[kerneldustjacket]

The following seems to be reasons given for why checkpoints are allowable: (Please note, not my opinions, but what I've found from looking at past Supreme Court decisions relating to the subject. I know, nerdy, but hours of research is how I got through college -- my professors would rip you a new one if you failed to back up a paper with legiimate research and valid citing sources)

1. A checkpoint involves checking everyone that passes a specific point on a road; no one is singled out at the discretion of an officer. It’s not random with respect to who is checked, as all that pass are checked – even if but very briefly

2. The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your right to use the road is not being disallowed – you still have access – but there are conditions that you must meet to be allowed to operate a vehicle on public roads. Your ability to meet the conditions of that privilege can be assessed.

3. If probable cause is present, then an officer is not violating your fourth amendment rights if he/she assesses your ability to operate a motor vehicle, i.e., if you present signs of being intoxicated, it is not an “unreasonable search and seizure,” which the fourth amendment protects you against.

4. If you refuse a breathalyzer, and there is a judge present at the checkpoint, and probable cause exists, then yes, he can issue, right there and then, a warrant, supported by oath and affirmation, and which describe the “place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now granted, the Supreme Court may someday hear a case before it that prompts them to decide that checkpoints do somehow infringe upon personal freedoms or rights, but so far their rulings have not cast any light of unconstitutionality on the practice. Note however: one key point that has held them to support it is findings that show checkpoints are effective; the findings may prove to be wrong, or the numbers may drop to where the lack of effectiveness is outweighed by the inconveiience to motorists.

[Mikey]

The following seems to be reasons given for why checkpoints are allowable: (Please note, not my opinions, but what I've found from looking at past Supreme Court decisions relating to the subject. I know, nerdy, but hours of research is how I got through college -- my professors would rip you a new one if you failed to back up a paper with legiimate research and valid citing sources)

1. A checkpoint involves checking everyone that passes a specific point on a road; no one is singled out at the discretion of an officer. It’s not random with respect to who is checked, as all that pass are checked – even if but very briefly

2. The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your right to use the road is not being disallowed – you still have access – but there are conditions that you must meet to be allowed to operate a vehicle on public roads. Your ability to meet the conditions of that privilege can be assessed.

3. If probable cause is present, then an officer is not violating your fourth amendment rights if he/she assesses your ability to operate a motor vehicle, i.e., if you present signs of being intoxicated, it is not an “unreasonable search and seizure,” which the fourth amendment protects you against.

4. If you refuse a breathalyzer, and there is a judge present at the checkpoint, and probable cause exists, then yes, he can issue, right there and then, a warrant, supported by oath and affirmation, and which describe the “place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now granted, the Supreme Court may someday hear a case before it that prompts them to decide that checkpoints do somehow infringe upon personal freedoms or rights, but so far their rulings have not cast any light of unconstitutionality on the practice. Note however: one key point that has held them to support it is findings that show checkpoints are effective; the findings may prove to be wrong, or the numbers may drop to where the lack of effectiveness is outweighed by the inconveiience to motorists.

" The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right."

Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.

[majorvices]

No one would ban you from using the roads. Only from operating a vehicle.

[MDixon]

I kinda figured Mikey for one of those people who would refuse to pay taxes...kind of a Wesley Snipes fan and all that jazz 

[kerneldustjacket]

" The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right."

Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.

Yes...I had the same thought as you.
But it turns out that the consideration is merely that you have a "right to access" on a public road, and not how you access that road; denying you access while opearating a vehicle does not remove your right of access to the road...of course given that you have done something to lose the privilege to operate a vehicle.

[Mikey]

I kinda figured Mikey for one of those people who would refuse to pay taxes...kind of a Wesley Snipes fan and all that jazz 

I'd be a rich man (well, much better off) had I done that.

I pay them, but I b**** every time I do.

[euge]

Scary how much people are willing to give up for the false illusion of safety.

If we wanted to limit drunks on the roads we could take a page from some of the EU countries, but that'll never happen.

Is it Bulgaria that has the Death Penalty for the first offense of driving while intoxicated? I read that years ago but can't find it online. Of course it would be the only offense at that point. Quite a few countries in the EU have zero tolerance.

We got a new chief of police here a few years back- Chief William McManus. Evidently they booted him out of Minnesota so he came down South. One of the first things he wanted to do is initiate road-blocks and a prosecutable policy that a open package ie one can/bottle gone out of a six or twelve pack constituted a open container. This of course was met with outrage by the populace. So far this hasn't come to pass but I'm hoping he's "encouraged" to go further south- maybe to Mexico or Guatemala...

[EHall]

and even if I were to walk to the bar, get drunk and plan on walking home... I could still get arrested...

[rjharper]

If we wanted to limit drunks on the roads we could take a page from some of the EU countries, but that'll never happen.

In the UK, its the same 0.08 BAC limit.  Its the same in that officers cannot pull you over simply to check your licence.  They require probable cause or suspicion of intoxication.  But, get convicted, and its automatic loss of licence for 12 months, jail time and fines.  After that you have to re-sit your driving test (extended, harder test) and good luck finding an insurance company that will take you on.  Its also much less socially accepted, and people will not hesitate to take the keys from someone who's been drinking.
Over here it's "who's the most sober" at the end of the night.  Its no public transport to get home.  It's get convicted, then appeal for a restricted license since you need the car for work etc...  I think a large part is not just the police side of things, its the judicial punishment and social acceptance that we need to address.

[kerneldustjacket]

I pay them, but I b**** every time I do.

Mikey, it's mandetory that you b**** , 'cause somewhere there's somebody who's praising to the skies 'cause they get back more than they pay in...so you gotta balance things out!  

Thanks for bringing up taxes...now I'm depressed.
(somtimes I hate to bring up beer...but that's usually after I've drank it)

[dirk_mclargehuge]

I just read an interesting article in Reason Magazine.  When the Feds forced the states to go to a 0.08% BAC, alcohol related accidents went up, after a 20 year decline.  A UC Berekley study found "1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical nightly checkpoint would divert 20 or more cops from other tasks while yielding a dozen or more vehicle confiscations but only about three drunk driving arrests."

I'm not saying that this is incorrect - but I sure would like to see the study in question. All of the reports I have seen on the actual number of DUI related deaths have gone down, not up. This is the only thing that has convinced me that the DUI checkpoints and absurdly low blood alc/vol. are in any way, shape or form legitimate.

The article does say that a redefinition of "alcohol related" could be responsible. If a sober driver jumps a curb and hits a drunk pedestrian, that is an alcohol related accident. But still, if one DUI check point gets 100 seized cars for every drunk taken of the road, it's not a DUI checkpoint. It's just a checkpoint, and they are unconstitutional. 
[/quote]

[capozzoli]

Driving is a privilege and not a right because the automobile was invented after the Bill of Rights was written. If there were automobiles back then they may have written something in.  Same reason why I feel there should be provision for this mess.

Today I was talking about this  to an off duty Phila police officer with whom I am acquainted, she told me some interesting facts and problems regarding the arrest of  drivers who are DUI.

The number one way DUI's are caught is when they are driving with their headlights off. Not weaving and not check points. So you lushes out there make sure your head lights are on.

At check pints you have to be pretty f'ed up to be called aside for a closer look. You would have to wreak, slur, be belligerent or have really bloodshot eyes.

This one I didnt know. They should give you the breath test in a climate controlled area, things like temp, humidity even car fumes can effect the accuracy of the results.  Thats why suspects are given a field sobriety test and then arrested to be given the breathalyzer at the station.

If you are a pot smoker or drug user, even prescription drugs and you are given a blood test (especially with pot) you could get a positive result even if you if you haven't used the drug in a month. In other words if you are given a blood test and it comes back positive you will be charged with DUI, even of the joint you smoked was a month before. So pot smokers, blow man blow, you don't want that blood test.

She also said the US has the highest or at least one of the highest fatality rates due to DUI.

[kerneldustjacket]

It's just a checkpoint, and they are unconstitutional.  

And three US Supreme Court justices agree with you. In the case of "Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990," one dissenting justice said

"This is a case that is driven by nothing more than symbolic state action — an insufficient justification for an otherwise unreasonable program of random seizures. Unfortunately, the Court is transfixed by the wrong symbol — the illusory prospect of punishing countless intoxicated motorists — when it should keep its eyes on the road plainly marked by the Constitution."

However, the decision was 6 to 3 in favor of allowing that "Sobriety Checkpoints" are constitutional, even though, in his delivery of the opinion of the court, chief justice Rehnquist noted:

"Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint...Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied." The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment."

The full text of the decision can be accessed here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11348246873623439918&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[uintafly]

One aspect, that may contribute to drunk driving in the US, is the fact that the personal car is for many the only means of transportation to and from their watering hole. In Europe settlements tend to be less spread out and public transportation is much more widely available.

 

Very true. Here in Utah there was a push awhile back to extend weekend hours for public transportation to last until the bars close. I didn't happen and one of the reasons is they said that it would encourage drinking.  But this is the same state that would love to force all drinkers to wear a scarlet A.

And if you really hate the invasion of privacy you will love going to our bars and having your drivers license scanned every time so the government can keep your drinking habits in their database.

[capozzoli]

Scanned? For real. Now that is bad.