"Sobriety Checkpoints"

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:55:12 -0700, 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.
>

IANAL, but I believe the rationale is that there is a compelling and
immediate safety hazard created by drunks and as long as their
targeting of people to check is unbiased it is not a violation of our
rights.

(I'm not saying I agree with that, but I believe that's the reasoning
behind courts allowing such checkpoints).

Drug checkpoints were tried and ruled unconstitutional because simply
possessing drugs doesn't pose a hazard to other drivers.

Colorado (and I've heard other states) has sometimes put up signs
saying "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" and lying in wait to see who turns
around or starts dumping stuff out.

Of course, there is no drug checkpoint ahead. I believe the first
time they did that was for a bluegrass festival.

Legalize Bluegrass!

In article >, Olaf Gustafson wrote:

> I've heard they often announce where and when they'll be. I have yet
> to find any of these notices where I live now, but the conventional
> wisdom holds that they only do them on major holiday weekends and in
> the 2 years I've lived in a state fascist enough to have such
> checkpoints, I've never seen one.

I've seen several, that if announced it wasnt done in a manner I would
see it. Because my commute to work is short (in distance) and the culture at
the company isn't one of get in early I avoid traffic by leaving later
than most people. I've seen checkpoints being dismantled on my route 3-4
times. This is morning commute, M-F.

In article >, Olaf Gustafson wrote:

> I've heard they often announce where and when they'll be. I have yet
> to find any of these notices where I live now, but the conventional
> wisdom holds that they only do them on major holiday weekends and in
> the 2 years I've lived in a state fascist enough to have such
> checkpoints, I've never seen one.

I've seen several, that if announced it wasnt done in a manner I would
see it. Because my commute to work is short (in distance) and the culture at
the company isn't one of get in early I avoid traffic by leaving later
than most people. I've seen checkpoints being dismantled on my route 3-4
times. This is morning commute, M-F.

In article <pan.2005.01.07.01.55.12.626542@blutz>,
Bob Lutz > wrote:
>
>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.

You can check Supreme Court cases at various sources, but take a few
anti-depressants before doing so. The upshot is that the magical phrase
"drunk driving" overrides the Fourth Amendment. (and "vehicle" all by
itself comes close).

In article <pan.2005.01.07.01.55.12.626542@blutz>,
Bob Lutz > wrote:
>
>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.

You can check Supreme Court cases at various sources, but take a few
anti-depressants before doing so. The upshot is that the magical phrase
"drunk driving" overrides the Fourth Amendment. (and "vehicle" all by
itself comes close).

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:40:57 -0500, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

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

Hadn't thought about it like that...

This all came about because I was caught up in one as I was leaving my
work. They had set it up within sight of my work, and the only way home
from there goes through it. What boggled me, was that here I am, in my
work uniform, reeking of burgers, and he still gave me the once-over.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:40:57 -0500, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

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

Hadn't thought about it like that...

This all came about because I was caught up in one as I was leaving my
work. They had set it up within sight of my work, and the only way home
from there goes through it. What boggled me, was that here I am, in my
work uniform, reeking of burgers, and he still gave me the once-over.

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .

> 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.

Not once, since I started driving in 1976, have I ever encountered a
sobriety checkpoint (or gotten a DUI--I don't drink and drive). I'm not
even sure they're legal here in Oregon anymore, but I do drive in other
states.

If I do happen to encounter one, and refuse to submit to the FST, what are
the consequences?

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .

> 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.

Not once, since I started driving in 1976, have I ever encountered a
sobriety checkpoint (or gotten a DUI--I don't drink and drive). I'm not
even sure they're legal here in Oregon anymore, but I do drive in other
states.

If I do happen to encounter one, and refuse to submit to the FST, what are
the consequences?

Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

> "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Not once, since I started driving in 1976, have I ever encountered a
> sobriety checkpoint (or gotten a DUI--I don't drink and drive). I'm not
> even sure they're legal here in Oregon anymore, but I do drive in other
> states.
>
> If I do happen to encounter one, and refuse to submit to the FST, what are
> the consequences?
>
>

In Virginia at least if you don't stop for the checkpoint, you get
arrested for evading. If you stop and are requested to take a sobriety
test and refuse, I believe that's an automatic DUI.

nate

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