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

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

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.

This is not true. There is no probable cause to be pulled over for having the legal right to avoid and not go through a checkpoint. If a person does so though, they still must follow traffic laws. If pulling, say, being seen doing an illegal u-turn, that is grounds for being pulled over. But for the simple act of avoiding a dui checkpoint, completely legal.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

If I may ...


This is not true. There is no probable cause to be pulled over for having the legal right to avoid and not go through a checkpoint. If a person does so though, they still must follow traffic laws. If pulling, say, being seen doing an illegal u-turn, that is grounds for being pulled over. But for the simple act of avoiding a dui checkpoint, completely legal.

That's true in theory.

Realistically police have a plethora of laws and PC to pull you over and will most certainly use something (whether true or not) to pull so.eone over after turning around.

On its face, the officer isn't stopping you for turning around, they're stopping you because you crossed a line, have dark tint, sped, etc.

 

[Goldenhawk]

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.

It seems you take a fairly aggressive libertarian viewpoint. And I think your definition of "free" clashes with what our society has collectively agreed it should mean for the good of everyone.

Your approach would work very well for any given individual, to be sure. But I don't think it would work very well for a society, even a "free" one. If everyone acted like you wish, the sure result would be anarchy, and those roadways you enjoy would disappear quickly.

Let's take a fairly practical example, since thought experiments are generally a good way to help clarify issues.

Let's say you didn't want to wait in traffic, so you built a large snowplow on the front of your car, and simply rammed your way through the traffic. It certainly would work VERY well for you (at least briefly), but not for the others around you. Or perhaps you wanted to drive a M1 Abrams battle tank each day (because nobody else can hurt you by texting-while-driving, and hey, they're cool), but you'd still agree to strictly follow all the traffic laws - except that tank tracks chew up the pavement and after a few weeks the roadway would be unusable for cars.

Clearly these are ludicrous examples, but taking things to their logical endpoint illustrates the importance of finding a reasonable boundary to just how far you can swing your fist before it hits someone else's face.

So it has been agreed, by We the People who (through elected and appointed representatives) collectively set boundaries for our society, that yes moving about the country on public roadways IS a right. However, the specifics of HOW you use those roadways, for examples such as above, is NOT a native right, but a privilege. As a society we have agreed that for the safety and efficiency and financial benefit of ALL members of society, there ARE certain limits on how you may freely use the roadways. If you want to use a car, you must agree to follow certain rules (including occasional sobriety checkpoints). And in fact for certain roadways (interstate highways) you may NOT in fact walk or use a bicycle, because if you can't keep up to speed with the traffic there is simply no safe way to do so.

This may clash with your sense of "I can do whatever I want, dammit," but frankly that's just tough. If you want to live like that, go build an off-the-grid shed in some remote valley in Idaho, and you pretty much CAN do whatever you want. But there won't be many roadways to enjoy like you wish. Neither will be there much "society" which provides all the other benefits like food and building materials and the like.

 

[Goldenhawk]

This is not true. There is no probable cause to be pulled over for having the legal right to avoid and not go through a checkpoint. If a person does so though, they still must follow traffic laws. If pulling, say, being seen doing an illegal u-turn, that is grounds for being pulled over. But for the simple act of avoiding a dui checkpoint, completely legal.

... And this is why the police will usually select a checkpoint location where there is no opportunity to turn around legally by the time you see the checkpoint - like some spot on Rt 4 north of Lusby after a long blind curve in the road, where there's no crossover or entry/exit turn. You'd either have to cross the grass median to make an illegal u-turn, or try backing up a long distance down the roadway against the flow of traffic. So if you try to bail out, you'll have to break the law to do so. Thus you will have given them de facto permission to detain and search you.

The police know the specifics of the law, and they know how to use it to their advantage, and they have learned what tactics the Supreme Court will permit in the execution of their duties. Occasionally they overstep and it eventually results in a new ruling by the courts, but generally they play by established rules and accepted practices.

 

[black dog]

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, There is no reason whatsoever to bother the law abiding citizens with check points.
If you want to catch drunk drivers you dont get much bang for the overtime taxpayers buck with check points. Take half the amount of officers and sit outside of the bars and the county's fraternal organizations including the FOP. Plenty of drunks drive home fro the bars.

 

[black dog]

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.

There is no such thing as a slight infringement on our " Rights "

 

[Grumpy]

... And this is why the police will usually select a checkpoint location where there is no opportunity to turn around legally by the time you see the checkpoint - like some spot on Rt 4 north of Lusby after a long blind curve in the road, where there's no crossover or entry/exit turn. You'd either have to cross the grass median to make an illegal u-turn, or try backing up a long distance down the roadway against the flow of traffic. So if you try to bail out, you'll have to break the law to do so. Thus you will have given them de facto permission to detain and search you.

The police know the specifics of the law, and they know how to use it to their advantage, and they have learned what tactics the Supreme Court will permit in the execution of their duties. Occasionally they overstep and it eventually results in a new ruling by the courts, but generally they play by established rules and accepted practices.

They have to leave you a legal opportunity to not go through the check point after the check point signs, 10 or so years ago a bunch of DUIs were thrown out because a checkpoint on Breezy Point road was set up without a way to avoid going through it.

A few years ago I ran across a checkpoint in PG, I hadn't been drinking and decided to see what would happen if I used the escape route from it. I wasn't followed or pulled over, but there was also a very long line of cars leading up to the stop point, perhaps they were too busy to chase, I don't know, but I do know if they wanted to pull you over, they will find a way.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

It seems you take a fairly aggressive libertarian viewpoint. And I think your definition of "free" clashes with what our society has collectively agreed it should mean for the good of everyone.

Your approach would work very well for any given individual, to be sure. But I don't think it would work very well for a society, even a "free" one. If everyone acted like you wish, the sure result would be anarchy, and those roadways you enjoy would disappear quickly.

Let's take a fairly practical example, since thought experiments are generally a good way to help clarify issues.

Let's say you didn't want to wait in traffic, so you built a large snowplow on the front of your car, and simply rammed your way through the traffic. It certainly would work VERY well for you (at least briefly), but not for the others around you. Or perhaps you wanted to drive a M1 Abrams battle tank each day (because nobody else can hurt you by texting-while-driving, and hey, they're cool), but you'd still agree to strictly follow all the traffic laws - except that tank tracks chew up the pavement and after a few weeks the roadway would be unusable for cars.

Clearly these are ludicrous examples, but taking things to their logical endpoint illustrates the importance of finding a reasonable boundary to just how far you can swing your fist before it hits someone else's face.

So it has been agreed, by We the People who (through elected and appointed representatives) collectively set boundaries for our society, that yes moving about the country on public roadways IS a right. However, the specifics of HOW you use those roadways, for examples such as above, is NOT a native right, but a privilege. As a society we have agreed that for the safety and efficiency and financial benefit of ALL members of society, there ARE certain limits on how you may freely use the roadways. If you want to use a car, you must agree to follow certain rules (including occasional sobriety checkpoints). And in fact for certain roadways (interstate highways) you may NOT in fact walk or use a bicycle, because if you can't keep up to speed with the traffic there is simply no safe way to do so.

This may clash with your sense of "I can do whatever I want, dammit," but frankly that's just tough. If you want to live like that, go build an off-the-grid shed in some remote valley in Idaho, and you pretty much CAN do whatever you want. But there won't be many roadways to enjoy like you wish. Neither will be there much "society" which provides all the other benefits like food and building materials and the like.

Uggggggg. Did you not read the part where I wrote, "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."? For the love of prescription opiates. It is a right to be able to travel the all the roads of this nation after being certified that one can safely operate a vehicle while driving on said roads paid though a highway user road tax collected at the point of sale of petrol. No member of a free society has any right to tell another member of a free society what they can do or how they can't do. Save the enforcements of common law. Baaaaa baaaaaa, sheep.

 

[CRHS89]

Postponed due to expected weather in the area.

 

[General Lee]

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.

Ding Ding Ding

 

[Goldenhawk]

Uggggggg. Did you not read the part where I wrote, "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."? For the love of prescription opiates. It is a right to be able to travel the all the roads of this nation after being certified that one can safely operate a vehicle while driving on said roads paid though a highway user road tax collected at the point of sale of petrol. No member of a free society has any right to tell another member of a free society what they can do or how they can't do. Save the enforcements of common law. Baaaaa baaaaaa, sheep.

Your argument is not self-consistent, or at best it's highly convoluted.

You finish with "nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do" but you start with two sentences stating that limitations are acceptable? You are willing to accept "verified they can safely operate a vehicle, be trained and have taken classes of the safe operation and of road laws." That statement inherently IS the collective membership of the free society telling other members what they're NOT allowed to do - e.g. drive without licensing or without compliance with road laws.

Also, it seems to be your personal opinion that roads-related taxation is only acceptable when paid by gas taxes. In reality, taxes paid on gasoline and taxes paid on milk are not differentiated in the state budgets.

I don't see any difference between the common use of the word "privilege" and the word "right" when used in such a context of allowable restrictions to said rights. In fact, courts have consistently agreed with the use of the word "privilege" in connection with driving.
The Miller vs. Reed decision in the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals (the highest court where this issue has been challenged thus far) stated:

While the ‘right of travel’ is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules. If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.

So your argument is not with me, but with established legal precedent. Functionally, with the 9th Circuit Court ruling, and lack of a Supreme Court review, that IS the law of the land - driving a motorized vehicle on public roadways has been established as a privilege, not a right. And yes, I'm aware of numerous websites claiming otherwise. However the vast majority of the legal opinions used to assert unlimited right to drive (especially without a license) were issued before motorized vehicles were even invented, and functionally the 9th CC decision overrides all of them.

So you're jousting with a windmill here. You have a strong opinion but it's not supported by law.

 

[TPD]

Postponed due to expected weather in the area.

Yeah because no one drinks and drives when it rains

 

[David]

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

 

[Grumpy]

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

 

[awpitt]

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.

In Maryland, it's because the law requires it. They don't have to announce the exact time or place. They just have to announce the day. Here, in St. Mary's, they sometimes announce will announce that the check point will be on a certain evening, along a certain road but sometime, they don't announce the road. As to why they announce it, for one, it's required, and two, the hope is that drunk drivers will either stay home or make arrangements for a DD.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

So your argument is not with me, but with established legal precedent. Functionally, with the 9th Circuit Court ruling, and lack of a Supreme Court review, that IS the law of the land - driving a motorized vehicle on public roadways has been established as a privilege, not a right. And yes, I'm aware of numerous websites claiming otherwise. However the vast majority of the legal opinions used to assert unlimited right to drive (especially without a license) were issued before motorized vehicles were even invented, and functionally the 9th CC decision overrides all of them. So you're jousting with a windmill here. You have a strong opinion but it's not supported by law.

And since you are using, "law" and "established legal precedent", as part of your stance ......

VIS COMPULSIVA vis compulsiva (vis kom-p[schwa]l-sI-v[schwa]), n. [Latin “compulsive force”] Hist. Force exerted to compel another to do something involuntarily; menacing force exerted by terror.

U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 “If you've relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Marbury v. Madison "If a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (111 pages); -- "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege".

SHUTTLESWORTH V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 373 U. S. 262 (1963): "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."

U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431 "A statute that regulates without constitutional authority is a nullity even though it be published in the books, recognized by the police and lowers courts, and even though it be unchallenged for decades."

Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 "Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law."

United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.”

Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”

Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 . ”Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away."

Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.“

And finally, the government has no duty to protect you/me/us. Translation? Take any necessary actions, defend and protect yourself, or die.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, (2005) United States Supreme Court the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

 

[Goldenhawk]

If I may...

... and the 9th Circuit found the practice of police checkpoints to be Constitutional and the Supreme Court declined to disagree, thus it IS Constitutional until ruled otherwise by a high court. Thus your argument is without merit from a legal perspective.

Furthermore, the government ROUTINELY compels actions, using menacing force (threat of punishment upon failure to comply with government edicts) to ensure compliance. This is true of all laws, not just some. In previous posts, you explicitly accept such limitations ("It is a right to be able to travel the all the roads of this nation after being certified that one can safely operate a vehicle while driving on said roads") which are certainly enforced "via compulsiva" (e.g. jail time for driving without a license) which you implicitly accept. You can't have it both ways.

Your chain of logic sounds like it's been cribbed from Sovereign Individual websites, full of buzzwords and irrelevant references to various court cases and phrases, without having given much thought to the details and consequences of the positions that you advocate. It doesn't come across as particularly thoughtful, since you never make any attempt to pursuade - only to rail against The Man and all the sheeple who bow their heads as lambs to the slaughter. How about thinking carefully about your positions, and finding ways to defend them with logic and persuasive words, rather than insults for whoever cannot match your brilliant intellect?

 

[MiddleGround]

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

So, now it is too dangerous to do traffic enforcement when it is rush hour AND too dangerous to do checkpoints when there is a storm?

Do the local LEO get a book of "time out chits" when they join the force???

 

[gemma_rae]

So, now it is too dangerous to do traffic enforcement when it is rush hour AND too dangerous to do checkpoints when there is a storm?

Do the local LEO get a book of "time out chits" when they join the force???

I guess they don't do 'Sink-O' de Mayo!

 

[Gilligan]

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

Well sumbitch....so I stayed half sober for nuthin'...