When DUI checkpoints were first proposed, civil libertarians were nervous. “Oh, not to worry, we swear they will only EVER EVER be used to look for drunks!” “Drunk driving is such a menace, and this is a tool we reeeeealy need to control this scourge.”
Where is the ACLU? Probably helping a Nazi parade in front of a holocaust victim’s house, or getting a pesky nativity scene out of a town square somewhere.
MADD is a bigger threat to our liberty than any politician, and they are just getting started.
Is anyone surprised by this? Any reasonably intelligent person could have seen what this would turn into. The police cannot be trusted with this kind of thing, and it never should have been allowed in the first place.
Sounds like mostly minor drug offenses/non violent stuff. I’m sure we all feel much safer now. I agree with the OP, this is a slippery slope and I don’t like it.
Is there an essential liberty being eroded here? Is it merely temporary safety that’s being purchased?
Almost any law enforcement action implies some kind of constraint of freedom - or else how could the police ever act at all? - so what is it that makes this one different from all the others? (or are those also undesirable?)
They are subjecting a broad random swath of the population to an unconstitutional search not based on reasonable suspicion/probable cause. Perhaps you don’t consider the Bill of Rights essential, but I do.
Applying the same principle it just makes sense to search houses because criminals have been known to commit crimes in them and that is a safety issue.
On a related note, this is a state initiative and is part of what was billed as the year of the checkpoint. Last time I checked California was knee deep in debt. Seems like a poor utilization of public funds to me. If they’re using Federal Grant money I would like it to end and a rebate sent to my house.
I’m only really interested in what works best (taking into account all factors, including both risk and the extent to which liberties may or may not be curtailed).
That your country has a codified collection of statements about rights, etc. is not insignificant and I would not presume to sweep it aside, but neither do I believe any such codified statements should be considered unassailable.
If something is a good idea, then it’s a good idea because of what it is and what it does, not because it’s written down somewhere.
Certainly that’s the same flavour of principle, but is it an application of a similar principle on a similar scale? I don’t think it is. Are there no nuances here?
We have laws that dictate a house requires a search warrant and random stops on a sidewalk to determine citizenship are considered a violation of civil rights. One is private property and the other is on a public causeway. IMO, a DUI checkpoint falls under the same legal mindset and reflects a degree of loss of privacy as well as a general loss of freedom to move about without question. These are fishing expeditions of the worst kind.
I’m an absurdly strong proponent of the Fourth Amendment. I’m also largely unaware of the specific fact pattern of the arrests.
However, at face value I do not see an encroachment on the Fourth.
Consent to searches and intrusions beyond what you would suffer standing on private ground is inherent to the safe function of the transit system. Until we’re all driving automated marshmallows, there will always be a trade-off between security (fewer drunken assholes on the road) and privacy (expect to go through the occasional DUI checkpoint). Note that the Fourth doesn’t protect from all searches, just unreasonable searches. The legislatures, courts, and society at large has deemed administrative searches connected to DUI checkpoints to be a reasonable trade-off.
Some, of course, disagree – expected in any plurality. Other than some flippant expression of a right to drive drunk (didn’t we have some silly thread about that a while ago? I can’t find it) or other expensive and intrusive measures (breathalyzers in all cars), there is no measure that I know of that would be adequate to keep the roads safer.
That some towns abuse the procedure, there is no doubt – again, expected in any plurality. But there are court systems to deal with such shenanigans and resulting arrests must comply with a fairly high standard of procedure.
Again, I know not the specifics of the cases (or the specifics of the law in the relevant jurisdiction), but from what’s been described it seems as if the arrests were made after additional probable cause arose.
Except that people have a right to privacy in their own homes (in all sorts of senses nowadays) and people have a right to walk down the street without being unreasonably searched or seized. Depending on the particular law enforcement agency’s policies, officers are absolutely allowed to consensually approach a person and ask whether they are in the country legally (their citizenship would be irrelevant since a Guatamalan citizen could be in the country legally or illegally). In Maricopa County, Arizona, the local sheriff makes occasional immigration sweeps thanks in part to a state law that prohibits human trafficking and has been interpreted to be able to be applied against both the trafficker and traffickee.
People don’t have a right, however, to drive. It’s a privilege bestowed on citizens by the government. While people do have a privacy right to their vehicles, it’s a much more limited right than privacy in their homes or on their person.
Temporarily stopping everyone driving down a particular street in order for them to present identification is not a search, constitutional or unconstitutional. If you are going to champion the Bill of Rights, you need to focus more clearly on which right is most applicable.
A possibly subtle but crucial addition/clarification: Without more, the police cannot require you to subject to a physical search of either your person or your vehicle.
I am at a loss to see how it could not be a search. First, of course it’s temporary. Unless they are sending drivers to prison where they die, then any stop could be said to be temporary. I think that the use of that word is a red herring to lead us to think that these stops are something other than what they are: a deliberate intrusion without any reasonable cause into the lives of a free citizen.
We can parse words about searches, warrants, reasonable, and unreasonable, but I think that it goes without saying that the framers felt that we should be able to go about our daily business unrestrained by the government, unless and until they had a legitimate reason to believe we were breaking the law.
Do you honestly think that Jefferson, Madison, or Washington would have felt it legitimate if constables stopped people on horseback at random just to make sure that they weren’t breaking any laws? They rebelled against Great Britain for far, far lesser things.
Unless they “fear for their safety” in some abstract way and pull you out of the car for their “own protection”. Or the drug dog sits, rolls over, or does nothing indicating the presence of drugs in your car. Or if what looks like something illegal is in plain sight. Or if you are in a state where a traffic violation is a misdemeanor and they wish to arrest you instead of issuing a citation thereby needing to “inventory the contents” of the car. Or, or, or, or, or…
While I don’t have a dog in this fight, and I’m sure the lawyers of the Dope will be knee deep in this one and I look forward to reading it, let us all remember that the OP is virulently anti-cop, insists he’s smarter than them in almost all regards, and has also claimed to be a better driver than all the nerds here on the Dope, drunk or sober.
That being said…
I think that DUI checkpoints on well known DUI holidays are a good idea, as in theory, being on the road at 1am on New Years Eve can probably be cited as probably cause in and of itself.
This fights with my own personal belief that law enforcement as a means to generate revenue for the state is a very very bad idea.
Maybe we could get a moderator to change the title of the OP so it isn’t a gross misrepresentation. Maybe something less Nazi ridden that is also actually factually accurate? Or is that too much to ask.
Laws (ideally) are written to be precise - to be narrowly tailored to suit their intended purpose without being so broad as to sanction any conceivable action. So, parsing words such as reasonable and unreasonable is absolutely necessary. The facts of a particular circumstance determine that reasonableness or unreasonableness. The framers’ words and ideas are a lens to help apply the Constitution to our modern day circumstances, not a straightjacket. Because as much as the Bill of Rights are quoted and referenced, the Constitution also talks about the powers of the federal government. Even though the States are the actors who prohibit and prosecute most crimes.
I’d hardly call lack of non-virtual parlimentary representation and taxes on most household and manufactured goods as lesser than random horseback stops. But the analogy in this case between drunken horseback riders and drunken vehicle drivers falls apart since vehicles can do far more damage, both in lives and in property damage, than errantly-guided horses. It’s pretty well-established that the government has a vested interest and a right to regulate those who are allowed to drive a motor vehicle. It’s also pretty well-established that police agencies are allowed to conduct DUI checkpoints precisely because they are not searches but instead are temporary, but reasonable seizures that are narrowly tailored in design. If police see drugs clearly visible inside your vehicle when they check your ID at a checkpoint, it’s not a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights for them to arrest you for it. The same goes with fraudulent IDs that are presented to police or possessed with an intent to defraud.
Hmmm…quoting directly from the article. (which the OP conveniently didn’t mention)
“Police also leave advance indications of checkpoints before a driver’s arrival at one, leaving an opportunity for them to avoid the site altogether since the goal is not necessarily to make arrests, but to encourage safer driving, he said.”
Further, its not clear from the article just how the other arrests came about.
Was everyone stopped asked for their license, or was it part of “further checks” as the result of reasonable suspicion?
Further, for the mary jane possession, do you think the police searched every car, or perhaps just maybe smelt the drug when the car was stopped?
I think the OP is being just a little hysterical here, and bleating like a little baby with no candy,.