DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[Into the Night]

So they are legal in the states that do them, but SCOTUS permits states to make the decision.

So they are not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution. Indiscriminate traffic stops are unconstitutional. They violate the 4th and 5th amendments.

 

[Truth Detector]

The question before the house is the indiscriminate traffic stop and requiring breathalyzer or blood tests to prove your innocence.

A cop pulling someone over that can't stay in the lane, can seem to differentiate between red and green lights, occasionally uses the sidewalk for a road, etc. is certainly just cause to see if they are intoxicated.
An indiscriminate stop of all traffic to look for intoxicated drivers is quite a different thing.

In certain cases where the type of seizure is minimally intrusive, however, the Supreme Court has decided that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search than the probable cause standard. In the case concerning DUI checkpoints mentioned in the introduction to this article, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices determined that the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet. Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[Into the Night]

if you need the government to tell you what it's powers and authorities are, what the constitution means, then you're a failure as an American

Hear hear!

 

[Into the Night]

Are you saying driving drunk is OK?

No.

 

[CFM]

No.

STY thinks so. He said the only redress against it isn't prevention but punishment AFTER something happens.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Drive drunk here, you will be reported and run in. Run your mouth at the LEO and get ready for some corrective behavior.

this just proves my point about liberals. they don't give a fuck about 'muh constitution', just about what they want government to do, regardless of rights or freedom. that, they hate.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not according to the courts and the leges, RB 60.

needing the government to explain the constitution to you is you failing as an American

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In other words, you do believe you have the right to drive drunk, it can't be prohibited, and it's only punishable after that drunk has killed/injured an innocent person.

that is what constitutions do, prohibit government and protect rights.

That means you believe your rights are absolute. Even the founding fathers, men far smarter than 100 of you could be, disagree.

this is a completely illogical statement from you because you have no idea what rights are. do you think the founders would have agreed that the government could prohibit someone from riding a horse drunk?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm guessing he's probably done one and had the other done to him. It's why he hates cops and thinks he can do whatever he wants without regard to anything but his selfish desires.

this really shows your ignorance and idiocy, but that's par for the course when it comes to your knowledge of freedom and constitutions.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

STY thinks so. He said the only redress against it isn't prevention but punishment AFTER something happens.

there you go making moronic assumptions, again. I don't have to think it's ok, but I do get to call government prohibition of it unconstitutional.............it's not that difficult of a concept, which is probably why it's so hard for you to understand.

 

[jimmymccready]

No one has a right to drink and drive and threaten the public.

 

[jimmymccready]

there you go making moronic assumptions, again. I don't have to think it's ok, but I do get to call government prohibition of it unconstitutional.............it's not that difficult of a concept, which is probably why it's so hard for you to understand.

Sure, you do, and your call is dead wrong.

 

[Truth Detector]

No one has a right to drink and drive and threaten the public.

Who is saying they do?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Bigotry. Not everyone is intoxicated while driving.

I never suggested they were, so why are you bringing this up??

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sure, you do, and your call is dead wrong.

that's your wishful thinking, because you worship government control. especially against your political opponents, but that's what hatefilled people do.

 

[jimmymccready]

StY, you are so lost.

1. I agree you have the right to your say.

2. In this case, your opinion is dead wrong.

3. You threaten violence on those who oppose you, then jump on political opposition (which is their right) to the hate-filled rightists.

4. You one crazy bro.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

StY, you are so lost.

1. I agree you have the right to your say.

2. In this case, your opinion is dead wrong.

3. You threaten violence on those who oppose you, then jump on political opposition (which is their right) to the hate-filled rightists.

4. You one crazy bro.

you're just a brainwashed moron. you let the government tell you what your rights, freedoms, and privileges are. you let the government define their own limits and restrictions of a document that created it............you're the lost and crazy one, idiot.

 

[Nordberg]

No one is saying you have the right to drive drunk. With everyone having cell phones these days, it's not unusual for someone to get the license plate #, a description of the vehicle and location of someone driving erratically and reporting them.

But in the same sense, the cops don't have the right to stop you without probable cause, and DUI checkpoints do exactly that.

Often the bad drivers you see are also phone users while driving. Worse, texters.

 

[jimmymccready]

you're just a brainwashed moron. you let the government tell you what your rights, freedoms, and privileges are. you let the government define their own limits and restrictions of a document that created it............you're the lost and crazy one, idiot.

You are projecting, crazy bro. We the People, not I the SmarterthanYou.

 

[Into the Night]

In certain cases where the type of seizure is minimally intrusive, however, the Supreme Court has decided that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search than the probable cause standard. In the case concerning DUI checkpoints mentioned in the introduction to this article, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices determined that the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet. Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

Of course, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution.