I voted no simply because I think checkpoints violate the right to privacy. Yes, I'm aware that the law doesn't agree with me but I disagree with the law on a lot of things. The police have no right to pull anyone over simply to see if they MIGHT be doing something wrong and that's exactly what checkpoints do, in my opinion.
In a checkpoint, the officer gets right in your face, placing their head inside the vehicle. They're not allowed to enter a vehicle unless something is in plain sight or unless they have the permission of the vehicle owner. The stop also has to be legal in the first place.
I'm not willing to give up a single right in order to possibly catch someone who "might" be doing something wrong. If you give up your rights for yourself, you give them up for everyone.
I know that drunk/impaired driving is a real problem but just because someone else might be doing something wrong doesn't mean I should have to give up my right to privacy to catch them. Nanny state government overreach sucks.
Checkpoints are unreasonable search. Inspecting people for impairment is a search. And stopping people who are displaying signs of impairment is fine, bothering people for driving down a road is not.
Driving on the public roadway is a licensed privilege subject to the rules and laws of the state in which you reside, the same applies to the use of seat-belts, cell phone use, age, or physical impairment. The odd notion that one has a right to do as they please while using a public roadway with out regard to the larger community is not a matter of personal liberty, or libertarian philosophy, it is anarchy.
Peter, a sobriety check is not a search, the police officer does not enter your vehicle, and it is applied equally to everyone that passes through the checkpoint.
I am just as much against nanny state politics as anyone, this issue however, does not seem to me to an example of nanny state politics.
It is no different than checkpoints to check inspection stickers as far as I am concerned. Truthfully I hate DWI checkpoints simply for the inconvienance, but that is all it is, is an inconvienance not an intrusion on civil liberty.
They don't bother me in the least - I stop, I get checked, I say " Have a nice day - stay safe. " to the officer, and I drive on. Those guys RISK THEIR LIVES to do their jobs EVERY DAY - - to PROTECT and SERVE - - this is the "protect" part - - protecting us from drunk drivers. Even if they don't even catch ONE - because after all, they've ADVERTISED the checkpoint - - maybe - hopefully - it's because somebody decided NOT to drive after drinking. THIS is how THOSE guys are spending their HOLIDAY, for Pete's sake. I'll bet THEY'D rather not be out there, either. Give them a break. They're doing their jobs.
A review of your condition is being performed, that is a search.
Are you going to tell me that if your registration is out of date they are going to ignore it? No, they are searching. Every one I have gone through has asked for a license. That is a search. The definition of search is to look for something. They are looking to see how you respond. Just because the object of the search is not a physical object doesn't mean its not a search. They are inspecting your person when they determine your state of sobriety.
This is a violation of your 4th amendment and most of you are too blind to see it.
Irene, stop worrying about my sake, I did my life risking to ensure you could be duped into accepting some perceived protection over freedom. I spent Christmas in boot camp. I know what its like to lose holidays to protect others. The difference was I wasn't hassling law abiding citizens driving home, I was worried about people who actually want to kill us.
We advertise that we are going to slaughter your ass if you try to attack us, but the terrorists keep coming. Every week there is a slew of DWIs on the blotter that is put out in the paper and here, and they still drive after they drink. Advertising they are having a stop only makes the drunks take the back roads, it doesn't stop them from driving drunk.
Ed you can ride a bike on a public road without a license, therefore not a privilege and get nailed for operating a vehicle while impaired and sent to jail. You don't see check points set up to make sure that the bike riders are sober....
Its not about enforcing the law and its not about lives. Its about control, satiating the lobbies (like MADD and the makers of the in car breathalyzers), and collecting money.
So, now that everyone knows that most of Genesee County's law enforcement are going to be in Leroy this weekend the roads in Batavia, Elba, Alexander, and Pembroke ought to be safer!
/sarcasm
We sold away the concept of reasonable suspicion to MADD.
You have to ask for a drivers license. And when you accept it, you have accepted an implied contract with the State for the privilege. You agree to not knowingly drive a car that is unsafe, unlicensed and uninsured. You agree to have your vision checked, to obey traffic signs and lights. You also agree to to not drive impaired.
Honestly, if you're in Batavia, a cab will cost you 5 bucks each way (a few dollars more with a tip). It's not worth a DWI when a taxi is as inexpensive as it is. I would think that a good thing to do would be for municipal governments to work out discount fairs with cab companies or find a way to help them provide free rides to people on holiday weekends. Arrests aside, perhaps the focus should be on getting people who have been drinking off the road. Even so, it doesn't cost that much in the first place, you'll be supporting a local business and you won't be driving while impaired. It's a triple win.
Yes John I agreed to not drive while impaired. I also agreed to obey all of the other traffic laws. What I didn't agree to do is give up the concept of reasonable suspicion.
The Supreme Court, reaffirmed the fundamental Fourth Amendment principle that searches and seizures must be based on suspicion that a particular individual is engaged in wrongdoing. The case involved roadblocks set up by the Indianapolis Police Department to stop and check passing cars for illegal narcotics with drug-sniffing dogs.
The majority opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor forcefully rejected such roadblocks as violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. In ordinary situations, that means there has to be individualized suspicion before such searches can take place.
In 1990, the court upheld as constitutional roadblocks used to check for drunken driving, and in the 1970's, it upheld fixed border checkpoints to intercept illegal aliens. But clearly the court sees those cases as limited exceptions to Fourth Amendment principles. Sobriety checkpoints were upheld because they served to protect the public from the immediate highway hazard posed by drunken drivers. Fixed checkpoints were upheld because of the special need to protect the integrity of the borders.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.
Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject themselves to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal.
Checkpoints
Legal guidelines for checkpoint procedures
In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:
A checkpoint in the United States 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.
NOTE: The last qualification is exactly why the Leroy Police announced the checkpoints prior to iniiating them.
Peter, How does riding a bike while impaired on what ever drug or intoxicant on a public road which does not require a license or insurance exempt you from being held accountable for your actions while operating/riding your bike on that public road? If you choose to ride into traffic while impaired then you are accountable for your action. A drunk on a bike can be the cause an accident that injures others as well as him/herself. A person who chooses to wander about in public while intoxicated is quite likely to spend the night in lock-up for disturbing the peace or public intoxication. The notion that a free and open society has no limits on persons conduct in public is nonsense. If you choose to drink or drug yourself into a stupor the privacy of your home then that is you right, that right however stops at your door when you choose enter into the commons. In short stay home or behave yourself.
Its not about responsibility Ed. You made my point in your post. A bike rider that rides into traffic has done something to arouse suspicion and if seen by an officer should be stopped. Same for someone walking.
But that's not what is being done with a checkpoint. They are checking everyone.
And Mark, just because they deem it constitutional doesn't make it right. Its still a violation of the 4th amendment as they wrote for the winning side.
"While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist..."
Peter that is why the Supreme court specifically laid out guidelines in thier decision, most mentionable
"Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect."
This was specifically added to allow individuals the opportunity NOT to subject themselves to the checkpoint and as a deterent to drive while under the influence altogether.
Thus it does indeed make this about choice, you have on many occasions heralded the constitution as gospel, well the constitution empowers the Supreme Court to be the final arbitor of the interpetation of the constitution. In this case by a 6-3 vote (Which indicates it was not party line decision) They laid out specific conditions for DWI checkpoints to be legal and thus constitutional.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, if you believe in the constitution, then the decision of the supreme court is binding unless congress and 2/3rds of the States Amend the constitution to address it. The key to the decision was "LIMITED EXCEPTIONS" and "Standards set forth in the decision"
I can believe in the constitution as written and that man failed to up hold it.
And I can disagree on the 6's finding. Just as I do with them siding with New London. Just as I will if they uphold Obama Care.
Just because a court says something doesn't mean they are correct.
My 4th amendment rights are violated every time I approach one of these checkpoints whether the checkpoint is legal or not. You'll notice that not once in this argument have I said it was illegal.
There are MANY more people doing distracted driving that's putting my safety at risk.Tell me how many times you've almost been run into by someone texting or involved in a call...... that's a bigger danger that's growing by leaps and bounds compared to drinking and driving. DWI checkpoints are same concept that commercial drivers face w/ D.O.T checkpoints......
I don't drink and drive, I follow the rules, I make sure my vehicle is safe to drive, why in the hell do I have to be harrassed by the police because some other idiots don't follow the rules. oh, thats right, this is Police State N.Y.
Maybe they should just set up checkpoint booths, and operate them 24/7? How many people would they catch driving while impaired by prescription drugs? Or how about conducting eye tests, maybe even throw in an IQ test, as I have seen many drivers do some pretty stupid things. Where does it end people?
If anyone thinks for a minute these checkpoints are going to keep alcoholics off the road, I would question your sanity, or your knowledge of alcoholism. The alcoholic is in constant pursuit of his next drink, and without a functioning frontal lobe, if that means driving for that drink, that is exactly what he will do, I don't care if you put an advertisement on the windshield of his car about checkpoints, he needs a drink.
Peter, it seems to me some people don't care about their rights, or the rights of others, as long as they think they are being protected against one of their own fears.
I will never vote for any politician who supports this type of intrusion, that is my only recourse.
If my memory serves me correct, this whole checkpoint in Gen.Co. started soon after the Pembroke tragedy, which, by the way, happened in broad daylight.
For those who gave my comment negative votes, which part do you disagree with?
Peter, as George Carlin put it, this country is circling the drain.
Frank,
I can understand your point. I would guess that you would object to searches going into government buildings also and metal detectors at airports?
Peter, you don't have a right to drive a car. Driving is a privilege, if you don't want to be stopped, don't drive. Driving comes with obligations, one of them is to be sober. It's just like flying a plane.
i voted no...i will not go through a checkpoint.i stop my car and turn around.
yes the cops will chase after me,drooling all over themselfs,thinking they
"got one".makes them work for their money..
they always ask why did you turn around,i tell them i saw you were busy up there..
then they start in with the"i smell marijuana"statement...i have to laugh at
them....
then it's"mind if i search your vehicle?" tell them hell yes i mind.get your sniffer dog
or a court order.you're not searching anything of mine.
then it's"if you don't have anything to hide,why can't i look?" because i said no.
the police are the people who drive around in taxpayer supplied automobiles,on taxpayer
dime enforcing laws that they themselfs do not obey..ever see a cop talking on the phone
while driving?lol right,everytime one is going the other way...
how is it a cop can have a computer,a cellphone,a twoway radio,no seatbelt and still drive safely?
i lost respect for the hypocrites along time ago,i can't trust them.i will not drive through
corfu because of the police town it has become..
quote me on this boys and girls...."i will die with my liberties,before i will live without them."
all you scardy cats stay home close your shades and lock your doors.
John, I don't fly, so my answer to that question doesn't matter, and metal detectors are fine in govt. buildings, keeping in mind that if someone wanted to do damage to a federal building, those metal detecters are useless, remember Timothy McVeigh.
Going into an airport where there are thousands of people, or a federal building where there may be hundreds is a far cry from the number of vehicles on the road at 3 am, your talking apples and oranges John.
David, could not have said it better myself, we live in a do as I say, not as I do, police state.
Okay, 4th Amendment violation? Really? Wow, that is over the top! You forget that in order to legally operate your vehicle on a "PUBLIC ROADWAY', you are required to have a valid vehicle registration and vehicle inspection in the State of New York. Not to mention the registration is on your windshield putting it in plain view. Also, if you have contraband laying out in plain view does not mean the Police Officer is searching. A Police Officer has every right to look around for his safety and yours. If, someone is stupid enough to leave contraband in plain view, then they deserve their reward. Your privacy does not exist in public view. Driver's Licenses are a privilege and not a guarantee or a RIGHT!
"... enforcing laws that they themselfs do not obey..ever see a cop talking on the phone
while driving ... "
Contradiction alert: There's nothing illegal about an officer on the law talking on the phone while driving. The law specifically addresses this point.
"they always ask why did you turn around,i tell them i saw you were busy up there.."
Have to say as a PO, that is funny.
Here is one I encounter Wednesday morning approximately around 0358 hours. I tapped on a window of a BMW for a woman who was passed out in her car. When I got her attention she stated, "Hang on!" Then she turned up her radio and went back to sleep. I guess she did not want to talk to the cops. If, you are wondering what the problem is with that, here you go. Her car was parked at a six way intersection in the wrong lane (oncoming).
BTW, did you know (Probably not based on your comment) that, Police Officers are exempt from the cell phone law as long as they are conducting official business. If you do not like it, take it up with your elected officials.
Why can't we have opposing points of view and varied opinions without being called names? I'm perfectly willing to listen to what other people have to say, but I quit reading as soon as the insults begin. That tactic will not change anyone's mind.
John, how does anyone know who the officer on the cell phone is talking to, why don't we as citizens have a right to flash our lights at the patrol car and demand to know who the officer is talking to, and whether or not it is official business. Maybe the logs from their phones should be made available for public scrutiny, after all we paid for the phone, the car, the uniform, the badge, and pretty much every piece of equipment at the officers disposal.
Frank, don't you think that one is just a little beyond the pale? And what makes you think someone doesn't review those call logs?
Why is it that everytime a police officer's are directed to carry out a detail that some immediately start to attack the officers themselves.
I don't know a single officer that became one because he wanted to man a DWI checkpoint. I am willing to bet that they would rather perform some other task rather during the course of thier tours.
Mark, I don't blame the officers at the checkpoints, they are doing what they have been instructed to do. But I feel my rights are under attack when I have to be stopped simply because I chose to drive somewhere, without breaking the law. I don't beleive the public has privvy to the phone logs either.
Where did I attack any officer, in my opinion, and as a taxpayer, I want to know how my hard earned dollars are spent. It is also my opinion that the checkpoints are intrusive, ineffective, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Frank, Every law is in fact a limit on personal liberty as is every regulation, the question becomes one of balance. Weighing the public good against individual liberty is something that has to be considered for every piece of legislation ever written.
As far as making cell phone logs from PO's, how would you verify what is a true duty phone call, officers at times talk with victims, witnesses and on some occasions even suspects on their cell phones.. A civilivian review at times could be so heavily redacted that it might even raise more questions than answers, and if it weren't redacted, how difficult would it be then for someone to research the phone logs to determone who was a witness against them.... There are some things that the public really should not know the details of.
Mark, your last paragraph says it all, which makes it ripe for abuse.
Checkpoints can be defeated, they may have been effective at first, but with cell phones, one call to the bar, and everyone knows which way not to drive home. In business, if something does not yield positive results, it ends up getting shit canned, I would expect no less where my tax dollars are concerned.
I would much rather see the funds used to determine some way to control the deer population, I am definately more concerned about running into a deer than a drunk driver. I think the insurance industry would agree whole heartedly.
Frank, Think about that, your entire argument against checkpoints is based on a percieved invasion of privacy, yet you advocate publishing cellphone logs which may violate the privacy of victims and witnesses soley because the possibilty exist that it may be abused.
Mark, very contradictive, you're picking and choosing whose privacy is more important.
There is no perception when the police are snooping around your vehicle and you've done nothing to warrant it.
Not contradictive at all Frank, key to it all Frank, as I posted earlier with the dreaded cut and paste.
This has been reviewed not once but three times in different scenarios by the supreme court. The court even went as far as to establish guidlines to limit what intrusions may exist.
"A checkpoint in the United States 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."
The is and always has been since our constitution a need for balance between personal liberty and public safety, the founders in thier wisdom accounted for future debate with the establishment of the supreme courts. Since the court has ruled, it does come down to a matter of public safety.
What's next, pick a street randomly, and search each and every house for illegal contraband,i.e.,guns, drugs, gambling records? The door has been opened, and give em an inch and they take a mile.Illegal guns,and drugs are also a public safety issue. Like I said, where does it end?
With all due respect, you have your opinion, I have mine, mine will never change. Have a safe and happy holiday.
Frank anything in your car that is not covered or in the trunk is in plain site, a police officer at a red light if he sees contraban in a car has just established probable cause.
This is not at all akin to searching homes or even ones person. Not even close.
That is precisely why we have a supreme court so the inch doesn't turn into a mile.
And what everyone seems to forget about checkpoints, one of the guidelines is to publically announce in advance, precisely to give on ethe choice not drive and encounter one. That is the deterent effect of the checkpoint in the first place.
John, I don't care what they do at airports. I don't fly, and never will, I will never be convinced it is safe after 9/11, so I really don't give a damn if they ring the airports with the national gaurd, it makes no never mind to me. I don't have to fly, I have to drive, again John, apples and oranges.
Mark, THERE IS NO CHECKPOINT THAT WOULD DETER A DEDICATED ALCOHOLIC FROM DRIVING FOR HIS NEXT DRINK. In my opinion, that makes them ineffective. As I stated earlier, I will not vote for any politician who advocates this type of police harrassment, waste of time and effort, as well as taxpayer dollars.
If the desired result is to make me feel safer, it is not working, I trust my own driving skills more than anything else when I drive, I expect other drivers to do something stupid, and stay alert to take evasive action.
I know that a dedicated alcoholic will not be detered, that is why inspite of the advanced postings, there always seems to be one or two that get charged with DWI. The deterent is for those who may not be hard core alcoholics. So you might re-evaluate whta you see as in effective.
That is your right to vote or not vote for anyone based on this issue, no one said otherwise. In fact there are a handful of states that prohibit sobriety check points by law, that is the beauty of our Republcan form of Government (Not to be confused with the GOP)
Frank,
What is the difference between a sobriety checkpoint and air port metal detectors? Or is your outrage limited to personal inconvience only?
And the to say the issue is apples and oranges is blatantly false. They both stop and check you.
John, I'm not concerned with things I don't have to do, only those that I do have to do, so in my opinion it is apples and oranges. If I don't go to an airport, I won't be searched at an airport, that is MY choice, driving is a neccesity, not always a choice. What part of this are you having difficulties with?
And where do you come off with saying I'm outraged? I simply am stating my opinion, as well as my perception on a subject I disagree with. I don't waste my emotion on such issues John.
Mark, I throw in the vote statement to avoid having someone post back informing me of that right.
John, it's my opinion, it's not gonna change!!!!! What it boils down to is this: I'm sick and tired of rules and regs. placed on the majority due to the actions of few, whether it be in school, in public, in the workplace, or on the highway, it is nothing more than pet peeve, polictically correct bs. Again, that is my opinion and there is nothing you can post that will change it.
I voted no simply because I
I voted no simply because I think checkpoints violate the right to privacy. Yes, I'm aware that the law doesn't agree with me but I disagree with the law on a lot of things. The police have no right to pull anyone over simply to see if they MIGHT be doing something wrong and that's exactly what checkpoints do, in my opinion.
In a checkpoint, the officer gets right in your face, placing their head inside the vehicle. They're not allowed to enter a vehicle unless something is in plain sight or unless they have the permission of the vehicle owner. The stop also has to be legal in the first place.
I'm not willing to give up a single right in order to possibly catch someone who "might" be doing something wrong. If you give up your rights for yourself, you give them up for everyone.
I know that drunk/impaired driving is a real problem but just because someone else might be doing something wrong doesn't mean I should have to give up my right to privacy to catch them. Nanny state government overreach sucks.
I would agree with you whole
I would agree with you whole heartedly Doug, except; Driving is a privilege, not a right and the privilege is contigent on following traffic laws.
It is not the same as searching your car or property.
Checkpoints are unreasonable
Checkpoints are unreasonable search. Inspecting people for impairment is a search. And stopping people who are displaying signs of impairment is fine, bothering people for driving down a road is not.
This applies to airport security too.
Driving on the public roadway
Driving on the public roadway is a licensed privilege subject to the rules and laws of the state in which you reside, the same applies to the use of seat-belts, cell phone use, age, or physical impairment. The odd notion that one has a right to do as they please while using a public roadway with out regard to the larger community is not a matter of personal liberty, or libertarian philosophy, it is anarchy.
Peter, a sobriety check is
Peter, a sobriety check is not a search, the police officer does not enter your vehicle, and it is applied equally to everyone that passes through the checkpoint.
I am just as much against nanny state politics as anyone, this issue however, does not seem to me to an example of nanny state politics.
It is no different than checkpoints to check inspection stickers as far as I am concerned. Truthfully I hate DWI checkpoints simply for the inconvienance, but that is all it is, is an inconvienance not an intrusion on civil liberty.
They don't bother me in the
They don't bother me in the least - I stop, I get checked, I say " Have a nice day - stay safe. " to the officer, and I drive on. Those guys RISK THEIR LIVES to do their jobs EVERY DAY - - to PROTECT and SERVE - - this is the "protect" part - - protecting us from drunk drivers. Even if they don't even catch ONE - because after all, they've ADVERTISED the checkpoint - - maybe - hopefully - it's because somebody decided NOT to drive after drinking. THIS is how THOSE guys are spending their HOLIDAY, for Pete's sake. I'll bet THEY'D rather not be out there, either. Give them a break. They're doing their jobs.
A review of your condition is
A review of your condition is being performed, that is a search.
Are you going to tell me that if your registration is out of date they are going to ignore it? No, they are searching. Every one I have gone through has asked for a license. That is a search. The definition of search is to look for something. They are looking to see how you respond. Just because the object of the search is not a physical object doesn't mean its not a search. They are inspecting your person when they determine your state of sobriety.
This is a violation of your 4th amendment and most of you are too blind to see it.
Irene, stop worrying about my sake, I did my life risking to ensure you could be duped into accepting some perceived protection over freedom. I spent Christmas in boot camp. I know what its like to lose holidays to protect others. The difference was I wasn't hassling law abiding citizens driving home, I was worried about people who actually want to kill us.
We advertise that we are going to slaughter your ass if you try to attack us, but the terrorists keep coming. Every week there is a slew of DWIs on the blotter that is put out in the paper and here, and they still drive after they drink. Advertising they are having a stop only makes the drunks take the back roads, it doesn't stop them from driving drunk.
Ed you can ride a bike on a public road without a license, therefore not a privilege and get nailed for operating a vehicle while impaired and sent to jail. You don't see check points set up to make sure that the bike riders are sober....
Its not about enforcing the law and its not about lives. Its about control, satiating the lobbies (like MADD and the makers of the in car breathalyzers), and collecting money.
So, now that everyone knows
So, now that everyone knows that most of Genesee County's law enforcement are going to be in Leroy this weekend the roads in Batavia, Elba, Alexander, and Pembroke ought to be safer!
/sarcasm
We sold away the concept of reasonable suspicion to MADD.
You have to ask for a drivers
You have to ask for a drivers license. And when you accept it, you have accepted an implied contract with the State for the privilege. You agree to not knowingly drive a car that is unsafe, unlicensed and uninsured. You agree to have your vision checked, to obey traffic signs and lights. You also agree to to not drive impaired.
Honestly, if you're in
Honestly, if you're in Batavia, a cab will cost you 5 bucks each way (a few dollars more with a tip). It's not worth a DWI when a taxi is as inexpensive as it is. I would think that a good thing to do would be for municipal governments to work out discount fairs with cab companies or find a way to help them provide free rides to people on holiday weekends. Arrests aside, perhaps the focus should be on getting people who have been drinking off the road. Even so, it doesn't cost that much in the first place, you'll be supporting a local business and you won't be driving while impaired. It's a triple win.
Show me where I signed away
Show me where I signed away my 4th amendment John
Yes John I agreed to not
Yes John I agreed to not drive while impaired. I also agreed to obey all of the other traffic laws. What I didn't agree to do is give up the concept of reasonable suspicion.
The Supreme Court, reaffirmed
The Supreme Court, reaffirmed the fundamental Fourth Amendment principle that searches and seizures must be based on suspicion that a particular individual is engaged in wrongdoing. The case involved roadblocks set up by the Indianapolis Police Department to stop and check passing cars for illegal narcotics with drug-sniffing dogs.
The majority opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor forcefully rejected such roadblocks as violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. In ordinary situations, that means there has to be individualized suspicion before such searches can take place.
In 1990, the court upheld as constitutional roadblocks used to check for drunken driving, and in the 1970's, it upheld fixed border checkpoints to intercept illegal aliens. But clearly the court sees those cases as limited exceptions to Fourth Amendment principles. Sobriety checkpoints were upheld because they served to protect the public from the immediate highway hazard posed by drunken drivers. Fixed checkpoints were upheld because of the special need to protect the integrity of the borders.
Further The Fourth Amendment
Further
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.
Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject themselves to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal.
Checkpoints
Legal guidelines for checkpoint procedures
In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:
A checkpoint in the United States 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.
NOTE: The last qualification is exactly why the Leroy Police announced the checkpoints prior to iniiating them.
Peter, How does riding a bike
Peter, How does riding a bike while impaired on what ever drug or intoxicant on a public road which does not require a license or insurance exempt you from being held accountable for your actions while operating/riding your bike on that public road? If you choose to ride into traffic while impaired then you are accountable for your action. A drunk on a bike can be the cause an accident that injures others as well as him/herself. A person who chooses to wander about in public while intoxicated is quite likely to spend the night in lock-up for disturbing the peace or public intoxication. The notion that a free and open society has no limits on persons conduct in public is nonsense. If you choose to drink or drug yourself into a stupor the privacy of your home then that is you right, that right however stops at your door when you choose enter into the commons. In short stay home or behave yourself.
Its not about responsibility
Its not about responsibility Ed. You made my point in your post. A bike rider that rides into traffic has done something to arouse suspicion and if seen by an officer should be stopped. Same for someone walking.
But that's not what is being done with a checkpoint. They are checking everyone.
And Mark, just because they deem it constitutional doesn't make it right. Its still a violation of the 4th amendment as they wrote for the winning side.
"While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist..."
Also the court has said your
Also the court has said your house can be taken to build a Walmart... Not exactly public use is it? The Court has been and is wrong.
See Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education
Peter that is why the Supreme
Peter that is why the Supreme court specifically laid out guidelines in thier decision, most mentionable
"Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect."
This was specifically added to allow individuals the opportunity NOT to subject themselves to the checkpoint and as a deterent to drive while under the influence altogether.
Thus it does indeed make this about choice, you have on many occasions heralded the constitution as gospel, well the constitution empowers the Supreme Court to be the final arbitor of the interpetation of the constitution. In this case by a 6-3 vote (Which indicates it was not party line decision) They laid out specific conditions for DWI checkpoints to be legal and thus constitutional.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, if you believe in the constitution, then the decision of the supreme court is binding unless congress and 2/3rds of the States Amend the constitution to address it. The key to the decision was "LIMITED EXCEPTIONS" and "Standards set forth in the decision"
I can believe in the
I can believe in the constitution as written and that man failed to up hold it.
And I can disagree on the 6's finding. Just as I do with them siding with New London. Just as I will if they uphold Obama Care.
Just because a court says something doesn't mean they are correct.
My 4th amendment rights are violated every time I approach one of these checkpoints whether the checkpoint is legal or not. You'll notice that not once in this argument have I said it was illegal.
There are MANY more people
There are MANY more people doing distracted driving that's putting my safety at risk.Tell me how many times you've almost been run into by someone texting or involved in a call...... that's a bigger danger that's growing by leaps and bounds compared to drinking and driving. DWI checkpoints are same concept that commercial drivers face w/ D.O.T checkpoints......
I don't drink and drive, I
I don't drink and drive, I follow the rules, I make sure my vehicle is safe to drive, why in the hell do I have to be harrassed by the police because some other idiots don't follow the rules. oh, thats right, this is Police State N.Y.
Maybe they should just set up checkpoint booths, and operate them 24/7? How many people would they catch driving while impaired by prescription drugs? Or how about conducting eye tests, maybe even throw in an IQ test, as I have seen many drivers do some pretty stupid things. Where does it end people?
If anyone thinks for a minute these checkpoints are going to keep alcoholics off the road, I would question your sanity, or your knowledge of alcoholism. The alcoholic is in constant pursuit of his next drink, and without a functioning frontal lobe, if that means driving for that drink, that is exactly what he will do, I don't care if you put an advertisement on the windshield of his car about checkpoints, he needs a drink.
I voted yes. A drunk driver
I voted yes. A drunk driver will kill you just as dead on a holiday as any other day.
At this point there are 801
At this point there are 801 sheep that believe their protection is worth more than their liberty. Maybe this country will never return to greatness.
Peter, it seems to me some
Peter, it seems to me some people don't care about their rights, or the rights of others, as long as they think they are being protected against one of their own fears.
I will never vote for any politician who supports this type of intrusion, that is my only recourse.
If my memory serves me correct, this whole checkpoint in Gen.Co. started soon after the Pembroke tragedy, which, by the way, happened in broad daylight.
For those who gave my comment negative votes, which part do you disagree with?
Peter, as George Carlin put it, this country is circling the drain.
Frank, I can understand your
Frank,
I can understand your point. I would guess that you would object to searches going into government buildings also and metal detectors at airports?
Peter, you don't have a right
Peter, you don't have a right to drive a car. Driving is a privilege, if you don't want to be stopped, don't drive. Driving comes with obligations, one of them is to be sober. It's just like flying a plane.
i voted no...i will not go
i voted no...i will not go through a checkpoint.i stop my car and turn around.
yes the cops will chase after me,drooling all over themselfs,thinking they
"got one".makes them work for their money..
they always ask why did you turn around,i tell them i saw you were busy up there..
then they start in with the"i smell marijuana"statement...i have to laugh at
them....
then it's"mind if i search your vehicle?" tell them hell yes i mind.get your sniffer dog
or a court order.you're not searching anything of mine.
then it's"if you don't have anything to hide,why can't i look?" because i said no.
the police are the people who drive around in taxpayer supplied automobiles,on taxpayer
dime enforcing laws that they themselfs do not obey..ever see a cop talking on the phone
while driving?lol right,everytime one is going the other way...
how is it a cop can have a computer,a cellphone,a twoway radio,no seatbelt and still drive safely?
i lost respect for the hypocrites along time ago,i can't trust them.i will not drive through
corfu because of the police town it has become..
quote me on this boys and girls...."i will die with my liberties,before i will live without them."
all you scardy cats stay home close your shades and lock your doors.
John, I don't fly, so my
John, I don't fly, so my answer to that question doesn't matter, and metal detectors are fine in govt. buildings, keeping in mind that if someone wanted to do damage to a federal building, those metal detecters are useless, remember Timothy McVeigh.
Going into an airport where there are thousands of people, or a federal building where there may be hundreds is a far cry from the number of vehicles on the road at 3 am, your talking apples and oranges John.
David, could not have said it better myself, we live in a do as I say, not as I do, police state.
Okay, 4th Amendment
Okay, 4th Amendment violation? Really? Wow, that is over the top! You forget that in order to legally operate your vehicle on a "PUBLIC ROADWAY', you are required to have a valid vehicle registration and vehicle inspection in the State of New York. Not to mention the registration is on your windshield putting it in plain view. Also, if you have contraband laying out in plain view does not mean the Police Officer is searching. A Police Officer has every right to look around for his safety and yours. If, someone is stupid enough to leave contraband in plain view, then they deserve their reward. Your privacy does not exist in public view. Driver's Licenses are a privilege and not a guarantee or a RIGHT!
"... enforcing laws that they
"... enforcing laws that they themselfs do not obey..ever see a cop talking on the phone
while driving ... "
Contradiction alert: There's nothing illegal about an officer on the law talking on the phone while driving. The law specifically addresses this point.
"they always ask why did you
"they always ask why did you turn around,i tell them i saw you were busy up there.."
Have to say as a PO, that is funny.
Here is one I encounter Wednesday morning approximately around 0358 hours. I tapped on a window of a BMW for a woman who was passed out in her car. When I got her attention she stated, "Hang on!" Then she turned up her radio and went back to sleep. I guess she did not want to talk to the cops. If, you are wondering what the problem is with that, here you go. Her car was parked at a six way intersection in the wrong lane (oncoming).
BTW, did you know (Probably not based on your comment) that, Police Officers are exempt from the cell phone law as long as they are conducting official business. If you do not like it, take it up with your elected officials.
Why can't we have opposing
Why can't we have opposing points of view and varied opinions without being called names? I'm perfectly willing to listen to what other people have to say, but I quit reading as soon as the insults begin. That tactic will not change anyone's mind.
Turning to avoid a traffic
Turning to avoid a traffic checkpoint whether you believe it to proper or not, is in itself a suspicious act. Don't you think?
John, how does anyone know
John, how does anyone know who the officer on the cell phone is talking to, why don't we as citizens have a right to flash our lights at the patrol car and demand to know who the officer is talking to, and whether or not it is official business. Maybe the logs from their phones should be made available for public scrutiny, after all we paid for the phone, the car, the uniform, the badge, and pretty much every piece of equipment at the officers disposal.
Mr. Woodworth, Since you are
Mr. Woodworth,
Since you are a DOD cop, was that lady on the air base?
Frank, don't you think that
Frank, don't you think that one is just a little beyond the pale? And what makes you think someone doesn't review those call logs?
Why is it that everytime a police officer's are directed to carry out a detail that some immediately start to attack the officers themselves.
I don't know a single officer that became one because he wanted to man a DWI checkpoint. I am willing to bet that they would rather perform some other task rather during the course of thier tours.
Mark, I don't blame the
Mark, I don't blame the officers at the checkpoints, they are doing what they have been instructed to do. But I feel my rights are under attack when I have to be stopped simply because I chose to drive somewhere, without breaking the law. I don't beleive the public has privvy to the phone logs either.
Where did I attack any officer, in my opinion, and as a taxpayer, I want to know how my hard earned dollars are spent. It is also my opinion that the checkpoints are intrusive, ineffective, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Frank, Every law is in fact a
Frank, Every law is in fact a limit on personal liberty as is every regulation, the question becomes one of balance. Weighing the public good against individual liberty is something that has to be considered for every piece of legislation ever written.
As far as making cell phone logs from PO's, how would you verify what is a true duty phone call, officers at times talk with victims, witnesses and on some occasions even suspects on their cell phones.. A civilivian review at times could be so heavily redacted that it might even raise more questions than answers, and if it weren't redacted, how difficult would it be then for someone to research the phone logs to determone who was a witness against them.... There are some things that the public really should not know the details of.
Mark, your last paragraph
Mark, your last paragraph says it all, which makes it ripe for abuse.
Checkpoints can be defeated, they may have been effective at first, but with cell phones, one call to the bar, and everyone knows which way not to drive home. In business, if something does not yield positive results, it ends up getting shit canned, I would expect no less where my tax dollars are concerned.
I would much rather see the funds used to determine some way to control the deer population, I am definately more concerned about running into a deer than a drunk driver. I think the insurance industry would agree whole heartedly.
Frank, Think about that, your
Frank, Think about that, your entire argument against checkpoints is based on a percieved invasion of privacy, yet you advocate publishing cellphone logs which may violate the privacy of victims and witnesses soley because the possibilty exist that it may be abused.
Mark, very contradictive,
Mark, very contradictive, you're picking and choosing whose privacy is more important.
There is no perception when the police are snooping around your vehicle and you've done nothing to warrant it.
Not contradictive at all
Not contradictive at all Frank, key to it all Frank, as I posted earlier with the dreaded cut and paste.
This has been reviewed not once but three times in different scenarios by the supreme court. The court even went as far as to establish guidlines to limit what intrusions may exist.
"A checkpoint in the United States 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."
The is and always has been since our constitution a need for balance between personal liberty and public safety, the founders in thier wisdom accounted for future debate with the establishment of the supreme courts. Since the court has ruled, it does come down to a matter of public safety.
What's next, pick a street
What's next, pick a street randomly, and search each and every house for illegal contraband,i.e.,guns, drugs, gambling records? The door has been opened, and give em an inch and they take a mile.Illegal guns,and drugs are also a public safety issue. Like I said, where does it end?
With all due respect, you have your opinion, I have mine, mine will never change. Have a safe and happy holiday.
Frank, Do you, or do you not,
Frank,
Do you, or do you not, approve of metal detectors at airports?
Frank anything in your car
Frank anything in your car that is not covered or in the trunk is in plain site, a police officer at a red light if he sees contraban in a car has just established probable cause.
This is not at all akin to searching homes or even ones person. Not even close.
That is precisely why we have a supreme court so the inch doesn't turn into a mile.
And what everyone seems to forget about checkpoints, one of the guidelines is to publically announce in advance, precisely to give on ethe choice not drive and encounter one. That is the deterent effect of the checkpoint in the first place.
John, I don't care what they
John, I don't care what they do at airports. I don't fly, and never will, I will never be convinced it is safe after 9/11, so I really don't give a damn if they ring the airports with the national gaurd, it makes no never mind to me. I don't have to fly, I have to drive, again John, apples and oranges.
Mark, THERE IS NO CHECKPOINT
Mark, THERE IS NO CHECKPOINT THAT WOULD DETER A DEDICATED ALCOHOLIC FROM DRIVING FOR HIS NEXT DRINK. In my opinion, that makes them ineffective. As I stated earlier, I will not vote for any politician who advocates this type of police harrassment, waste of time and effort, as well as taxpayer dollars.
If the desired result is to make me feel safer, it is not working, I trust my own driving skills more than anything else when I drive, I expect other drivers to do something stupid, and stay alert to take evasive action.
I know that a dedicated
I know that a dedicated alcoholic will not be detered, that is why inspite of the advanced postings, there always seems to be one or two that get charged with DWI. The deterent is for those who may not be hard core alcoholics. So you might re-evaluate whta you see as in effective.
That is your right to vote or not vote for anyone based on this issue, no one said otherwise. In fact there are a handful of states that prohibit sobriety check points by law, that is the beauty of our Republcan form of Government (Not to be confused with the GOP)
Frank, What is the difference
Frank,
What is the difference between a sobriety checkpoint and air port metal detectors? Or is your outrage limited to personal inconvience only?
And the to say the issue is apples and oranges is blatantly false. They both stop and check you.
John, I'm not concerned with
John, I'm not concerned with things I don't have to do, only those that I do have to do, so in my opinion it is apples and oranges. If I don't go to an airport, I won't be searched at an airport, that is MY choice, driving is a neccesity, not always a choice. What part of this are you having difficulties with?
And where do you come off with saying I'm outraged? I simply am stating my opinion, as well as my perception on a subject I disagree with. I don't waste my emotion on such issues John.
Frank, I was just wondering
Frank,
I was just wondering if it was selective on your part or a blanket stand against searches.
Mark, I throw in the vote
Mark, I throw in the vote statement to avoid having someone post back informing me of that right.
John, it's my opinion, it's not gonna change!!!!! What it boils down to is this: I'm sick and tired of rules and regs. placed on the majority due to the actions of few, whether it be in school, in public, in the workplace, or on the highway, it is nothing more than pet peeve, polictically correct bs. Again, that is my opinion and there is nothing you can post that will change it.
Frank, I am not trying to
Frank,
I am not trying to change your opinion. Why would I?
Since we don't expect the policy to change, this is just an exercise in polite debate.
John, Amen to that.
John, Amen to that.