What are your thoughts on DUI check point

See how inconvenienced you feel next time a drunk driver kills a loved one or close friend. There's at least one person out there who thinks it's their right to drive drunk, drive as fast as they want, not obey traffic signs or whatever.  I've been through quite a few road stops, the worst one wasn't even close to 15 minutes, but then I would imagine we don't have the traffic others here may. 

Snake6 wrote: I really don't care. If you are drinking and driving you deserve it.

I think its a fantastic idea.

Especially this time of year.

In NY, you'll go through blanket holdups where they'll check for current registration as well as seatbelts. Why they don't do DUI checkpoints I'll never know, (If they do, it should be more frequent)but yes, something like this WILL save lives and get some drunk ass off the road before he kills me or someone I care about.

Does it violate people's personal freedoms? I don't think so, because its ILLEGAL to get into a car after having been drinking. Once you commit a crime, you state that you're not willing to follow the laws of the state you're in, and are subject to punishment. Plus, don't the police have the right to search for people who are in violation of the law? Where else do you search for drunk drivers but the road? But what about me, the guy who hasn't had a drop to drink in months, waiting in a traffic stop while they check someone to see if they've been drinking?

Its annoying, but the odds of me getting home in one piece because they pull one or two people off the road have just increased, and I like that. Hell, I'll probably thank the police officer when I get the green light.  

I figure that the law on this one differs from state to state. As far as I'm concerned, if the police want to haul you out of the car after they've caught you drinking, and beat the hell out of you with a mag-lite, have at it because you're threatening the lives of the people around you, the same as if you're standing in a mall with a gun.  

I make these comments not as someone whose ever lost a loved one to a drunk driver, but as someone who has been pulled over after leaving a bar, with two friends and my now-wife in the car. Its a long story, but I was let off and refuse to come close to making that mistake again after realizing what a jackass I was. The police probably had every right to haul my ass to jail, taze me, take my lisence away, and get me thrown out of the education department in college. They didn't, and after thanking every diety I could find on wikipedia, I've decided that any and all laws that they want to pass to prevent a willing idiocy like driving while intoxicated, I'm all for, so check away.  

DUI checks and drivers licence checks are allowed because you could passively be breaking the law, and the police have a right to check in the interest of public safety. They aren't allowed to , say, pull you over and search your car without due cause, but talking to you to judge your level of response and to check your breath is good for the interest of the public.

As for getting fired because of a road block? That would never happen. The labour courts would crucify any boss that did that.

Here's my take. Do I think they're a good idea? Yeah, of course they are, they help keep people off the road that are drinking and driving. Do I think they're in violation of the 4th Amendment? Yes I do. No reasonable individual could believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON driving is doing so under the influence. Not even reasonable cause (the lowest form of cause needed to stop, search, or seize) could legally be applied to the situation. The only thing that allows police departments to do so in the case of DUI checkpoints is that the Judicial system will back them up under the auspices of "the common good". None the less, it becomes an issue of constitutional rights. I'm just waiting for someone to take this to the supreme court and get a ruling on it out of sheer morbid curiosity.

When I lived in NY while in college, the passive radar systems used by most states was declared illegal under constitutional law. The argument was that the passive system was a blanket accusation that everyone on the road was speeding and that no reasonable nor probably cause could be found to track every car's speed by the system. The difference between a hands-free system like most patrol cars use these days and the officer-operated hand-model is that the officer must make the apparent decision that they believe a particular vehicle is speeding, aim the radar/laser gun at said vehicle, and read that particular vehicle's speed. The whole process, especially the assumed belief of a crime being committed is reasonable cause to check their speed and thus, do not contradict the 4th Amendment. The same issue applies to DUI check points where everyone is stopped regardless of any appearance of having been drinking and driving, the officers don't have any actual reasonable cause to believe that EVERY driver that comes down the road has been drinking.

DUI Checkpoints in MA are usually set up to catch out-of state people and drunk college kids near UMass. Usually they'll kick everyone out of a party just to make them drive through the checkpoint.

MA's great new idea for raising revenue is to build casino's. In interest of the health of the workers, they will not allow smoking in them. This is going to be a disaster since people who love to gamble also love to smoke. This is truly a strange state.

I really don't think that DUI checkpoints are really going to cut down on drunk driver in the long run. Let's be honest. People are just going to learn where they are and avoid them.

You do not have the *right* to drive on public roads. It's a privilege extended by the state; that's why to drive you need a license. An implicit part of that license is acceptance that agents of the state will exercise certain precautions that they deem necessary to protect other drivers. You always have the option of public transit, taxis, etc.

I'm not generally a believer in big government or giving police too many powers, but I've never had a real problem with DUI checkpoints. The courts have affirmed their legality, and that's good enough for me.

tallen702 wrote: brihard wrote: You do not have the *right* to drive on public roads. It's a privilege extended by the state; that's why to drive you need a license. An implicit part of that license is acceptance that agents of the state will exercise certain precautions that they deem necessary to protect other drivers. Yet you still have the right to protection from unreasonable search or seizure while on said roads. There have been several landmark cases where the right of the individual has been violated in that method by the police on state and federal highways. As far as courts ruling on the situation of DUI check points, they have only heard defenses presented by those caught at a DUI checkpoint. If an individual were to bring a case against the state, county, or city, without having been caught driving under the influence, but rather in the sense of their privacy being violated and the police flaunting constitutional law, it would be a tougher trial to dismiss.

Probable Cause has sketchy outlines as to what it is, basically if you look at them the wrong way, they can search your car, then claim it was "probable Cause" and there's nothing you can do :(

Gatyr wrote: I'm not really familiar with these checkpoints through pesonal experience, but do the police forcefully allow themselves to search through your car, or do people allow them to look through their posessions and then whine about it later, or do the cops simply look in through your windows and guage your responses and go from there? And do they really have these checkpoints on weekday mornings when most people with respectable jobs go to work?

No, they'll usually ask you if you've been drinking, and if for some reason you seem a bit out of it, they deem that probably cause for a roadside breath check. They may ask your permission to search the car, but you need not give it to them. They can look in the windows, and anything they find is covered under 'plain sight' doctrine and is admissible as evidence.

All the police are initially doing is simply having you stop and asking you a question; there's nothing excessive there. that's not to say some police officers don't abuse the situation. Be aware of that, and KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.