Sobriety Checkpoints

[itsbob]

I rarely get worked up about hypothetical concerns.

What's hypothetical? They pass new laws EVERYday, do you know each and every law that passes every single day in MD and the US??

WIth the Morons running the show right now they are going to pass every bull#### piece of legislation they can. Means more stupid laws that are going to catch more innocent people.. those innocent people usually get "caught" at things like sobriety checkpoints, or roadside safety checks.

 

[FireBrand]

I know, I posted the article. I also posted why the decision was a bad one.

The decision was a good one.

 

[jackers]

The decision was a good one.

I tend to agree with the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment.

 

[FireBrand]

What's hypothetical? They pass new laws EVERYday, do you know each and every law that passes every single day in MD and the US??

WIth the Morons running the show right now they are going to pass every bull#### piece of legislation they can. Means more stupid laws that are going to catch more innocent people.. those innocent people usually get "caught" at things like sobriety checkpoints, or roadside safety checks.

Please attach links or expanding information about innocent people getting 'caught' at a checkpoint.
Thanks !

 

[FireBrand]

I tend to agree with the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment.

O.K., let's see, who is better qualified to interpret the U.S. Constitution, the S.C.O.T.U.S. or some hack named jackers

"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990".

 

[itsbob]

O.K., let's see, who is better qualified to interpret the U.S. Constitution, the S.C.O.T.U.S. or some hack named jackers

"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990".

Again, was it unanimous, or was there a dissenting opinion??

Because if it wasn't and there is a dissenting opinion then it's not the SCOTUS you feel is more qualified, but in fact particular Justices.

If there was a dissenting opinion, then I would suggest, the hack named jackers are JUST as qualified to an opion on constitutionality as a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[FireBrand]

Again, was it unanimous, or was there a dissenting opinion??

Because if it wasn't and there is a dissenting opinion then it's not the SCOTUS you feel is more qualified, but in fact particular Justices.

If there was a dissenting opinion, then I would suggest, the hack named jackers are JUST as qualified to an opion on constitutionality as a Supreme Court Justice.

Entitled to an opinion ? Yes !
Just as qualified ? I really doubt it but positions are available on the court from time to time.

 

[itsbob]

By Justice Stevens

The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures. . . . On the other hand, the Court places a heavy thumb on the law-enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits. Perhaps this tampering with the scales of justice can be explained by the Court's obvious concern about the slaughter on our highways, and a resultant tolerance for policies designed to alleviate the problem by ''setting an example'' of a few motorists. . . . Sobriety checkpoints are elaborate, and disquieting, publicity stunts. The possibility that anybody, no matter how innocent, may be stopped for police inspection is nothing if not attention-getting. The shock value of the checkpoint program may be its most effective feature; Lieutenant Cotton of the Maryland State Police, a defense witness, testified that ''the media coverage . . . has been absolutely overwhelming. . . . Quite frankly we got benefits just from the controversy of the sobriety checkpoints.''

This is a case that is driven by nothing more than symbolic state action - an insufficient justification for an otherwise unreasonable program of random seizures. Unfortunately, the Court is transfixed by the wrong symbol - the illusory prospect of punishing countless intoxicated motorists - when it should keep its eyes on the road plainly marked by the Constitution.


I guess he must be one of the stupid Justices, that doesn't know law or the Constitution at all, just like all the stupid hackers on here.

 

[itsbob]

Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action. . . . By holding that no level of suspicion is necessary before the police may stop a car for the purpose of preventing drunken driving, the Court potentially subjects the general public to arbitrary or harassing conduct by the police.

Justice Brennan even called out the Fourth Amendment, just like a stupid poster that doesn't know any better did.

 

[FireBrand]

By Justice Stevens

The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless, unannounced investigatory seizures. . . . On the other hand, the Court places a heavy thumb on the law-enforcement interest by looking only at gross receipts instead of net benefits. Perhaps this tampering with the scales of justice can be explained by the Court's obvious concern about the slaughter on our highways, and a resultant tolerance for policies designed to alleviate the problem by ''setting an example'' of a few motorists. . . . Sobriety checkpoints are elaborate, and disquieting, publicity stunts. The possibility that anybody, no matter how innocent, may be stopped for police inspection is nothing if not attention-getting. The shock value of the checkpoint program may be its most effective feature; Lieutenant Cotton of the Maryland State Police, a defense witness, testified that ''the media coverage . . . has been absolutely overwhelming. . . . Quite frankly we got benefits just from the controversy of the sobriety checkpoints.''

This is a case that is driven by nothing more than symbolic state action - an insufficient justification for an otherwise unreasonable program of random seizures. Unfortunately, the Court is transfixed by the wrong symbol - the illusory prospect of punishing countless intoxicated motorists - when it should keep its eyes on the road plainly marked by the Constitution.


I guess he must be one of the stupid Justices, that doesn't know law or the Constitution at all, just like all the stupid hackers on here.

These checkpoints where announced !

Bottom line is that the majority of the Supreme Court ruled and ruled correctly !

 

[CrashTest]

No, I'm not mistaken. It was back in '95.....I know.....I was there.

Congratulations

 

[BOP]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990.

the US supreme court also upheld abortion. How's that working for you?

 

[BOP]

O.K., let's see, who is better qualified to interpret the U.S. Constitution, the S.C.O.T.U.S. or some hack named jackers

"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990".

For from the mid 1800's to 1954's Brown v Board of Education, when the SCOTUS declared "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, the SCOTUS previously declared that "separate but equal was, in fact, constitutional.

 

[tom88]

We're not talking about toll booths, we're talking about sobriety checkpoints. I have been through checkpoints. In fact, the last checkpoint I went through, I was pulled off the road and had my vehicle searched because I didn't put the renewal sticker on tags when it was raining. I had the sticker in the car and presented it with the proper registration renewal document. So, yeah, my car was searched, no one asked me if they could search it, and it would never have happened if it weren't for that "sobriety checkpoint". Oh, by the way, I got a warning ticket for expired registration. I wasn't doing anything wrong. AND it was raining that night, too, so the officer told me to put the sticker on sometime when the weather was better.

Aren't they searching you, though? They have you stopped and they look inside your vehicle. They are searching for signs of alcohol usage. And they do it when you haven't done anything to cause them to stop you. I understand the good intentions behind it, I just don't understand how its legal.

I think you are full of b.s. I have been through dozens of checkpoints because I have been the designated driver for people, and have been in the car with designated drivers coming from the tiki. I have not once seen the police pull a car over and search it unless someone was arrested. I have also participated in a ride along where the officer was at a checkpoint before going to saturation patrol and I know there are rules on what they can do. So to you, I say name the date and time of this so called search and I will find out and be able to call it b.....s......

 

[tom88]

SO if they see a roach or an empty syringe on the passengers seat they'll just tell you to have a good night, because that's not the purpose of the checkpoint?

What if they see a gun?

Or you aren't wearing your seatbelt, or heaven forbid you're chattin on your cell phone when you pull up?

What you are suggesting is no matter what, the ONLY tickets and arrests that should come from a sobriety checkpoint is DUI/DWI since that was their intended purposes. Anything else found or elicited during the checkpoint SHOULD be unadmissible in court.

B.S. The state or county are allowed to set up traffic control devices for traffic safety. A dwi checkpoint is nothing more than a traffic control device to stop vehicles for traffic safety. If you have a gun out then you are a moron. If you are not wearing your seatbelt then you are a moron. If you are talking on your cell phone, unless it's on base, then it is not presently against the law.

 

[tom88]

So even though the Supreme Court considers them a "seizure" within the language of the 4th Amendment, not to mention not as effective as roving patrols, it's ok because you say so?

But what do I know, I am just an "Ex-Marine, turd, thug and juvenile delinquent?"

Talk about mis-information. You post a partial opinion on an anti dui checkpoint blog. If you were really looking for the truth, you would have posted the entire opinion and shown that the supreme court has determined the checkpoints are legal!

 

[tom88]

Again, was it unanimous, or was there a dissenting opinion??

Because if it wasn't and there is a dissenting opinion then it's not the SCOTUS you feel is more qualified, but in fact particular Justices.

If there was a dissenting opinion, then I would suggest, the hack named jackers are JUST as qualified to an opion on constitutionality as a Supreme Court Justice.

Two of the dissenters were Brenen and Stevens. You could get a little more liberal than that, but not much. Now I know which side of the isle you sit on. When you don't like a law, they are morons. When you do, they are people you will then acknowledge as being smart. It's all about you now isn't it?

 

[my-thyme]

Headed into SMC on Friday night when we came upon this checkpoint (I was the passenger).

Sitting on the side of the road, last vehicle in the police line, marked DUI unit...

Officer had their laptop open to SOMD Online Forums....

 

[CTBburn]

I think you are full of b.s. I have been through dozens of checkpoints because I have been the designated driver for people, and have been in the car with designated drivers coming from the tiki. I have not once seen the police pull a car over and search it unless someone was arrested. I have also participated in a ride along where the officer was at a checkpoint before going to saturation patrol and I know there are rules on what they can do. So to you, I say name the date and time of this so called search and I will find out and be able to call it b.....s......

New Years Eve 2007 - Johnson City TN - Washington County. Have at it - I am not making this up.

 

[CTBburn]

New Years Eve 2007 - Johnson City TN - Washington County. Have at it - I am not making this up.

To be more specific - on 11E just as you cross into Johnson City from Jonesborough. Both sides of the road were blocked, they checked every vehicle and I was late (and pi$$ed off) to where I was going because of the whole thing.