Originally posted by: rpkelly
Originally posted by: Mojoed
For some strange reason, this thread reminds me of that Best Buy thread where someone threw a fit over being asked to show their receipt.
I'm willing to bet the people who think DUI checkpoints are a bad idea are the same people who would refuse to show their receipt when asked.
DUI checkpoints save lives. Period. You are selfish if you think checkpoints are stupid just because it costs you a few minutes of your time. It seems some of you take this personally.
It's about saving lives, not about your convenience. Get over yourselves.
Really? Care to show proof? Fact of the matter is, DUI checkpoints do NOT work. A more effective use of money would be more roving patrols.
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Support them. I think they're the top of a very slippery slope of privacy invasions, but since the courts are so lenient on DUI something has to be done.
Originally posted by: altonb1
I think they are crap. The avg checkpoint does NOT get many impaired drivers off the road. They are a nuisance in that they cause traffic snarls and the cops spend most of their time writing seatbelt violations, etc.
My family was heading home from the in-laws about a year or so ago--it's about 2.5 hours from South Jersey to our house in Pennsylvania. We got stuck in a backup on a HIGHWAY in Delaware for a checkpoint that delayed us by about 30 minutes. We didn't leave the in-laws until 10pm or so, expecting to be home by 1am at the latest. Driving on back country roads in Pennsylvania late at night sucks, but when the trip is extended it sucks even more.
Conveniently, I realized what it was about 5 cars before we got there and buckled up in time. Kids, of course, were sleeping.
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
Originally posted by: piasabird
Entrapment.
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Originally posted by: piasabird
Entrapment.
Cops know where all the bars are all they have to do is sit there at closing time and follow you out onto the road.
Originally posted by: Mojoed
For some strange reason, this thread reminds me of that Best Buy thread where someone threw a fit over being asked to show their receipt.
I'm willing to bet the people who think DUI checkpoints are a bad idea are the same people who would refuse to show their receipt when asked.
DUI checkpoints save lives. Period. You are selfish if you think checkpoints are stupid just because it costs you a few minutes of your time. It seems some of you take this personally.
It's about saving lives, not about your convenience. Get over yourselves.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.
The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.
A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.
The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.
A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
I love the SCOTUS says it is legal so it must be ok response. By that logic slavery was OK, Jim Crow laws were OK, separate but equal was OK. Read Rehnquist's opinion and what you will see is a so called "strict constructionist" proving that he is not immune to the passions of the day when rendering a decision.
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
its a public road and you signed your drivers license.... nuff said.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.
The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.
A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
I love the SCOTUS says it is legal so it must be ok response. By that logic slavery was OK, Jim Crow laws were OK, separate but equal was OK. Read Rehnquist's opinion and what you will see is a so called "strict constructionist" proving that he is not immune to the passions of the day when rendering a decision.
If I came off as a person who thinks just because something is legal it's ok, that wasn't my intention.
I was merely pointing out that it is legal, but does indeed violate your rights.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: MajinWade
I believe they violate the Constitution.
the SCOTUS says no.
Wrong.
The SCOTUS says it's *legal*. Rehnquist said it himself that since they consider it such a minor violation of constitutional rights, that it's permissible for the states to do it.
A minor violation is still a violation. The SCOTUS is just giving states permission to violate it.
I love the SCOTUS says it is legal so it must be ok response. By that logic slavery was OK, Jim Crow laws were OK, separate but equal was OK. Read Rehnquist's opinion and what you will see is a so called "strict constructionist" proving that he is not immune to the passions of the day when rendering a decision.
If I came off as a person who thinks just because something is legal it's ok, that wasn't my intention.
I was merely pointing out that it is legal, but does indeed violate your rights.
No I was actually kind of piggy backing on your response to the guy that you responded to. I actually agree with what you said.
Originally posted by: oogabooga
if driving was a right and not a privilege this might be different. I'm sure the founding fathers would recognize that and agree there is a small difference between a dui checkpoint while you are exercising a privilege you've acknowledged is a privilage vs having your home seized and searched without cause.
Originally posted by: rpkelly
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
its a public road and you signed your drivers license.... nuff said.
You're wrong. Nuff said.
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: rpkelly
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Killerme33
While I do support them, it seems strange to me that they are legal. I thought a cop had to have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over?
its a public road and you signed your drivers license.... nuff said.
You're wrong. Nuff said.
Actually, he is right. You are obligated to perform any and all tests I COMMAND you to take in regards to a DUI. refusal to do so revokes your driving privilege. Checkpoints have been upheld by the supreme court as long as they meet certain guidelines. The combination of a checkpoint along with decreased constitutional protection while driving pretty much allows me to make you get into the checkpoint.