is it appropraite for New Jersey to spend millions on DUI prevention in the next two weeks in this economic climate? (taxi, to live in)
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.
How? The Taconic mom was an extreme aberration when it comes to the normal patterns of DUI stops. Most DUIs are tagged during Thurs-Sun, at night, when people are at bars drinking.
Taconic Mom didn't even have a record, not even a DUI stop. Using the Taconic mom as an example why the DUI checkpoints are ineffective is strictly anecdotal evidence at best.
DUI laws are so hardcore in NJ compared to other states that once you get nailed for DUI, unless you have a REAL REAL REAL problem, you'll never want to get tagged for DUI again.
DUI isn't like speeding or other tax revenue stops that the LE performs. DUI Checkpoints for the most part get people who are severely breaking the law and put other people's lives at risk with hard, factual data.
My point is the threat of a DUI checkpoint did not deter her from doing what she was doing. Or, she was savvy and knew that her chances were better on Sundays.
Interesting side note... did everyone know this is an iPhone App specifically warning people where DUI checkpoints are & how to detour around them!? (speedtraps and police cameras too!!!) Police chief denounces 'cowardly' iPhone users monitoring speed traps | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Devices-that-warn-drivers-of-speed_-red-light-cameras-draw-police-ire-7930619-50074717.html - broken link)
So based on that, I'd have to say that yes, this probably is a waste of money based on the fact that it is not as effective as it could be.
False. DWI checkpoints have been challenged up to both the New Jersey Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Both said that as long as law enforcement follows certain guidelines, these checkpoints are perfectly legal.
DWI checkpoints don't yield results.
False. First, they are a very effective deterrent. Second, they may only be assembled in locations where police can show have been prone to DWI violations and or accidents.
DWI checkpoints turn a profit.
Not even close.
It is ridiculous that the police announce upcoming checkpoints.
Maybe, but it is the law.
DWI checkpoints are governed by a strict set of rules called the Kirk Guidelines. These were issued by the New Jersey Supreme Court if I am not mistaken and prior notification of a checkpoint is a requirement.
False. DWI checkpoints have been challenged up to both the New Jersey Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Both said that as long as law enforcement follows certain guidelines, these checkpoints are perfectly legal.
Courts can say whatever they want. It's still not Constitutional. In your own words, why is it?
Courts can say whatever they want. It's still not Constitutional. In your own words, why is it?
I have to disagree with your statement Michigan Man. If the US Supreme Court says something is Constitutuional, it is Constitutional. You or I may disagree, but they are the ones who actually make that decision.
As far as my opinion, often the courts will weigh the intrusion or inconvenience against the greater public interest. Despite all the televison ads and school efforts and law enforcement, we still lose about 13,000 people a year to DWI. (Number is from MADD website)
THIRTEEN THOUSAND! From drunk driving! That is just sick that this is still an issue.
Anyway, everything we are doing is not enough. If a minor inconvenience to my trip home means reducing these numbers, I'm okay with it, and I don't consider it an intrusion on my civil liberties.
I have to disagree with your statement Michigan Man. If the US Supreme Court says something is Constitutuional, it is Constitutional. You or I may disagree, but they are the ones who actually make that decision.
As far as my opinion, often the courts will weigh the intrusion or inconvenience against the greater public interest. Despite all the televison ads and school efforts and law enforcement, we still lose about 13,000 people a year to DWI. (Number is from MADD website)
THIRTEEN THOUSAND! From drunk driving! That is just sick that this is still an issue.
Anyway, everything we are doing is not enough. If a minor inconvenience to my trip home means reducing these numbers, I'm okay with it, and I don't consider it an intrusion on my civil liberties.
I'll ask again, In your own words, how is it Constitutional?
I'll ask again, In your own words, how is it Constitutional?
Well, I thought I answered your question pretty well, but I'll try again.
In deciding whether a DWI checkpoint is Constitutuional, we should examine the prevailing rule of law on search and seizure which is the United States Constitution Fourth Amendment:
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.
The first question is whether stopping a car for no reason other than to further the public interest of reducing drunk driving constitutes a seizure.
The answer has to be yes. Clearly one's freedom of movement is stopped by agents of the government.
The next question is whether the stopping of a car for the above reason is an unreasonable seizure. The United States Supreme Court says it is not. The New Jersey State Supreme Court says it is not. And Buzliteyear, me, says it is not.
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures; it only prohibits unreasonable ones.
Bottom line, it is a minimal intrusion that serves a greater public interest.
Well, I thought I answered your question pretty well, but I'll try again.
In deciding whether a DWI checkpoint is Constitutuional, we should examine the prevailing rule of law on search and seizure which is the United States Constitution Fourth Amendment:
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.
The first question is whether stopping a car for no reason other than to further the public interest of reducing drunk driving constitutes a seizure.
The answer has to be yes. Clearly one's freedom of movement is stopped by agents of the government.
The next question is whether the stopping of a car for the above reason is an unreasonable seizure. The United States Supreme Court says it is not. The New Jersey State Supreme Court says it is not. And Buzliteyear, me, says it is not.
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures; it only prohibits unreasonable ones.
Bottom line, it is a minimal intrusion that serves a greater public interest.
cant speak too well for NJ but we got it here too, what i am seeing is not many drunks being arrested but huge numbers of illegals being arrested and the cars impounded, no registration no license no insurance. as to 4th amendment unreasonable probably--- but if you bust them for being an illegal you will have ACLU & LA RAZA on you but for drunk driving you will have MADD backing you. people that yell 4th amendment usually got a trunk full of dope and guns.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 08-25-2009 at 10:56 AM..
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.
