Police on Old Fairgound Rd. yesterday....

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with your constitutional rights nor does it have anything to do with your rights to any human compassion, IDIOT. I don't consider this a constitutional rights issue. You and your kind can have at it on that issue. I'm perfectly fine with all the police show of force in front of my house after that big beach festival in April of every year if it means the safety of all that go to it and drink their butts off and then get into their cars/trucks to drive home. If it means the safety of my family, my neighbors and those in my community I'm all for it. Do you honestly believe those officers are getting their rocks off at these checkpoints by stopping people? Do you really think they would prefer doing this over patrolling the roads? And for the record, I'm pretty sure that the little number of police force that are at these checkpoints don't represent the whole embodiment of our law enforcement, if so we are in big trouble. Honestly, some of you need to get a grip. Here's one for you to ponder, did you know that at anytime without your permission or that of your child's that their book bag and/or locker and/or purse can be searched during school hours. Eat on that some.opcorn: Oh, once again, you're an IDIOT. :hurray:

 

Ok. Now calm down.

 

I myself got stopped on E. Willams street in Lillington? (somewhere off 210] at one of these checks last Saturday. I don't know NC law, but have seen videos online stating that these checkpoints need to be marked with a warning sign, and in these videos, the people simply asked if they were being detained. They used their constitutional rights, knowing the laws, and never had to give their name or show ID.
I complied with the request and didn't ask any questions, neither did the officer other than to see my license.
Now I'm curious if these stops are set up legally in this state, or if they have to be marked like in the videos. Also, do they have the right to ask when I gave them no reason to infringe upon my rights.

And here's an open can of worms for y'all.

 

The laws on DUI checkpoints vary from state to state and the interpretations on the constitutionality are sometimes hotly debated.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

Sobriety checkpoints (also called DUI checkpoints) are locations where law enforcment officers are stationed to check drivers for signs of intoxication and impairment. Many jurisdictions utilize sobriety checkpoints as part of their larger drunk driving deterrance program.

Due to legal issues surrounding their use, not all states conduct sobriety checkpoints. Some states have laws authorizing their use. Others forbid them or are silent on the issue.

States with no explicit statutory authority may or may not conduct checkpoints. In many states, the judiciary has stepped in to uphold or restrict sobriety checkpoints based on interpretation of state or federal Constitutions.

38 states, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands conduct sobriety checkpoints.

In 12 states, sobriety checkpoints are not conducted. Some states prohibit them by state law or Constitution (or interpretation of state law or Constitution). Texas prohibits them based on the its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

 

The requirements under NC statutes


http://www.ncsheriffs.org/documents/Motor-Vehicle-Checkpoints.pdf

 

there was one on MT Pleasant Rd a few weeks ago too. Right at the entrance to a subdivision. I just showed my license and went on my business. No biggie.

 

Which you instantly waive to a degree when you undertake the PRIVILEGE of driving a car with a license issued by the state, with tags on it from the state, and taxes paid on said car to the state and using a state approved insurance policy to drive said car. You have a right to privacy, but not a right to drive.

 

Sorry.....

Had NO intention of opening Pandora's Box ..... LOL....was honestly just curious.

 

par for course, I'd say 80% of threads opens that box lol

 

it's an honest mistake. It's hard to see the giant sticks stuck up a couple of these folks rears through the interwebS. :mrgreen:

 

Just because the right is not defined in the constitution does not mean it isn't a right.

Rights do not have to be defined by anything or anyone but our creator.

 

Being a jerk and parading the loss of the constitution will not bring back your family member.

 

Yep, it was an Amednment to the Bible, thou shalt have the right to drive a vehicle even while thou is plastered!

 

As long as it is your creator defending those rights you have a point, but when you expect others to defend those rights you start having a problem.

Some say their creator gives them the right to use mind altering drugs and marry young children, but our constitutional system does not recognize those claims.

 

The Holy Wine Amendment to the Ten Rights. Followed by the restrictions in the Book of Wrongs.

 

Right to privacy is more or less addressed in the constitution. However when you engage in exercising your PRIVILEGE to drive a car on government roads, that right gets waived to a degree.

 

I didn't ask for the government to build those roads. The money was stolen from me by gun point and I was forced to pay for those roads. However I did choose to by my truck.

Bottom line... warrant's should be required for breathalyzing. You're all assuming the person is guilty of driving drunk in all of these responses.

 

Let me skewl everyone on the Fourth Amendment real quick. It is actually very easy to read and understand. Not only am I not supposed to be searched unreasonably but you can't even get a warrant to search me without probable cause. So at the VERY least a warrant should be issued.

As far as I am concerned the government is detaining me to search my person aka the air I breath out into that breathalyzer. It's illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional.


People are way to quick to throw away freedom.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

So much for your "it is unconstitutional!

Supreme Court's 6-to-3 decision upholding sobriety checkpoints as constitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/u...briety-checkpoints.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

Quote all you want but refuse a breathalyzer and go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. That's exactly where you belong if you're on the roads you were robbed to pay for driving drunk! Good riddance. The fools throwing away their freedom are the ones breaking the laws! It's really as easy as that. If you don't like it leave and go to another country. But you might not want to move to Bulgaria or El Salvador. The second offense in Bulgaria results in execution! El Salvador is even worse in that your first offense is execution by firing squad. Yup, we've just got terrible laws here!