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:
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.
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 (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.
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.
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.
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 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.
From the linked article:
Are “people without licenses” a protected class now? I didn’t get the memo. :rolleyes:
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:
Here’s a list of state by state (and D.C.) of the state’s rulings on the Constitutionality of Sobriety Checkpoints. (PDF)
Texas’ ruling is the most interesting:
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?
(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.
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. 
[aside] 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.” [/aside]
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.
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.
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.
:dubious:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Huh. For a second there I thought the smilies were broken.
Oops, that should be “get drunk drivers off the road.”
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!
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.
Okay, I was ribbing you on being obnoxious, trandallt. You make a point.
Lisa “Hottest Illinois Attorney General Ever” Madigan ruled against that a couple years ago.
What in the link provided in the OP constitutes a search?