Unconstitutional but for the better good?

[amcardon]

Instead of increased checkpoints and other gadgets or gizmos to detect alcohol/drug levels, why don't they make the consequences enough to act as a deterrent? I'm not big on checkpoints and invasion of privacy, but I'm also not big on the moron drivers that are the reason we have them.

 

[colb]

DUI checkpoints are legal and allowed within the confines of the Constitution (or so says the SCOTUS), so long as the performing officers uphold their end by recognizing the rights of citizens who decline to participate.

They are allowed to ask anything they want. There is nothing unconstitutional about an officer asking questions. The citizen has the right to decline to answer questions and go on his way, assuming there isn't evidence of illegal activity in plain view of the officer. In theory, this would be fine and dandy with me. Don't answer questions, go about your business.

However, because of the Supreme Court ruling, there are a few LEO's who have mistaken that as a green light to violate any rights they wish, as long as it's during a checkpoint. "Well supreme Court ruled these checkpoints are okay, so get out of your car so I can search it!"

In my limited experience with checkpoints, they have all been nice and respectful.

 

[CHenry]

DUI checkpoints are legal and allowed within the confines of the Constitution (or so says the SCOTUS), so long as the performing officers uphold their end by recognizing the rights of citizens who decline to participate.

They are allowed to ask anything they want. There is nothing unconstitutional about an officer asking questions. The citizen has the right to decline to answer questions and go on his way, assuming there isn't evidence of illegal activity in plain view of the officer. In theory, this would be fine and dandy with me. Don't answer questions, go about your business.

However, because of the Supreme Court ruling, there are a few LEO's who have mistaken that as a green light to violate any rights they wish, as long as it's during a checkpoint. "Well supreme Court ruled these checkpoints are okay, so get out of your car so I can search it!"

In my limited experience with checkpoints, they have all been nice and respectful.

So in theory, can LEOs randomly pull people over to check ins or licence to see if your wanted?

 

[Arin Morris]

So in theory, can LEOs randomly pull people over to check ins or licence to see if your wanted?

Don't they already?

 

[colb]

So in theory, can LEOs randomly pull people over to check ins or licence to see if your wanted?

Well first, I did say "or so says the SCOTUS". Second, you're not required to provide your driver's license and insurance at a checkpoint. Unless you've committed a moving violation / crime.

 

[turkeyrun]

"Those who would surrender freedom in the name of safety, deserve neither." Thomas Jefferson

Roadblocks, impeding movement to 'check your papers'?

"No, Officer, I will NOT blow into your sniffer voluntarily, nor will I show my license and insurance because you do not have probable cause to stop me.". Yeah, try it and let us know how that works out for you.

 

[CHenry]

Instead of increased checkpoints and other gadgets or gizmos to detect alcohol/drug levels, why don't they make the consequences enough to act as a deterrent? I'm not big on checkpoints and invasion of privacy, but I'm also not big on the moron drivers that are the reason we have them.

Its already a pretty expensive ordeal and getting worse. Stiffer sentence and higher cost.

 

[amcardon]

Its already a pretty expensive ordeal and getting worse. Stiffer sentence and higher cost.

Good! It should be a "life altering event." It should cost enough and revoke your license for long enough that one wouldn't even consider putting themselves in the situation of getting caught. We are turning into a country of pansies when it comes to punishments/sentencing.

 

[Glocktogo]

DUI checkpoints are legal and allowed within the confines of the Constitution (or so says the SCOTUS), so long as the performing officers uphold their end by recognizing the rights of citizens who decline to participate.

They are allowed to ask anything they want. There is nothing unconstitutional about an officer asking questions. The citizen has the right to decline to answer questions and go on his way, assuming there isn't evidence of illegal activity in plain view of the officer.

This is pretty much where I'm at. If you're dumb enough to DUI and dumb enough to submit to a voluntary scan, here's your sign.

If it becomes mandatory that you submit to a scan, I have a problem with that. Simply being present on a certain road at the time they set up a checkpoint does not constitute RAS or PC, so compeling a citizen to in essence "testify against themselves" against their will is not kosher.

 

[AllOut]

"Those who would surrender freedom in the name of safety, deserve neither." Thomas Jefferson

Roadblocks, impeding movement to 'check your papers'?

"No, Officer, I will NOT blow into your sniffer voluntarily, nor will I show my license and insurance because you do not have probable cause to stop me.". Yeah, try it and let us know how that works out for you.

Actually there's a couple differnt guys with youtube videos that do exactly that. They also do it at boarder patrol check points.
The officers get all pissy with them then when his supervisors shows up he tells them just to go.