I guess I’m not surprised but it’s not a good state of affairs when as a practical matter people believe police will simply lie to circumvent constitutional protections.
Sitz was about the act of setting up the checkpoint, stopping drivers. Not about speaking to police in any fashion. It’s not on point.
Or are you referring to the fact that [from the article]* “Warren Redlich contends the commonly-used checkpoints violate drivers’ constitutional rights.”*? In that case yeah Redlich is wrong. That’s not what I interpreted Snowboarder Bo’s comment was about when he said ‘I think Mr. Redlich is right’. I interpreted that to be regarding the lack of requirement to speak to police or open windows.
Ultimately I think DUI checkpoints are more about revenue generation than driver/road safety. It makes money through code infractions so police do it. Also a sad state of affairs.
Then get your co-constituents to vote to raise their taxes.
Or get them to stop drinking and driving.
Sounds like splitting hairs to me, and I fail to see how that get’s past Implied Consent, which is the concept I was trying to convey earlier.
Having seen police officers lie like rugs, I think it’s a better state of affairs that they’re no longer receiving the benefit of the doubt.
Lawyers say you really should not talk or chat with police in any event. example ,Like a cop stops person walking down street you have drugs on you? No? oh :eek::eek:when was last time you done drugs? In the morning. Okay you going jail for public intoxication. I see these spin tactics on cop shows all the time.
I don’t see anywhere in that decision where it says a person has to talk to the police. Could you show me where it says that people need to do more than identify themselves and provide their registration?
That’s more or less how I interpreted it also except that I interpreted to mean that he believes the police violate constitutional rights during checkpoint at the checkpoints themselves were unconstitutional but that they were used to violate peoples rights or in the course of their use police violated peoples rights.
Implied consent only applies after arrest. It may be splitting hairs but isn’t that what the law is about? 
In other words, arrest is based on probable cause. Without that, there is no basis to be forced to submit to the blood/urine tests. FSTs are designed to establish probable cause.
Police are still receiving the benefit of the doubt. My lamentation was that they lie so frequently that people expect it to happen. I wish it wasn’t the case [that they lie]
I keep imaging this as the “I’m not touching you” thing kids do. But instead of the “I’m not touching” you the guy is looking everyelse but at the police officer, maybe humming. 
In California, it seems that’s not true: cite.
Here is the first sentence from your cite:
Bone is correct.
I’m not sure what part of that link you are using to support your position, or if you are actually disagreeing with me. Your cite however supports what I’ve written:
(my bold)
Anyways, I prefer to use the DMV site since it’s more authoritative, but it says the same thing:
(my bold)
This says nothing about whether or not police will lie to establish probable cause and therefore arrest you and force you to submit to the chemical test as required by law.
DUI checkpoints are patently Unconstitutional.
Driving at a time of day or time of the year where drunken driving is prevalent is NOT reasonable suspicion that your person is driving under the influence.
With regard to blowing and talking, I suggest you avoid the checkpoint at all costs. Aren’t they required to offer a turnaround prior to approaching a DUI checkpoint?
Sounds like there’s a lawyer in Florida trying to drum up more business.
This is factually incorrect. You may wish it to be so but you are wrong with regard to current law.
As **Bricker **and I mentioned above, Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz is controlling.
Geez, my cite wasn’t exactly encyclopedic in lenght…anyway from a 1/4" down the page…
On submitting to the Sobriety Check First sentence…
The fourth sentence in your cite says:
That says you must submit to an inspection, not a breathalyzer test.
No cites handy but I seem to recall similar decisions in Canada including one that was handed down by the Supreme Court, the essence of the judgment being that yes, DUI checkpoints technically violate the requirement for “probable cause”, but the violation is justified by a compelling public interest to curb drinking and driving.
The problem with Mr. Redlich’s suggestion of just putting your documents up on the glass is that, as long as the checkpoints themselves are deemed constitutional as in the above examples, you are preventing the police from doing their job, namely to see if there is a smell of alcohol and to judge whether your speech sounds impaired. In particular jurisdictions you may or may not be able to challenge the checkpoint on constitutional grounds, but if it’s allowed then IMHO the presumption must be that you are obliged to submit to its intended function.
FWIW, I’m on side with the “compelling public interest” argument. I think that some jurisdictions have gone too far with zero-tolerance policies and extremely draconian penalties, but the police do need some enforcement tools to work with. If drivers could only be stopped when actually observed to be swerving all over the road in a drunken stupor, the carnage on our roads would be much worse.