DUI Checkpoints

[whodat2710]

Many of you have mentioned the unconstitutionality of DUI Checkpoints (I agree). Wanted to make sure you saw this. I have not used it, so I cannot attest to it's value in my state or yours, but in FL at this checkpoint it worked like a charm. The first link is to a story (and video) of a guy using this method. Second link is to the "flyer" page of the FairDUI website that has flyers for many states that can be printed and used. Hard to explain, but click the links and it's easy to understand.
Brilliant And Legal Response To Police DUI Checkpoints | The Federalist Papers
Flyer | Fair DUI
From the "is it for you" page:

Our Fair DUI flyer is not right for everyone. You have to have a good sense of who you are and think ahead about how you’re going to handle what might happen.

The flyer is intended for two main groups. The first are sober people who are at risk for a DUI arrest. The second are liberty activists.

The flyer is NOT intended for drunks.
Drunks don’t follow instructions and that makes things worse.

By sober people at risk, we mean if you’ve had a small number of drinks within the past six hours or taken any kind of medicine or drug that may still be active in your system. If you occasionally drive after one to three drinks, or after taking any kind of drugs (including prescription and over-the-counter medications, as well as illegal drugs), the flyer may be right for you.

 

[nogods]

By sober people at risk, we mean if you’ve had a small number of drinks within the past six hours or taken any kind of medicine or drug that may still be active in your system. If you occasionally drive after one to three drinks, or after taking any kind of drugs (including prescription and over-the-counter medications, as well as illegal drugs), the flyer may be right for you.

If you think your driving ability isn't impaired by such behavior, then you simply aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to drive a car.

If you can't refrain from ingesting alcohol 12 hours before driving, then perhaps you need to examine your relationship to alcohol.

 

[Eidolon]

If you can't refrain from ingesting alcohol 12 hours before driving, then perhaps you need to examine your relationship to alcohol.

Isn't 12 hours a little excessive? I don't even think they restrict pilots to 12 hours before flying

 

[apvbguy]

Isn't 12 hours a little excessive? I don't even think they restrict pilots to 12 hours before flying

I agree with you that 12 hours is excessive.
people like the respondent apparently have little self control or discipline, many people are capable of having a drink or 2 without becoming inebriated.

FWIW: pilots cannot consume alcohol for at least 24 hours before flying

 

[foxytwo]

DUI checkpoints do not bother me. Out where I live I see people driving that have a hard time keeping their car on the blacktop part of the road. If it stops one of them from killing me or my family, or any other people on the road it is worth it. I have been forced off the road 3 times in Dec of 2014, followed the people, called 911, but by the time the cops responded the person pulled into his driveway. Two of them was so drunk I do not know how he found the driveway.

 

[Axeanda45]

DUI checkpoints do not bother me. Out where I live I see people driving that have a hard time keeping their car on the blacktop part of the road. If it stops one of them from killing me or my family, or any other people on the road it is worth it. I have been forced off the road 3 times in Dec of 2014, followed the people, called 911, but by the time the cops responded the person pulled into his driveway. Two of them was so drunk I do not know how he found the driveway.

Those who are willing to give up freedoms for a little bit of temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety

 

[whodat2710]

If you think your driving ability isn't impaired by such behavior, then you simply aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to drive a car.

If you can't refrain from ingesting alcohol 12 hours before driving, then perhaps you need to examine your relationship to alcohol.

You obviously didn't bother to read the article or watch the video. You show your intelligence by posting about a "nugget" from the article that I chose to include. There is a tree somewhere producing oxygen for you and you are wasting it. I think you should find that tree and apologize.

 

[N R A]

Those who are willing to give up freedoms for a little bit of temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety

This is true of tsa hand groping at airports but not true in the case of getting drunk people off the roads. Your first amendment rights do not allow you to shout fire when there is none. Why is balance so hard to understand?

 

[whodat2710]

This is true of tsa hand groping at airports but not true in the case of getting drunk people off the roads. Your first amendment rights do not allow you to shout fire when there is none. Why is balance so hard to understand?

What if they just stood outside the bar and breathalized you as you left to ensure you don't drive drunk? Wouldn't that be more efficient? You are an idiot.

 

[N R A]

What if they just stood outside the bar and breathalized you as you left to ensure you don't drive drunk? Wouldn't that be more efficient? You are an idiot.

Personal attacks are not in the acceptable guidelines of this forum.
.
Andy & Barney were not the problem. LE is not the problem, militarizing LE is the problem. Only saying AM I FREE TO GO?, through a cracked open drivers window is not the solution, it only makes things worse.

 

[mappow]

So is it a violation of one's rights OK for the greater good of society? Or is it the individual right to kill people by his/her choice of actions? Whether by gun, booze, sword or pencil?
Whilst I don't agree with violating my Fourth Amendment Rights. What can society do to limit this death threat? Or is this just part of life and I should accept my drunk neighbor willingness to kill me and or my family?
LOTs of questions, what say you?

 

[Axeanda45]

This is true of tsa hand groping at airports but not true in the case of getting drunk people off the roads. Your first amendment rights do not allow you to shout fire when there is none. Why is balance so hard to understand?

Actually, you are 100% WRONG in that... though it doesnt surprise me.....

You very much CAN YELL FIRE in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and any laws to the contrary would be UnConstitutional.... what you may NOT DO is use your RIGHT to shout whatever you want as a defense to get out of the CONSEQUENCES of what you CAUSED when you yelled it...

You just keep showing how LITTLE you actually know about RIGHTS.....

 

[BluesStringer]

So is it a violation of one's rights OK for the greater good of society? Or is it the individual right to kill people by his/her choice of actions?

Never heard of any such individual right, nor have I ever seen or heard a Fourth Amendment advocate promulgate anything approaching such idiotic sophistry.

You been binging over your New Year's break? (link = last post before today)

....what say you?

I say un-freakin'-believable.

 

[whodat2710]

So is it a violation of one's rights OK for the greater good of society? Or is it the individual right to kill people by his/her choice of actions? Whether by gun, booze, sword or pencil?
Whilst I don't agree with violating my Fourth Amendment Rights. What can society do to limit this death threat? Or is this just part of life and I should accept my drunk neighbor willingness to kill me and or my family?
LOTs of questions, what say you?

The biggest problem people have with understanding rights, is that rights in general do not invade upon the rights of others. Lots of people claim my rights infringe on theirs. A good example is the anti-gun crowd saying that my right to have a gun "infringes" on their right to feel safe. The Constitution isn't about feelings. Unless my right to have a gun actually affects your rights (I shoot you, hold up your business etc.) then you have no case.
-
Freedom of speech is a right. Yelling "FIRE" exercises that freedom, but if you are foolish in exercising your right there are consequences.
-
Preaching from the street corner is also freedom of speech. Being belligerent while doing so can infringe on other peoples rights. If they just don't want to hear it you have infringed on nothing. Schools are the big battleground on this simply because while I support ALLOWING children the freedom of religious expression at school (football players praying etc.) I do NOT want teachers in a public school indoctrinating my children based on their beliefs which may not agree with mine. My kid comes home spouting the quran and I'll be at that school in a heartbeat, and I'm bringing my friends with me.
-
Keeping and bearing guns is a right. Shooting it into a crowd is foolish and there are consequences
-
Back to the DUI checkpoints - I have no problem with a cop during the normal course of his patrol stopping someone for suspected DUI when they have given the cop articulable suspicion to make such a stop. There's what society can do. What is unconstitutional is stopping every car (guilty until proven innocent?) with no reasonable suspicion they have done anything wrong.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What this website addresses is the fact that there are bad cops, or ones just bored at a DUI checkpoint and getting no results. The act of rolling down your window and explaining your 4th amendment rights could lead some joker to say he thought he smelled alcohol on your breath. The cards on the site have specific statutes for the states in question, and they started with the states that regularly perform DUI checks.

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

Link Removed

Here's what's wrong with DUI checkpoints, in no particular order...

1) Observe the photo above, how many reflective vested officers are involved in making One particular section of One road 'dui free' for only as long as the checkpoint exists?
My count is 25, a full two-dozen cops stuck in one spot. How many roads could 24 officers patrol if 24 officers were in 24 different patrol cars with 24 pairs of eyes looking for signs of inebriated drivers?

2) The checkpoint is momentary, if an inebriated driver can 'keep it together' for 10-15 seconds, they are home free. Now contrast that with an officer in a moving car who can follow a suspected driver for several seconds to minutes.

3) Citizens are being forced to stop and asked to prove their innocence. Why else is Officer Friendly asking where I came from or where I'm going except to gauge any slurred speech or other effects of intoxication?

4) As there are set rules by the courts, the states, and the departments as to where, when, and how these checkpoints can be set up, they typically occur at known times (holiday or athletic event weekends) and in predictable locations. (In my area it's the exact same location, every holiday weekend, regular as clockwork.)

 

[whodat2710]

Here's what's wrong with DUI checkpoints, in no particular order...

1) Observe the photo above, how many reflective vested officers are involved in making One particular section of One road 'dui free' for only as long as the checkpoint exists?
My count is 25, a full two-dozen cops stuck in one spot. How many roads could 24 officers patrol if 24 officers were in 24 different patrol cars with 24 pairs of eyes looking for signs of inebriated drivers?

2) The checkpoint is momentary, if an inebriated driver can 'keep it together' for 10-15 seconds, they are home free. Now contrast that with an officer in a moving car who can follow a suspected driver for several seconds to minutes.

3) Citizens are being forced to stop and asked to prove their innocence. Why else is Officer Friendly asking where I came from or where I'm going except to gauge any slurred speech or other effects of intoxication?

4) As there are set rules by the courts, the states, and the departments as to where, when, and how these checkpoints can be set up, they typically occur at known times (holiday or athletic event weekends) and in predictable locations. (In my area it's the exact same location, every holiday weekend, regular as clockwork.)

5) They are usually advertised in the paper or local news website - frequent DUI'ers probably know this and avoid the area.

 

[Rhino]

5) They are usually advertised in the paper or local news website - frequent DUI'ers probably know this and avoid the area.

Actually they're required to be publicly announced in advanced. And the purpose of the checkpoints isn't to catch drunk drivers, though they're quite happy when they do. The purpose is awareness. That's why they get announced, and why there's almost always a TV crew on location at some point, quite often doing a live shot. That takes care of points 1 through 4.

 

[N R A]

Actually, you are 100% WRONG in that... though it doesnt surprise me.....

You very much CAN YELL FIRE in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and any laws to the contrary would be UnConstitutional.... what you may NOT DO is use your RIGHT to shout whatever you want as a defense to get out of the CONSEQUENCES of what you CAUSED when you yelled it...

You just keep showing how LITTLE you actually know about RIGHTS.....

.

 

[Rhino]

.

Didn't I see a post by you somewhere recently stating that being insulting was against the policy of this forum?

 

[whodat2710]

Didn't I see a post by you somewhere recently stating that being insulting was against the policy of this forum?

That doesn't apply to him... He's a site supporter. :sarcastic: