Police stopping for license checks on Raleigh Road

As plain and simple as it gets right there.

 

Or those who question the intelligence of giving up rights for the perception of security. :mrgreen:

 

It's not a right to operate a vehicle on a highway... Its a priviledge in my opinion.

 

If that had been the case he would have had legal recourse, but in the video they did nto have the legal right to detain him and he knew it. That is why they were clear in stating he was not being detained.

Now you are doing the apples to oranges comparison ... :mrgreen:

Or really know your rights in the matter. Of course, it would have been much simpler for the person in the video to have stated his national origin if it were not for his desire to make an issue of the legality of the situation. I doubt if few would go that far, myself. The USSC has determined the impact on the personal rights in such a stop is not as significant as the potential for benefit, which is to many a slippery slope. Since we now have seen expansions of these infringements in the name of national security that view may not be inaccurate.

 

It is, but the random stopping of any citizen does impact the rights of that citizen, even the USSC ruling admitted as much.

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Art...onstitutionality-of-sobriety-checkpoints.html

Do Sobriety Checkpoints Violate the Driver’s Constitutional Rights?

The United States Supreme Court has found that sobriety checkpoints can be constitutional if they meet certain requirements. The Court has found that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on a driver’s constitutional rights.

 

If in fact that is true than why does it continue, Supreme court rules all.. so I question the validity of it being unconstitutional. Apparently it doesn't carry any weight if it continues.

 

Actually, they do have the right to detain a person at a Border Patrol checkpoint. Again, as long as the criteria is met for that particular type of checkpoint, there isn't anything you can do about it but present your license. Those checkpoints are legal from the border to 60 miles inside the United States. Border Patrol agents may stop any vehicle traveling through their checkpoint without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.

Those same checkpoints have inspection areas in which a vehicle can be stripped to nearly nothing during what's called a "secondary inspection". The referral of a vehicle to the secondary inspection need only be selective and does not require reasonable suspicion. The guy in the video is lucky that he didn't fall within that criteria because he certainly would have had a bad day.

A border patrol agent may engage you in consensual conversation while you're parked there. While that agent is engaged in conversation with you, you are essentially detained. You cannot leave. So is the guy detained? Yep. Can he leave? Nope, not until that agent says that it's ok to leave. Like it or not, it's the law, period.

 

Wayne, the issue is whether a checkpoint is legal, correct? You can argue all day long about how you perceive that it violates your rights but the fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled them legal. Until such time when the Supreme Court rules them illegal, well, you don't have much choice in the matter.

I'm not arguing whether or not I agree with them. I won't even go into that. I'm stating legal fact. Folks can argue their philosophy about it all day long and until they're blue in the face. The thing is, it doesn't matter and you can't do anything about it. That is unless you have lots of time and money on your hands to fight the Supreme Court decision from a legal perspective.

The constitution was written at a time when there were no cars and no highways. It was written without taking into account a 3000-10000 pound vehicle driving along at 70mph, a drunken idiot behind the wheel, driving without regard to the safety and rights of others. It was written at a time when the automobile wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye. Having said that, those laws should be subject to change based on how society evolves.

 

So do you believe that these checkpoints provide no security for the lives of others? That everybody is just making the whole thing up in their minds that people are being taken off the streets for drinking and driving and more than likely saving lives. That we are just percieving that to be security but it's really not?

 

They ruled the infringement of the rights was not significant enough to be an issue, which means they agreed for the people to give up rights in favor of the perception of security. That is why I posted the excerpt.

The Court has found that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on a driver’s constitutional rights

 

It's more than proven that such checkpoints do reduce the amount of alcohol related fatalities in the jurisdictions where they are conducted, by as much as 20%. CDC has done studies on this and have proven it as fact.

 

I don't see anyone here disagreeing with you on that. However, the point is moot until the Supreme Court rules otherwise....

 

Not really, as the most recent ruling by the USSC made it legal. It is not constitutional, but the ruling made the "DUI exception" to the Constitution. As Cliff has pointed out in discussions with me that does not make it right nor just, but merely legal.

I understand, I just disagree with the exception to the Constitution made in this case ... and in the case of the more recent Homeland Security initiaitves.

And there is no argument this is currently legal if properly administered based on the court rulings.

This is true, but a movement starts with just one person speaking up. :mrgreen:

Even so, the fact the USSC ruling indicates the infringement of rights but that the infringement is not as important as safety is a very slippery slope, IMO.

 

Wayne, instead of responding quote by quote to your last post, I'll just say that I agree with what you said. All I'm saying is that until such time this ruling has changed, folks should get used to it. Of course, I think we both understand that, too.

I will say this though. If a movement were to start against checkpoints, I would not join such a movement. I only say this because I have seen much death and destruction caused by drunk drivers. I have been the one going to tell mommy and daddy that their little girl or boy was killed by a drunk. I've also seen what it does to the suspects. Ruining lives all over the place, and causing pain and suffering that wasn't needed or just. Just my take on it.

 

No, the issue is how many rights do we give up for the perception of security?

Yes, perception of security. Are there still DUI accidents? Is there any proof of the number of accidents prevented by such actions? Can we give up more rights for more chances at security?

 

This is the part that I have a hard time with. I don't want to think that Clif or Wayne wants to do away with things that could save lives so I'm not sure why their tone is that the minor infringement on their rights is more important than the lives that can be saved? If one's priority is not the preservation of human life in this situation I just don't understand it.

 

Yes, I think we understand it and each other very well now. :mrgreen:

As it is already in place, I do not know what my position would be at that time. It is a benefit but at a cost to the Constitution, which has not gotten worse so far. The Homeland Security impact on the Constitution was unrelated to this.

I can understand. I find it a bit sad that alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than some of those currently criminalized. Some have suggested that it be made illegal. That would not be practical, but some very strict DUI punishments would be better, IMO.

The second offense looses your license on a permanent basis and the vehicle you are driving. The third offense gets you shot on the spot ... (j/k to see if anyone picks up on this.)

 

I know you of all people are going to sit here and rip apart the findings of the CDC so please don't even bother because I know your facts and figures are always superior to anyone else's, but this is just evidence of what I already know that these checkpoints make a difference.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

Sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes
Fewer alcohol-related crashes occur when sobriety checkpoints are implemented, according to a CDC report published in the December 2002 issue of Traffic Injury Prevention. Sobriety checkpoints are traffic stops where law enforcement officers systematically select drivers to assess their level of alcohol impairment. The goal of these interventions is to deter alcohol-impaired driving by increasing drivers’ perceived risk of arrest. The conclusion that they are effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes is based on a systematic review of research about sobriety checkpoints. The review was conducted by a team of experts led by CDC scientists, under the oversight of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services—a 15-member, non-federal group of leaders in various health-related fields. (Visit www.thecommunityguide.org * for more information.) The review combined the results of 23 scientifically-sound studies from around the world. Results indicated that sobriety checkpoints consistently reduced alcohol-related crashes, typically by about 20 percent. The results were similar regardless of how the checkpoints were conducted, for short-term "blitzes," or when checkpoints were used continuously for several years. This suggests that the effectiveness of checkpoints does not diminish over time.

Related article:

Elder RW, Shults RA, Sleet DA, Nichols JL, Zaza S, Thompson RS. Effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints for reducing alcohol-involved crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention 2002;3:266-74.

 

So, if the results were linear, we would just have to give up five times the rights we have surrendered for the current checkpoints and have five times the number of checkpoints to approach the complete reduction of DUI accidents? As it stands we ahve about a 20% less chance of a DUI accident if there are checkpoints in use in the general area. That would be a perception of security given the remianing 80% of the accidents. Of course, the percentage of accidents per incident are probably not factored into the formula.

 

Sigh. I think this one might be approaching the dead horse stage on both sides. lol