"Sobriety checkpoint" - legal?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I worked a little late tonight (left around 8:30 or so) and headed across town to get home. I'm on an arterial surface street which normally moves along pretty well but tonight for some reason I notice it's going really slowly. As I creep along, I see there are orange cones. "Great", I'm thinking, "what happened to lure DPW out on a Friday night - pipe rupture or what?" As I get even a little further, I see that there are cops funneling the street down to one lane for a "sobriety checkpoint" (at least that's what the sign said). Some cars made to pull off to the side (have no idea what kind of silliness they got put through), I got waved through (I guess I looked "responsible" or something).

On the one hand, I'm glad they're out trying to nail drunk drivers and what-not, but on the other, it seemed to be kind of a weird place for it - there really aren't any bars or clubs in that area and it's mostly just commercial businesses - a Home Depot, a Best Buy, a Costco, a couple of gas stations, a few strip malls and so-forth. I'm not complaining about having to add 3 or 4 minutes to my 10-minute commute, but I sort of wonder if this is just a "show of force" thing or what. Is it even legal to stop people and demand breath tests without probable cause? I don't know for sure that's what the drivers of the cars that got singled out were being put through, but I wonder if there's even a legal issue with them stopping people to question them and determine whether there's then probable cause to continue or escalate the investigation up to and including a sobriety test and/or breath test. In other words, is it legal for them to even initiate an investigation like that in the first place?

Just curious for some of you legal guys. I'd tend to think that anyone bagged during such a checkpoint would have one hell of a case for improper search, but I'm not a laywer either.

What do you guys think about this?

[onlycafe]

i would guess they got a few expired stickers and such in the dragnet. probably extra funding from the insurance company to pay for the extra enforcement man hours. they also fund seat belt blitzes and donate radar guns etc. i agree that taking drunks off the road is a good idea, but the fish in a net strategy does not sit well with me.especially when so much of the process is geared toward revenue enhancement for the locality and the insurance rate hikes for the customers due to points accrued.
any constitutional scholars out there have an opinion on this type of enforcement?

[pwd72s]

Oregon tried 'em for a while, then they got tossed. Not sure why...maybe "probable cause"? Seems to me casting such a wide net would be illegal, but I'm no lawyer. I do know there was a lawsuit. A lady with MS caught at such a checkpoint, wasn't able to "walk the line" or whatever the test was...they took her to jail, towed her car...then finally decided to have her blow the tube. D-oh...no blood alchohol reading. This case could have been a factor in the checkpoints being halted.

[Noah930]

Cannot comment on the constitutionality/legality of it. But I'm all for it. Everyone's got their own level of tolerance for infringement of personal rights/big brother. Personally, I think our society is waaay too lenient on drunk driving. We treat it like a f^&king joke. It's not a big deal ... until someone gets killed. There's great public policy. So as an avowed car-guy--and particularly as a motorcyclist--I would really hate to one day lose my life or limb because some drunk was, well drunk, and took me out because of that.

[red-beard]

Supreme court has reviewed them, oh, maybe 10 years ago and found them constitutional. I doubt it would be found constitutional if reviewed now.

[on2wheels52]

My town had a flurry of letters-to-the-editor re a recent checkpoint. I think they decided driving was a privilege.
Caught 46 in two hours.
I'm glad they weren't invented when I was in high school.
Jim

[Rikao4]

old MP trick,
cruise the NCO club, mark the tires..stop, and talk to you on the way out..
given the amount of no-insurance, and drunks in San Antonio..I pray for the day they start this.
you have no right to be out there drunk, or have no-insurance.
Rika

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Another thing I find a little irksome about it is that it was within maybe a half block of the local Home Depot. Across the street from this particular one is a large vacant lot that is usually home to several dozen "day laborers", who are without a doubt largely illegal aliens. I didn't think to look and see how many were out last night (it was kinda' late, so maybe they'd left already) but the thought that local law enforcement will constantly look the other way about that and simultaneously crack down on what I'm guessing were 99.9% working people either out running errands or going to/from work is largely irritating. Another discussion perhaps, but unfortunately I have to agree with the above comment that it's probably motivated largely due to money. Money and the pursuit of political power is responsible for about 99% of what goes on in the world.

[slakjaw]

IMO no its not legal.

[legion]

They do them all the time in IL.

About 5 years ago, I was pulled over in one. The rookie state trooper (on a city street) gave me a field sobriety test and quickly determined I was not drunk. He then proceeded to measure bumper height, check headlights, turn signals, horn, etc. It wasn't until he decided to check the side windows (they were tinted) that he found something to write me a ticket for.

[dheinz]

If the authorities wanted to crack down on drunk driving, these check points would be set up outside of any college or NFL stadium after game time.

[304065]

This is an extension of the "implied consent doctrine" whereby if you accept the PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway you impliededly agree to forfeit your RIGHT against self-incrimination and search, for example.

If at any time you wish to retain the full measure of your constitutional rights, merely surrender your drivers license. It's the same with airplanes, the NYC subway, security cameras in public transportation, etc.

[Moses]

Originally posted by john_cramer
This is an extension of the "implied consent doctrine" whereby if you accept the PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway you impliededly agree to forfeit your RIGHT against self-incrimination and search, for example.

If at any time you wish to retain the full measure of your constitutional rights, merely surrender your drivers license. It's the same with airplanes, the NYC subway, security cameras in public transportation, etc.

Is that OK with you, John? Is it possible that this "privilege" of driving is actually central to our physical and economic freedom and should be protected from unreasonable search? Not asking what the courts have ruled, what do you think?

[slakjaw]

Originally posted by legion
They do them all the time in IL.

About 5 years ago, I was pulled over in one. The rookie state trooper (on a city street) gave me a field sobriety test and quickly determined I was not drunk. He then proceeded to measure bumper height, check headlights, turn signals, horn, etc. It wasn't until he decided to check the side windows (they were tinted) that he found something to write me a ticket for.

Same thing happened to me. But he gave me a ticket because my drivers license was cracked.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Kind of what I was thinking. This whole thing about "driving is a privilege" is really problematic. Think about it - whose tax dollars pay for the streets? Are you allowed to use those streets? No. Not without paying an EXTRA fee, taxes, surcharges, etc. for the "privilege" of doing so. Seems pretty shaky logic to me. How can a government take away (via eminent domain or whatever other methods used) private property rights to build a public right-of-way under the argument of "public need" or "public interest" and then simulataneously restrict - or outright PROHIBIT its use except if one is willing to make pretty substantial additional concessions? It's like me going into my neighbor's yard and fencing in half his yard, then saying if he wants to use it, he'll have to pay me and also give up any constitutional rights he has in order to do so. Seems kind of a reach to me. . .

Like I said, I don't know why this bugged me so much (I suppose I should just be grateful they were out "supposedly" targeting drunk drivers) but it seems awfully problematic and raises a lot of other issues - most of which don't sit too well with me.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I worked a little late tonight (left around 8:30 or so) and headed across town to get home. I'm on an arterial surface street which normally moves along pretty well but tonight for some reason I notice it's going really slowly. As I creep along, I see there are orange cones. "Great", I'm thinking, "what happened to lure DPW out on a Friday night - pipe rupture or what?" As I get even a little further, I see that there are cops funneling the street down to one lane for a "sobriety checkpoint" (at least that's what the sign said). Some cars made to pull off to the side (have no idea what kind of silliness they got put through), I got waved through (I guess I looked "responsible" or something).

On the one hand, I'm glad they're out trying to nail drunk drivers and what-not, but on the other, it seemed to be kind of a weird place for it - there really aren't any bars or clubs in that area and it's mostly just commercial businesses - a Home Depot, a Best Buy, a Costco, a couple of gas stations, a few strip malls and so-forth. I'm not complaining about having to add 3 or 4 minutes to my 10-minute commute, but I sort of wonder if this is just a "show of force" thing or what. Is it even legal to stop people and demand breath tests without probable cause? I don't know for sure that's what the drivers of the cars that got singled out were being put through, but I wonder if there's even a legal issue with them stopping people to question them and determine whether there's then probable cause to continue or escalate the investigation up to and including a sobriety test and/or breath test. In other words, is it legal for them to even initiate an investigation like that in the first place?

Just curious for some of you legal guys. I'd tend to think that anyone bagged during such a checkpoint would have one hell of a case for improper search, but I'm not a laywer either.

What do you guys think about this?

I think it's an outrageous violation of our rights, but SCOTUS seems to think it's OK behavior.

It's just one more reason i have no faith in anyone in gov't.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by john_cramer
This is an extension of the "implied consent doctrine" whereby if you accept the PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway you impliededly agree to forfeit your RIGHT against self-incrimination and search, for example.

If at any time you wish to retain the full measure of your constitutional rights, merely surrender your drivers license. It's the same with airplanes, the NYC subway, security cameras in public transportation, etc.

You can make your bold privilege letters 10 feet tall if you want, i do not recognize the right of the Gestapo to roust the populace without probable cause, and the police DO NOT have my consent to search anything of mine without a warrant. I say "Privilege my balls!"(that's like ear-ache my eye!), driving is integral to the right to pursue happiness in this day and age.

That's what MY constitution says. And mine is the only one that matters to me.

If we got to treat cops(or pols) like they treated us, the laws would be enforced(and written) much differently.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

m21, I do sort of agree with you. It's really hard to say "driving is a privilege not a right" in this day and age - especially in a city like this where there's no meaningful mass-transit, stuff is poorly planned (except at a vehicular scale - zoning and planning department approvals assume vehicular transportation in most cases - pedestrian or mass-transit is usually not even considered), etc. Yes, you CAN technically live without a car now, but it would put one at a HUGE disadvantage and you'd have to put a lot of effort into FORCING your situation to work. FWIW, if it's so "unnecessary" (as "privilege" implies) then why do most states make exceptions for "provisional" driving by convicted DUI offenders to get to/from work, school, etc? Hmmmmm. . . maybe because it's NECESSARY?!?!? "Necessity" implies something that should be provided as a "right" rather than a privilege, doesn't it?

The problem with changing it to say "driving is a right" is you'd get a bunch of idiots that would abuse/misinterpret it. It'd be grounds to get rid of licenses, insurance requirements, etc. (after all, if it's a "right", how can it be restricted?)

The real reason I'm sure is money anyway. By saying it's a "right", states and local municipalities would lose way too much money restricting it and getting people to pay for it. After all, it's much easier justifying making someone pay for a "privilege" than demanding they pay for a "right". I suspect that's the real reason.

[m21sniper]

When felons are convicted they lose all kinds of rights. The right to own firearms, in some cases the right to vote, etc. Likewise, when someone volunteers for the military they give up a lot of rights too.

So there is a proven avenue to restrict someone's 'right to drive' if they are found guilty of X crime. It's only a matter of legislating what said crimes are.

I hope the Dems win the presidency in '08 and commence to stack SCOTUS with liberal after liberal. It's the only way these OUTRAGEOUS violations of the letter and spirit of the constitution will ever be rescinded. Because we were more free under the British.

It was unreasonable search and seizures that were a big part of the reason we revolted the first time to begin with.

[on-ramp]

if you have nothing to hide and are innocent , then what's the problem?