Lets discuss roadside traffic safety checkpioints..

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Seems to me this sort of thing is clearly prohibited by the Constitution.

Next time I see one of these, instead of going around it, like practically anyone could, I will go through it and tell them, "Illegal aliens can't get a driver's license, insurance or register their car," just to see what they say. If they hold me, I can sue them for the double standard, if they don't I can write a letter to the editor about it.

IIRC, Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion when this kind of BS when to the SCOTUS and he basically admitted it was illegal, but a compelling state interest in road safety outweighs that. You'd get nowhere fast with any kind lawsuit based on a "double standard." Most of our laws and gov't. regs involve them. The 14th Amendment is a farce.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain that these things are legitimized by taking the position of "driving is a privilege, not a right" and as such, as a condition of one's license and the "privilege" of driving (sitting in traffic, paying a fortune in registrations, fees and taxes, etc.) one forfeits their right and therefore is able to be subjected to these kinds of indignities. At least that's sort of how the logic goes - perhaps someone more erudite in the intricacies of the legal system can elaborate or explain better.

As a Constitutionalist I have some problems with this line of thinking - it is a slippery slope. If driving on a public road constructed with forcibly-taken public monies (even from those who might not drive) is a privilege, what about walking on a public sidewalk? On a public park? Where does it end? There are a litany of SCOTUS cases on this trying to narrow down this sort of issue and make the slippery slope a bit less slippery - but it's a difficult challenge to say the least.

Obviously the extreme position on the opposite end is to say that the Constitution is absolute and should transcend any exceptions - and you get the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. So where does one draw the line between what's a reasonable restriction and an unreasonable one?

For $300 an hour I could debate this stuff all day too, but you get the idea.

[Superman]

I seem to be done jousting with windmills over on PARF, though I am still keenly, wildly interested in public policy formation. Both sides call each other names and accuse each other of heinous values. It is certainly interesting to me that both sides of the aisle seem to abhor these "roadblock" DUI interrogations. In a broader sense, it is interesting to me that conservatives accuse liberals of hoping to use gubmit to control citizens' behavior. I am substantially liberal in my political views, and I believe (and so do virtually all of my liberal friends) that gubmit should get the fuk out of peoples' personal business. But yes, we think commerce needs regulating.

Sorry if this thread gets tossed into the PARF fire due to my observations.

[Rick Lee]

No, implied consent has nothing to do with sobriety checkpoints. Imagine the irony if it did and unlicensed illegals could blow through them because they never signed a DL, thereby giving "implied consent."

Have a read.

Opinion: Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional?
Attorney Lawrence Taylor explains the constitutionality of DUI roadblocks.

Have you ever wondered how police can stop you at a DUI roadblock (aka "sobriety checkpoint")? Doesn't the Constitution require them to have "probable cause before stopping you"? Yes and no.

The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn't make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion... The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."

Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example.

Mr. Taylor is an attorney with the Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor and author of the standard text on DUI litigation, Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition.

[Rick Lee]

There are countless people who will tolerate or even support gross violations of Constitution by the state because it either doesn't affect them or is a minor inconvenience. Very sad state of affairs.

[Radioactive]

In California the laws says if you don't have a valid Drivers License they are supposed to impound your car for 30 days. If you don't have a license you don't have insurance and that affects ME.

They had one of those check points in Fontana,Ca a few months ago, 40% of the cars that were checked had to be impounded.

I am all for them, have more check points.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

There are countless people who will tolerate or even support gross violations of Constitution by the state because it either doesn't affect them or is a minor inconvenience. Very sad state of affairs.

"...at first they came for the communists but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the gypsies but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a gypsy..."

You know how that one ends.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by on2wheels52

I use a different tactic myself.
Jim

Right, if I can, I go around. Not because I have anything to hide, just because it's a pain in the rear. I think I've only seen one of these things once or twice in teh 25ish years that I've been driving.

Originally Posted by vash

i think i am for them. too many idiot running around without insurance in my area. i'd like them fumagated from our roads.

+100

Originally Posted by Rikao4

no big deal..
what does bother me is ..
Fernando with no Lis. or Ins. getting a pass..
so what's the point..
Rika

+1

I've got no problems with Hispanics (at least around here, they could be from any central or south American country, not just Mexico). Many of them work REALLY hard for less pay than they would if they weren't tan. I have a problem with illegals regardless of where they are from, Asia, Canada, Africa, Europe. They are ILLEGAL.

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by masraum

Right, if I can, I go around. Not because I have anything to hide, just because it's a pain in the rear. I think I've only seen one of these things once or twice in teh 25ish years that I've been driving.

You know, we did that once (inadvertently) when I was in college. We turned off the main drag where they were hosting the sobriety checkpoint and onto a side street a block before the roadside soiree. Mainly because that was the way to one girl's house. As we pulled up to her driveway to drop her off, we were followed by a squad car in flashing lights who admitted he was just checking up on us to make sure our driver wasn't inebriated.

[Mark Henry]

In Canada they can only legally ask you if you have been drinking, but they always try to push the limits. They always try the "and where are you going tonight? I always point at the front windshield and say "that way".
They get the hint PDQ and send me on my way.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Mark Henry

In Canada they can only legally ask you if you have been drinking, but they always try to push the limits. They always try the "and where are you going tonight? I always point at the front windshield and say "that way".
They get the hint PDQ and send me on my way.

A lot of people here really think they're talking their way out of trouble by being cooperative. You don't have to say a word here. Everything the cop needs to know is on the documents you're required to show when he asks. Verbal answers are totally unnecessary and can only get you in trouble.

[Mark Henry]

Again "legally" at what we call RIDE (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) checks they can't even ask for your ID. They are only allowed to ask if you have been drinking.
My wife always used to ask me why I just didn't answer the cops questions, once I explained it to her she changed her tune. Now she just says "No I haven't been drinking tonight" to all of their questions.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

A lot of people here really think they're talking their way out of trouble by being cooperative. You don't have to say a word here. Everything the cop needs to know is on the documents you're required to show when he asks. Verbal answers are totally unnecessary and can only get you in trouble.

Why would anyone be required to show doc's when the only thing the cops are supposed to be finding , is whether or not one is drunk?

[Rick Lee]

Because you don't have to say a word when they pull you over. Obviously, if you refuse to answer questions, they're going to ask for docs.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Radioactive

In California the laws says if you don't have a valid Drivers License they are supposed to impound your car for 30 days. If you don't have a license you don't have insurance and that affects ME.

They had one of those check points in Fontana,Ca a few months ago, 40% of the cars that were checked had to be impounded.

I am all for them, have more check points.

this does not apply to illegal immigrants, certainly in LA county, probably in many jurisdictions

Seems like they should have to prove that it is Constitutional, rather than visa versa

Supes, that is exactly opposite to my experience in the lib/con thing I could go on, but this would get punted then.

[Radioactive]

California Vehicle Code

CVC 14602.6. (a) (1) Whenever a peace officer determines that a person
was driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was
suspended or revoked, driving a vehicle while his or her driving
privilege is restricted pursuant to Section 13352 or 23575 and the
vehicle is not equipped with a functioning, certified interlock
device, or driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver'
s license, the peace officer may either immediately arrest that
person and cause the removal and seizure of that vehicle or, if the
vehicle is involved in a traffic collision, cause the removal and
seizure of the vehicle without the necessity of arresting the person
in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of
Division 11. A vehicle so impounded shall be impounded for 30 days.

CVC 14607.6. (c) (1) If a driver is unable to produce a valid driver's license
on the demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this
code, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 12951, the vehicle
SHALL be impounded regardless of ownership, unless the peace officer
is reasonably able, by other means, to verify that the driver is
properly licensed. Prior to impounding a vehicle, a peace officer
shall attempt to verify the license status of a driver who claims to
be properly licensed but is unable to produce the license on demand
of the peace officer.

It's the answer to everything. Less traffic, less smog from all the crappy cars.

The down side more illegals standing in front of Home Depot.

Make all those illegal's walk!

[Tobra]

I am just saying dude, not in LA
LAPD eases impound policy for illegal immigrants | 89.3 KPCC

[Radioactive]

It's true they don't.

I am saying they should!

Why does the LAPD get to pick and choose what parts of the Vehicle Code they are going to enforce.

That whole crap that we drive without a license because we need to is BS. What's next I was DUI because I needed to get home, please.

[Superman]

Nobody else thinks it's ironic that Rehnquist, a staunch conservative (the staunchest, prior to Scalia) is the supporter of this Constitutional interpretation?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Superman

Nobody else thinks it's ironic that Rehnquist, a staunch conservative (the staunchest, prior to Scalia) is the supporter of this Constitutional interpretation?

I find it outrageous. Ironic would be too generous.