U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Are DUI Checkpoints, or checkpoints in general Unconstitutional?
Yes 62 52.10%
No 57 47.90%
Voters: 119. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,216,611 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
"The courts" (or you) are free to explain how a checkpoint in the middle of nowhere, with both sides of the checkpoint calling for the same level of security, is reasonable. They (or you) are also free to explain how this is any different from individual police officers pulling someone over without reason to suspect a crime while just out patrolling. That is, if they/you ever get around to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Frankly, your question lacks sense.

First, in my experience, I have NEVER seen a DUI checkpoint in the middle of nowhere.
I explained exactly what I meant following the phrase "in the middle of nowhere". I was asking you if you think it's reasonable to have a checkpoint someplace where both sides of the checkpoint call for the same level of security. If so, please elaborate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Next police officers may stop you if they have reason to believe you violated a CIVIL traffic law. Tlhey may also stop you if you appear to match the description of someone who did commit a criminal act.
But we're not talking about police stopping you for these reasons; we're talking about police stopping us for no reason.

As of yet, no one in this thread has been able to answer these questions, nor point me to a case in which a court has done it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
I've already told you the difference between an administrative search and police randomly pulling people over.


Don't get tricky with me. I asked for the difference between DUI checkpoints and police pulling people over on the highway without reason to suspect them of criminal activity or a violation.

No, you have not told me that. But now's as good a time as any to give it a shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
This doesn't tell me anything. Show me where it is unlawful for officers at these checkpoints to deviate from the "check every nth car" sort of guideline without having reason to suspect criminal activity or a violation; or else, admit this is empowering the authorities to conduct what would otherwise be recognizable as unlawful stops.

 
Old 05-31-2013, 01:56 PM
 
4,839 posts, read 3,555,511 times
Reputation: 1834
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee View Post
The US border? Absolutely stop everyone and verify their citizenship or lawful right to enter. The California border... ILLEGAL and unconstitutional because EVERYONE who is a lawful citizen of one state can lawfully travel to any other state in the union.



But this was about DUI stops. A stop in order to DETERMINE if the traveler MIGHT be in violation of a law, ANY law.
Really, illegal? Hmmm, this was back in '93, I wonder if it was illegal back then? Don't remember if it was at the border or within the border of California.

I stick by my assertion that drunk drivers are the ones most put out by this procedure.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Planet earth
3,280 posts, read 1,303,254 times
Reputation: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoD Guy View Post
Maybe we should set up immigration checkpoints too.
Maybe tax checkpoints on top of that.

Oh but we can't look for ILLEGAL immigrants because well... its just not fair... that and it ISN'T constitutional, just like DUI checkpoints AREN'T constitutional.



So yes DOD Guy... I agree with your intended sarcasm.


WTF is wrong with people not only wanting, but demanding the government violate the very limits placed upon it just because they don't like something. How are they incapable of understanding that once the government heads down this slippery slope, they will eventually find something to do to you, even if it violates their constitutional limits, and you'll be sitting there saying, but it's not fair!


You either stand with, support and defend the Constitution or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 02:17 PM
 
4,839 posts, read 3,555,511 times
Reputation: 1834
I don't have a problem w/it because the intention is to.....make the roads safer, duh. I for one fully support ensuring there is at least one less drunk driver on the road that I would have the potential to come in contact with.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 02:25 PM
 
Location: California
884 posts, read 607,146 times
Reputation: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee View Post
Every day many MORE people die at the hands of a treating physician or surgeon. So what? Quit justifying the government violating my constitutionally protected rights.
You might want to slow down a little as I am sure you must be getting dizzy from all the spinning you are doing.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 02:35 PM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,216,611 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by northnut View Post
I don't have a problem w/it because the intention is to.....make the roads safer, duh.
The problem is, every sort of violation of the Fourth Amendment could very well make us safer. Where do we really want to draw the line? This was the point of the U.S. Constitution in the first place, to (in theory) prevent such a slippery slope from ever forming in this country.

Obviously, the subject in question is a prime example of how people (including the Supreme Court) are willing to disregard the Constitution in favor of their own rationalizing.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Planet earth
3,280 posts, read 1,303,254 times
Reputation: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry View Post
You might want to slow down a little as I am sure you must be getting dizzy from all the spinning you are doing.

...and you might want to set the crack pipe down. Just say, "No!" dude.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 03:42 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,743,121 times
Reputation: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Don't get tricky with me. I asked for the difference between DUI checkpoints and police pulling people over on the highway without reason to suspect them of criminal activity or a violation.

No, you have not told me that. But now's as good a time as any to give it a shot.

I have. Multiple times. I don't know if you just can't understand it, or you're just trolling.

This doesn't tell me anything. Show me where it is unlawful for officers at these checkpoints to deviate from the "check every nth car" sort of guideline without having reason to suspect criminal activity or a violation; or else, admit this is empowering the authorities to conduct what would otherwise be recognizable as unlawful stops.
Actually, it does. Read the case, if you can't understand it, that's not my fault.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 03:43 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,743,121 times
Reputation: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee View Post
Just because courts have ruled differently does NOT mean the words of the Constitution have changed. The courts were WRONG.





Police questioning me at a DUI checkpoint? They have ZERO lawful reason to detain me, and I have ZERO lawful reason to respond to them because the DUI checkpoint is a TRAP, intended to get someone to VOLUNTARILY give up their constitutional rights by responding.


Any court ruling suggesting DUI checkpoints are constitutional were wrong. Go ahead and tell me but the court gets to decide... The court ruled on many issues wrong, including slavery.
They not only have authority on their side, they have history and precedent on their side.

All you have is your opinion. Bummer for you.
 
Old 05-31-2013, 03:54 PM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,216,611 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
But I'm also not at all convinced this guideline is either heavily monitored or heavily enforced. If you want me to take it seriously, show me where it is unlawful for these officers to deviate from it. Again, give us the same protection from the officers at these checkpoints as we have from officers out on the highway, or I call "BS".
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
This doesn't tell me anything. Show me where it is unlawful for officers at these checkpoints to deviate from the "check every nth car" sort of guideline without having reason to suspect criminal activity or a violation; or else, admit this is empowering the authorities to conduct what would otherwise be recognizable as unlawful stops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
Actually, it does. Read the case, if you can't understand it, that's not my fault.
Hmmm, surely if you knew for a fact that this document tells us that police absolutely must adhere to the "check every nth car" guideline, you would know where and would therefore have the ability to quote it in the document...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
(to KS_Referee) They not only have authority on their side, they have history and precedent on their side.

All you have is your opinion. Bummer for you.
So he yells "U.S. Constitution" and you yell "authority, history, and precedent"?

Wow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top