DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[Scut Farkus]

Wrong, stupid fuck.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

stops are constitutional with probable cause.

how is this different from stop and frisk, in your wee mind?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Constitutional

failed american loser

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Constitutional. 6-3. 1990

Not like stop and frisk

can you be stopped to check for a drivers license if you've committed no traffic infraction? or are you too cowardly to answer this question, failed american

 

[CFM]

it's even more clear that you're too obtuse, obstinant, and ignorant to understand that's not what's happening................you're a failed American.

It's even more clear, by your own words, you're a drunk that believes it's OK to drive drunk. At least be honest. Being a drunk then driving is bad enough. Being a liar about it doesn't work well for you.

 

[Into the Night]

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

No. RCWSC

 

[Into the Night]

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

No. RCWSC

 

[Into the Night]

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

No. RCWSC

 

[Into the Night]

Clownish fallacies.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

No. RCWSC

 

[Into the Night]

IRONY ALERT!

LSMFT

YALIFNAP

 

[Into the Night]

Only a selfish individual that believes it's OK to drive drunk would think so. It's quite clear you're one of many on this forum.

Irrelevance fallacy. No one is talking about this (except you). YALIFNAP

 

[Into the Night]

Constitutional

No.

 

[Into the Night]

Constitutional

No.

 

[Into the Night]

Constitutional. 6-3. 1990

Not like stop and frisk

No. RCWSC

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong, stupid fuck.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

No. RCWSC.

 

[Into the Night]

It's even more clear, by your own words, you're a drunk that believes it's OK to drive drunk. At least be honest. Being a drunk then driving is bad enough. Being a liar about it doesn't work well for you.

Lie. RDCF, YALIF.

 

[RB 60]

Only a selfish individual that believes it's OK to drive drunk would think so. It's quite clear you're one of many on this forum.

Who said it's OK to drive drunk? I have yet, in all 700+ posts, read where anyone said it's OK to drive drunk...

...and yet you keep saying someone has

 

[domer76]

Lie. RDCF, YALIF.

Buh bye

 

[domer76]

stops are constitutional with probable cause.

how is this different from stop and frisk, in your wee mind?

Read the fucking reference, idiot. I've given it to ou morons multiple times.

1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

[Nordberg]

Cops can pull people over with justifiable cause. That is in any state and does not pertain to roadblocks.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Read the fucking reference, idiot. I've given it to ou morons multiple times.

1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

without cause, stops are unconstitutional.