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.
Why would you expect privacy in a car, on a public road? If you were walking around town, would you expect privacy?
Courts have ruled that vehicles are personal property, not places to go to seek privacy.
Yes I would with both. I don't believe in a police state where the police have unlimited authority to stop you along your way. We are not slaves to the state and we're often locking up innocent people while letting much more dangerous drivers and criminals walk free.
It's becoming more and more a revenue source.
I'm not advocating driving under the influence. It's dangerous. But you don't have to be driving under the influence to be charged with a DUI.
And Punkfan, what if your incriminated by the police? It's happened to me before and I've heard countless other stories of corruption as well. To give police such power is about as Un American as you can get.
Well, the courts disagree. Vehicles aren't domiciles, or repositories for personal affects. Their function isn't to serve as a place to seek refuge.
Quote:
I don't believe in a police state where the police have unlimited authority to stop you along your way.
They don't have that power, actually, at least not in theory. A cop is allowed to stop you briefly, and engage you in conversation about whatever they like. And if you are aware of your rights, you can remove yourself from the conversation and walk/drive away, unless they have "probable cause" for an arrest or "reasonable suspicion" for a search. What are you suggesting? That cops shouldn't be allowed to talk to anyone? You don't see how that might hinder policing?
Quote:
We are not slaves to the state and we're often locking up innocent people while letting much more dangerous drivers and criminals walk free.
If someone believes their rights have been violated and they can demonstrate this in a court of law, they'll be acquitted.
Quote:
And Punkfan, what if your incriminated by the police? It's happened to me before and I've heard countless other stories of corruption as well. To give police such power is about as Un American as you can get.
If you're arguing against police corruption, you won't get a quarrel from me. However, DUI checkpoints aren't Unconstitutional. I have been in a situation where I was accused of being "high on marijuana" while driving a car, because the cops claimed I had red eyes and seemed to be slurring my speech (it was 3 AM and I had just worked a 12 hour shift). I don't smoke marijuana, and certainly hadn't that night. Yeah, it sucks to wind up in that position and these guys were in the wrong. They asked if they could search the car, and I said they could. They did, I was polite, and they left without giving me the speeding ticket I probably deserved.
DUI checkpoints are legal because they are (supposed to be) brief and non-intrusive.
According to the following links (and everything I've read from anyone that even appears reputable), the police stopping a vehicle without reason to suspect a crime has taken or is going to take place constitutes an unlawful stop, irrespective of how long or "non-intrusive" the stop is.
That's the genius of the DUI checkpoint, you see. They get to stop people for no reason all the time, and no one asks any questions because "Hey! It's a checkpoint! That's what it's there for!" It's almost comical how we would all recognize an unlawful stop if it was just an officer pulling us over with his vehicle to "chat", yet this is presumed to be legitimate.
Courts have ruled that vehicles are personal property, not places to go to seek privacy.
What courts? When? And how come the Supreme Court considers a public phone booth a place where one can reasonably expect privacy but not a car which is likely owned by the driver?
Why would you expect privacy in a car, on a public road? If you were walking around town, would you expect privacy?
Courts have ruled that vehicles are personal property, not places to go to seek privacy.
You have an expectation of privacy in your car, just not to the same degree you would in a private residence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Didn't vote, because while I know that random checkpoints are unconstitutional, I would never say checkpoints in general are. The key word in the Fourth Amendment is "unreasonable". Checking someone for weapons before they board an airplane, for example, is not unreasonable and therefore not unconstitutional. A checkpoint in the middle of nowhere with both sides of the checkpoint calling for the same level of security is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.
Except that the courts disagree with you. I think I already mentioned that administrative searches are excepted from the 4th amendment so long as they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose (stop people from driving drunk and endangering the public). I might add, that the way in which DUI checkpoints operate is closely regulated (have to adhere to certain standards - i.e they can't single people out). But hey, nothing is stopping your state from outlawing them.
No but the car I'm in. Also pay the taxes. Local and state. Provide a good product for the community.
I'm a citizen, I have rights.
In this regard, you have NO RIGHTS. Yes, lets say that again so you can understand: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. The highest law in the land, the last stop says DUI Checkpoints are LEGAL, so long as certain criteria are met. Therefore, your "rights," which you really do not know and only think you do, are meaningless and moot here.
You are just throwing a temper tamp tram, because you "feel" you have been wronged. Nothing could be further from the truth. THe majority of people in the United States WANT check points and DO NOT want drunk drivers on the road. Drunk drivers kill people, they maim people. So if something as simple as a checkpoint removes more people from the road, who have been drinking or driving on a suspended license (usually from a prior DUI) the program is a good one. I have no problem waiting the 30 or so minutes to get through one. I've always been treated nice and I treat others nicely.
In this regard, you have NO RIGHTS. Yes, lets say that again so you can understand: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. The highest law in the land, the last stop says DUI Checkpoints are LEGAL, so long as certain criteria are met. Therefore, your "rights," which you really do not know and only think you do, are meaningless and moot here.
You are just throwing a temper tamp tram, because you "feel" you have been wronged. Nothing could be further from the truth. THe majority of people in the United States WANT check points and DO NOT want drunk drivers on the road. Drunk drivers kill people, they maim people. So if something as simple as a checkpoint removes more people from the road, who have been drinking or driving on a suspended license (usually from a prior DUI) the program is a good one. I have no problem waiting the 30 or so minutes to get through one. I've always been treated nice and I treat others nicely.
Typical mindset of law enforcement these days and most of the problem.
The 10th
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is a clear violation of the 4th, since it is prohibited in the constitution.
Police officers have knowingly wrongfully and unlawfully charged people with DUI's before. Have knowingly and wrongfully planted evidence on suspects before. And have knowingly and wrongfully abused their powers over, and over, and over again.
Where do we draw the line between public safety and personal responsibility?
A significant percentage of drunk drivers are repeat offenders.
n 1992, more people were arrested in the U.S. for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) than any other reported criminal offense. Over 1.6 million drivers were arrested for DUI or DWI compared to 1.5 million people arrested for larceny or theft and 1.1 million people for drug abuse violations. There is public concern that many of these drivers arrested each year for DWI are repeat offenders. There is also convincing evidence that repeat offenders as a group are high risk problem drinker drivers.
This Traffic Tech discusses the extent of the repeat DWI offender problem in various states and some sanctions being used to reduce DWI recidivism. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requested available information from all the states in order to define the extent of the repeat offender problem. Twelve states provided data. The results shown in Table 1 indicate that about one third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. This proportion ranges from 21% of drivers convicted of DWI in Iowa in 1992 to 47% in New Mexico in 1990. The median is around 31% - 32% of arrests and/or convictions. One study in California showed that for every driver convicted of DUI in 1980, a full 44% were convicted again of DUI within 10 years.
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.
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.
