Lets discuss roadside traffic safety checkpioints..

[cashflyer]

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.

[island911]

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.

[willtel]

[island911]

Well that's disturbing.

[campbellcj]

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.

[campbellcj]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

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.

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.

[Rick Lee]

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.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

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.

[Rick Lee]

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?

[krystar]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

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.

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

[Rick Lee]

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.

[andyt11]

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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by andyt11

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.

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.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

I get stopped frequently at checkpoints when I travel.

Originally Posted by campbellcj

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.

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?




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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

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.

[Noney]

Originally Posted by willtel

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.

[stomachmonkey]

Worth the 30 minutes.

[Rick Lee]

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

[fastfredracing]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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?

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?

[lowyder993s]

Originally Posted by Noney

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.

Escondido, Ca. Northeastern part of San Diego county

Suit says Escondido checkpoints violate law - SignOnSanDiego.com