Before the 'DUI affected me' posts come out of the woodwork nobody is supporting, advocating, defending or excusing drinking and driving. But as the vast majority of us say on other posts the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not a cafeteria plan therefore the 4th Amendment is as valid as the 1st or the 2nd.
The courts approved the checkpoints with the stipulation that their location must be announced in advance. Police and 'civic-minded' newspapers play cat-and-mouse with this requirement by delaying the notifications until the last minute and burying the notices in an obscure corner of the paper. The notices are always accompanied by a quote from some tinhorn justifying the practice.
In the end, then, the use of technology to advise our fellow citizens of checkpoints is simply a 21st Century method of achieving the same result as listing them in a newspaper. The police don't like it because it exposes these checkpoints for what they are: lazy, ineffective and a excuse to stuff budgets with overtime.
You waive you rights when you sign your driver liscense.
“Studies have found sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes because they create awareness about the risk of arrest. “
Interesting statement. I always thought they were about catching drunk drivers. Apparently the real reason to to enforce the notion that we live in a police state.
A friend recently got stopped by one of those. The police told him that they were going to move his car to another location “to keep it safely out of traffic” and if he refused permission they would bring him downtown to the jail to perform those sobriety tests and have his car towed. So much for the fourth amendment’s protections.
If you want to drink then drive...that’s your business....but you face the consequences if you wreck. If you kill someone in a drunk wreck...then life in prison would be the least I would expect.
With you on this. Further I think we have reached near hysteria with the drunk driving issue.
Well put.
I believe that in the same session that found random drunk-driving checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, the SCOTUS also gave it’s blessing to flag burning as a form of protected free speech.
Were it not for my respect for the flag, I would be sorely tempted to pull up to the nearest drunk driving checkpoint, step out of the car and set fire to Old Glory. It would tie our entire Federal Court system in knots for the next 19 years while they figured out what do to with me.
Dui checkpoints do not work. We had one recently where they stopped over 800 vehicles and netted 1 arrest. Typical patrols produce better results. The police should be doing their job patrolling the street looking for crime not creating safety hazards on our streets.
They still nab a whole lot of people, and not just for drinking and driving. Most of them are, erm, "undocumented workers", who likely can't read the paper to begin with. One of our counties has a zero tolerance policy towards illegals, and they get put on the first boat home.
Just sayin'. There are advantages, too.
And as far as "twittering" about them is concerned, how would that be different from Joe giving Bob a call and saying "Hey, take a different route home!" ? Just a different technology to beat up on, is all this is.
Pretty much the same as flashing your headlights to alert oncoming traffic of a radar trap coming up, no?
I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided. Indeed, I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered “reasonable” a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.
--Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent to Indianapolis v. Edmond
Trapster will send alerts to smartphones and some GPS systems. You mark a location when you pass it (assuming you have Trapster), and for the next couple of hours anyone who also has Trapster will get an alert when they get near the marked location. It’s usually used for speedtraps, but I’m sure some are using it for checkpoints as well.
“Young people continue to be the most dangerous drivers,” he said. “They will continue to drink and drive until they have families and realize they have something to lose.”
Not only does law enforcement acknowledge this (by the # of traffic tickets they issue and auto accident reports they write), but insurance companies as well. There’s a reason young people’s premiums are higher than older drivers.
Police officers and fishermen have something in common: they both go to places where they can “catch” something. If DUI wasn’t a problem, the police wouldn’t be out there watching for it.
Besides that, our society WANTS a cop on every corner. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t tolerate irresponsible behavior (”Look at Heather, she’s so funny when she’s wasted!”).
As far as your sarcastic comment: “More ‘studies’ references without cites or statistics and the obligatory mention of the Silly Putty known as ‘alcohol-related crashes.’ “...you might be careful when you use the word “silly” around one of the thousands of MADD parents that have lost a child to an alcohol related accident.
The law requires the police publish the locations of the checkpoints. (per USSC)
I have even heard them publicised BY THE POLICE on the radio as to specific locations.
it still holds true...A policeman’s job is easy in a police state.
Studies show that the 4th Amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore.
They could reduce the carbon footprint in DC by recycling the Constitution into toilet paper.
“Police and ‘civic-minded’ newspapers play cat-and-mouse with this requirement by delaying the notifications until the last minute and burying the notices in an obscure corner of the paper.”
And on slow night’s the nit-wits overstay their posted times nullifying every subsequent DUI.
We all know this is a money grab. This quit being about public safety decades ago.