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.
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.
(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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neither would I, but I think in the case the positive outweighs the negative.
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.
danceswithcats beat me to the article in this thread 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.