# Your papers please- DUI checkpoints now general purpose dragnets. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2010, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494 "2010-01-11T08:46:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/41 "2010-01-11T21:51:28Z")
Like **Camus** said, there’s less right for you to prevent searched when outside your home, in a vehicle, doing something that is a privilege. Besides, the ones who got busted all actually committed crimes. I have no problems with that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/42 "2010-01-11T23:15:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Is there a legal definition of what is “reasonable” and what is “unreasonable”? A general definition is something is reasonable if the average person, in the same circumstances and with the same information, would come to the same conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Stan\_Shmenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Stan\_Shmenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stan_Shmenge)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/43 "2010-01-11T23:16:09Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > “Police also leave advance indications of checkpoints before a driver’s arrival at one, leaving an opportunity for them to avoid the site altogether since the goal is not necessarily to make arrests, but to encourage safer driving, he said.” Except that this part of the article is a flat out lie. When they were first doing these checkpoints (the very term should conjure visions of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) they did in fact list upcoming checkpoints in local papers. When is the last time anyone has seen that? As far as opportunity to avoid, that is a lie as well. The last one I went through was set up as you came up from an underpass, with no way of seeing that it was in place, and no alternative but to pass through. A few years ago, I was eating at a restaurant in Pasadena, and observed one of these checkpoints for a considerable time. Anyone turning off the road was immediately pulled over, and subjected to _even more_ scrutiny than those passing through the checkpoint. I was myself subjected to this. I was approaching a checkpoint in Glendale, although I thought it was just road construction making the half mile long backup in traffic. All I could see was the backup and a flashing yellow sign board that I was too far away to read. I was immediately popped and told I was pulled over for “avoiding the checkpoint”, to which I replied that I had no idea what was going on, and was merely trying to avoid the traffic and get to my destination. They let me go. > [@](#): > > Just out of curiosity, what sort of person goes through a DUI checkpoint carrying illegal drugs anyway? It’s not like the checkpoint’s a surprise. If you have meth, or pot, or an open container, why not just dump it before you get there? But they don’t conduct them that way. The are now, in many cases, set up to be a surprise, and if any way of avoiding them is available, you will be popped because avoiding them is suspicious behavior in and of itself. > [@](#): > > If you’re not doing anything wrong, then who cares? And if you are doing anything wrong then I, and most of the rest of society, am on the side of the law. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the source of our problem. Maybe you would like a camera in your bedroom as well. Sodomy is still against the law some places, and we can’t be too careful. > [@](#): > > Again, here in Connecticut, checkpoints are set up so that you will not see them before you reach a point at which you cannot avoid them. Attempting to evade a checkpoint, such as by pulling a U-turn, will get you chased down by a police vehicle stationed for that purpose. And this is absolutely contrary to how we were told they would be run. So, the police LIED when they said that “We promise, cross our hearts and hope to die, on a stack of Bibles and our Mother’s grave, honest injun, we will NEVER EEEEVER use these checkpoints to look for anything but drunk drivers.” The police LIED when they said that the checkpoints would be publicized in advance. The police LIED when they said the checkpoints would be set up in a way that people could see them and avoid them. The police LIED when they said that avoiding the checkpoints would not be grounds for a stop. What did they tell the truth about? Nothing. And notice that in the article I linked, they found exactly ONE drunk driver! But they used a lot of manpower and time, that probably could have been more effectively deployed and netted MORE DUI arrests if they had just done simple traffic patrol. Checkpoints were a way of getting the camel’s nose in the tent. Now we have the whole damn dromedary in here stinking the place up. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/44 "2010-01-11T23:19:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Besides, the ones who got busted all actually committed crimes. I have no problems with that. You’re missing the whole point. The issue isn’t whether or not the police should be able to arrest people who have committed crimes. The issue is whether or not the police should be able to investigate random people, most of whom have not committed any crime. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/45 "2010-01-11T23:30:44Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > The police LIED when they said that the checkpoints would be publicized in advance. > > The police LIED when they said the checkpoints would be set up in a way that people could see them and avoid them. > > The police LIED when they said that avoiding the checkpoints would not be grounds for a stop. Aside from any rights/wrongs for a moment… these seem utterly absurd things to promise - especially the last two. What would be the point of setting them up if anyone who knows they have been drinking can opt out? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/46 "2010-01-11T23:32:11Z")
Perhaps assuming that the truly impaired would be less likely to notice or care? ---
**Author:** ![Stan\_Shmenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Stan\_Shmenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stan_Shmenge)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/47 "2010-01-11T23:41:01Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Aside from any rights/wrongs for a moment… these seem utterly absurd things to promise - especially the last two. What would be the point of setting them up if anyone who knows they have been drinking can opt out? I am not here to defend the logic of the promises, simply to point out that they were made. Made for the purpose of allaying fears of the civil libertarians, who, wisely, objected to this whole scheme in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/48 "2010-01-12T00:32:29Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > Except that this part of the article is a flat out lie. When they were first doing these checkpoints (the very term should conjure visions of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) they did in fact list upcoming checkpoints in local papers. When is the last time anyone has seen that? I can’t decide which is funnier. The comparison of traffic checkpoints to Nazis or the insistence that the law enforcement community speak with one voice and are even capable of lying. Add in a bit of inane slippery slope, a dash of hyperbolic outrage, and horrible analogies and you have a thread better suited for the Pit, where this thread should be. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/49 "2010-01-12T01:15:25Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Aside from any rights/wrongs for a moment… these seem utterly absurd things to promise - especially the last two. What would be the point of setting them up if anyone who knows they have been drinking can opt out? so you think that refusing to let the cops in to search your house for something should… give them grounds for a search warrant? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/50 "2010-01-12T01:34:31Z")
Some of you folks in the USA seem to have a very warped view of public safety versus personal rights. And, may I add, a completely irrational and almost pathological fear of police officers, who after all, are hired for the sole purpose of ensuring public safety. Once again, if you’re a reasonably law-abiding citizen you’ve got nothing to fear from a police officer who’s probably making less money than you are and is only doing his/her job. Grow up and cooperate with society. ---
**Author:** ![Renee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/renee/32/287_2.png) [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/51 "2010-01-12T01:38:25Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > I don’t know about the constitutionality of such stops (don’t we have 9 experts who still debate this issue?) but I can feel the wrongness when I can’t get into or out of my neighborhood without showing my papers. Any interaction with the police can result is a huge hassle, or worse, for even the tiniest of mistakes. Look at the officer funny - they can make you sit there forever. Don’t want to let them search you car - OK then, have a half- hour wait while they run a “background check.” Stumble in your speech - get out of the car and take a test. > > I actually don’t object to sobriety test that much, it’s the huge discretion the police have to do basically anything they want and the requirement that we, the people, silently suck it up or else that bothers me. Very well-put. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/52 "2010-01-12T01:44:22Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > I am not here to defend the logic of the promises, simply to point out that they were made. Made for the purpose of allaying fears of the civil libertarians, who, wisely, objected to this whole scheme in the first place. Got a cite for the last two promises? The usual checkpoint where I live is about 3 blocks from my house. I’ve seen it mentioned in advance many times, including recently, but have never seen the last two things you mentioned promised. In fact, the police always set up the checkpoint in the same place. I easily avoided it when I was coming back from a New Years Eve party, not because I was drinking but just to get home faster. BTW, why object to MADD? Were they at the checkpoint? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/53 "2010-01-12T01:55:42Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Once again, if you’re a reasonably law-abiding citizen you’ve got nothing to fear from a police officer who’s probably making less money than you are and is only doing his/her job. Grow up and cooperate with society. [That is not always so.](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/03q2/town_without_pity-feature) Besides, there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in this country. The implication of your assertion is that you must prove your innocence, not vice versa. That is a problem for me. Last, a few weeks ago we did a thread about this, and I linked to [this lecture](http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html). I understand that you are not a United States citizen, **Leaffan** , but as a US citizen I find the whole situation utterly outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/54 "2010-01-12T01:57:59Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Some of you folks in the USA seem to have a very warped view of public safety versus personal rights. And, may I add, a completely irrational and almost pathological fear of police officers, who after all, are hired for the sole purpose of ensuring public safety. this is spoken like someone who has no concept of how the different attitudes in policing in this country manifest themselves. cops in other places are nice, courteous, and really do seem approachable and available to help you. cops in the united states, by and large, maintain a cowboy/paramilitary attitude about them, and are no where near as approachable as other cops from other societies. i have no hesitation about approaching a police officer in Canada, the UK, or Continental Europe and asking them for assistance, directions, etc. I have seen with my own eyes police in Canada drive people home if they are lost, too drunk, or caught in the rain. No way in hell would I ever dare ask a cop in this country to do the same. They’ll stare at you, probably get indignant, and probably hassle you for even bothering them. part of this is justified (a lot more crazies running around here with guns, so they are on their guard a lot more) and some of it is an institution-wide fetishization of militarism and corresponding corruptness in their use of power. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/55 "2010-01-12T02:27:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Some of you folks in the USA seem to have a very warped view of public safety versus personal rights. And, may I add, a completely irrational and almost pathological fear of police officers, who after all, are hired for the sole purpose of ensuring public safety. > > Once again, if you’re a reasonably law-abiding citizen you’ve got nothing to fear from a police officer who’s probably making less money than you are and is only doing his/her job. Grow up and cooperate with society. I don’t fear police officers. I fear a government which forgets it’s controlled by the people rather than the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/56 "2010-01-12T02:45:08Z")
As if I needed it here, this thread is another example of why I find threads on the SDMB that deal with law enforcement to be so damn frustrating. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/57 "2010-01-12T02:57:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t fear police officers. I fear a government which forgets it’s controlled by the people rather than the other way around. Exactly. I do not answer to the government, The government answers to me. IMO, laws that allow the detainment of random citizens are in conflict of constitutional laws protecting basic freedom from undo search. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/58 "2010-01-12T03:11:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re missing the whole point. The issue isn’t whether or not the police should be able to arrest people who have committed crimes. The issue is whether or not the police should be able to investigate random people, most of whom have not committed any crime. Right. I think they should. Driving’s a privilege, and one that carries a lot of potential risks. I think the police SHOULD be able to investigate random people on the road at checkpoints. I think checkpoints are perfectly fine. I think they are non-intrusive enough that I’d allow them without allowing other, crazier things that people insist I must be for (searching your homes without warrant, for instance). I can be for a lesser form of intrusive investigation without being for a more severe form Since the people arrested actually did committ crimes, I find that I am justified in thinking this way. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/59 "2010-01-12T03:22:18Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Right. I think they should. Driving’s a privilege, and one that carries a lot of potential risks. No driving is NOT a privilege. Every adult capable of licensing can drive. There is nothing in the constitution to suggest it is a discretion of the state to grant use of public thoroughfares. Therefore it comes under the basic right to pursue life unfettered beyond the safety constraints necessary to engage in the act. ---
**Author:** ![randy054](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@randy054](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randy054)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/60 "2010-01-12T03:37:15Z")
There was a time when the police’s main goal was to serve the public, now they are nothing more than nazi’s that serve the state to help fill thier coffers. Most I have come across look at all citizens as criminals and its do as I say or else, no chance in speaking your mind either. > [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > Except that this part of the article is a flat out lie. When they were first doing these checkpoints (the very term should conjure visions of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) they did in fact list upcoming checkpoints in local papers. When is the last time anyone has seen that? > > As far as opportunity to avoid, that is a lie as well. The last one I went through was set up as you came up from an underpass, with no way of seeing that it was in place, and no alternative but to pass through. A few years ago, I was eating at a restaurant in Pasadena, and observed one of these checkpoints for a considerable time. Anyone turning off the road was immediately pulled over, and subjected to _even more_ scrutiny than those passing through the checkpoint. > > I was myself subjected to this. I was approaching a checkpoint in Glendale, although I thought it was just road construction making the half mile long backup in traffic. All I could see was the backup and a flashing yellow sign board that I was too far away to read. I was immediately popped and told I was pulled over for “avoiding the checkpoint”, to which I replied that I had no idea what was going on, and was merely trying to avoid the traffic and get to my destination. They let me go. > > But they don’t conduct them that way. The are now, in many cases, set up to be a surprise, and if any way of avoiding them is available, you will be popped because avoiding them is suspicious behavior in and of itself. > > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the source of our problem. Maybe you would like a camera in your bedroom as well. Sodomy is still against the law some places, and we can’t be too careful. > > And this is absolutely contrary to how we were told they would be run. > > So, the police LIED when they said that “We promise, cross our hearts and hope to die, on a stack of Bibles and our Mother’s grave, honest injun, we will NEVER EEEEVER use these checkpoints to look for anything but drunk drivers.” > > The police LIED when they said that the checkpoints would be publicized in advance. > > The police LIED when they said the checkpoints would be set up in a way that people could see them and avoid them. > > The police LIED when they said that avoiding the checkpoints would not be grounds for a stop. > > What did they tell the truth about? Nothing. > > And notice that in the article I linked, they found exactly ONE drunk driver! But they used a lot of manpower and time, that probably could have been more effectively deployed and netted MORE DUI arrests if they had just done simple traffic patrol. > > Checkpoints were a way of getting the camel’s nose in the tent. Now we have the whole damn dromedary in here stinking the place up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=4)