jthorpe

Finally, someone who gets it. Not a single person has answered my points in previous posts here yet.

MCMLV

Jack,

I am not one to split hairs, not that I could if I wanted to, and I all for anything that increases safety or better yet saves a life. I am all for it providing that it is within the boundaries of the framework that ensures all of our well being, including out much cherished freedoms. Having said that, I ask you to addres the imprfection in the executions of the check points. Are we not to address the oversteping of authority at all, in these case, in any/all cases, just because they save lives? It may seem insignificant on the surface, but any and all unchecked abuse of power, no mater how small it may apear at the time either has a direct efect on many lives or is a contributor to later greater abuses.

Peter

Scotty

I also think that in NY they are still under a higher alert status correct? Remember 9/11?

We get those checks here too.

One life saved from one roadside check taking a drunk off the road is well worth the wait for me.

I would rather wait for that then the wait for an accident.

jthorpe

Peter, I understand where you're coming from, and I honestly don't have an answer because I'm by no means an expert. However, there is abuse of power all over the place, not just in dui checkpoints. I guess the real question for me is how would we stop abuse of power in general? This doesn't just occur at the checkpoints, but all over the place. Although the exception rather than the rule, we all know it happens. There are so many scenarios that this can occur in, it's not fair just to apply a fix to checkpoints only. I don't know if there IS an answer other than prosecuting those who do abuse the power just like you would in any other 4th amendment situation.

MCMLV

I can go along with that, I think it was my misread of your stand point that prompted the question. For a minute there, I was under the impression that you were willing to "look the other way" on the abuse issue. My mistake, I no longer think that. Yes, the answer I think it is to stnd up to it and combat abuse anywhere and everywhere it ocurs, when it does.

jthorpe

I'm glad you understand. Looking back on my posts, I suppose one could take it that I would be willing to look the other way. I'm sorry I gave that impression because in reality, it's definitely not what I woulud want. I don't think the checkpoints are the problem. I truely believe that the whole root of the problem and 4th amendment issue comes up when abuse occurs. If you don't stop that kind of abuse of power, then yes, the 4th amendment becomes a moot point, which is very bad. ...

I say that because if you think about it, the 4th amendment is really the foundation of the country. It's the main reason why we liberated ourselves 200 years ago in my opinion. I think many would agree. we do NOT want to get to a point where citizens feel like they have to do it all over again. We've worked too hard for hundreds of years now to look the other way.

wood_n_soldier

I know I'm a little late here and it's been mentioned already but, when does it stop, when is enough, enough. Can I carry a gun with me if I want? Not without a permit, isn't that specifically mentioned in some ol' document that used to mean something called the constitution? I know, I know not the issue at hand; let’s stick to this one, shall we.

Jack I think you framed it perfectly; the underlying issue here is indeed that it is considered a privilege to drive on every road in the country,

AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM!!

I agree with that as well. You're making some good points.


Well as long as it was a 12 year old boy (just kidding)

But stopping me out in public to see if I have my papers and then preventing me from going home is fine??

I suppose it's a privilege to have a job then too. I suppose it's a privilege to provide a house for my family, to congregate and on and on...

So let me see if I have this right, I sign up for a license or I can walk to work? nice.. or I could ride my horse, take the bus, fly my plane, sail down the river it is all down stream to work, but i need my "papers" to get the job even if I do walk.

I think your note about the illegal aliens while amusing in it's own right has no relevance on this issue. Let's not forget that this country was founded by what were easily considered illegal aliens by the residents of this land as well.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
-- Daniel Webster

zulusafari

My understanding has always been that it isn't anyone's business where you are going. If you are asked the question, it is your right to inform them so. It is also against the law for them to retaliate, unless there is some other REASONABLE SUSPICION. HID was stopped because he was a young kid in a flashy car, heading on a highway without many such occurences. The trooper overstepped his bounds and reasonable suspicion in what he did because he was so sure that HID's profile matched the criminal the trooper was looking for. I have seen it many times, not just with the police. People put others into categories and search for every possible means to confirm the vision put forth. The checkpoint helps to actually eliminate that profile, since EVERY vehicle is stopped. I have seen these on Hwy 61 through Davenport, IA regularly. Not just during major events, but seemingly random.

I think some people are losing sight of what Privilege means. I also believe many people are assuming that their percieved right to privacy and security from a percieved illegal search is more valuable than my right to personal safety on the highway. My privilege is to drive, my right is to have the laws enforced to further protect my safety. That is how injured people are able to sue highway departments for poor maintenace or faulty engineering. It was a privilege to be driving, but it is a right to personal safety.

The key is to know your rights, your privileges, and the law better than those charged with enforcing it. That way, you have the upper hand. I saw it many times as a corrections officer -- some officer would get a wild hair and try to enforce a restriction, rule, or power trip. Then, the inmate would write a grievance and win because they nknew the rulebook better than the officer who stepped on them. The Sheriff used to get really upset when an inmate's grievance was founded!

My $0.02, based on time spent as security in courtrooms, driving, studying, and breathing.

Geico266

How can you look at a person sitting down in a car and and tell if they are impaired to drive?

Alcohol related auto accident deaths are exagerated in statistics. ANY alcohol in a person counts in stats, even if it was not the fault of the person with alcohol in his/hers system. (I know I'm gonna get yelled at for that, but its true!) The stats are inflated for effect.

I'm not advocating driving & drinking. Impaired driving is stupid, but I see more problems with distracted drivers than drunk drivers. FAR more people are involved in accidents while being distracted than driving drunk. Cell phones, kids, MAKEUP, mail, reading the paper, CELL PHONES, radios, DVD players (give me a break!).

As for the safety stops.... they are a violation of the constitution in my mind. No reasonable cause, and no reasonable person can conclude that just by being on the road I am breaking the law?

tankeryanker

I go through saftey checks on a daily basis. There called weigh stations. Useually get the by pass lane or a green light on my transponder to bypass the scales all together. I know this is on a commercial level but still it is a check point. One that Iam glad that exists to remove unsafe vehicles & or drivers from the road. In 30yrs of driving truck I've been inspected numerous times, never been put out of service, inconvienced for no more than 30 min. I'm not saying we need check points like the trucking industry but some random checking to keep people aware of the fact that there are rules & everybody needs to comply in my opinion is not over stepping the bounds of our constitution.

westcoaster

slurred speech, wattery eyes, eyes that don't track correctly.... I would guess the officer is able to tell just by interaction and smell. we have roadblocks up here as well, usually at night and usually looking for drunks, they had one the other day where they were looking for potential witnesses in a murder investigation. They don't usually ask for papers but they do pop a pile of questions at you just to try and get you talking and at some point the officer will have his nose pretty much in the vehicle to smell. I had one shine his flashlight on my ignition once....
I don't agree with asking where are you going though.

Scotty

I still would rather wait in a check point then wait for a clean up of an accident...irregardless what caused it.

ok now...breathe

jthorpe

I'm starting to enjoy this discussion. I think everyone on both sides has presented some pretty good viewpoints here. I guess my next question is this; what IS the answer to keeping people safe while on the highways while trying to preserve our rights as well. Not only that, but what ARE the lines between rights and priviledge? Is there a definition? If so, where is it?

TomW

One of the purposes of asking where you're going is to listen to your speech and to keep the answer to the question in mind when the nice officer asks you again, possibly in a different way. There's a fine science when determining whether one is under the influence of alcohol or drug, and the questions are just one way of making that determination.

Remember, it doesn't take much to put yourself over the legal BAC limit. The police are going to use every means possible to make that determination, including asking where you're going.

Haulin_in_Dixie

Well Jack, the Supreme Court ruled, while Clinton was Attorny General of Arkansas, that stops could be made without probable cause but it had to be a stop for everyone. So road blocks are legal and are done all over. The problem comes in where you have a cop with a chip on his shoulder, that type casts and abuses the rules. Youth are picked on in all the larger cities, was so glad when I got older. Of course other groups are type cast also.

I have no problem with a spot check but there should be limits on how much checking can be done to where it does not become harrasment. A stop can be made where all ae checked with proper rules, but a singled out check cannot be made without probable cause. Of course that is a rather fluid subject, just what constituted probable cause. You will always have bad cops as well as bad people. In any group this is true and abuse of the law is sometimes the norm. LA cops are known for pushing the envelope, not just with racial issues but with anyone.

As you say, a lot of drunks are taken off the road by these spot checks. We ran them in our town while I was Mayor. They were not any more appreciated here either, but expired drivers licenses, drinking, dope and whatnot were always found in large percentages.