"Sobriety Checkpoints"

Bob Lutz > wrote in
newsan.2005.01.07.01.55.12.626542@blutz:

> As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their holiday
> weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>
> This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
> direction.
>
> How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
> 'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and I'm
> not sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.
>
>

One way is calling it "random" because they take 10 cars and let the rest
pass while the grill the 10 captives.Then grab 10 more.
It truly IS unconstitutional;it interferes with their free travel without
probable cause.It should not matter what mode of transportation is being
used.It's no different than being accosted by highwaymen.

A prime example of how our Judges are destroying the Constitution,by
judicial activism.
Any decent judge would/should toss out any arrests made by "sobriety
checkpoints".(roadblocks)
It would be different if the police had rolling wolf-packs and observed a
vehicle behaving erratically,saw an infraction,or noticed a vehicle problem
such as a dead or wrongly aimed headlight,or excessively loud stereo.It
would even be legit for them to wait down the road from known bars and stop
those observed to be driving erratically.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"James C. Reeves" > wrote in
:

>
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in
> message ups.com...
>> Don't blame the cops for this. Blame the legislators for making the
>> penalty for DUI a fine instead of the madatory prison sentence it
>> should be. As long as DUI penalties are so light, the criminals will
>> keep on driving drunk and the rest of us will have to suffer thru
>> these checkpoints.
>>
>
> How does the level of penalty change the method/type of enforcement?
>
>
>

It seems to me that the police need probable cause or a warrant to stop a
person for questioning,regardless of mode of travel.
If one goes by the letter of the Constitution,which the police and courts
have departed from.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"James C. Reeves" > wrote in
:

>
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in
> message ups.com...
>> Don't blame the cops for this. Blame the legislators for making the
>> penalty for DUI a fine instead of the madatory prison sentence it
>> should be. As long as DUI penalties are so light, the criminals will
>> keep on driving drunk and the rest of us will have to suffer thru
>> these checkpoints.
>>
>
> How does the level of penalty change the method/type of enforcement?
>
>
>

It seems to me that the police need probable cause or a warrant to stop a
person for questioning,regardless of mode of travel.
If one goes by the letter of the Constitution,which the police and courts
have departed from.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Bob Lutz wrote:

> How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
> 'checkpoint'?

That's easy, Bob.

Groups like MADD issue shrill demands that Something Be Done <tm> about
drunk driving. The cops don't want to appear soft on crime, especially
when the chief is up for replacement, so they set up checkpoints. These
checkpoints catch virtually no dangerous drivers, but they are a feelgood
bit of window dressing so the cops can be seen to be Doing Something About
Drunk Driving <tm>.

Look on the bright side: With cops wasting their time this way, they're
not out enforcing underposted speed limits.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Bob Lutz wrote:

> How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
> 'checkpoint'?

That's easy, Bob.

Groups like MADD issue shrill demands that Something Be Done <tm> about
drunk driving. The cops don't want to appear soft on crime, especially
when the chief is up for replacement, so they set up checkpoints. These
checkpoints catch virtually no dangerous drivers, but they are a feelgood
bit of window dressing so the cops can be seen to be Doing Something About
Drunk Driving <tm>.

Look on the bright side: With cops wasting their time this way, they're
not out enforcing underposted speed limits.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Aww heck, all ya gotta do is buy a scanner from Wal-mart for $50 and
> you can avoid dem dar check points.
Wrong........check points clam up
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Aww heck, all ya gotta do is buy a scanner from Wal-mart for $50 and
> you can avoid dem dar check points.
Wrong........check points clam up
>

Bob Lutz wrote:

> As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their holiday
> weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>
> This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
> direction.
>
> How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
> 'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and I'm not
> sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.
>
>

It does according to the police and the courts.

I suggest that you write your state representative and express your
feelings. It won't do any good, of course, as the Constitution has
already been not only used as bogroll but has already floated down the
Potomac and is somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Bob Lutz wrote:

> As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their holiday
> weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>
> This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
> direction.
>
> How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
> 'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and I'm not
> sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.
>
>

It does according to the police and the courts.

I suggest that you write your state representative and express your
feelings. It won't do any good, of course, as the Constitution has
already been not only used as bogroll but has already floated down the
Potomac and is somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Bob Lutz > wrote in
> newsan.2005.01.07.01.55.12.626542@blutz:
>
>
>>As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their holiday
>>weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>>
>>This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
>>direction.
>>
>>How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
>>'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and I'm
>>not sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.
>>
>>
>
>
> One way is calling it "random" because they take 10 cars and let the rest
> pass while the grill the 10 captives.Then grab 10 more.
> It truly IS unconstitutional;it interferes with their free travel without
> probable cause.It should not matter what mode of transportation is being
> used.It's no different than being accosted by highwaymen.

Not here (DC and VA) they don't. They block off a road and stop
everybody. Now they only give "extra attention" to those actually
appearing inebriated, but EVERYONE has to stop, there's no flagging down
of every 3rd car or anything, it is a hard checkpoint.

>
> A prime example of how our Judges are destroying the Constitution,by
> judicial activism.
> Any decent judge would/should toss out any arrests made by "sobriety
> checkpoints".(roadblocks)
> It would be different if the police had rolling wolf-packs and observed a
> vehicle behaving erratically,saw an infraction,or noticed a vehicle problem
> such as a dead or wrongly aimed headlight,or excessively loud stereo.It
> would even be legit for them to wait down the road from known bars and stop
> those observed to be driving erratically.
>

Agreed 100%. Probably would be more effective as well.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel