[
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DUI_CHECKPOINT_CHALLENGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-10-12-47-21)It should come as no surprise that many police officers aren’t thrilled by this, but frankly, I think Mr. Redlich is right.
How do you think the courts will rule? Do you think new laws might get passed to compel people to speak to the police? How would such laws stand up to scrutiny in the courts?
In short: what do y’all think of this?
I agree that the checkpoints are unConstitutional … what happened to “reasonable suspicion”? But on a practical level, if you go to a checkpoint and do as Mr. Redlich suggests, prepare to be arrested.
On what charge(s) and what do you think the outcome would be once it reached a courtroom?
What part of the Constitution gives you an absolute right to drive a motor vehicle on public roads?
Even in the UK with no written constitutional protection for rights against search and seizure, the police cannot stop without reasonable cause. Of course, this is easily manufactured, but we are free of such DUI or immigration check points, the police have to be prepared to give a reason.
We have a further dilemma current in Scotland where searches without consent are legal if police have reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. But they also carry out consensual searches where people agree to be searched. The problem is that they are attempting ‘consensual’ searches on children under 12 who are legally unable to consent and technically the police should get parental consent. The Chief Constable (most senior policeman in Scotland) assured Parliament that these juvenile searches would cease, but rank and file officers have continued to do them and their union is accusing politicians of ‘meddling’ in police affairs.
Bottom line- police worldwide will do what they can get away with, which is why a strict protocol is required to keep their behaviour in line.
On whatever charges the cops decide to trump up. I have no idea how it would go in a courtroom but am prepared to let others find out.
None. Who claimed that it did? Why do you think your query is at all relevant to this discussion?
No part. If the police have a reasonable suspicion that you have broken a motoring or other law they can stop, search and question you. What makes it potentially unconstitutional is searching without such reasonable cause as in road blocks.
I used to live in California and owing to immigration paranoia, essentially your constitutional rights are suspended within a hundred miles of the border.
Well, there was this thing you quoted in the OP;
So, what constitutional right is being violated by requiring a person licensed to operate a motor vehicle on a public road to prove that they are legally sober in accordance with the terms of their license?
Well, *that’s *a different question than the first you asked.
The constitution protects you from warrantless searches. It’s up to them (the state/the police) to prove you aren’t sober, not up to you to prove you are.
You’re not going to get this, though, are you?
The potential lack of reasonable cause.
Being a complete asshole may be legally correct, but its probably not the right answer to the situation unless you don’t mind spending a night in jail and paying a ton of legal fees. The best case scenario, assuming you’re not drunk, is probably to take the breath test and politely decline a search of your car.
Cite?
The stops are constitutional ever since Sitz v. Michigan. The DUI exception (growing) to the constitution. No one is obligated to talk to them though. Here is some more detailed info from Flex Your Rights: What are my rights at various "checkpoints"? | Flex Your Rights
Border patrol checkpoint 100 miles away from the border? Yeah that happens. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Never take the breath test (in CA), never agree to the Field Sobriety Test. They are not required by law.
Obstruction of a peace officer maybe, IANAL? In California I believe it’s illegal to refuse to submit to a breath or urine test, so that’s a violation itself. I’d be surprised if other states aren’t the same.
Only upon arrest. Refusing to submit prior to arrest is perfectly legal.
So it probably goes like this.
Cop stops you at check point
You don’t open car door and refuse to speak to cop.
Cop claims that your head is swaying, that you are sweating profusely and your eyes aren’t focusing.
Cop arrests you citing probable cause that you were operating a vehicle while impaired.
While the lawyer may be in the right morally and legally, as a practical matter, if your not impared, your probably better of just smiling, chatting with the officer and then being on your way, unless you really enjoy spending your evening arguing over your constitutional rights while in police custody.
So if this works out the way the lawyer thinks it does, somebody runs into a checkpoint. They follow the above process and the cops say “Gosh, he sure got us.” They wave him through.
Two miles later he gets pulled over by an officer who says he saw him driving erratically. DUI investigation ensues.
Yeah, that’s helping.
Could you, or Mr. Redlich, explain this statement in light of the 6-3 holding in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)?