Local newspaper, radio news, television news, and checking with the law enforcement agencies.
In Texas, sobriety checkpoints are illegal, as they should be. I believe they have a “chilling effect” in which officers search for every possible reason to issue a citation to someone. Once stopped, they can issue any possible citation regardless if the driver is intoxicated.
DWI laws in Texas are also unconstitutional for a variety of reasons including mandatory interlock devices for non-convicted defendants, double jeopardy administrative license suspensions, and unconstitutional driver license “surcharges.”
Okay, dalej42: Would you please provide a cite for them being illegal? Could you also provide a cite that DWI laws are unconstitutional–a court rendering, not your opinion?
As far as sobriety checkpoints being illegal in Texas? You only have to go to MADD’s website to find that Texas does not allow sobriety checkpoints.
There are no court opinions(that me as a non-lawyer knows about) of the other opinions I stated. I believe that no one who has** not** been convicted of DWI should be required to put an interlock device in their car. I also believe that their should be no automatic license suspension for people who are arrested for DWI. That case should be in front of a judge, not the DPS. I also don’t believe that if someone is convicted of DWI. they should have to pay an extra 1000 dollars every year for 3 years on top of their court fine. That is double jeopardy. The same person paying a fine twice for the same offense.
The extra money you’re talking about is not a court sentence, but rather a private transaction known as obtaining insurance.
That is not double jeopardy.
BTW, your own link DOES NOT say that Texas does not allow checkpoints, but rather that it does not conduct them. There is a world of difference.
In Texas, the Department of Public Safety will charge an extra $1000 per year for 3 years. This is a total of $3000 for a person convicted of an intoxication offense. This is above and beyond any insurance company surcharges. In addition, the “surcharge” is $2000 per year on top of any other surcharges for an offense if there was a BAC of .20
Here is another site which states that such checkpoints are illegal in Texas.
Here is the site for the current law.
Thanks for what you’ve provided; however, your links are still lacking. See 1 through 3 below.
-
The surcharges are levied based on an accumulation of points assessed against one’s driver license. That is still not double jeopardy.
-
Your other site does not quote a state law or court case, but merely asserts that it’s illegal under Texas’s interpretation of the federal Constitution. I asked for an actual cite to state law or court decision.
-
Perhaps you’re missing the simple difference between right an privilege. The State, as the grantor of the privilege, can set restrictions on said privilege.
BTW, dale, I’m genuinely concerned about the checkpoint issue in Texas. After all, the police, as shown in the link I provided above, do announce traffic enforcement locations.
I’m interested in what actual Texas law/Texas court cases say about the issue.
Better late than never.
I’m insisting it. It is a right. It’s right there along with everything else in freedom of transportation. I’m also against requiring ID to get on airplane. Why do they care what my name is if I paid for the ticket?
[QUOTE=Monty]
Thanks for what you’ve provided; however, your links are still lacking. See 1 through 3 below.
- The surcharges are levied based on an accumulation of points assessed against one’s driver license. That is still not double jeopardy.
It is double jeopardy. Person Z is fined for their DWI offense. They are then required to pay the DPS surcharge. That is 4 fines (3 years DWI surcharge plus the initial court fine.)
[QUOTE=Monty]
Thanks for what you’ve provided; however, your links are still lacking. See 1 through 3 below.
- Your other site does not quote a state law or court case, but merely asserts that it’s illegal under Texas’s interpretation of the federal Constitution. I asked for an actual cite to state law or court decision.
I often disagree with Texas courts. However, Texas made the right decision. They can’t stop traffic simply because they believe that someone may be intoxicated. Here is a site although I am not a lawyer.
In other words, they’re just not being conducted because Texas hasn’t gotten around to authorizing them with the attendant requirements that the federal Supreme Court mandated yet. That’s a far, far cry from sobriety checkpoints being unconstitutional if Texas were to authorize them.
The surcharge is not double jeopardy. It is paying for a PRIVILEGE based on one’s previous exercise of that PRIVILEGE. Double jeopardy is being tried twice by a court of law for the same offense.
I neglected to mention an important point.
The surcharges also are not double jeopardy because the law providing for them and their application is already in place.
But a breathalyzer checks my lung air - not common air. As for the case site, I don’t remember it off-hand (it was a couple years ago), but the cases involving cars are pretty consistant that a search of a car must be with a warrant or probable cause that the car is material evidence to a crime.
Very true. Giving up my 4th Amd. right would be if an officer asks to search my car and I say yes. It is more accurate to call the sobriety checkpoints a denial of 4th amd. rights. I stand corrected.
Do you have any clue what double jeopardy is? DJ is retrying someone for a crime once they have been acquitted. People get double (or more) punishment for the same offence all the time. Think about when you watch CourtTV and the person commits one act (let’s say shooting someone) and they’re tried, convicted, and punished on multiple charges (murder, conspiricy to commit murder, illegally discharging a firearm, littering [leaving the body on the ground]).
Well, yes, though I suppose the even more accurate statement under the circumstances would be: “a denial of potential Fourth Amendment rights.” 
As for Mr. 2001: the situations are quite inapposite. The state would be totally within its powers to refuse to lisence drivers at all. Constitutionally, there would be no ability to claim a denial of any “right” you have.
On the other hand, a state cannot suspend voting. You have a right to be able to vote in elections, a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution of the United States.
Where many people get confused on the issue of “rights” is when they are looking at something the feel the SHOULD be able to do by “right.” I think most people feel that way about driving. But wanting the law to be a certain way doesn’t make it be that way.