I get stopped frequently at checkpoints when I travel.
The routine is always the same: "Papers." "What's your business here?" "Is this your car?" "Open the trunk." etc.

It's only a minor inconvenience to carry your papers with you, or to be detained while you justify your activities, and it will help create jobs for our unemployed.

Exactly; a minor inconvenience ...

Even one mile of drunk driving is one too many, which means that, really, if we are truly concerned about road-safety, we will have check point every mile.

I have a better idea. Cops set-up an autocross type course of cones lined with cones & spike strips. If the driver is too drunk, sleepy, or really into their TM they are giving up their tires.

Seriously, there HAS to be some other, more reasonable, alternatives to the "only kinda unconstitutional" searches.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pTG5rWF_Uis" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Well that's disturbing.

I got stuck in a DUI checkpoint last week. They had Malibu Canyon backed up for more than a mile and made presumably thousands of people late by 20+ minutes. From what I could tell they hadn't caught any DUI's, yet. Very intrusive and costly, although I do applaud efforts to get unsafe drivers off the road.

Unlawful search, requiring you to open your trunk when you're not under reasonable suspicion of breaking the law right then, or subject to an existing warrant. AFAIK. I'd refuse the search.

I'd refuse every police search. If they have PC, they don't need your consent. If they ask for it, they either want to cover their asses or they have no PC. Depending on your state, it'd take a some serious PC to open your trunk against your wishes. And after AZ vs. Gant, there's no more search incident to arrest unless it's looking for further evidence of the original charges, not a fishing expedition as used to be allowed. Nothing in your trunk can pose an officer safety issue or constitute evidence of being DUI.

Agreed. In fact even in the People's Republic of California, courts have upheld that a trunk constitutes a "locked container" for purposes of legally transporting a firearm - a glove box (even locked) does not - at least such was the case when I lived there, so double-check for a more recent interpretation of this (such things change) rather than taking my word for it, but it's worth pointing out because it validates your above point about trunks.

In the words of an old teacher of mine, "never give 'em an easy one - if someone wants to get you into trouble, make them work so hard at it that it won't be worth their effort".

Not to mention the Constitutional implications, this is (or should be) common sense.

It's not just a matter of making them work to get you in trouble. You also want a plausible court defense if you end up hooked and booked for something they found. If you consent to a search, you can't challenge the grounds for the search in court. Look up some of those old threads on what folks here have found in used cars they've bought and then tell me you can be 101% certain there's no contraband in your car. I found a baggie of white powder and some loose .22 ammo in my first BMW 2002 when I brought it home from buying it at 16. What do you think a NJ state trooper would have done about that, had I consented to a search and he'd found it first?

interesting. because here in IL, the supreme court did rule that glovebox does constitute a "secure case"

If a glovebox is locked, it would seem next to impossible for a driver to access it during a police stop, while his keys are either still in the ignition or in the cop's hands. Though there'd obviously be no way for the cop to know from looking at it if it was locked or not. Of course, I keep my docs in the glovebox, so I supposed opening it to retrieve them would make that area subject to a Terry search IF the cop had RAS for one. Fortunately, in AZ you can carry a gun in your car if you're legal to own one. I do kind of wonder how it works with motorcycle side cases in CA though. Obviously, they're totally inaccessible to the rider while riding and almost inaccessible during a police stop without getting off the bike and making a ruckus, which would get the cop excited. I keep them locked all the time anyway.

I'm not sure why anyone would do anything but cooperate? If you have nothing to hide whats the problem? Answer the questions, say goodbye and go on your way.

If they pick up a couple of drunks and a few un-insured / un-licensed drivers too then all the better. I don't get the problem.

Yes, just go along, go along. Help further the police state. Soon they'll be coming to your house for random searches too. Hey, if you have nothing to hide, why not submit? Where does it end?

I work from home, have no commute and still see enough traffic law violations on a daily basis to keep the police busy and their coffers full forever, if they really cared about enforcing road safety.

Hard to refuse when you're not a native and the person asking is also holding an FAL, AK, HK91, etc.

Give it time. We will have this here as soon as somebody figures out that it's necessary for National Security(tm) or to stop the Terrorists(tm).

You don't want the terrorists to win, do you?

http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/t...y/e3171ed1.jpg


I find it interesting that so many feel that these "safety" checkpoints being discussed in this thread are an egregious trampling of their constitutional rights, yet so many people feel that the TSA patdowns are acceptable as a necessary part of travel in the modern post 9-11 world.

I don't know anyone, other than politicians and bureaucrats, who thinks TSA procedures are acceptable or even effective.

Wow! -- that's pretty frightening. It was only a matter of seconds before the first cop said he was going to smash in the window. Looks like several egregious violations took place there all in a matter of minutes. The cops seemed more concerned about being challenged than they did about knowing/upholding the law (at least that's my first reaction).

Where was this and when did this happen? I would love to know more about this case as I'm not sure who was in the right in this situation. On the surface it looks like the cops waaaaaay overreacted, but then again, what do you do with a "customer" who won't comply with any request? I don't know, somebody please edumicate me....

Friggin' scary either way.

Worth the 30 minutes.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i8z7NC5sgik" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That clip is a must-watch and gets really good when the VA Statie explains how he tricks people into confessions.

I made a post about something like this a while back. I did a bunch of work on a 930 for a guy. He had owned it for over 5 years. I was looking for an open wire, and while fishing around in his front trunk, I found at least a 1/4 oz of pot. The guy was appalled, and I am 100% sure it was not his. Just imagine if he had been caught speeding, and they searched
I will NEVER give consent to search. I learned my lesson when I was young. If you want to search my car, go get a warrant.
Are you holding me officer, or am I free to go now?

Escondido, Ca. Northeastern part of San Diego county

Suit says Escondido checkpoints violate law - SignOnSanDiego.com

I haven't gone back to verify, but I strongly suspect that the guys railing against TSA patdowns have the same opinions re: these safety checkpoints.

We did get pulled-over at random in Russia for a 'document check' (I wasn't driving, a native citizen was.). We also saw people stopped near train stations and so forth, pedestrians literally yanked off the sidewalk and asked for ID. Different world...or is it?

When I was in Norway I was told to expect a simple stop where once the window is down, the cop will push a breathalyzer tube to your face and will simple say "blow."

So, that seems to the point.

Here, I still don't get how the charade of "let me see your papers . .where did you come from... where are you headed..." is allowed.

I'm all for it if it helps get some of the drunks off the road.

130 were arrested at a checkpoint in Raleigh last year.

DWI checkpoint nets 130 arrests in Wake County :: WRAL.com


Meanwhile a truck driver high on drugs and alcohol slammed into a few vehicles on interstate 40 killing three and wounding others:mad:

Driver charged in triple fatal I-40 crash :: WRAL.com

A few pics from the wreck John was referencing.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1309538398.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1309538415.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1309538427.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1309538445.jpg

Holy schitt!

The majority of accidents are not from drunks. ...so now what?

Poor drivers just driving along and getting steam rolled without warning.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 37,261 people died in traffic crashes in 2008 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 11,773 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash every 45 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2009)

Point is, being out on the road is dangerous even if ALL drunks are removed. --which isn't too likely.

So, that begs the Q; Why are we giving up our rights for this very slight increase in safety?

I thought driving was a priviledge, not a right.

100 Citations Issued at Fontana DUI Checkpoint
By Laura Fishman on March 16, 2010 12:01 PM

The Fontana Police Department conducted a drunk driving and driver's license checkpoint last Saturday in order to crack down on people who were driving while intoxicated, but Fontana Herald News reports that Saturday's checkpoint yielded few DUI arrests and numerous citations.

Of the 1,501 vehicles that drove through the DUI checkpoint in Fontana, 153 of the vehicles were stopped and 123 citations were issued for various traffic violations. In addition, 91 vehicles were impounded for various reasons, including driving without a valid driver's license.

While over 100 citations were issued for various traffic violations at the checkpoint, the San Bernardino Sun reports that Fontana police officers were only able to arrest eight people at the checkpoint that was being held on Citrus Avenue, across from Fontana High School. Of the eight arrests, only two people were actually arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence.

The checkpoint lasted from 6:00 p.m. on Saturday to 1:30 a.m. on Sunday, and after seven and a half hours you would probably expect to find more than two people who are suspected of driving under the influence. Yet some law enforcers and DUI lawyers in Los Angeles argue that a sobriety checkpoint isn't about arresting as many as people as possible for DUI, but instead has the purpose of educating the community about the dangers associated with drinking and driving. In Fontana, the DUI checkpoints are funded by a grant that comes from the California Office of Traffic Safety, which is funded through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


Check 10% of the cars driving down the road and 80% are violating the vehicle code and 60% should not be driving at all!

In North Carolina, the percentage of traffic fatalities that were alcohol related was at the highest level in 1982, with 63%. The percentage has dropped significantly, reaching the lowest levels in 2006, with 31%. The actual number of alcohol-related deaths was also highest in 1982, with 827. In the most recent year of stats, out of all traffic fatalities, 30% involved a blood alcohol concentration at or above the level considered legally intoxicated - .08%.

All 50 states in the US now apply two statutory offenses to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The first (and original) offense is known either as driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated/impaired (DWI), or operating while intoxicated/impaired (OWI). This is based upon a police officer's observations (driving behavior, slurred speech, the results of a roadside sobriety test, etc.)

The second offense is called "illegal per se", which is driving with a BAC of 0.08% or higher. Since 2002 it has been illegal in all 50 states to drive with a BAC that is 0.08% or higher.

Year Fatalities
Tot Alc-Rel % 0.08+ %
1982 1,303 827 63 743 57
1983 1,234 672 54 609 49
1984 1,450 750 52 672 46
1985 1,482 686 46 605 41
1986 1,647 806 49 711 43
1987 1,584 764 48 682 43
1988 1,573 709 45 633 40
1989 1,471 621 42 556 38
1990 1,385 644 46 575 42
1991 1,369 600 44 547 40
1992 1,265 567 45 502 40
1993 1,389 529 38 459 33
1994 1,431 535 37 473 33
1995 1,448 501 35 443 31
1996 1,494 546 37 471 32
1997 1,483 545 37 472 32
1998 1,596 581 36 506 32
1999 1,505 573 38 491 33
2000 1,557 614 39 533 34
2001 1,530 536 35 458 30
2002 1,576 592 38 527 33
2003 1,531 554 36 474 31
2004 1,557 553 35 496 32
2005 1,534 549 36 484 32
2006 1,558 490 31 420 27
2007 1,675 570 34 487 29
2008 1,433 500 35 423 30

Fontana police arrest 5
Lori Consalvo, Staff Writer
Created: 06/13/2011 08:24:14 PM PDT

FONTANA - A police checkpoint resulted in dozens of citations and vehicle impounds as well as five arrests Saturday night and early Sunday.

Officers with the Fontana Police Department conducted the drunken driving and driver's license checkpoint between 6 p.m. Saturday and 1:30 a.m. Sunday on Valley Boulevard at Catawba Avenue.

Police stopped 55 vehicles and issued 47 citations, according to a police statement. Police also towed 32 vehicles.

One of the five people arrested was found to be under the influence of alcohol, and the other four were arrested on outstanding warrants.

The checkpoint was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety

Check 55 cars driving down the road and 85% are violating the vehicle code and 60% should not be driving at all!

regardless of if driving a right or privilege, we have one right deemed so important that it was put into our US Constitution. That is citizens are given protection from unreasonable search and seizure. ...where "unreasonable" hinges on probable cause.

Clearly, that right is being corrupted by those police blockades.

Ah, you focus on statistics to 'cherry pick' from all accidents to select/present only fatal accidents. That would make sense, since the non-drunk accident drivers are less likely to drive 70 mph into a tree. (killing themselves) ...how many only kill themselves?

The statistic I would like to see, would be my chances of being killed by a drunk driver. . ..and what are my chances of drowning in a swimming pool or hot-tub.

Ummm, no. I didn't cherry pick anything. I posted stats directly related to your myopic post about drunks. I wouldn't call that kind of reduction in human deaths "slight". Wanna bet alcohol related INJURIES are down too? That would add to the safety, no?

I could look up WA stats to see how less likely you are to die on the road from a drunk for the same time periods.

Maybe it's slightly less than slight.:rolleyes:

uh huh. My post was about statistics. If there is a myopia, it's with those who have a simple 'drunks = bad => must have gestapo-type check points for safety for everyone. POV.

Seriously, look at what is happening here. The LEOs are not looking ONLY for drunks at these stops. The "we will SAVE-aha thou from the EVIL-aha Drunk-aha Driver" routine is just for selling the check points as an acceptable intrusion.

Like I said, I have no problem with all sorts of other approaches to nab drunks - this roadside random search approach is unconstitutional. The supreme court opinion that it is only kind of unconstitutional doesn't help.