DWI checkpoints
- Thread starter general mills
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Since we're behaving as juveniles if you're too damned obtuse to grasp the points just move on along. I'm sure you can find someone to challenge to an Internet brawl...
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
So do you deny that you are attempting to make an argument using a right versus a privelage as your analogy....and failing at it?
Other than your extrememly insightful view of the world, what am I missing specifically about your post?
W1nds0rF0x
Snap, Crackle, Pop.
Which doesn't keep one from sitting in traffic for three hours.
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
If you are referring to checkpoints, where were you in a checkpoint for 3 hours?
Maybe for a fatality caused by a DUI, but unlikely for an actual checkpoint.
Last edited:
W1nds0rF0x
Snap, Crackle, Pop.
All I see is a LONG ass line of cars with flashing lights way up ahead. Why would I be expected to assume it's not a wreck up ahead? If I drive up on a really long stalled line of cars I'm likely to turn around almost immediately.
If you are referring to checkpoints, where were you in a checkpoint for 3 hours?
Maybe for a fatality caused by a DUI, but unlikely for an actual checkpoint.
I was being facetious there.
Last edited:
ok... at the risk of getting flamed by nolacop again, I'm going to enter the fray and ask a question. I think it's legitimate, since we have been arguing privilege vs right...
Where did the "privilege" vs "right" thing get decided in regards to DUI checkpoints?
I ask because today as part of my research, I read the supreme court decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz. (Link below) and the dissenting opinions. No where in the decision, does it state, or imply that driving is a privilege.
From my understanding, it seems that what the court ruled that there is a "substantial government interest" in stopping drunk driving, and since the intrusion into the drivers 4th amendment right is "slight", that the governments interest in curbing drunk driving outweighed the drivers 4th amendment right.
"In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program."
Now, certainly one could argue that "the extent to which this system can reasonably advance that interest" is definitely debatable. Which seems to have been part of the decision of the early trial and appeals courts (and some of the dissenting opinions)...but that's another subject altogether (complicated as we have already discussed).
So basically, the supreme court didn't rule on driving as a right or privilege, and it didn't use that as part it's argument. So I'm thinking that say that "driving is a privilege" in response to DUI checkpoints in incorrect...and quite honestly, I can at least swallow the courts explanation a little better, even though I don't necessarily agree 100%.
Of course we can still argue the right vs privilege debate, but I think that's for a separate thread entirely.
So what say you?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...19&as_vis=1&case=11348246873623439918&scilh=0
Where did the "privilege" vs "right" thing get decided in regards to DUI checkpoints?
I ask because today as part of my research, I read the supreme court decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz. (Link below) and the dissenting opinions. No where in the decision, does it state, or imply that driving is a privilege.
From my understanding, it seems that what the court ruled that there is a "substantial government interest" in stopping drunk driving, and since the intrusion into the drivers 4th amendment right is "slight", that the governments interest in curbing drunk driving outweighed the drivers 4th amendment right.
"In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program."
Now, certainly one could argue that "the extent to which this system can reasonably advance that interest" is definitely debatable. Which seems to have been part of the decision of the early trial and appeals courts (and some of the dissenting opinions)...but that's another subject altogether (complicated as we have already discussed).
So basically, the supreme court didn't rule on driving as a right or privilege, and it didn't use that as part it's argument. So I'm thinking that say that "driving is a privilege" in response to DUI checkpoints in incorrect...and quite honestly, I can at least swallow the courts explanation a little better, even though I don't necessarily agree 100%.
Of course we can still argue the right vs privilege debate, but I think that's for a separate thread entirely.
So what say you?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...19&as_vis=1&case=11348246873623439918&scilh=0
That can not be proven. It is also possible that a check point gets a multi offender off the streets tonight that would have been in a one car accident and killed him/herself only to get behind the wheel down the road and then kill mine or your family. So checkpoints could save the life of the guilty while costing the life the innocent.
The results of the check point you were bitching about, from http://www.zacharytoday.com/view/fu...tatistics?instance=secondary_news_left_column
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
Does nor matter what you assume. There is no exclusion for breaking traffic laws because you think or know there is a wreck.
I was being facetious there
W1nds0rF0x
Snap, Crackle, Pop.
AFAIK a U turn isn't illegal unless there is a sign saying it is.
Meh, Ok... here is my beef with that information
1.) How many DUI arrests were made? It does state the they conducted four field sobriety tests, but didn't mention any arrests (except for the citation for open container).
2.) If my understanding of why DUI checkpoints are valid (see above post) is correct, then it's because there is a "substantial government interest" is stopping drunk driving. So ok fine... but from the amount of other citations issued, clearly they were looking for other violations also. So what's to stop police from having "DUI checkpoints", when in reality, they are just stopping every car, and performing a "warrant less seizure" (seizure defined by stopping you, see the above SC opinion for reference)...looking for other, more lucrative violations?
Aaron
It was a "safety checkpoint" and more than likely anywhere else there is a "DUI checkpoint" it's really a "safety checkpoint". Semantics? maybe. But the supreme court has already said license, insurance, seatbelt ie equipment or "safety" checkpoints are legal. If the officer gets a little close to the window to get a whiff of alcohol, meh, such is life.
See where i'm going with this?
Rights, privelages, whatever. Checkpoints are gonna happen.
It was a "safety checkpoint" and more than likely anywhere else there is a "DUI checkpoint" it's really a "safety checkpoint". Semantics? maybe. But the supreme court has already said license, insurance, seatbelt ie equipment or "safety" checkpoints are legal. If the officer gets a little close to the window to get a whiff of alcohol, meh, such is life.
See where i'm going with this?
Rights, privelages, whatever. Checkpoints are gonna happen.
Yea Joel, I see where you are going... and it's a major reason I don't agree with the checkpoints...
The Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoints for illegal immigration and alcohol are valid, and suggested (see Delaware v. Prouse) that checkpoints for license, registration, and inspection stickers (brake tags) would be valid, but they actually have never ruled on it.
Interestingly, they did rule on illegal drug checkpoints, and ruled against them (see City of Indianapolis v. Edmond). Where they stated that checkpoints for regular criminal activity would be a violation of the 4th amendment. They even go as far as pointing out that police could essentially create a "valid checkpoint" but instead be primarily looking "common criminal activity"...which would be invalid...thus they have to "examine the available evidence to determine the primary purpose of the checkpoint program" (City of I vs Edmond).
Very interesting, by allowing the "valid" checkpoints, they are essential allowing all checkpoints... as long as they are called a DUI/Immigration/Insurance Checkpoint...since it would be pretty hard to prove their intentions are otherwise! Nice loophole.
Aaron
EDIT:
Reading Judge Thomas's dissent is actually pretty interesting...seems that he realizes that these two ruling are contradictory...
"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.
Respondents did not, however, advocate the overruling of Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, and I am reluctant to consider such a step without the benefit of briefing and argument. "
Last edited:
ive been stopped several times at dui check points. 3 times on my bike. ive never hit one that didnt have at least 5 cars at it, and take at least 5 mins. the longest wait i experienced was over 30 mins. i was late for work.
the cops also dont like it if you walk up and ask if you can go around the line because you dont drink.
now if i see them i just bypass.
the cops also dont like it if you walk up and ask if you can go around the line because you dont drink.
now if i see them i just bypass.
Don't confuse him with ideas of "privilege" versus "rights" or "legal" versus "lawful". He either is conflicted by what his very Soul knows yet acts against it or he is clueless. The juvenile sparring is nothing more than petty posturing. Nice enough guy but he needs to "get on with it". Another "unrelated analogy": Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
You're much better than you portray, Brannon...
You're much better than you portray, Brannon...
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
And you apparently are much worse than you portray. You know nothing of my soul and what I act against. I advise you watch your mouth.
Perhaps if you pulled tour head out of your ass long enough to wipe the self righteous indignation from your eyes you could deal in real facts like legal and illegal , and rights vs privelages. However since you are apparently conflicted when facts encroach on hour deeply rooted conspiracies, you get a kittle more unrealistic.
As far as posturing, I would think you would know better.
