DWI Checkpoints

[yeti]

A friend of mine told me his lawyer said that there has to be an alternate way to get to you destination, after the DWI checkpoint sign, so you are not forced to drive through the checkpoint.

By not taking the alternate path you are voluntarily accepting the checkpoint. Even so, if you do drive through the checkpoint you don’t have to roll down your window. The little brochure they pass out is to get you to roll down your window without them asking which is another voluntary action on your part.

Has anybody else heard or dealt with this before?

 

[MLGTS08]

You should not be drinking and driving. If your not there should be no reason you can not stop in the check point. It benefits your safety.

 

[thurley42]

You should not be drinking and driving. If your not there should be no reason you can not stop in the check point. It benefits your safety.

 

[terbear1225]

A friend of mine told me his lawyer said that there has to be an alternate way to get to you destination, after the DWI checkpoint sign, so you are not forced to drive through the checkpoint.

By not taking the alternate path you are voluntarily accepting the checkpoint. Even so, if you do drive through the checkpoint you don’t have to roll down your window. The little brochure they pass out is to get you to roll down your window without them asking which is another voluntary action on your part.

Has anybody else heard or dealt with this before?

here's an idea, instead of worrying about how to get around a checkpoint, DON'T DRIVE DRUNK!!

 

[AK-74me]

A friend of mine told me his lawyer said that there has to be an alternate way to get to you destination, after the DWI checkpoint sign, so you are not forced to drive through the checkpoint.

By not taking the alternate path you are voluntarily accepting the checkpoint. Even so, if you do drive through the checkpoint you don’t have to roll down your window. The little brochure they pass out is to get you to roll down your window without them asking which is another voluntary action on your part.

Has anybody else heard or dealt with this before?

No, the U.S Sumpreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. However some states have made them illegal. MD is not one of them. I think they are unconstitutional and violate the 4th amendment but the government ruled otherwise.

As far as i know this is what is required for the police to set up a checkpoint:

Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

Or similar to this.

 

[AK-74me]

here's an idea, instead of worrying about how to get around a checkpoint, DON'T DRIVE DRUNK!!

While true.

It still violates the 4th Amendment, IMO.

 

[SoMDGirl42]

A friend of mine told me his lawyer said that there has to be an alternate way to get to you destination, after the DWI checkpoint sign, so you are not forced to drive through the checkpoint.

By not taking the alternate path you are voluntarily accepting the checkpoint. Even so, if you do drive through the checkpoint you don’t have to roll down your window. The little brochure they pass out is to get you to roll down your window without them asking which is another voluntary action on your part.

Has anybody else heard or dealt with this before?

Go ahead and do a u-turn to avoid the check point to take that alternate route. See how long before they pull you over

 

[thurley42]

While true.

It still violates the 4th Amendment, IMO.

I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just curious to what extent you feel it is a violation. It isn't a search persay, just a pass through where they pass out information on driving imparied, and if they happen to find someone who smells of alcohol it gives them probable cause to initate sobriety tests.

I went through one once on 4 in Calvert late at night and the officer was very nosey. Asking where i was coming from and what i was doing there, I was with my wife and I told him Annapolis, he asked what we were doing and I told him eating, he said where i said, "melting pot do you want to know what I had for desert?"

I guess he was just trying to smell my breath and see if i was impaired?

 

[AK-74me]

I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just curious to what extent you feel it is a violation. It isn't a search persay, just a pass through where they pass out information on driving imparied, and if they happen to find someone who smells of alcohol it gives them probable cause to initate sobriety tests.

I went through one once on 4 in Calvert late at night and the officer was very nosey. Asking where i was coming from and what i was doing there, I was with my wife and I told him Annapolis, he asked what we were doing and I told him eating, he said where i said, "melting pot do you want to know what I had for desert?"

I guess he was just trying to smell my breath and see if i was impaired?

Getting stopped and question with no probable cause.

I think it does constitute a search in a way, and eleven states have found similar so....

 

[thurley42]

Getting stopped and question with no probable cause.

that is where I agree...if they when they stop you they merely inform you of the purpose and give you some info and ask you if you have any questions it is just an inconvience. when they start grilling you for going out to eat with your wife then it's intrusive.

I think that they are a helpful deterrant. The more I see of them the less I hear on Monday morning how so and so left the bar hammered.

 

[PsyOps]

Getting stopped and question with no probable cause.

I think it does constitute a search in a way, and eleven states have found similar so....

So what is your suggestion for getting these drunks off the road?

 

[AK-74me]

that is where I agree...if they when they stop you they merely inform you of the purpose and give you some info and ask you if you have any questions it is just an inconvience. when they start grilling you for going out to eat with your wife then it's intrusive.

I think that they are a helpful deterrant. The more I see of them the less I hear on Monday morning how so and so left the bar hammered.

Right, try stopping at one and cracking the window enough to take a piece of paper and leaving without enganging in converstaion. All they are is fishing expeditions, I agree people shouldn't be drinking and driving but police shouldn't be out fishing for DUI's and other violations of the law if it violates any constitutional right.

 

[AK-74me]

So what is your suggestion for getting these drunks off the road?

How about making the punishment for DUI so tough that is deters the majority of the ones that currently do it.

DUI punishment is way too light.

 

[PsyOps]

Right, try stopping at one and cracking the window enough to take a piece of paper and leaving without enganging in converstaion. All they are is fishing expeditions, I agree people shouldn't be drinking and driving but police shouldn't be out fishing for DUI's and other violations of the law if it violates any constitutional right.

But, if a cop stops you at a checkpoint and asks you a couple of questions, does that really constitute a search? They haven't entered your vehicle, haven't asked you to get out for a sobriety check...

 

[thurley42]

Right, try stopping at one and cracking the window enough to take a piece of paper and leaving without enganging in converstaion. All they are is fishing expeditions, I agree people shouldn't be drinking and driving but police shouldn't be out fishing for DUI's and other violations of the law if it violates any constitutional right.

hahahahaha...you know what. I'll make you a deal. NExt time you come up on one, do that...i will too, then we can post our results in here and get a good laugh.

You are right it is a way to fish for drunks. but I don't disagree because I don't want my family or friends killed because of a drunk driver..nor any innocent person for that matter.

Saying that I see your point, when you crack the door so common sense can come in, most times an idiotic stampede follows....translation, you give up a microbit of personal liberty for a greater cause and then someone with no common sense, a personal agenda, and some political backing takes away your right to privacy.

 

[AK-74me]

But, if a cop stops you at a checkpoint and asks you a couple of questions, does that really constitute a search? They haven't entered your vehicle, haven't asked you to get out for a sobriety check...

Like I said IMO, they are fishing expeditions and violate the intention of the 4th Amendment.

 

[PsyOps]

How about making the punishment for DUI so tough that is deters the majority of the ones that currently do it.

DUI punishment is way too light.

I agree all of our laws are not enforced strongly enough. I guess where I am coming from is whose rights are violated when a drunk kills someone? Which outweighs the other?

 

[AK-74me]

hahahahaha...you know what. I'll make you a deal. NExt time you come up on one, do that...i will too, then we can post our results in here and get a good laugh.

You are right it is a way to fish for drunks. but I don't disagree because I don't want my family or friends killed because of a drunk driver..nor any innocent person for that matter.

Saying that I see your point, when you crack the door so common sense can come in, most times an idiotic stampede follows....translation, you give up a microbit of personal liberty for a greater cause and then someone with no common sense, a personal agenda, and some political backing takes away your right to privacy.

That is what I mean, of course I don't want drunks on the road and I have a family I am concerned for too. It is as they say, a slippery slope, give em an inch and they'll take a mile. That is my concern.

 

[PsyOps]

Like I said IMO, they are fishing expeditions and violate the intention of the 4th Amendment.

How do you violate "the intention" of the 4th? It either is or it isn't. Either a search and seizure has happened or it hasn't. By a cop stopping you at a checkpoint actually violate the 4th?

 

[AK-74me]

I agree all of our laws are not enforced strongly enough. I guess where I am coming from is whose rights are violated when a drunk kills someone? Which outweighs the other?

Aww man, that sounds like the same argument against the 2nd. Come on, it may be for the greater good in some cases but before you know it, it'll be "papers please" everywhere you travel.