Lets discuss roadside traffic safety checkpioints..
 

Just went through one, out in the middle of the boonies. My dad and I were on our way to pick up a rear axle for a Ford Explorer at a rural salvage yard. They stop all traffic, and check your drivers license, registration and insurance cards, make sure you have your seat belts on, and ask if you have been drinking. I told him that I had been hitting it pretty hard this morning, and fortunately, he had a good sense of humor. laughed checked me out ,and sent my on my way.
Can you say revenue generator?
This was the State Police by the way, I think we counted 8 patrol cars sitting there, making sure our highways, and by ways are safe Good thing I was not trying to move a kilo of blow.

I'm going to my ex-BIL's tonight a few miles from my house. The wife is dropping me off, I'll be drinking and taking a cab home. $12 with tip, cheap insurance.

It might generate revenue, but with eight cars and personnel I can't see how it would be much of a profit center. Speed cameras - that's where to make the big bucks.

I would refuse to answer any questions. AFAIK, they cannot stop every car. It has to be a set rule like every third car, for example, but it can't be random and it can't be every car. Cooperating with them is furthering the police state. I'd be the one asking the questions like - Why did you stop me? Am I free to go?

I use a different tactic myself.
Jim

They do that quite often around Pittsburgh--always city cops. They are called "courtesy checkpoints" As if detaining me for no valid reason is a courtesy to me. Total BS--they check for seatbelts, valid lic., insurance, inspection, and also do some fishing. Cops that I have encountered at these points are total j-offs. They stand in the middle of the road, pointing out which vehicles to pull to the side where the rest of the gang waits. The ones I encountered most frequently are on busy 4-lane roads, which are already jammed with traffic during "normal" commutes(banksville road and RT 51).

I still cannot believe that these and other checkpoints are legal.:mad:

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

I got stopped ten times or so in Mexico. Was there a month and drove about 5000 miles in the country. I don't know why I was stopped except for the times they said "fruita?" which meant they were looking for produce. Otherwise they'd say something that I assumed was a request for my papers. I'd give them the registration and insurance papers, they'd kind of look at it, but for all the attention they gave it could have been upside down. They'd try to ask some questions, but their English was worse than my Mesican. They'd send me on my way. It got to be kind of funny.

I actually don't mind those kinds of stops. I really think they do promote road safety, whether it be alcohol, seatbelts, etc. Certainly they're not trying to cash in on BS speeding tickets. And they're always very polite, explaining what they're doing, what they're looking for. Doesn't bother me a bit.

At the end, Winston discovered that he really did love big brother...

no big deal..
what does bother me is ..
Fernando with no Lis. or Ins. getting a pass..
so what's the point..
well legal citizens tend to pay the fines..
the illegals just laugh at us and the police..
deport/arrest them.. not likely..
so the best thing to do Rick..
is get a better tan..
& mumble no ainglais..
they will just wave you thru..

Rika

I have only ever encountered two. One I avoided, thinking it was an accident scene, by doing a U-turn on the median strip and taking another route home. I learned the following morning it was a checkpoint. Where I turned around was a good mile away, so they were really messing up traffic. The second one they just had everyone drive real slow through the lighted area and had some nurses or people wearing scrubs handing out pamphlets on DUI. It was such a joke. I came real close to hitting a truck on my bike the other day because all three of its brake lights were out. It's a real problem around here. Seems they could keep real busy by going after such people, not bother everyone else, make the roads safer and raise some revenue.

"new shurff in town!" well i can top that one! about 20minutes ago ripping to go get some crap at home depot, i am behind a typical one horsey town driver doing btwn 15-18mph in a 25mph zona.


well after she pulls out onto main drag, i look left,look right and look left agin just like sgt. safety says i should.


old bitty is doing 25 in the 35mph. well since time is money.......i kick it in the azz. pass her on the left and just as i am going down off hill,headed south, across from the sgt. safety mobile radar(dar-dar) trailer, my escort lets out this yell that damn near made me POO MESELF! it was "LAY-ZAR BEAM DEATH RAYS" (laser beam death rays)! HOLY ****! throw out the danforth anchors, drop my flaps, and dump my feet on the ground like barney rubble! cop is standing out of his vehicle with "lazar beam death ray" pointed at me. and THEN...........his KA band in his car goes off in my ear! HOLY NED the TRIFECTA OF DEATH!


well due to my finely tuned,razor sharp reflexes..............he didnt get ME!


but the red ferd truck behind me who was following behind me while following the ol bitty got nailed bigger than poo! he just pulled over even before cop could get back into car to follow him.


so in court, i imagine that the judge knowing full well that the cop, having a lazar beam death ray, a KA band, and the K band mobile "dar-dar" trailer, you wouldnt stand a chance beating it!


the trailer is about 12 ft high and yer speed is indicated in yellow if 5mph over 35mph zone. after 40mph it is lite up in red numerals to indicate that you are a FELON!



this azzhat cop is having a field day



so its going to be dooom-o de dooom-o for quite a few people while this clown is out there.



me..................well at 430am to 530am, i have gotten that damn trailer up to about 86mph. my record so far!

If you have nice pinkish-Scots-Irish skin like me, you could pull up to the stop and ask "Do I need my green card?"

Do not attempt with sun tan or dark hair...

Was stopped on two different occassions by this type of check in rural VA and NC while working a site over the last three months. Both times around 11-12 PM.

Clearly they were looking for the unlicensed/uninsured/inebriated.

Pulled out the East Central Illinois accent and no worries...:D

me..................well at 430am to 530am, i have gotten that damn trailer up to about 86mph. my record so far![/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

i should have stated "i got the radar trailer numbers up to 86mph so far."

Immigration groups praise LAPD's impound policy at DUI checkpoints | abc7.com

They do a lot of them around here....cops say they catch more habitual DWIs during the day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"...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.

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.

+100

+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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.