendment that i can find. enlighten me.

and the cops can stop you if they have probable cause, whether you are violating a law or not.

seriously, this reads like some hippy crap, no offense.

" In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C. C. E. D. Pa. 1825) the right to travel interstate was grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. In concurring opinions in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, reliance was placed on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/shapiro.html

I tried to tell you I knew more about Civics than my high school teachers and got 99th percentile on the state test. Just because something isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, doesn't mean it's not part of constitutional law.

 

[InCognition]

Sigh...None. Drinking and driving is illegal. But just because people do it anyways dos not give cops the right to just stop anyone willy nilly. With that logic, cops would be able to start raiding people homes without warrants, because there is no amendment saying yu can grow it.

Yes, but living in your own home, on your own property is a right essentially because you purchased it, thus you own it... it's yours. Your car is yours, but the road in which you share is not yours. Please don't get into the whole "the government owns your land" stuff because that strays from the basic point of such a comparison.

You're attempting to compare apples and oranges. The two really aren't interchangeable.