Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 06-01-2013, 10:31 PM
 
Location: California
884 posts, read 716,113 times
Reputation: 294

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
What about searches of people on horses?

You beat me to it!!

 
Old 06-01-2013, 10:33 PM
 
32,059 posts, read 15,040,845 times
Reputation: 13663
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
What about searches of people on horses?
What about them
 
Old 06-01-2013, 10:49 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,610,551 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
What is your opinion of DUI checkpoints? Do you feel they violate the 4th amendment?

They are illegal in Michigan and Wisconsin.
 
Old 06-01-2013, 10:52 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,610,551 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
Well I guess I'm not smart. There are plenty of decisions SCOTUS has made that I don't agree with but they are, as they say, Supreme.

Well, not always. Remember back in 1969 when the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional? The same court reversed the decision in 1976.
 
Old 06-01-2013, 11:02 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,610,551 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
DUI checkpoints are legal because they are (supposed to be) brief and non-intrusive. Meaning, a cop has the right to walk up to you on the street and start asking you questions with the intention establishing "reasonable suspicion" to search you, even if he only approaches you initially because he doesn't like the look of your face, or whatever. It's the same thing in a car. The driver isn't being searched, the cop is trying to establish a reason to search the car or administer a sobriety test via the checkpoint. They still need "reasonable suspicion" to be more thorough, and chatting with drivers at a checkpoint is one way for cops to establish it. If during the chat, the cop notices whiskey bottles clinking around on the floor, the smell of alcohol emanating from the driver, and slurred speech, he now has "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed and can legally search the car and give a sobriety test. There is no expectation of privacy, legally, in a car.

If the checkpoints take so long that drivers are inconvenienced, or cops force drivers to engage in conversation for longer than they want to, by not letting them drive away if they don't feel like talking, then the legality of the stop may be called into question.

You are not obligated to answer any question at a checkpoint.
 
Old 06-01-2013, 11:03 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,953 posts, read 5,292,856 times
Reputation: 1731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Drunk driving is a bad idea, just as texting or applying makeup are, but in and of itself should not be a crime.
If you kill, injure or damage the property of another ( i.e. there is a victim),there should be a harsh penalty.
Even if you don't kill, injure, or damage property, the police STILL only have the right of search and seizure if there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed and is agreed upon by a representative of the US, State, or local jurisdiction system. I don't know where I read that.....oh wait, High School Government classes, or Science Fiction 101?

I think they are the same class, now.
 
Old 06-01-2013, 11:14 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,610,551 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
If it's unconstitutional, why hasn't there been a court case that declares such act as unconstitutional?

Already happened in Michigan and Wisconsin. DUI checkpoints violate those STATE constitutions.
 
Old 06-01-2013, 11:15 PM
 
Location: California
884 posts, read 716,113 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee View Post
ANY justification of violating the United States Constitution is just that, a justification.

If you know me murdering 25 people who MIGHT commit a crime would save a child or even a whole family from a potential criminal, (blah blah blah) you would still object?
KS_Referee, is driving a motor vehicle with a BAC level greater than .08% a crime in all 50 states? Yes or no please sir. I am not asking you if that person driving the vehicle could potentially kill someone. I am asking you if driving a vehicle with a BAC .08% or greater is against the law? Again, there is only one answer to the question, yes or no.
 
Old 06-01-2013, 11:28 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,120,288 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry View Post
KS_Referee, is driving a motor vehicle with a BAC level greater than .08% a crime in all 50 states? Yes or no please sir. I am not asking you if that person driving the vehicle could potentially kill someone. I am asking you if driving a vehicle with a BAC .08% or greater is against the law? Again, there is only one answer to the question, yes or no.
The Founder of MADD has spoken out about the repeated lowering of the drinking age.


She's stated that it is repeat offenders with high BAC levels who cause 80% of more of the drunk driving accidents.




A vast majority of the serious risks are alcoholics and drive with a relatively high BAC. They are also repeat offenders.
 
Old 06-01-2013, 11:33 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,610,551 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
Technically, they are legal, because the Drivers License is a privilege, and so is the operation of a motor vehicle. As long as they are regulated, then the checkpoint to validate the proper and legal operation of a motor vehicle is legal.

In Ohio, state law says citizens are not required to identify themselves to police officers if no law has been broken. This came up recently when an Ohio resident was illegally detained by police for open-carrying a gun (legal in Ohio).
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:10 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top