DUI checkpoints halted after catching numerous unlicensed drivers

[danceswithcats]

There aren't enough rolleyes for this one. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law. (http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2428344,00.html)

Let me get this straight-you're in the country illegally, have no operator's license, and are bitching because you were caught?

I guess asking these folks to enter the country legally and get a license is unreasonable.

[SteveG1]

"But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law. " ???????????????

Umm, being here illegally is a felony, isn't it? Driving with no license is illegal isn't it? Would it be safe to assume they don't bother to buy auto insurance either?
So just how were they "otherwise" obeying any laws at all? Yeah, asking them to follow the same laws we have to follow is unreasonable, racist, and mean. You and I are just big mean poop heads I guess, because we thought laws ap[lied to everyone.

[rolling eyes] That is so damn stupid. [/rolling eyes]

[lissener]

If you put up roadblocks on every street in the country you'd catch all the unlicensed drivers pretty damn quick.

And if you went door to door and searched everyone's underwear drawer, you might find som drugs, guns, or kiddie porn.

I think the way ahead is clear.

[duffer]

If you put up roadblocks on every street in the country you'd catch all the unlicensed drivers pretty damn quick.

And if you went door to door and searched everyone's underwear drawer, you might find som drugs, guns, or kiddie porn.

I think the way ahead is clear.


You can twist just about anything, can't you? I suppose it's Rumsfeld's fault that they're driving illegally in a country they're in illegally? Or is it Ashcroft's fault. That is where you're going with this right? :rolleyes:

[Typo Negative]

And if you went door to door and searched everyone's underwear drawer, you might find som drugs, guns, or kiddie porn.

.But, oddly enough, you wouldn't snare too many drunk drivers, which was the reason for the road blocks.

[milroyj]

You can twist just about anything, can't you? I suppose it's Rumsfeld's fault that they're driving illegally in a country they're in illegally? Or is it Ashcroft's fault. That is where you're going with this right? :rolleyes:

My money's on Cheney, in the undisclosed location, with the candlestick.

[Yeticus Rex]

Er, getting back to the main point......

American Patrol (http://www.americanpatrol.com/)

Lou Dobbs viewpoint on Vicente Fox's demands (http://www.americanpatrol.com/04-FEATURES/040619-FOX-MOUTHS-OFF/040619_Feature.html)

San Diego Times - June 25, 2004 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040625-1649-ca-immigrationsweeps.html)

Grading system of California's legislature in regards to immigration. (http://grades.betterimmigration.com/delegation.php3?District=CA)

And this pretty much sums everything up.... (http://www.sonnet.com/inv-index1.html)

Shall we just get it over with, skip over Bush and Kerry, and just write in Vicente Fox? :rolleyes:

[Polycarp]

You can twist just about anything, can't you? I suppose it's Rumsfeld's fault that they're driving illegally in a country they're in illegally? Or is it Ashcroft's fault. That is where you're going with this right? :rolleyes:

No, oddly enough it's a radical who advocated violent rebellion against the established government, and then claimed that searches had to have a valid reason for being conducted or they were illegal.

You know, that subversive Jim Madison.

[dropzone]

Where can I find that Madison punk? I'll give him a piece of my mind!

[LilShieste]

Please tell me I'm being whooshed by the posters claiming that the halting of the DUI checkpoints is a good thing....?

And there sure have been a lot of piss-poor analogies around the SDMB lately. Catching people driving without licenses (oh, and you know... being here illegally), while performing checks for drunken-driving doesn't strike any similarities with suddenly searching people's underwear drawers, to me. These people who are driving while intoxicated, along with the people who are driving without licenses, are committing a crime. They're not within the "safe haven" of their own homes, they are out in public.

Geez.

LilShieste

[Shagnasty]

Please tell me I'm being whooshed by the posters claiming that the halting of the DUI checkpoints is a good thing....?

And there sure have been a lot of piss-poor analogies around the SDMB lately. Catching people driving without licenses (oh, and you know... being here illegally), while performing checks for drunken-driving doesn't strike any similarities with suddenly searching people's underwear drawers, to me. These people who are driving while intoxicated, along with the people who are driving without licenses, are committing a crime. They're not within the "safe haven" of their own homes, they are out in public.

Geez.

LilShieste

You are not being wooshed when I tell you I think it is a good thing. What does being "in public" have to do with if it is ok for government officials to randomly search you? You shouldn't have to hide in your house to avoid random searches. This happens to be one of intrusion that is acceptable to more people than others but they are really all the same thing. Can you say "playground slide smeared with vaseline"?

[mhendo]

Some of you want to know why they should stop these roadside DUI checkpoints just because they're catching people for various other crimes. That's a reasonable question.

But there's also another side to the coin. Since i arrived in the US, every time i've been in a discussion about these DUI roadblocks there have always been a few libertarians saying, quite reasonably, that such roadblocks are troublesome because they essentially allow police to conduct random stops and to conduct fishing expeditions, all in the absence of probable cause.

So, we have a policy—the DUI roadblocks—that certainly can have extremely beneficial results. I don't think anyone would argue that reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road is a bad thing. But we also have an avenue for abuse of police power.

I humbly submit the Australian solution.

Random Breath Testing (RBT) was introduced in Australia during the 1980s. This program was exactly what the name implies—breath tests conducted on random motorists, both in an attempt to catch drunk drivers and, more importantly, as a deterrent to people who might think about driving after too much alcohol. And there's no doubt that, in terms of road safety, RBT did the trick. Traffic deaths involving alcohol have declined markedly since the introduction of RBT, and i don't know a single Aussie who opposes the system.

But there were some people who worried about the system when it was first introduced, for the reasons that i hinted at in the second paragraph. Civil libertarians (that's what we call them in Austrlia; the term "libertarian" by itself has almost no currency in the Australian political lexicon) were concerned that RBT might be used as a way to get around other restrictions on police authority, and that some police might unfairly take advantage of this.

The solution they came up with was very simple: they don't check licenses or registration at RBT stops. The only thing an RBT stop is used for is to check the amount of alcohol on your breath. They never ask your name, or to see your identification. All they ask is whether you've been drinking, and then they get you to blow in the machine.

If your alcohol level is below the legal limit, you are sent on your way. For all the cops know, you could be driving on a suspended license, or you could be an axe murderer. The only way you'll get caught for those things is if you blow over the limit, because then you get arrested and your license and your identity become a matter of interest to the police.

I think it's a good system, one that allows a certain level of intrusion in order to aid in public safety, but that doesn't end up as just another excuse for the authorities to hassle innocent people without probable cause. I've been stopped by the RBT units on three occasions, and each time i was back on the road within about 60 seconds, having given the police nothing except some (alcohol-free) air. This system also allows Australia to avoid the laughable "roadside sobriety tests" that make for such amusing viewing on shows like "Cops."

[LilShieste]

What does being "in public" have to do with if it is ok for government officials to randomly search you? You shouldn't have to hide in your house to avoid random searches.
I agree that you shouldn't have to hide in your house to avoid random searches. But I also do *not* think that DUI checkpoints are equivalent to having a police officer randomly pulling over cars on the highway, just to search the trunk for dead bodies.

Can you say "playground slide smeared with vaseline"?
I also agree with you that this is certainly a slippery slope argument. :)

LilShieste

[LilShieste]

Thanks for the information, mhendo.

Upon further reflection of my posts in this thread (and how my position is similar to balancing atop an icicle), I think I have fell victim to the slippery slope already. I shouldn't have jumped into this thread so vehemently.

That's not to say my position has changed, only that I can really see where other posters are coming from.

LilShieste

<Tries to slowly, quietly, make his way down off of the ledge...>

[lissener]

Stopping unlicensed drivers is a worthy goal. But just because you've found a way to do so doesn't mean that method shouldn't have to pass constitutional muster.

Ends versus Means, remember? It's like the monkey's paw; be careful what you wish for cuz you just might get it.

So Lil, you're presenting a false dichotomy; you seem to be reacting as if this method were the ONLY means of ridding the streets of unlicensed drivers, and stopping it would be sending the baby down the drain with the dirty water. Unfortunately, in this case it's pretty much all soap scum; no baby here.

[Spiny Norman]

I guess asking these folks to enter the country legally and get a license is unreasonable.There's no way most illegal immigrants could ever do that, but I suspect you knew that.

There is a privacy problem in pulling people over for DUI checks (which in itself seems to be quite defensible) and then using the opportunity to try to stick the motorists with other charges. Denmark had a situation with speed cameras - overzealous police officers used the photos to determine whether people were complying with seat belt laws, as well. (According to the law, the photo has to be good enough to positively identify the driver. That's clear enough to determine seat belt use.) That got struck down, and pretty darn quickly, as an unwarranted breach of privacy.

Illegal immigration is a bit of a problem (and yes, I'm an immigrant myself, sue me), but random checkpoints are not going to solve it. Hefty fines and prison terms for those who hire illegal immigrants stands a better chance of working by drying up the job market and the incentive to cross the border, but that'll never happen.

[Desmostylus]

The solution they came up with was very simple: they don't check licenses or registration at RBT stops. The only thing an RBT stop is used for is to check the amount of alcohol on your breath. They never ask your name, or to see your identification. All they ask is whether you've been drinking, and then they get you to blow in the machine.I can't remember which State you were from, but it doesn't work like that in NSW.

I got stopped about a year ago, at around 7:30 am on a weekday. The car was new, and the interim registration label had expired a day or two earlier. She checked the label and asked whether I'd received the new label. I said "yes" and she told me to make sure to stick it on when I got home. I can't remember positively whether she asked for my licence, but I can remember telling someone later that day that the whole thing seemed designed to catch unlicensed/unregistered/uninsured drivers rather than drink drivers (because of the time of day).

[mhendo]

I can't remember which State you were from, but it doesn't work like that in NSW.

I got stopped about a year ago, at around 7:30 am on a weekday. The car was new, and the interim registration label had expired a day or two earlier. She checked the label and asked whether I'd received the new label. I said "yes" and she told me to make sure to stick it on when I got home. I can't remember positively whether she asked for my licence, but I can remember telling someone later that day that the whole thing seemed designed to catch unlicensed/unregistered/uninsured drivers rather than drink drivers (because of the time of day).I'm from Sydney, and all three of my RBT stops have been in Sydney.

And the scenario i posted is a bit different from displaying an out-of-date registration label. After all, that's something that any cop can see from outside the vehicle, whether or not they stop you for a breath test. It's not the same as asking for licence and registration when they stop you, and i was never asked for either of those things at an RBT stop.

Of course, i've been living in the US for four years now, so it's quite possible that things have changed.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Where can I find that Madison punk? I'll give him a piece of my mind! Where? Montpelier Estate, Montpelier Station, Virginia, USA. See photo here (http://www.thecemeteryproject.com/images/Famous%20Dead%20People/04Madison_-_Gravesite_-_Montpelier_Station_VA_1.jpg)

You can give him a piece of your mind, but don't expect him to respond much, after 168 years.

[One And Only Wanderers]

I really don't get it. The police can check me any time they wish. I never drive drunk and I have a valid licence and valid insurance, so i'll soon be on my way again. The only people who have to worry are the ones breaking the law, and why the hell shouldn't they be caught?

Is it ok to drive without insurance as long as you don't get into an accident? How else are you going to catch these people without waiting for them to rear end someone?

[Bricker]

Stopping unlicensed drivers is a worthy goal. But just because you've found a way to do so doesn't mean that method shouldn't have to pass constitutional muster.


The US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the US Constitution means.

In Michigan State Police v. Sitz, they found that DUI checkpoints operated under the following guidelines were constitutionally permissible:

All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist's driver's license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer's observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately.

Lest it be unclear, the text above did not contemplate officers releasing a driver who could not product a valid license; this was teh reason for the check of the license.

- Rick

[Desmostylus]

And the scenario i posted is a bit different from displaying an out-of-date registration label. After all, that's something that any cop can see from outside the vehicle, whether or not they stop you for a breath test. It's not the same as asking for licence and registration when they stop you, and i was never asked for either of those things at an RBT stop.I don't think the NSW police ever ask to see registration papers. As far as checking licences, the NSW RTA has this to say (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/downloads/mrh_october2000.pdf) (warning, .PDF):When your licence may be checked

Police officers may check that you are correctly
licensed when:

• you are involved in an accident, whether you were at fault or not
• you have been stopped because you committed a traffic offence
• you have been stopped for a random breath test either by a stationary breath testing unit or by a mobile breath testing unit.

[mhendo]

I don't think the NSW police ever ask to see registration papers. As far as checking licences, the NSW RTA has this to say (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/downloads/mrh_october2000.pdf) (warning, .PDF):Thanks for the link.

I was wondering whether the lack of licence inspections was official policy, or whether it was just common practice. It appears that the latter is the case, or at least it is in my experience.

Whether your licence gets checked on any particular RBT stop will probably depend on how the cop feels, and how he thinks you look.

[SteveG1]

1997: Mexican President Warns America
"We will not tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans," ....

Ummm, since when is it not allowed to enforce our own laws, to ensure nobody is driving drunk (or is robbing, selling dope, starting gangs, killing or whatever) in our own country? It's all too easy to cross the border, commit crimes and then slip back across until the "heat is gone". It happens a lot.

2004: Mexican President Warns America
Lou Dobbs Tonight - June 18, 2004
Dobbs: "While in Chicago, President Fox blasted the U.S. for rounding up illegal aliens, and sending those illegal aliens back to Mexico. President Fox said his government will not permit what he called violations of the human and labor rights of Mexicans who live in the United States."

They come here illegally, instead of legally. There are green cards, visitor visas, work visas, etc but SOME people don't feel like doing that. Despite the amnesty programs and other things to make it EASY for people to become "legal", they apparently refuse.
We are just holding the same laws over them as we hold over ourselves, but Mexico has a 'problem" with it.

It's standard practice to ask for a license and registration when the police pull you over. It isn't anything new, and it applies to everyone.

I don't care what Vincente Fox thinks, he has his own country to play with and it's no better than ours. Maybe if there were more opportunities and less corruption in Mexico, people would decide they want to be there (?)

Instead of giving illegals a free trip home, I suppose we could put them in prison instead (?)

Toss in those who want to close the borders completely, and those who apparently want them completely open (with all foreigners being above the law), and it becomes an either/or situation. All or nothing. All we ask is that they obey our laws when they come. They are here by their choice. No one forced them to come here. While they are here, they can follow the same laws the rest of us have to.

[Desmostylus]

Thanks for the link.No worries.

I feel compelled to add the following:

In doing Google searches to work out whether it's usual practice to check licences during random breath tests, I found quite a bit of material that undermines this contention of mine:the whole thing seemed designed to catch unlicensed/unregistered/uninsured drivers rather than drink drivers (because of the time of day).The NSW Police are adamant that they're after people who still have residual alcohol after boozing up the night before. I haven't researched this properly, but it could be a reasonable point.

[mhendo]

The NSW Police are adamant that they're after people who still have residual alcohol after boozing up the night before. I haven't researched this properly, but it could be a reasonable point.I have it on pretty good authority that it's true. My step-father's a retired NSW cop, and he says that they used to catch people like this all the time.

I also knew someone who got caught in exactly that scenario—got pissed the night before, and assumed he was OK to drive the next morning. Blew 0.08.

[Nutty Bunny]

From the linked article: Immigrant activists say roadblocks discriminate against those without licenses.

Are "people without licenses" a protected class now? I didn't get the memo. :rolleyes:

[Nutty Bunny]

I regularly travel from Albany, NY to my hometown, which is north of the Adirondacks and just before the Canadian border. About 2 hours south of the border, between exits 30 and 29 on I-87S is a border checkpoint. Depending on the border agent that's on that day, they will either wave you through after just looking at you and guessing that you're not a danger (or whatever the criteria may be) or you'll get someone like the agent who asked me if I was hiding anyone in my trunk. I think I tittered a bit when he asked me, but he was being totally serious.

My point? I didn't care. And you know why? Because I wasn't hiding anyone in my trunk. Now if they wanted to search me, I still wouldn't care. I didn't have drugs or guns in the car. I'm a flip-flopper (ooh, buzzword!) on this issue. I can see how people would be upset at random searches, but on the other hand, it doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide. As long as they aren't only picking out a certain race, religion, skin color, whathaveyou, then I guess I'm fine with it.

I just don't understand why there's a border checkpoint 2 hours south of the border on a highway, especially since there was a fatal accident involving a semi that didn't slow down and ended up killing the people in the car he rear ended. Yeah, that's safe. :rolleyes:

[stpauler]

Here's a list of state by state (and D.C.) of the state's rulings on the Constitutionality of Sobriety Checkpoints. (http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/state_laws/checkpoints.pdf) (PDF)

Texas' ruling is the most interesting:

Illegal under Texas' interpretation of Federal Constitution. State v Holt 887 S.W.2d 16 (Tex Cr. App. 1994) Because the checkpoint the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Michigan v. Sitz, 496 US 444(1990), was legislatively authorized, the Texas court held that absent such authorization a checkpoint is illegal under the US Constitiontion. There is no specific language in Sitz requiring such an interpretation.

[dropzone]

Where? Montpelier Estate, Montpelier Station, Virginia, USA.Feh! If he's so tough why's his wife more famous than him? And why didn't he get his own monument in DC until 1980 and that was just PART of a library. Shit, I've paid so much in library fines over the years they should name a wing after ME, too.

Punk just GAVE the Brits the damned White House and he expects respect?

[Contrapuntal]

(Nitpick)

There is nothing random about a roadblock that stops all drivers who pass a certain point. For a truly random stop you would have to identify (locate) all members of the population targeted (i.e. drivers in a particular area) and then devise a method of choosing that is by chance alone.

[dropzone]

trandallt, my hat is off to you. I thought I was the most obnoxious person in this thread but a nitpick on creating a truly and statistically random selection has me beat, and you did it in proper Doper fashion, by over-intellectualizing it. I assume your post was as much a whoosh as any of mine. No, I HOPE it was a whoosh. Otherwise, you really need a hobby. Unless your hobby is statistics, in which case you need a NEW hobby. :D

Do you think I could use that as a legal defense? "Your honor, that search was unconstutional because stopping every car that passes a checkpoint is not a truly random selection method."

Anyway, I never had much problem with checkpoints. They are advertised so heavily on the TV news and traffic reports that anybody who gets caught in one is too unaware of his surroundings to be on the raod.

[Eva Luna]

To be fair, it’s entirely possible to be legally residing in the U.S. and not be able to procure a driver’s license legally, because of the bureaucratic kinks between the Agency Formerly Known as INS, state drivers’ licensing authorities, and the Social Security Administration.

For example, here in Illinois the Secretary of State won’t issue a driver’s license to anyone without a Social Security number. People here legally as dependents on their spouse’s or parent’s work visas are not eligible to receive Social Security numbers, because they are not authorized to work under most circumstances – this has happened to my clients more than once. The Secretary of State won’t accept an alternative, the Taxpayer Identification Number, which is used for purposes such as opening bank accounts in lieu of a Social Security number.

More info: http://www.aila.org/fileViewer.aspx?docID=9857

[Contrapuntal]

trandallt, my hat is off to you. I thought I was the most obnoxious person in this thread but a nitpick on creating a truly and statistically random selection has me beat, and you did it in proper Doper fashion, by over-intellectualizing it. I assume your post was as much a whoosh as any of mine. No, I HOPE it was a whoosh. Otherwise, you really need a hobby. Unless your hobby is statistics, in which case you need a NEW hobby. :D

Do you think I could use that as a legal defense? "Your honor, that search was unconstutional because stopping every car that passes a checkpoint is not a truly random selection method."

Anyway, I never had much problem with checkpoints. They are advertised so heavily on the TV news and traffic reports that anybody who gets caught in one is too unaware of his surroundings to be on the raod.
Well no I was not trying to be obnoxious and I wasn't whooshing and my hobby is not statistics. The roadblock as described simply isn't random under any legitimate meaning of the word, and there is no reason to call it random. To do so muddies the waters, in my opinion I have no idea what you are getting at by asking if a defense on constitutional grounds would be a good legal defense. Are you referring to unreasonable search and seizure? I saw no mention of searches in the linked article.

For the record, I support the use of checkpoints to get drivers off the road, and if unlicensed and uninsured drivers are snagged as well, so much the better.

[Ethilrist]

[rolling eyes] That is so damn stupid. [/rolling eyes]
:dubious:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Huh. For a second there I thought the smilies were broken.

[Contrapuntal]

Well no I was not trying to be obnoxious and I wasn't whooshing and my hobby is not statistics. The roadblock as described simply isn't random under any legitimate meaning of the word, and there is no reason to call it random. To do so muddies the waters, in my opinion I have no idea what you are getting at by asking if a defense on constitutional grounds would be a good legal defense. Are you referring to unreasonable search and seizure? I saw no mention of searches in the linked article.

For the record, I support the use of checkpoints to get drivers off the road, and if unlicensed and uninsured drivers are snagged as well, so much the better.
Oops, that should be "get drunk drivers off the road."

[Nutty Bunny]

To be fair, it’s entirely possible to be legally residing in the U.S. and not be able to procure a driver’s license legally, because of the bureaucratic kinks between the Agency Formerly Known as INS, state drivers’ licensing authorities, and the Social Security Administration.

For example, here in Illinois the Secretary of State won’t issue a driver’s license to anyone without a Social Security number. People here legally as dependents on their spouse’s or parent’s work visas are not eligible to receive Social Security numbers, because they are not authorized to work under most circumstances – this has happened to my clients more than once. The Secretary of State won’t accept an alternative, the Taxpayer Identification Number, which is used for purposes such as opening bank accounts in lieu of a Social Security number.


The fact that some people can't get drivers licenses due to a bureaucratic snafu (as unfortunate as that as) doesn't mean they still have a right to drive. If they don't have a license, they don't have a right to drive. Someone driving without a license shouldn't be crying "discrimination" because they were stopped at a checkpoint and found to be driving illegally. It's ridiculous!

[Philster]

Issue/Problem: Large # of illegal immigrants and they are not licensed to drive. Large # of intoxicated drivers.

The solution is not to violate my basic rights via searches that are not with probable cause. To do so is lazy government work at the expense of my rights.

Those who complained about the searches: They made their complaint on the wrong grounds. Yes, the searches should be stopped everywhere and for everything, not just because of illegal immigrants.

While it seems preposterous to conclude these searches suck my rights out of me, what people are saying is that it is wrong in light of all our rights, not just illegal immigrants.

If the gov and its agencies rely on road blocks and the seizure of my time and my property and then they search me and my property, that is an unconstitutional approach to a problem.

Look, meth is made in labs, and the overwhelming number of meth labs are in homes. Some in mobile trucks/trailers. I don't want the gov doing random personal or home searches to find them.

[dropzone]

Okay, I was ribbing you on being obnoxious, trandallt. You make a point.

For example, here in Illinois the Secretary of State won’t issue a driver’s license to anyone without a Social Security number.Lisa "Hottest Illinois Attorney General Ever" Madigan ruled against that (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/2002/02-010.html) a couple years ago. the Secretary of State may issue a driver's license to a foreign citizen who is not eligible to obtain a social security number, and may, in limited circumstances, substitute a Federal tax number or assign another distinctive number in lieu of a social security number.

[Contrapuntal]

Issue/Problem: Large # of illegal immigrants and they are not licensed to drive. Large # of intoxicated drivers.

The solution is not to violate my basic rights via searches that are not with probable cause. To do so is lazy government work at the expense of my rights.

Those who complained about the searches: They made their complaint on the wrong grounds. Yes, the searches should be stopped everywhere and for everything, not just because of illegal immigrants.

While it seems preposterous to conclude these searches suck my rights out of me, what people are saying is that it is wrong in light of all our rights, not just illegal immigrants.

If the gov and its agencies rely on road blocks and the seizure of my time and my property and then they search me and my property, that is an unconstitutional approach to a problem.

Look, meth is made in labs, and the overwhelming number of meth labs are in homes. Some in mobile trucks/trailers. I don't want the gov doing random personal or home searches to find them.

What in the link provided in the OP constitutes a search?

[Eva Luna]

Okay, I was ribbing you on being obnoxious, trandallt. You make a point.

Lisa "Hottest Illinois Attorney General Ever" Madigan ruled against that (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/2002/02-010.html) a couple years ago.

Well, if so, then at least some of her minions don’t know about it – I nearly had client end up in jail that way. Luckily she was in one of the rare circumstances that allow for dependent spouses of foreign nationals on work visas to apply for employment authorization, so we got her an employment card even though she had no interest n working, just so she could get an SS#.

Then, of course, there are other states with equally boneheaded rules: New Jersey, for example. People on work visas are eligible to remain employed for 180 days past the expiration of their work authorizations, provided they have filed for a timely extension. But NJ will only issue the driver’s license valid until the expiration for he work visa, even with documentary proof that the extension has been applied for.

Thanks for the link, though – it may come in handy the next time I send a client’s spouse in to apply for a driver’s license. Sometimes we are put in the position of having to teach government employees how to do their own jobs.

[DrDeth]

The US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the US Constitution means.

In Michigan State Police v. Sitz, they found that DUI checkpoints operated under the following guidelines were constitutionally permissible:
Quote:
All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist's driver's license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer's observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately.

Lest it be unclear, the text above did not contemplate officers releasing a driver who could not product a valid license; this was teh reason for the check of the license.

- Rick

Yesbut- the driver must show signs of intoxication FIRST according to how I read it. In other words, the Police may not have a checkpoint which has as it's first purpose the checking of ID.

[DrDeth]

Let me re-phrase that last bit- it would seem that the Police can't check ID first but only after "signs of intoxication".

Yes- Illegal aliens are breaking the law. But we can't go searching house to house to find them either.

[dropzone]

Thanks for the link, though – it may come in handy the next time I send a client’s spouse in to apply for a driver’s license. Sometimes we are put in the position of having to teach government employees how to do their own jobs.(shrugging) It's hard to keep track of all of the rules and I notice that Jesse hasn't updated the rules yet. That link was distressingly hard to track down considering I stumbled on it yesterday using the same Google keywords while trying to find something else, so it's not really common knowledge.

[Nutty Bunny]

Let me re-phrase that last bit- it would seem that the Police can't check ID first but only after "signs of intoxication".

Yes- Illegal aliens are breaking the law. But we can't go searching house to house to find them either.

This isn't about going house to house. It's about finding them while doing a DUI check.

[Eva Luna]

(shrugging) It's hard to keep track of all of the rules and I notice that Jesse hasn't updated the rules yet. That link was distressingly hard to track down considering I stumbled on it yesterday using the same Google keywords while trying to find something else, so it's not really common knowledge.

Yeah, but it’s Jesse’s job to update the rules, and to make sure his staff knows the rules have been updated.

On the other hand, just because the IL Attorney General has issued a legal opinion, doesn’t mean the rest of state government will pay him any heed. It’s not like it’s the AG’s job to know Illinois law or anything.

And well, it may not be common knowledge, but it should be common knowledge in my office, considering we serve legal immigrants and all. I think I may pass this one around the office.

[World Eater]

I really don't get it. The police can check me any time they wish. I never drive drunk and I have a valid licence and valid insurance, so i'll soon be on my way again. The only people who have to worry are the ones breaking the law, and why the hell shouldn't they be caught?

Is it ok to drive without insurance as long as you don't get into an accident? How else are you going to catch these people without waiting for them to rear end someone?

I agree wholeheartedly.

Fucking retarded Californians. The sad thing is their bullshit always trickles over to the east coast. Usually takes about 5 years.

I remember when I heard that no smoking in bars shit out there.

[Tentacle Monster]

My money's on Cheney, in the undisclosed location, with the candlestick.

Is it just me, or does "in the undisclosed location" in the above quote sound like it's a euphemism for "in a very uncomfortable place"?

Anyway, what's wrong with the cops just parking outside bars and waiting for drunk drivers to leave?

[dropzone]

Anyway, what's wrong with the cops just parking outside bars and waiting for drunk drivers to leave?Yeah! It's like the Happy Hunting Ground for cops but I rarely see them do it. Then again, I'm rarely out driving at closing time.

[Q.E.D.]

TLest it be unclear, the text above did not contemplate officers releasing a driver who could not product a valid license; this was teh reason for the check of the license.
Agreed, but it is also my understanding of the text you quoted that oficers cannot ask to see a diriver's license unless signs of intoxication have been detected. That is, merely passing through a DUI checkpoint does not automatically subject one to a license check. Yes?

[Bricker]

Yesbut- the driver must show signs of intoxication FIRST according to how I read it. In other words, the Police may not have a checkpoint which has as it's first purpose the checking of ID.

Correct. The checkpoint cannot exist for general law enforcement purposes: it must target a specific offense. Of course, the Plain View doctrine applies, as do normal standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

[World Eater]

Correct. The checkpoint cannot exist for general law enforcement purposes: it must target a specific offense. Of course, the Plain View doctrine applies, as do normal standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

A specific offense? How about people that shouldn't be on the road. If you're sober and have a license in good standing, no problemo. Be just and fear not.

[jsgoddess]

This isn't about going house to house. It's about finding them while doing a DUI check.

So, it's about going car-to-car, which doesn't really improve things much. Granted, my living in a house doesn't impose an inherent risk on you (unless you're allergic to bad decorating) the same way my driving a car does, so I understand putting it into a different category. But I don't think we, in general, want to say that the police should be encouraged to bust you for X when they're looking for Y.

Slightly off-topic:

I took some classes on OSHA compliance a few years back and I remember the instructor saying that an inspector can always find a violation, if the inspector wants to find a violation. I've always thought the same thing is pretty true of the police. If they want to, and are allowed to, find some violation, they can. I obey the laws, aside from a little speeding and the occasional right turn on red when it's not allowed, but I still feel a sense of oppression when I'm driving right in front of a highway patrol car, wondering if there's anything the officer could conceivably pull me over for. Now, my reaction may be an overreaction, but I tend to be against fostering that sort of nervousness throughout society.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Most of us don't worry about the police and have little contact. The more scrutiny we come under, the more likely we are to feel worry, or to feel oppressed by the contact. I would put "law abiding citizen feeling oppressed by police" firmly into the "this is a bad thing" category. As it is, many of the nation's minorities feel that way. I'd rather try to eradicate that problem then to extend it to a larger population.

[GaWd]

A specific offense? How about people that shouldn't be on the road. If you're sober and have a license in good standing, no problemo. Be just and fear not.

So even though you hate the overarching abilities of our government in regards to spying, and other such offenses, it's ok to hold a "DUI checkpoint", where they can pull people over for ANYTHING? I don't even like the IDEA of an anything checkpoint, and I've never ever driven after drinking.

Here in San Jose, they even had checkpoints for license and registration checks and that's hugely out of bounds in my opinion.

Sam

[Nutty Bunny]

But I don't think we, in general, want to say that the police should be encouraged to bust you for X when they're looking for Y.

But should they ignore something serious like driving without a license just because they werern't specifically looking for unlicensed drivers? I can see ignoring a broken tail light or something fairly innocuous like that, but we're talking about people who haven't even earned the right to drive at all. They shouldn't be on the road, period, much less complaining about being pulled over for this or that.

I obey the laws, aside from a little speeding and the occasional right turn on red when it's not allowed, but I still feel a sense of oppression when I'm driving right in front of a highway patrol car, wondering if there's anything the officer could conceivably pull me over for. Now, my reaction may be an overreaction, but I tend to be against fostering that sort of nervousness throughout society.

On the other hand, I feel the same as you. I occasionally speed, but I generally follow the law, yet I feel nervous when a cop is behind me. I don't know why.

[World Eater]

So even though you hate the overarching abilities of our government in regards to spying, and other such offenses, it's ok to hold a "DUI checkpoint", where they can pull people over for ANYTHING?

I have no problems with random checkpoints to make sure the people operating motor vehicles are properly licensed and not under the influence of substances.

Seriously what's wrong with that?

[GaWd]

I have no problems with random checkpoints to make sure the people operating motor vehicles are properly licensed and not under the influence of substances.

Seriously what's wrong with that?

Because it encourages certain behaviors in police. If they can pull you over to check you papers, why not because of a certain profile?

In short, I'd just rather not give them more power than they already have-and that is quite a bit.

Sam

[World Eater]

Because it encourages certain behaviors in police. If they can pull you over to check you papers, why not because of a certain profile?

But they're not "pulling you over", in fact I think the entire difference is that they don't choose who they're checking. The people randomly are coming down the street that happens to have a checkpoint on it.

In short, I'd just rather not give them more power than they already have-and that is quite a bit.

Neither would I, but I think in the case the positive outweighs the negative.

[Bricker]

Because it encourages certain behaviors in police. If they can pull you over to check you papers, why not because of a certain profile?

In short, I'd just rather not give them more power than they already have-and that is quite a bit.


The constitutionality of a checkpoint hinges on removing discretion from the officers in the field. A checkpoint is generally constitutional if it is planned, approved in advance by senior management, with definite start and end-times, and with specific rules: check every car, every other car, every third car, etc. That removes from police the chance to target particular profiles: they must "follow the script" and check the cars only during the times the checkpoint is running, and under such rules as the checkpoint was et up with.

[D_Odds]

danceswithcats beat me to the article in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=278519) but I think it dovetails nicely here.

I want unlicensed (which usually means uninsured) drivers off of the road, regardless of their citizen status.

I want drunk drivers off of the road. I don't even want 0.08. Cut it in half.

I'd rather both of these be done proactively, rather than reactively. Reactively is too late.

I DON'T want to shed my own civil liberties. DUI checkpoints that follow certain procedures have been ruled legal. However, giving LE greater powers to chase law-breakers also gives them greater powers to harass law-abiding citizens. Even those of us doing nothing at all wrong. LE has been restricted over the years because they (generic 'they' and not implying all or even a majority) abuse the powers they've been given.

If I hit a DUI block, I'll blow into the tube and I'll show my license. However, if the LEO asks me to open my trunk, I'll flatly refuse, regardless of what may or likely is not be in there. As is, there is a minority of LEOs who will use your right to refuse such a search against you, and while they may have absolutely no case, they can make your next few hours/days very difficult, just for defending your rights. That is why we need our constitutional protections, and why we need to stand up for them.

Don't ask me how I would proactively protect the roads from uninsured and/or drunk drivers. I don't have an answer. I can tell you how I wouldn't do it, although the Australian model presented earlier sounds like it might work (especially if there is no ID check prior to the breathalayzer).

Despite my misgivings, most of my dealings with LEOs has been positive, and I've found them to be courteous and respectful. I certainly am not painting LEOs as evil, but I do wish they would work much harder to root out the bad seed themselves. I can think of nothing that would restore/raise public trust faster.

[danceswithcats]

While I cannot speak for the laws of Virginia, PA MVC §1511(a) General rule. - Every licensee shall possess a driver's license issued to the licensee at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall exhibit the license upon demand by a police officer, and when requested by the police officer the licensee shall write the licensee's name in the presence of the officer in order to provide identity.

(Bolding mine)

Every time I've approached a DUI checkpoint, I have my license, registration and insurance card in hand before putting the window down. That never struck me as a tough concept. Then again, I'm not in the country illegally.

[Sean Factotum]

Being allowed to drive is not a right in the US. Don't you folks remember your high school driver's ed course? So can we stop calling it a right?

While I cannot speak for the laws of Virginia, ... Well, since you mentioned it: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-300

No person, except those expressly exempted in §§ 46.2-303 through 46.2-309, shall drive any motor vehicle on any highway in the Commonwealth until such person has applied for a driver's license, as provided in this article, satisfactorily passed the examination required by § 46.2-325, and obtained a driver's license, nor unless the license is valid. The exceptions refer to farm equipment, people with valid licenses from other states, and active duty military.

And the Factotrix closes a bar three nights a week. I'm usually there with her, to speed up the closing and cleaning, and generally keep her from being there alone at 3 am. And we have seen LEOs sitting in the parking lot next door, waiting to catch DUI customers from the rowdy bar down the street. We think it's great fun, and a good idea, because they sweeping the drunks off the street before we have to drive home.

[GaWd]

But they're not "pulling you over", in fact I think the entire difference is that they don't choose who they're checking.

Trust me on this, they scrutinize certain people much more heavily than others. Maybe not in NY, but certainly here. They question/pull over(a colloquialism) every car in their lane.

My wife just relayed a story to me in which she and a girlfriend were held up for more than 10 minutes on the car in front of them while the LEO scrutinized everything about them. The car had 4 or 5 mexicans in it. The LEO scrutinized the ID, the Reg., the license plate, went to call in for warrants, and reluctantly let them go.

Meanwhile, the other lane sped by with the typical, "good evening, had anything to drink tonight?" As did theirs once the car in front of them was on his way.

I've also seen this behavior during the daytime at a non-DUI checkpoint. The police were pulling cars over randomly-a policeman in the middle of the street was pointing with his flashlight(in the middle of day), motioning to the side of the street, and peoiple were checked presumably(I wasn't involved, justa bystander), for lic. reg. and warrants. There was no pattern, just people being pulled over randomly.

The conclusion I draw from this-rightfully, wrongfully, your call-is that the police in my neck of the woods are predisposed to pay closer attention to certain people of color and socio-economic classes than others. A report released a year or two ago agrees with me.

I also feel that we have a police force that is primarily there to produce revenue.


Neither would I, but I think in the case the positive outweighs the negative.

I think the pros-getting unlicensed people and drunks off the street, outweigh the cons-my privacy invaded and my time and tax dollars wasted.

Bricker- I cannot dispute the constitutionality of the matter. You've schooled me time and again. I am just offering my opinion based on observations in my region.

Sam

[World Eater]

Trust me on this, they scrutinize certain people much more heavily than others. Maybe not in NY, but certainly here. They question/pull over(a colloquialism) every car in their lane.

Of course they scrutinize certain people over others, they're human, that's never going to change.

My wife just relayed a story to me in which she and a girlfriend were held up for more than 10 minutes on the car in front of them while the LEO scrutinized everything about them. The car had 4 or 5 mexicans in it. The LEO scrutinized the ID, the Reg., the license plate, went to call in for warrants, and reluctantly let them go.

So let's see here, they were held for 10 minutes and then let go. Umm where's the problem?

I've also seen this behavior during the daytime at a non-DUI checkpoint. The police were pulling cars over randomly-a policeman in the middle of the street was pointing with his flashlight(in the middle of day), motioning to the side of the street, and peoiple were checked presumably(I wasn't involved, justa bystander), for lic. reg. and warrants. There was no pattern, just people being pulled over randomly.

I'm missing your point here. Above you said the mexicans were singled out, now you're saying people are being pulled over randomly.

The conclusion I draw from this-rightfully, wrongfully, your call-is that the police in my neck of the woods are predisposed to pay closer attention to certain people of color and socio-economic classes than others. A report released a year or two ago agrees with me.

I don't neccessarily think this is a bad thing. I would hope that any LEO with half a brain would incorporate the area dynamics into their job. In California I would imagine LEOs are more on the lookout for illegal Mexicans then they would in Maine, which would make sense.

I also feel that we have a police force that is primarily there to produce revenue.

I dunno about this.

I think the pros-getting unlicensed people and drunks off the street, outweigh the cons-my privacy invaded and my time and tax dollars wasted.

I hardly consider it wasted tax dollars. I also hardly consider it an invasion of my privacy. As stated before, driving is not a god given right.

[Cerowyn]

I'm by no means a [civil] libertarian, but I find some of the ends-justifies-the-means arguments being presented here with a straight face rather alarming.

[World Eater]

I'm by no means a [civil] libertarian, but I find some of the ends-justifies-the-means arguments being presented here with a straight face rather alarming.

Ends justifies the means implies that I have some sort of objection to the methods, yet I still feel "it's worth it" for the benefits the results bring. I've said nothing of the sort. I have no qualms whatsoever about the means.

[GaWd]

Of course they scrutinize certain people over others, they're human, that's never going to change.

Hardly an acceptable excuse.


So let's see here, they were held for 10 minutes and then let go. Umm where's the problem?

Why hold them at all? The cute white girls in nice cars got to pass through unscathed. These guys in a shitty car got everything but their assholes inspected. I realize that this is a convenient way to use the DUI checkpoint, but come on.


I'm missing your point here. Above you said the mexicans were singled out, now you're saying people are being pulled over randomly.

No, you're being obtuse. Two totally different situations. And as for why I brought the second example up, read Bricker's post above mine for what makes a checkpoint constitutional.


I dunno about this.


Welcome to California, Son.


I hardly consider it wasted tax dollars. I also hardly consider it an invasion of my privacy. As stated before, driving is not a god given right.

Never said it was a right.

Sam

[SteveG1]

Driving a car, as others have said, is not a right. It is a privilege. You have to pass written and driving tests. You have to be licensed. I look at the complaint that police found some people to be illegal/unlicensed/uninsured to be a bonus. They got caught breaking more laws.
As far as complaining that towing, impounding, ticketing etc. is a burden, well all of us citizens face the same "burden" if we get caught DUI or unlicensed or uninsured. If this law and all its requirements does not apply to them, it should not apply to anyone.

I find the idea that El Presidente Fox had the gall to say our laws don't apply to Mexicans annoying, to say the least. Yet, if a US citizen is arrested, locked up, or shaken down and robbed by Mexican police, nothing is done. Maybe we should close our embassies in Mexico, close the border, cancel NAFTA, and call it a day. Oh, and in the meanwhile, deny any hope of extradition for any US citizens who commit various crimes in Mexico and can make it back up here. There were amnesty drives and plenty of free help offered to people, in order to "get legal". If they chose not to, it is their own fault.

[Eva Luna]

There were amnesty drives and plenty of free help offered to people, in order to "get legal". If they chose not to, it is their own fault.

The last across-the-board "amnesty" was in the mid-1980s. That's almost 20 years ago now. How many of the people who are here illegally do you think have been here for 20+ years, and would therefore have had the chance to take advantage of that amnesty?

It's not quite that simple.

[saoirse]

I have been through three types of police checkpoints. One, the most common, is the DWI checkpoint. The police ask for license and registration, and ask if you've had anything to drink. If you say yes, you take a breathalyzer. The second is the seatbelt checkpoint. The police ask you for license and registration, and observe if you're wearing your seatbelt. With any luck, they observe this before you've unbuckled it to get your wallet out of your back pocket. The last is the Crimestoppers checkpoint, where they ask for information on a crime that was committed nearby. No license or registration asked for, at least from the sample I observed, but flyers are distributed.

[Bricker]

I've also seen this behavior during the daytime at a non-DUI checkpoint. The police were pulling cars over randomly-a policeman in the middle of the street was pointing with his flashlight(in the middle of day), motioning to the side of the street, and peoiple were checked presumably(I wasn't involved, justa bystander), for lic. reg. and warrants. There was no pattern, just people being pulled over randomly.


All I can say is that if I were a drug-smuggling, child-porn-possessing, illegal automatic weapons-toting criminal, being discovered in that way would be my lucky day.

[SteveG1]

Fucking retarded Californians. The sad thing is their bullshit always trickles over to the east coast. Usually takes about 5 years.

I remember when I heard that no smoking in bars shit out there.
Hey, I'm in California, but don't blame me. But then i was not born here. I was born and raised on "the other" coast.

[World Eater]

Hey, I'm in California, but don't blame me. But then i was not born here. I was born and raised on "the other" coast.

Ok, we'll let you pass. :p