Police stopping for license checks on Raleigh Road

You got it FRosty:cheers::cheers: oops maybe I shouldn't use the beer toast. :jester:

 

Why not? They stop you without a warrant or just cause.

 

If you are on a public road, I'm not sure your rights ARE being violated. :?

 

BS Clif BS

 

It's a public road, but a private vehicle.

 

Lame excuse. You could hold a demonstration (in your front yard if you have to) and convince your fellow citizens that their rights are being taken away by these DWI stops. Then once you have everyone enraged about it you will be able to hold fundraisers and collect funds (I mean a lot of lemonade stand money adds up) and you'll have your money to file your lawsuit and support your movement. :lol:

 

I can't afford to get into an argument about this because my blood pressure would go up and I'd melt so I'll just say that I agree with the check points and sorry to those that don't.

Peace and love to all,
Frosty da Snow Woman

 

Again BS time to put on the chest waders its getting deep.

 

Clif,

Here's the way I see it.

Carrying a license and driving on public roads means you agree to abide by the terms and conditions and rules set forth to drive on those roads. So yes, it's a private vehicle, that they can't enter without just cause (ie-the smell of pot coming from the car), but by speaking with you from the public roadway, they can determine with decent authenticity if you're intoxicated. At that point, they have just cause to investigate further.

You likened this to police going door to door to search. Let's say for the sake of argument that a child was missing, and the police were conducting door to door searches, asking people if they'd seen the child. I come to the door, open it, and say no, I don't know where the kid is, but behind me on the sofa, the cops can see the kid. At that point they have just cause to enter and take the kid.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

 

Ahhhh...a voice of reason. :cheers:

 

Whatever. You like the government taking your rights away, fine. I'd say "more power to you", but it's actually more like "less power to you"

When it gets to the point where the cops are kicking down your front door, be sure to serve them tea and biscuits.

 

And what is mine voice of BS? :jester:

 

While I tend to think of such things as "Police States" myself, the law seems clear to me as seen below. These type of checkpoints and searches in North Carolina are legal.

Sherry

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/080059-1.htm


It is well-established that police officers effectuate a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment when they stop a vehicle at a driver's license checkpoint. State v. Rose, 170 N.C. App. 284, 288, 612 S.E.2d 336, 339, disc. rev. denied, 359 N.C. 641, 617 S.E.2d 656 (2005). In order to conform with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the checkpoint must be “reasonable.” Id. “A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). However, the general requirement of individualized suspicion is not necessary under certain situations, including: (1) checkpoints, which screen for driver's license and vehicle registration violations; (2) “sobriety checkpoints[;]” and (3) checkpoints designed to intercept illegal aliens. Id. (citations omitted). Conversely, “tops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime[]” are unconstitutional and cannot be sanctioned by this Court. Id. at 289, 612 S.E.2d at 339. Further, a checkpoint with an unlawful primary purpose will not become constitutional when coupled with a lawful secondary purpose. See State v. Veazey, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 662 S.E.2d 683, 686 (2008) (“[A] checkpoint with an invalid primary purpose, such as checking for illegal narcotics, cannot be saved by adding a lawful secondary purpose to the checkpoint, such as checking for intoxicated drivers. Otherwise, . . . law enforcement authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they also included a license or sobriety check.” (Citations and quotations omitted)).

 

I'm afraid I have to agree with Clif on this one. It is a violation of my rights. If I am driving properly and just trying to get home, they have absolutely no right to disturb me.

If they really wanted to catch drunks, they could sit up from any bar and just pull all the cars leaving.

 

But what if you happened to be one of those that got pulled and you had not been drinking at all?

 

I AGREE WITH CLIFF, THEIR BETTER WAYS OF APPREHENDING PEOPLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HEAR OF SOMEONE BEING ARRESTED FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS? WE REPORTED SOMEONE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND THE SHERIFF SAID TO GET OFF THE ROAD. HOW'S THAT!! HE TOLD US TO GET OFF THE ROAD, THAT'S HOW MUCH HE CARED.. SORRY EVERYONE HAS A OPINION. :hurray:

 

I agree with Clif on this.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz is the Supreme Court case that allows sobriety checkpoints. The basis for allowing the checkpoints is that drunk driving is a problem that justifies the minor intrusion on our civil rights. Police cannot legally stop cars at random, but as long as they stop every car (or some other system i.e. every other car) they can do this under the guise of a "license check".

"As to the amount of intrusion on the average driver, the Court believes it to be slight. Law abiding citizens are only stopped for a moment and can then be on their way."

How long is a moment?

Okay, so drunk driving is such a problem it requires suspension of my rights. But law enforcement subverts the intent of the court and loses my respect when they go beyond drunk driving. When they start checking registration, inspection stickers, etc it is obvious that the checkpoints are just revenue generators. Those things can be effectively enforced without stopping traffic. If they want to be taken seriously, and they want our respect, they should limit the stops to only sobriety screening and give verbal warnings for everything else.

 

Opinion, yes! I stated that I think of them as a "Police State" but they are LEGAL in North Carolina.

Anyone reading the law? Both Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are taken care as per the case cited.

Sherry

 

I would understand that... OK, I am leaving a bar, Ive put myself in a position where they have a reasonable suspiscion to think I am drinking.

There is no reason for them to suspect anything with me just riding down the road through a "checkpoint" (unless I am weaving or something).

PS... Just because its a "law", doesnt make it right. Individual states have been monkeying with the constitution since it was written. If you look back in history, It was once a law that black people were slaves, to be owned. Were those laws right? The laws regarding women not bein able to vote? Think about it.