POSTPONED: Sobriety Checkpoint on Saturday, May 4, 2019, in St. Mary's Co

[David]

Due to weather, the Maryland State Police Leonardtown Barrack postponed the Sobriety Checkpoint that was planned for May 4, 2019.

The Maryland State Police Leonardtown Barrack, assisted by the St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office, will be conducting a Sobriety Checkpoint on Saturday, May 4, 2019, in St. Mary's County, Maryland.

Motorists are encouraged to appoint a designated driver or use public or other alternative transportation if you are planning on consuming alcohol. If you do drink, you are simply asked to please not drive. There is zero-tolerance for driving while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. It's not worth the risk...to your life or the life of another. No excuses will be accepted as there is no substitute for sobriety when behind the wheel. We will be doing our part. We kindly ask that you do yours.

This effort is designed to educate the public and make our communities a safe place to live, work and visit.

 

[Midnightrider]

The Maryland State Police Leonardtown Barrack, assisted by the St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office, will be conducting a Sobriety Checkpoint on Saturday, May 4, 2019, in St. Mary's County, Maryland.

Motorists are encouraged to appoint a designated driver or use public or other alternative transportation if you are planning on consuming alcohol. If you do drink, you are simply asked to please not drive. There is zero-tolerance for driving while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. It's not worth the risk...to your life or the life of another. No excuses will be accepted as there is no substitute for sobriety when behind the wheel. We will be doing our part. We kindly ask that you do yours.

This effort is designed to educate the public and make our communities a safe place to live, work and visit.

aren't they supposed to release the approxiamte location of the check point?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

aren't they supposed to release the approxiamte location of the check point?

It's approximately somewhere in St. Mary's County.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Motorists are encouraged to not open their window when passing through these Orwellian tactic locations. Place your license against the window for the good deputy to see, if asked.

 

[Freefaller]

If I may ...

Motorists are encouraged to not open their window when passing through these Orwellian tactic locations. Place your license against the window for the good deputy to see, if asked.

With due respect, do you want drunk drivers on the road? Just curious.
I've gone through several check points in my years of driving. I have never been asked for my license. Each time, the officer approached my car and handed me a brochure that explained what they were doing. I said thank you and went on my way. No big deal.

 

[awpitt]

It's approximately somewhere in St. Mary's County.

No. Just that they're going to have a checkpoint.

 

[BernieP]

With due respect, do you want drunk drivers on the road? Just curious.
I've gone through several check points in my years of driving. I have never been asked for my license. Each time, the officer approached my car and handed me a brochure that explained what they were doing. I said thank you and went on my way. No big deal.

With due respect, if you wish to relinquish your rights under the 4th Amendment feel free to do so.
The reason they are required to announce the time and location of these "checkpoints" is that it allows those who do not consent to the search to opt out. Going through the checkpoint you consent to the search. Without reasonable cause and a warrant it is unconstitutional to just stop a vehicle to search it and the passengers.
As for getting drunk drivers off the road, I suggest you take a look at the posts under the law enforcement forum.
MSP and SMCSD seem to make more arrests for DIU on regular patrol than during one of these massive traffic jams.
First, they are not late at night, they are early evening, so there is plenty of traffic.
The stated goal of the checkpoint is no longer to take drunk drivers off the street but to raise awareness.
That it does.
But if your concern is getting impaired drivers off the road, start with the driver, their friends and the people serving them.
All have a responsibility. If you feel you had one to many, ask for a ride home. If the manager offers you a ride home, take it.
Responsible establishments will cut people off, limit the size of drinks and watch patrons for signs and offer them a ride.
Good friends do the same, have a plan for a designated driver. It comes back to personal responsibility.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

With due respect, do you want drunk drivers on the road? Just curious.
I've gone through several check points in my years of driving. I have never been asked for my license. Each time, the officer approached my car and handed me a brochure that explained what they were doing. I said thank you and went on my way. No big deal.

If removing drunks was the goal, checkpoints are not the answer as they aren't effective in doing so. It's just a way for local police agencies to get grant funding.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

No. Just that they're going to have a checkpoint.

They sure are. Somewhere in St. Mary's County.

 

[Freefaller]

With due respect, if you wish to relinquish your rights under the 4th Amendment feel free to do so.
The reason they are required to announce the time and location of these "checkpoints" is that it allows those who do not consent to the search to opt out. Going through the checkpoint you consent to the search. Without reasonable cause and a warrant it is unconstitutional to just stop a vehicle to search it and the passengers.
As for getting drunk drivers off the road, I suggest you take a look at the posts under the law enforcement forum.
MSP and SMCSD seem to make more arrests for DIU on regular patrol than during one of these massive traffic jams.
First, they are not late at night, they are early evening, so there is plenty of traffic.
The stated goal of the checkpoint is no longer to take drunk drivers off the street but to raise awareness.
That it does.
But if your concern is getting impaired drivers off the road, start with the driver, their friends and the people serving them.
All have a responsibility. If you feel you had one to many, ask for a ride home. If the manager offers you a ride home, take it.
Responsible establishments will cut people off, limit the size of drinks and watch patrons for signs and offer them a ride.
Good friends do the same, have a plan for a designated driver. It comes back to personal responsibility.

I agree that driving responsibly is a matter of personal responsibility. As I said, I've been through several checkpoints. I've never seen anyone searched. I have never even been asked for my license. I just accepted the brochure that was handed to me then went on my way. In regards to surrendering my rights, hasn't the supreme court ruled that checkpoints are NOT a violation of the 4th amendment?

 

[BernieP]

I agree that driving responsibly is a matter of personal responsibility. As I said, I've been through several checkpoints. I've never seen anyone searched. I have never even been asked for my license. I just accepted the brochure that was handed to me then went on my way. In regards to surrendering my rights, hasn't the supreme court ruled that checkpoints are NOT a violation of the 4th amendment?

:LOL the minute they walk up to the window you are being searched, eyes, nose and ears are looking for suspicious items, the smell of alcohol or week, drug paraphernalia, etc. The same thing they do when you license plate lights are dim and they want to advise you of that.
It's called a pretext stop, the checkpoint is a pretext, but in this case there is no violation to cite.

 

[TCROW]

Yep, all about putting eyeballs in cars.

 

[BernieP]

Bottom line, I'm not for drunk driving, I'm not against law enforcement, I am in strong favor of protecting our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. If you read the language in the constitution it actually is a positive document. It grants the federal government and the states specific rights. It then says all other rights, not granted to the states and federal government are those of the people.
But the framers felt so strong about certain protections that they wrote the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. This is a restrictive section, it does not necessarily grant rights, but rather prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of the people.
If our socialist education system would actually teach a course on civics, and study the constitution, along with the Federalist papers and other writings by those who drafted the constitution, they might better appreciate what government is supposed to do and what is prohibited from doing.
There is a quote from Franklin that is often misused and paraphrased, but it does hold some truth however it's put.
Those who choose to sacrifice their freedoms for security often end with neither.

 

[Goldenhawk]

This is a decent article about the legality of checkpoints.

What are my rights at various "checkpoints"? | Flex Your Rights

There are four general types of vehicle checkpoints you might encounter: DUI checkpoints, TSA checkpoints, US border checkpoints, and drug checkpoints. In a legal sense, they are not all created equal.

www.flexyourrights.org

Bernie, I'm generally a libertarian in my outlook, but the Supreme Court and lower courts have consistently ruled that checkpoints are Constitutionally allowable. My sense is that, while the courts agree that freely moving about our nation (even using roadways) is a Constitutional right, the act of driving a vehicle on those same public roadways is considered a privilege that may be limited and regulated. As such, the State has some leeway in enforcing laws by occasionally verifying that all aspects of using that privilege are followed - including carrying a license, being insured, not being impaired, using a vehicle that complies with all applicable regulations, etc. etc.. The State's interest in ensuring safety generally overrides the inconvenience of a brief detention, especially when that potential for inconvenience has been announced ahead of time.

Yes, it's annoying. Yes, it's a slight infringement on our "rights." No, it's not excessive, and it's carefully constrained BECAUSE of our Constitutional rights.

 

[Goldenhawk]

One thing to note: during any traffic stop, including checkpoints, you are NOT required to answer any questions beyond identifying yourself. Anything else you say can and will be used against you if needed. So give the nice officer your license, ask if you're free to go, and keep your mouth shut otherwise. If you watch Cops or Live PD, you quickly realize that most people talk themselves into jail.

I suspect a lot of people worry that declining to answer or refusing to have your car searched is considered de facto incriminatory. I think that has a lot to do with how you choose to decline, and your general attitude and demeanor. I think you should politely and in a friendly manner state that "No, I'm sorry, Officer, but I believe I have a Constitutional right to respectfully decline to answer any questions other than identifying myself. If you obtain a warrant, then you would have the right to search my person or my vehicle, but otherwise, I must ask if I'm free to go about my business."

I think that in fact most officers have no interest in the paperwork that would be required to actually get a warrant or defend themselves from a wrongful arrest lawsuit, unless they actually really do think (before asking you the question) that they have something to charge you with. At a typical busy checkpoint, they've got other fish to fry than bother with your declining a search or questioning.

I've read plenty of articles by officers that state that a determined search of your vehicle, or prolonged period of Q&A, will always result in the officer uncovering SOMETHING with which you can be charged - even something as simple as slightly changing your story, which becomes obstructing justice or lying to the police. So not answering and not submitting to search is always, always, always the right legal option to take. The only question becomes HOW to refuse.

And having a audio-recording dashcam or cell phone video is probably not a bad idea...

 

[BernieP]

This is a decent article about the legality of checkpoints.

What are my rights at various "checkpoints"? | Flex Your Rights

There are four general types of vehicle checkpoints you might encounter: DUI checkpoints, TSA checkpoints, US border checkpoints, and drug checkpoints. In a legal sense, they are not all created equal.

www.flexyourrights.org

Bernie, I'm generally a libertarian in my outlook, but the Supreme Court and lower courts have consistently ruled that checkpoints are Constitutionally allowable.

Yes, that wasn't in dispute, the question was, why do they have to publish the date and time and allow drivers to avoid the checkpoints.

 

[Goldenhawk]

Yes, that wasn't in dispute, the question was, why do they have to publish the date and time and allow drivers to avoid the checkpoints.

Because the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 1990 that a checkpoint was Consitutional, but implied in its ruling that the ability to "opt out" by avoiding it was an essential aspect. Otherwise a checkpoint can be considered a form of unreasonable search-and-seizure under the 4th Amendment. If you arrive at the checkpoint and turn around, that's not opting out - that's considered guilty behavior and is generally interpreted to give the police reasonable cause to search you even if you don't agree. But if you know about the checkpoint and simply avoid the area, you have been effectively given the "reasonable" chance to not be "searched."

Excerpts From Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints (Published 1990)

www.nytimes.com

Some states don't agree - after the US Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Supreme Court decision in 1990, Michigan simply reinstated the ban by noting that it violated the State Constitution, thus sidestepping the entire USSC decision. But Maryland, liberal as ever, is not so inclined to ban checkpoints.

 

[BernieP]

So they are borderline unconstitutional and I'm not sure how effective they are in even getting the message across.
Would it be better if they stood outside a bar and handed out pamphlets as the patrons came and went?
I bet that would increase sales of coffee at bars , Drunk walks out, sees cop, turns around and sit down at the bar for a coffee.

 

[GWguy]

They started early. St. Mary's side of the TJ bridge, random pullovers. I had the Slingshot, officer looked very sternly at me, couldn't decide if he should pull me over or not. I smiled (but he couldn't see that with the helmet...), waved and kept on truckin'.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

My sense is that, while the courts agree that freely moving about our nation (even using roadways) is a Constitutional right, the act of driving a vehicle on those same public roadways is considered a privilege that may be limited and regulated.

A privilege? Ah no. More brainwashing propaganda. In a free society, ostensibly the USA, getting from point A to point B via any form of locomotion is a right. That is not to say that be no need to of assurances that people be verified they can safely operate a vehicle, be trained and have taken classes of the safe operation and of road laws. But a privilege? Absolutely not. Is it a privilege to saddle up a horse and ride it to town or the store or to go to work? Or harness that horse to a carriage or cart for the same? Is it a privilege to walk anywhere? To ride a bicycle anywhere? No, of course not. Same with a vehicle. That we have allowed government to control this aspect of our lives is tyranny.