Can THIS possibly be real??

[BerndM]

I can't believe that this was the end of this DUI checkpoint situation.

 

Why didn't they drag his ass out of the car and...........

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=053_1329365345

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I can't believe that this was the end of this DUI checkpoint situation.

 

Why didn't they drag his ass out of the car and...........

 

Why would they? It's your right to not answer questions from the police, whether or not you have an attorney present.

 

That said, I have heard a twisted interpretation under which the officer is asking questions so that he can assess your behavior and smell your breath for alcohol, and so refusal to answer his questions is considered to be interfering with his investigation and may result in charges. Whether you've been drinking or not, it's certainly legal to say "I will not answer any of your questions tonight."

 

At the end, he asked if he was free to go, and she finally had to answer yes - lest this become an illegal detention.

[BerndM]

WOW...OK I see your point, but imagine if EVERYONE followed this example. That would really cause an interesting reaction I'm sure.

Regardless, that driver had some BIG brass ones. Mine are nowhere NEAR that size.

LOL

 

[Mike]

I have no tolerance for drunk driving, but these types of checkpoints are an abomination.

 

Handled by the cops very professionally, by the way.

[Jaguar]

At some point, you'd think they would have at least ask the standard questions.

Can I see you drivers license, registration and proof of insurance?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

WOW...OK I see your point, but imagine if EVERYONE followed this example.

 

Then maybe they might stop doing these DUI checkpoints altogether.

[majrosebud]

Mike, I totally agree with you. If an officer can stop you for no reason whatsoever, where does it end?

[Ohio48]

Mike, I totally agree with you. If an officer can stop you for no reason whatsoever, where does it end?

It doesn't end, it will only get worse.

It's the so called big brother moderator

Some of us have been touched by them, and know how unfair it can be.

[tallman]

I'll oppose DUI checkpoints when all vehicles require a breath interlock/retina scan simultaneously.

If you fail, the pink light on top of your car comes on and stays on until a sober driver is available.

I've had too many friends killed by drunk drivers and was run over by one myself.

[upflying]

I've participated in countless DUI checkpoints. The behavior shown by the driver in the video occasionally happens. He has the right to refuse to answer but it does up the red flag that something is wrong. Odor, eyes and speech are other objective indications of DUI, without that present, let him go.

[Ohio48]

I'll oppose DUI checkpoints when all vehicles require a breath interlock/retina scan simultaneously.

If you fail, the pink light on top of your car comes on and stays on until a sober driver is available.

I've had too many friends killed by drunk drivers and was run over by one myself.

 

If you fail the ignition system is disabled. I'm not much for pink lights!!!

[tallman]

OK, how about flashing fuchia ?

[Ohio48]

:)

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I'll oppose DUI checkpoints when all vehicles require a breath interlock/retina scan simultaneously.

If you fail, the pink light on top of your car comes on and stays on until a sober driver is available.

I've had too many friends killed by drunk drivers and was run over by one myself.

 

A lot of people are killed by gun violence, too. And drugs. Should we also allow the cops to stop cars and pedestrians, and search them for guns and drugs without any reasonable suspicion?

[4wheeldog]

I'll oppose DUI checkpoints when all vehicles require a breath interlock/retina scan simultaneously.

If you fail, the pink light on top of your car comes on and stays on until a sober driver is available.

I've had too many friends killed by drunk drivers and was run over by one myself.

 

I might have gone along with this, until I actually saw how an installed interlock works. It is quite intrusive, and there is no justification for inflicted it upon the innocent. It really becomes an exercise in duck mating when applied to motocycles.

 

My personal DWI solution: First one, lose license for 1 year. Caught driving during the year, lose it for 5 years. Second offense, lose one eye. Third, the other eye. That would pretty well preclude any additional offenses.

[pbharvey]

My personal DWI solution: First one, lose license for 1 year. Caught driving during the year, lose it for 5 years. Second offense, lose one eye. Third, the other eye. That would pretty well preclude any additional offenses.

 

I vote for losing one eye on the first offense. DWI kills people.

 

People repeat it because there's not enough fear of the consequences of getting caught.

[Ken H.]

This is interesting… What about states / provinces where refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test is in and of itself a crime? Or does the LEO have to have reasonable cause (to ask you to blow) first? If so, would refusing to answer any question at all be grounds (to ask you to blow)?

 

Conversely, if a driver refuses to say anything what so ever, and absent any other evidence of suspicion of DWI, does the LEO have to let you go and cannot require you to submit to a breathalyzer test?

 

Doe all of this vary by jurisdiction?

 

 

[upflying]

Without evidence of DUI such as odor, eyes, speech, equilibrium and coordination, no one can make you answer any questions at a checkpoint. You are free to leave.

If you have an odor of an alcoholic beverage, you will be asked (told or pulled out) to get out of the car for additional field sobriety tests. These are the typical finger to nose, heel to toe, one leg balance and horizontal gaze nystagmus.

You can refuse to do those.

You will then be given the opportunity to blow in a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then be arrested and given the opportunity to blow into an Intoxilyzer. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then have a blood sample forcibly drawn from you.

While it is illegal to refuse to provide a blood, breath or urine sample, there are no refusals in my jurisdiction.

Implied consent laws means you must submit to a biological sample of yourself if you are driving.

[RT66Rider]

Without evidence of DUI such as odor, eyes, speech, equilibrium and coordination, no one can make you answer any questions at a checkpoint. You are free to leave.

What if the LEO, out of anger at your refusal to answer his/her questions, states that he/she suspects an odor, or any one of the other conditions, and promptly drags you out of your vehicle only to find that you are alcohol free. Does this give you, as a citizen, grounds for a lawsuit ?

[Shaman97]

Without evidence of DUI such as odor, eyes, speech, equilibrium and coordination, no one can make you answer any questions at a checkpoint. You are free to leave.

What if the LEO, out of anger at your refusal to answer his/her questions, states that he/she suspects an odor, or any one of the other conditions, and promptly drags you out of your vehicle only to find that you are alcohol free. Does this give you, as a citizen, grounds for a lawsuit ?

 

Probably so, but what are the damages, how do you prove it, and how are you going to get a lawyer to take the case. Hence the disregard for Fourth Amendment rights.

[Missouri Bob]

Without evidence of DUI such as odor, eyes, speech, equilibrium and coordination, no one can make you answer any questions at a checkpoint. You are free to leave.

If you have an odor of an alcoholic beverage, you will be asked (told or pulled out) to get out of the car for additional field sobriety tests. These are the typical finger to nose, heel to toe, one leg balance and horizontal gaze nystagmus.

You can refuse to do those.

You will then be given the opportunity to blow in a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then be arrested and given the opportunity to blow into an Intoxilyzer. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then have a blood sample forcibly drawn from you.

While it is illegal to refuse to provide a blood, breath or urine sample, there are no refusals in my jurisdiction.

Implied consent laws means you must submit to a biological sample of yourself if you are driving.

 

But by the time they haul you someplace (a hospital?) for a forcible blood draw, you may have metabolized enough of the alcohol to pass the test. And just how accurate is an Intoxilyzer? It seems like a trip in cuffs might be the better bet.

 

Bob

[Quinn]

How would this work for a license check? Last two times I've been stopped at a roadblock, it was to check for driver's license and a plate check for safety inspection.

 

----

 

 

[Polo]

I'll oppose DUI checkpoints when all vehicles require a breath interlock/retina scan simultaneously.

If you fail, the pink light on top of your car comes on and stays on until a sober driver is available.

I've had too many friends killed by drunk drivers and was run over by one myself.

 

I might have gone along with this, until I actually saw how an installed interlock works. It is quite intrusive, and there is no justification for inflicted it upon the innocent. It really becomes an exercise in duck mating when applied to motocycles.

 

My personal DWI solution: First one, lose license for 1 year. Caught driving during the year, lose it for 5 years. Second offense, lose one eye. Third, the other eye. That would pretty well preclude any additional offenses.

 

Note to self: "If 4wheeldog ever runs for office, vote for the other guy".

 

[upflying]

Without evidence of DUI such as odor, eyes, speech, equilibrium and coordination, no one can make you answer any questions at a checkpoint. You are free to leave.

If you have an odor of an alcoholic beverage, you will be asked (told or pulled out) to get out of the car for additional field sobriety tests. These are the typical finger to nose, heel to toe, one leg balance and horizontal gaze nystagmus.

You can refuse to do those.

You will then be given the opportunity to blow in a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then be arrested and given the opportunity to blow into an Intoxilyzer. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then have a blood sample forcibly drawn from you.

While it is illegal to refuse to provide a blood, breath or urine sample, there are no refusals in my jurisdiction.

Implied consent laws means you must submit to a biological sample of yourself if you are driving.

 

But by the time they haul you someplace (a hospital?) for a forcible blood draw, you may have metabolized enough of the alcohol to pass the test. And just how accurate is an Intoxilyzer? It seems like a trip in cuffs might be the better bet.

 

Bob

Forced blood draws are done in the jail by an on-call RN. You metabolize .02 BAC per hour. Someone is stupid enough to refuse is well above .08 BAC to begin with.

Intoxilyzer is calibrated and certified by a laboratory criminalist on a weekly basis.

[ESokoloff]

 

Handled by the cops very professionally, by the way.

 

Agreed.

 

Hopefully an officer was dispatched to follow the motorist in order to assess any driving impairment.

[Shaman97]

You metabolize .02 BAC per hour.

Someone is stupid enough to refuse is well above .08 BAC to begin with.

 

What do you mean by that? If someone is marginal, the delay works in their favor. Why would this be stupid?

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

This is interesting… What about states / provinces where refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test is in and of itself a crime? Or does the LEO have to have reasonable cause (to ask you to blow) first? If so, would refusing to answer any question at all be grounds (to ask you to blow)?

 

Conversely, if a driver refuses to say anything what so ever, and absent any other evidence of suspicion of DWI, does the LEO have to let you go and cannot require you to submit to a breathalyzer test?

 

Doe all of this vary by jurisdiction?

 

 

If you don't want to submit to the requirements set forth by the law when acquiring your drivers license, you should not drive.

[DiggerJim]

Forced blood draws are done in the jail by an on-call RN. You metabolize .02 BAC per hour.

In CT it's done at the hospital - they need to take you to jail, book you, take you to the hospital, wait, do the draw, take you back to jail, get the results, release you. A not insignificant amount of time. Being the strapping young man I am, I can down 6 shots & be blowing .130 get grabbed coming out the parking lot and am under .10 by the time the hospital's gotten thru with me. If I drink those 6 shots more reasonably (like over a couple/three hours) and I'll be under .08 by the time the hospital's done with me.

 

One of the tricks some of my cop friends use is to "let" the guy trip while doing his field test. Then they call the ambulance (I'm an EMT on one) because the guy is hurt and they get to go direct to the hospital ER rather than waiting for the great unwashed in the waiting room and cut out the initial trip to the station and booking :-)

 

 

[MotorinLA]

Of course, a simple "No" could have sped things up for everyone... Some people just get a kick out of being difficult. Clearly this guy is very pleased with himself, since he saw the need to post this video on the internet.

 

The courts have held that the infringement of individual rights is so minimal during a DUI checkpoint, that it is outweighed by the the potential benefits to society.

 

BTW, carrying guns and drugs don't directly have anything to do with your ability to safely operate your vehicle, so comparing it to DUI checkpoints is kind of silly.

 

If everyone would obey the DUI laws and take responsibility for themselves, we wouldn't need DUI checkpoints. How about criticizing DUI drivers, rather than trying to further restrict LE's ability to deter and catch these guys?

 

DUI is an epidemic in our country, killing thousand and thousands of people every year. I have many friends who have lost a loved one due to the actions of a drunk driver. I'd gladly submit to a DUI checkpoint on a daily basis, if it would stop people from driving drunk.

[MotorinLA]

Without evidence of DUI such as odor, eyes, speech, equilibrium and coordination, no one can make you answer any questions at a checkpoint. You are free to leave.

If you have an odor of an alcoholic beverage, you will be asked (told or pulled out) to get out of the car for additional field sobriety tests. These are the typical finger to nose, heel to toe, one leg balance and horizontal gaze nystagmus.

You can refuse to do those.

You will then be given the opportunity to blow in a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then be arrested and given the opportunity to blow into an Intoxilyzer. You can refuse to blow however.

You will then have a blood sample forcibly drawn from you.

While it is illegal to refuse to provide a blood, breath or urine sample, there are no refusals in my jurisdiction.

Implied consent laws means you must submit to a biological sample of yourself if you are driving.

 

But by the time they haul you someplace (a hospital?) for a forcible blood draw, you may have metabolized enough of the alcohol to pass the test. And just how accurate is an Intoxilyzer? It seems like a trip in cuffs might be the better bet.

 

Bob

 

It's pretty simple to calculate backwards from time of sample to time of arrest, in order to figure out BAC at the time the person was arrested. BTW, you can be arrested for a BAC under the legal limit, if the officer can show impairment. That's what Field Sobriety Tests are all about.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Of course, a simple "No" could have sped things up for everyone... Some people just get a kick out of being difficult. Clearly this guy is very pleased with himself, since he saw the need to post this video on the internet.

 

FWIW, I'm pleased with him, too. I think it's valuable to have people exercise their rights once in a while. It serves to remind people that they have these rights, and it also serves to remind the police that their authority is not limitless. Watch a few episodes of "Cops," and it's amazing how many people freely consent to a vehicle search (and then get busted for whatever contraband the cop happens to find in their car).

 

The courts have held that the infringement of individual rights is so minimal during a DUI checkpoint, that it is outweighed by the the potential benefits to society.

 

That's as may be. I have to follow the law, but I don't have to agree with it.

 

BTW, carrying guns and drugs don't directly have anything to do with your ability to safely operate your vehicle, so comparing it to DUI checkpoints is kind of silly.

 

If everyone would obey the DUI laws and take responsibility for themselves, we wouldn't need DUI checkpoints. How about criticizing DUI drivers, rather than trying to further restrict LE's ability to deter and catch these guys?

 

DUI is an epidemic in our country, killing thousand and thousands of people every year. I have many friends who have lost a loved one due to the actions of a drunk driver. I'd gladly submit to a DUI checkpoint on a daily basis, if it would stop people from driving drunk.

 

Drunk drivers kill about 10,000 people per year, whereas in the same time period, gun violence in the US kills about 12,000 and injures about 50,000, with the vast majority of these acts committed using stolen handguns and/or handguns carried by convicted felons (who aren't allowed to possess guns). For the record, I am not in favor of limiting fourth-amendment rights with respect to firearms, but if one is in favor of sobriety checkpoints on the basis of the damage caused by drunk drivers, then consistency demands that one also be in favor of gun checkpoints.

 

 

[BIWOZ]

Interesting piece of video. We have so-called "random" breath tests, using mobile "booze buses". You have no choice; if you're pulled over you blow in the bag or you can get arrested. If you blow ANY numbers, expect to get a lecture from the copper before you're allowed to leave, even though our legal limit is 0.05.

 

In designated areas (e.g. nightclub areas), our police can stop you and pat you down for weapons violations (not just firearms; even carrying a knife without justified need is illegal).

 

They also use drug sniffer dogs at, for example, rock concerts or even the train stations. If the dog reacts positively, you and your possessions can and most likely will be searched.

 

Your vehicle is not regarded in the same way as your home; police can pull you over and search for firearms, drugs etc.

 

What can I say? We don't have your Constitution ...

[MotorinLA]

Of course, a simple "No" could have sped things up for everyone... Some people just get a kick out of being difficult. Clearly this guy is very pleased with himself, since he saw the need to post this video on the internet.

 

FWIW, I'm pleased with him, too. I think it's valuable to have people exercise their rights once in a while. It serves to remind people that they have these rights, and it also serves to remind the police that their authority is not limitless. Watch a few episodes of "Cops," and it's amazing how many people freely consent to a vehicle search (and then get busted for whatever contraband the cop happens to find in their car).

 

I have no problem with people questioning the powers of the government, or knowing their rights, but I do have a problem with people who do stuff simply because they can. I can go out and do lots of stuff as a police officer because I can too, but I don't because it is not right. I could arrest average citizen's for minor offenses, because the law allows me to do it. I could tow peoples cars incident to these arrests and make their lives even more complicated and expensive. I could issue citations for every minor infraction that I see, instead of targeting violations that improve public safety. Although there are a few officers who operate in this manner, the great majority of officers do their job "the right way" and generally enforce the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. In other words, just because the law says that I can take enforcement action, doesn't mean that I always should. So, just because you can have the right to challenge LE whenever you feel like it, doesn't mean that you should, either.

 

People on this board frequently state that they wish police officers would use discretion and common sense, to be understanding and empathetic, yet they gleefully cheer on the people who go out of their way to make officers' lives more difficult and frustrating. I know that's your right, but is it right?

 

The courts have held that the infringement of individual rights is so minimal during a DUI checkpoint, that it is outweighed by the the potential benefits to society.

 

That's as may be. I have to follow the law, but I don't have to agree with it.

 

You have the right to not agree with laws, but again I think that applauding anybody who goes against "the system", simply because they're "standing up to the man", whether it is right or wrong, is kind of short-sighted. You live in a pretty good place on this world, it got this way because we do things they way we do them. Consider that, before criticizing every little thing you personally don't like about or government. And BTW, the great majority of our country's population "go with the program", so spare me the arguement that we are this way only because everybody questions authority on a regular basis.

 

BTW, carrying guns and drugs don't directly have anything to do with your ability to safely operate your vehicle, so comparing it to DUI checkpoints is kind of silly.

 

If everyone would obey the DUI laws and take responsibility for themselves, we wouldn't need DUI checkpoints. How about criticizing DUI drivers, rather than trying to further restrict LE's ability to deter and catch these guys?

 

DUI is an epidemic in our country, killing thousand and thousands of people every year. I have many friends who have lost a loved one due to the actions of a drunk driver. I'd gladly submit to a DUI checkpoint on a daily basis, if it would stop people from driving drunk.

 

Drunk drivers kill about 10,000 people per year, whereas in the same time period, gun violence in the US kills about 12,000 and injures about 50,000, with the vast majority of these acts committed using stolen handguns and/or handguns carried by convicted felons (who aren't allowed to possess guns). For the record, I am not in favor of limiting fourth-amendment rights with respect to firearms, but if one is in favor of sobriety checkpoints on the basis of the damage caused by drunk drivers, then consistency demands that one also be in favor of gun checkpoints.

 

Really? REALLY? That's just an asinine statement. That's what 6-year olds use when they get caught doing something they're not supposed to do, "But Bob did this...(so why am I being singled out for what I did)".

 

AGAIN, driving under the influence is CLEARLY and DIRECTLY related to the operation of a vehicle, thus you may be stopped WHILE DRIVING (a privilege in all states of the U.S.) to try to ensure you're not committing a violation that claimed approximately 10,000 lives in 2009, but over 17,000 lives in 2001 (if I remember correctly). The numbers related to DUI related deaths and injuries are staggering, yet you oppose enforcement, because there are other things out there that are costing us lives as well? Please correct me if I misread your post, but that is what it seems like you said.

[MotorinLA]

Interesting piece of video. We have so-called "random" breath tests, using mobile "booze buses". You have no choice; if you're pulled over you blow in the bag or you can get arrested. If you blow ANY numbers, expect to get a lecture from the copper before you're allowed to leave, even though our legal limit is 0.05.

 

In designated areas (e.g. nightclub areas), our police can stop you and pat you down for weapons violations (not just firearms; even carrying a knife without justified need is illegal).

 

They also use drug sniffer dogs at, for example, rock concerts or even the train stations. If the dog reacts positively, you and your possessions can and most likely will be searched.

 

Your vehicle is not regarded in the same way as your home; police can pull you over and search for firearms, drugs etc.

 

What can I say? We don't have your Constitution ...

 

And yet, people in Australia are in general pretty pleased to live there, right?

 

So, apparently your government's infringements on your personal rights have not turned your country into a dictatorship, as so many in our nation predict will happen here, if the governemnt is allowed to regulate personal freedoms...

[BIWOZ]

Interesting piece of video. We have so-called "random" breath tests, using mobile "booze buses". You have no choice; if you're pulled over you blow in the bag or you can get arrested. If you blow ANY numbers, expect to get a lecture from the copper before you're allowed to leave, even though our legal limit is 0.05.

 

In designated areas (e.g. nightclub areas), our police can stop you and pat you down for weapons violations (not just firearms; even carrying a knife without justified need is illegal).

 

They also use drug sniffer dogs at, for example, rock concerts or even the train stations. If the dog reacts positively, you and your possessions can and most likely will be searched.

 

Your vehicle is not regarded in the same way as your home; police can pull you over and search for firearms, drugs etc.

 

What can I say? We don't have your Constitution ...

 

And yet, people in Australia are in general pretty pleased to live there, right?

 

So, apparently your government's infringements on your personal rights have not turned your country into a dictatorship, as so many in our nation predict will happen here, if the governemnt is allowed to regulate personal freedoms...

 

No, we can still vote the pr!cks out at the next election; trouble is, the major parties are really pretty much the same ... there is not such a clear dichotomy between them.

 

Having said that, there is a VERY large groundswell against ever-restrictive laws here in Australia; a lot of us have had a gutful.

 

Yes, despite everything we whinge about, Australia is still a pretty damned good place to live.

[Ken H.]

This is interesting… What about states / provinces where refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test is in and of itself a crime? Or does the LEO have to have reasonable cause (to ask you to blow) first? If so, would refusing to answer any question at all be grounds (to ask you to blow)?

 

Conversely, if a driver refuses to say anything what so ever, and absent any other evidence of suspicion of DWI, does the LEO have to let you go and cannot require you to submit to a breathalyzer test?

 

Doe all of this vary by jurisdiction?

If you don't want to submit to the requirements set forth by the law when acquiring your drivers license, you should not drive.

For the record I wasn’t stating or implying support of DUI, only trying to understand the technicalities.

[Shaman97]

Interesting piece of video. We have so-called "random" breath tests, using mobile "booze buses". You have no choice; if you're pulled over you blow in the bag or you can get arrested. If you blow ANY numbers, expect to get a lecture from the copper before you're allowed to leave, even though our legal limit is 0.05.

 

In designated areas (e.g. nightclub areas), our police can stop you and pat you down for weapons violations (not just firearms; even carrying a knife without justified need is illegal).

 

They also use drug sniffer dogs at, for example, rock concerts or even the train stations. If the dog reacts positively, you and your possessions can and most likely will be searched.

 

Your vehicle is not regarded in the same way as your home; police can pull you over and search for firearms, drugs etc.

 

What can I say? We don't have your Constitution ...

 

And yet, people in Australia are in general pretty pleased to live there, right?

 

So, apparently your government's infringements on your personal rights have not turned your country into a dictatorship, as so many in our nation predict will happen here, if the governemnt is allowed to regulate personal freedoms...

 

The police in Australia aren't infringing on their personal rights, because they don't have those rights guaranteed by their Constitution; we do.

This reminds me of a piece of history. When the Constitution was being constructed, and the Bill of Rights was being discussed, there were those (Alexander Hamilton among them) that did not want a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Why? Because they felt having a Bill of Rights would limit the populace to just the rights outlined in it; no more, no less. So it's a point of view, isn't it? Do we have more Rights than the Bill prescribes, or only the ones written in the Constitution? More restrictions, or more Liberty?

[BIWOZ]

Interestingly enough, rights were never specifically outlined in our Constitution because they were taken as a "given"; they didn't need explanation because they were inalienable. This included the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence. Sadly, that omission has proven to be NOT in our best interests.

 

One of the key writers of our Constitution was an American ... just a piece of trivia.

[Fubar]

A lot of people are killed by gun violence, too. And drugs. Should we also allow the cops to stop cars and pedestrians, and search them for guns and drugs without any reasonable suspicion?

While I've never been involved in a DUI checkpoint, I still, personally, believe them to be a violation of the 4th Amendment. If I ever do get in one, I hope I remember to do this. Since I won't drink and drive/ride they would have nothing to hold me on.

A well-educated populace is the best defense against civil rights abuses by the "thin blue line".

[upflying]

A lot of people are killed by gun violence, too. And drugs. Should we also allow the cops to stop cars and pedestrians, and search them for guns and drugs without any reasonable suspicion?

While I've never been involved in a DUI checkpoint, I still, personally, believe them to be a violation of the 4th Amendment. If I ever do get in one, I hope I remember to do this. Since I won't drink and drive/ride they would have nothing to hold me on.

A well-educated populace is the best defense against civil rights abuses by the "thin blue line".

But don't lay all the blame on LEO's for violating your 4th Amendment rights. Courts have upheld the legality of the checkpoints. The Constitution is open to a lot of interpretation these days.

[Fubar]

While I've never been involved in a DUI checkpoint, I still, personally, believe them to be a violation of the 4th Amendment. If I ever do get in one, I hope I remember to do this. Since I won't drink and drive/ride they would have nothing to hold me on.

A well-educated populace is the best defense against civil rights abuses by the "thin blue line".

But don't lay all the blame on LEO's for violating your 4th Amendment rights. Courts have upheld the legality of the checkpoints. The Constitution is open to a lot of interpretation these days.

Yeah, it is easy to paint with a broad brush, especially having known and worked with so many LEOs. No offense is intended to any here, I don't know you personally and am thus unwilling to make any judgements.

 

Interpretation seems a mild way to put it. When corporations are considered people, there seems to be some MIS-interpretation going on. In the end it will all work out. The system is a glacier, slow at times but inevitably moving forward.