Police on Old Fairgound Rd. yesterday....

Driving is a privilege that comes with some inconveniences. The police have a hard enough job as it is, they can be shot by anyone they come in contact with at any time of any day.
With nothing to hide just let them see your license and move on. I can't tell how many license checks I've been through and how many tickets I've had and never once had my car searched. If they can catch the people they need too then let them stop me. I obey the law to best of my ability.

The entire Johnston County Sheriff's office needs to keep up the good work.

I'd venture to say that the 4th amendment was written before cars and driving.

 

You are searched at the checkpoints? I have never been searched. I have been asked to produce my license and registration as is common procedure for any traffic related interaction with the police. Once probable cause concerning the driver being under the influence, driving without a license, improper registration, no insurance, or some other violation the question of whether a search is valid or not may come into play. There is a clear allowance for the officers to search the person being detained without warrant because of the possibility of hidden weapons which may cause harm to the officers or bystanders.

That is your opinion, however your opinion does not determine the constitutionaluty of any action. The Constitution says the court system has that ability and as has already been shown the USSC ruled the DUI checkpoints legal and constitutional.

Not a quick as some are to leap to a conclusion which is inaccurate.

 

If you want a warrant for a breathalyzer, do you also want a warrant for a Police officer to enter a building where he has heard shots fired and screams? "probable cause" they must have to make you do a breathalyzer, and given the smell of alcohol and the effects on people drinking it, it is pretty easy to judge where probable cause is warranted. As for the roads, you do not drive on them? We can talk all day about taxes being immoral, and I think we would agree on a lot of things. However, having your Id checked at a checkpoint, and being searched and having car searched at a checkpoint are different, very different things.

 

Just keep giving away that freedom for false security... watch the continuing path of where the country is going....

 

I made my statement and was going to stay out of this till I read this mess. Probable cause has nothing to do with stopping people at a check point. The only way probable cause enters into it is if they smell alcohol after the stop. The stop itself is unconstitutional, per the 4th amendment. The government has no right to stop me without cause, and the simple act of driving is not cause.

And to HughT's comment that it is constitutional because the USSC said so, I have two words for him...

Dred Scott

 

Only if he/she tips well

 

At any time you feel as if your rights and privacy are being violated, by all means, quit driving on the roadways of North Carolina. Suck it up. Its a privilege, not a right. Some people act like the entire world is out to get them.

 

Thats where we differ. I do not find it unreasonable for police to set up check points to catch drunk drivers or people under the influence, parole violators, at-large criminals and the like. I prefer it.

If they catch just one drunk driver and take him off the road where he may have caused an accident had the checkpoint not been there, then more power to them.

 

The probable cause does have a bearing as the USSC ruling on the contitutionality references the ability to show effect of the stop in relation to the number of vehicles stopped. Thus, there is a probability based on the records that there will be some number of violations caught per X number of vehicles stopped. That is the basis for the contitutionality of the stop according to the USSC.

As for the thought the USSC does not determine constitutionality, that ignores the balance of power/duties set up by the Constitution. If the USSC does not determine what is and is not constitutional, who does? Random posters on the internet? Not hardly.

The Dred Scott ruling prohibited the abolition of slavery in territories under the Constitution at the time. It was not until the Constitution was changed via the 13th Amendment that slavery was abolished and thus became unconstitutional. There is nothing inconsistent with the USSC determination of contstitutionality other than the personal opinion of some.

 

I did not say it did. Try re-reading. I said to give a breathalyzer. However, when you decide to drive, you are are using a privilege given to you by the state. They can not search you or your car without probably cause. They can ask you to show the documentation proving you are a licensed driver at a checkpoint. Where this gets interesting is when you refuse to show them. IF you have a real beef, refuse to show them. I have seen people on video pull this off, but I pass on the headache.

 

As for pulling you over in a traffic stop (not a checkpoint) a police officer does not need PC. They only need reasonable suspicion.

 

It is not a privilege. I wish you guys would look up the word.

1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.


I pay road tax, title fees, vehicle tax, license fees, mandatory insurance, fuel tax, tire disposal tax, and auto repair disposal fees, etc. If it's a privilege why am I paying through the nose for it?

 

great point, one pays for the right to drive

 

I disagree, you do not have a right to drive, it is a privilege you must be deemed competent to do.

You are paying those taxes so Dan's corporate friends can transport product and for National Defense, we are granted the privilege to use the Interstate Highways for personal use.

 

You are Correct , driving is a right enjoyed by persons that possess driving licenses. Oh wait is that the definition of a privilege.

 

You pay for it because it is a privilege as a right would be free. It is the granting of a special "right" under certain conditions, which include following the rules set forth and paying the fees ... just like the definition says.

 

Clearly, all this mumbo jumbo and digging in to definitions confuses people. Lets step back and look at this in simple terms.

You have a Right to apply for a driver's license and take the test.

If you pass the test and pay the necessary fees, you have earned the Privilege to drive.

/Thread.

 

+1

As a side note I do not see a problem with random checkpoints being set-up as long as they do not target a specific type of vehicle or person.

 

I don't care if the gestapo searches houses, as long as they don't target a specific neighborhood or person.

You guys don't seem to understand the concept of "unalienable". Just because you have the privilege of being able to drive doesn't give the state the right to take away your right to be able to continue on your journey unabated. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If someone stops you, they are impeding your liberty.

 

Everything you said is true. Just one thing, I'm not doing anything illegal or unsafe. I am not infringing on your rights in any way, shape or form. It seems your rights are infringing on mine.

So, why do you think it's ok to take away my rights again?

Oh, yeah, so they can take all the drunk drivers off the road. Except they don't, not all of them and certain not a majority. And even when they do catch the one in a thousand, they let him go the next day. How many drunk drivers have killed people on NC roads? How many of those have multiple convictions and have their licences revoked?

How are the check points helping? By catching the one or two who are too stupid to go around the check points? How about, instead of grouping all the cops in one place, inconveniencing a thousand drivers in the hopes they'll catch one guy, they start patrolling the area and find the drunk drivers that are out there?