# 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:** 5
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/81 "2010-01-12T17:20:08Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > How is driving not a privilege? It’s not the same thing as walking down the road, where anyone can do that. To be able to drive you have to possess certain criteria, such as be age appropriate, go through the mandated training session, and pass a test. Then, once you are licensed, you are subject to different laws while in operation of your vehicle, and compulsory license renewals. It’s not a privilege in the sense that the State can’t arbitrarily withhold your right to drive. The license is a certification that a person can operate safely. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/82 "2010-01-12T17:29:47Z")
I must say this thread has turned out quite different than I expected. I was anticipating the usual lot of fappers to robo-post their default, unsinkable argument whenever issues of unnecessary intrusion come up: “Don’t do anything wrong and you’ll be fine.” > [@bengangmo](#): > > OK, I’m not Australian, and I don’t even play one on TV. BUt now you’ve captured my interest. > > What’s this you’re referring to about being a criminal for possessing a story? I ain’t never heard nothing even approaching that about Australia (although admittedly I am only passingly aware) but something like that, if it happened within the last 15 years or so would have pinged my radar… Don’t ask. He’s probably talking about some kiddie porn shit. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/83 "2010-01-12T17:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Heh…a slippery slope argument - way to go!! > > Obviously how much freedom we are willing to give up in return for security is a sliding scale of intrusiveness. I fall on the side that says if a cop asks you to prove you are allowed to carry that gun then its fine. > > I won’t apologise for nor defend that position. I am not in the US, so its an academic question for me anyway. Did you miss the part where I said these are all real world examples of police powers? Look at the procedures and ask yourself which you would consider excessive and which you would accept. Then ask yourself how you divided them. Establish what your principles are and then apply them. > [@](#): > > My position is probably influenced by the fact that I don’t believe handguns belong in the hands of the general populace anyway, so that will set my further against you How so? I’ve often said that I favor very wide gun control. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/84 "2010-01-12T17:54:53Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > The other option that has been tried (unsuccessfully) here is to just abandon the car in the middle of the road and run of or to try and switch with the sober driver in the passenger seat (with the cops watching in amusement) Well, I give them credit for being original! 😃 > [@tumbleddown](#): > > How does one avoid a checkpoint? Should every driver have to watch every local newscast or read every local newspaper on the _chance_ that a checkpoint will be announced ahead of time? It’s been noted repeatedly in this thread that the “checkpoint ahead” signs are placed where it’s either impossible for drivers to choose another route or that if someone does turn off or hang a U-turn that subjects them to being pursued by police and pulled over and scrutinized (and potentially cited) anyway for attempting to “elude” the checkpoint. Now cops have to be responsible for people who are too lazy or dumb to avoid one? My response to that is: tough luck. If they don’t announce it ahead of time, you’re out luck unless you can find out some other way. If they are too lazy to read the newspapers, listen to the radio, or watch TV ahead of time, too bad. If the routes the police choose are impossible to turn away from, then the drivers should have used another road. I never said it would be easy to avoid it, but that the option remains to do so. The police are not there to do your job for you, if you want to avoid them bad enough, you find a way. Or don’t drive drunk or with other illegal substances, then you can simply expect a speedy search followed by “Have a nice day sir” and be sent on your way > [@tumbleddown](#): > > I got caught in a “safety” checkpoint the night before Halloween. It wasn’t a sobriety check, no one was breathalyzed preemptively and there was no request for driver’s licenses or documents, we had flashlights shone in our faces and to see if we were wearing seatbelts, and our cars were given a walk-around looking for burned out lights, presumably. > > The checkpoint was at the end of a 3/4 mile stretch of road that had no turn-offs. There were no warning signs that there was a checkpoint upcoming until a point approximately two car lengths from the checkpoint itself. It took about 45 minutes to get down that 3/4 miles and through the checkpoint. I was in a hurry to get home before I hit the traffic jam, no more than 7-8 minutes from my house, I really needed to use the bathroom. By the time I finally got home, that was… not my pressing issue anymore. That was special, I assure you. Your story is an outlier, though it probably caused you some embarassment and trouble, it’s hardly the kind of stuff they base policy on. I once got trapped on a highway median for an hour and needed to use the bathroom. Should I be allowed to halt traffic and run past 4 lanes of highway? If I did that, I fully expect to be cited for something. You were inconvenienced, and while unfortunate, you don’t expect your employer to take “I had to go to the bathroom” as an excuse for being late, nor would that excuse pass muster anywhere else. You should have went earlier, and it’s not the cops’ fault you couldn’t hold it. ---
**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, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/85 "2010-01-12T17:56:17Z")
> [@](#): > > You can do that. I believe your option is to either not drive, not drive at that particular time, or try to avoid the checkpoints. Once you are in a checkpoint, I don’t believe you have those options anymore, nor should you I believe that regulations that restrict ownership and operation of motor vehicles should be limited just to what concerns motor vehicles. I shouldn’t have to submit to any general loss of my rights just to drive a car. Legitimate questions: “Do you have a currently valid license and driver’s insurance?” “Are you currently too impaired to drive?” “How fast were you driving back there?” Not legitimate questions: “Where are you driving today?” “Can we search your car for evidence of any crimes?” “Do you sell illegal drugs?” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/86 "2010-01-12T18:36:22Z")
Look, when a police officer stops a motorist **for any reason,** the officer runs a check against the vehicle’s tag number and the driver’s DL number, to see if the driver has a currently valid license, whether any arrest warrants are outstanding, whether the car has been reported stolen, etc. The officer will also look for open containers of alcohol in the vehicle. All of that is perfectly routine and not at all controversial. Sometimes a cop will pull you over just **because** the cop saw you stopped at a light, entered your tag number in his onboard computer, and found it matched up with an owner/driver with a suspended license or whatever. They check license tags that way, routinely and randomly, when they have nothing else to do. That’s the Information Age for ya. So, if we’re going to have DUI checkpoints at all, then all of that is going to be a routine part of the process. What else do you expect?! That a cop, satisfied that you’re not driving drunk, but, finding that your license is suspended or you have a gun on the front seat or you’re wanted for jumping bail, is just going to let you go?! ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/87 "2010-01-12T18:43:21Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Heh…a slippery slope argument - way to go!! I am not a lawyer, but if these DUI checkpoints are ruled to be constitutional, doesn’t that set a precedent that would make it easier for more intrusive types of stops to be allowed further down the road? ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/88 "2010-01-12T18:45:20Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Now cops have to be responsible for people who are too lazy or dumb to avoid one? The point is that an unannounced checkpoint is **impossible** to avoid. Just for funsies, [here’s a map of the checkpoint I encountered](http://i47.tinypic.com/6z0lsk.jpg). [ul] [li]The green eye is the last place a driver could turn off to avoid the checkpoint. It is, as I noted, more than 3/4 mile before the checkpoint itself.[/li][li]The red lightning bolt is where the traffic jam began.[/li][li]The red “information” symbol is location of the one _and only_ sign advising the upcoming checkpoint.[/li][li]The checkmark is the location of the checkpoint itself.[/li][/ul] Without being omniscient, there was _no way for any driver to avoid this checkpoint_. And that was the issue I was addressing, simply saying “drivers who don’t want to go through a checkpoint should avoid them” is a non-starter. You can’t avoid what you don’t know about. > [@](#): > > My response to that is: tough luck. If they don’t announce it ahead of time, you’re out luck unless you can find out some other way. What other way? > [@](#): > > If they are too lazy to read the newspapers, listen to the radio, or watch TV ahead of time, too bad. And if it’s never announced in the media at all? > [@](#): > > If the routes the police choose are impossible to turn away from, then the drivers should have used another road. Why would someone use another road? If they’re on the road that takes them to where they’re going, what, they’re supposed to take some circuitous or even unknown route off of a main road on the chance that some night there will be a checkpoint? This doesn’t even make any sort of sense. > [@](#): > > I never said it would be easy to avoid it, but that the option remains to do so. And again, I reiterate, when a checkpoint is _not_ announced in the media and when the only signs on the road advising of the checkpoint happen after the last place to turn/turn around _and_ well after the traffic jam that a checkpoint inevitably causes, _how is a driver meant to avoid that checkpoint_? > [@](#): > > Your story is an outlier, though it probably caused you some embarassment and trouble, it’s hardly the kind of stuff they base policy on. Obviously it’s not the sort of thing to base policy on, but the point is, I was detained on that roadway in order to be scrutinized by police on the chance that I might be doing something wrong. My presence on that road on that night at that hour was not in itself a reason to suspect me of a crime, and if the police are going to detain me at length, at great inconvenience to me, then there ought to be at least a _basis_ for suspecting that I’ve done something detainment-worthy. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/89 "2010-01-12T18:55:10Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > The point is that an unannounced checkpoint is **impossible** to avoid. Just for funsies, [here’s a map of the checkpoint I encountered](http://i47.tinypic.com/6z0lsk.jpg). > … > Without being omniscient, there was _no way for any driver to avoid this checkpoint_. And that was the issue I was addressing, simply saying “drivers who don’t want to go through a checkpoint should avoid them” is a non-starter. You can’t avoid what you don’t know about. Even if they were warned, it’s plain ridiculous for drivers to have to consult the newspapers for DUI-checkpoint information in order to avoid a strip search every time they go to the grocery store. **Yogie** , why do you want driving to be such a hassle? ---
**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, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/90 "2010-01-12T19:21:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I believe that regulations that restrict ownership and operation of motor vehicles should be limited just to what concerns motor vehicles. I shouldn’t have to submit to any general loss of my rights just to drive a car. > > Legitimate questions: > “Do you have a currently valid license and driver’s insurance?” > “Are you currently too impaired to drive?” > “How fast were you driving back there?” > > Not legitimate questions: > “Where are you driving today?” > “Can we search your car for evidence of any crimes?” > “Do you sell illegal drugs?” they’re all legitimate because they’re being asked voluntarily. you can tell a cop to (probably wise to do it nicely) take a hike and refuse to answer any of these questions. about the only thing a cop can _force_ you to do when he’s pulled you over is demand to see your license and (tag and insurance) registration. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/91 "2010-01-12T19:23:54Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > I am not a lawyer, but if these DUI checkpoints are ruled to be constitutional, doesn’t that set a precedent that would make it easier for more intrusive types of stops to be allowed further down the road? they have been ruled to be constitutional. and the supreme court decision relied on the fact that preventing DUI was a unique and warranted objective of the checkpoints. other types of dragnets are going to be met with skepticism. also, some state supreme courts have held that these things are unconstitutional under their state constitutions ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/92 "2010-01-12T21:44:32Z")
Sigh. Driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege. If a DUI checkpoint turns up someone with drugs or open warrants, outstanding. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/93 "2010-01-12T22:13:21Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sigh. > > Driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege. If a DUI checkpoint turns up someone with drugs or open warrants, outstanding. In the case it wouldn’t be a DUI checkpoint - it would just be a checkpoint, no? ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/94 "2010-01-12T22:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > they’re all legitimate because they’re being asked voluntarily. you can tell a cop to (probably wise to do it nicely) take a hike and refuse to answer any of these questions. > > about the only thing a cop can _force_ you to do when he’s pulled you over is demand to see your license and (tag and insurance) registration. Can I say “I don’t feel like answering any questions” and drive away? Or am I required to wait until the officer decides to allow me to leave? ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/95 "2010-01-12T22:17:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege. If a DUI checkpoint turns up someone with drugs or open warrants, outstanding. Really? So the government owns the right to drive and we have to ask the government’s permission to drive? I thought the general principle was that the government had to come to us for permission and not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/96 "2010-01-12T22:17:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Legitimate questions: > 1a) “Do you have a currently valid license and driver’s insurance?” > 2a) “Are you currently too impaired to drive?” > 3a) “How fast were you driving back there?” > > Not legitimate questions: > 1b) “Where are you driving today?” > 2b) “Can we search your car for evidence of any crimes?” > 3b) “Do you sell illegal drugs?” _Numbering added._ Why is 2a legitimate, and 3b is not? Both are attempts to get you to incriminate yourself. FTR, I believe **Rumor\_Watkins** is correct - they can ask whatever they like (until you make it clear that you are not answering questions) but you don’t have to answer. Ever. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/97 "2010-01-12T22:32:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Can I say “I don’t feel like answering any questions” and drive away? Or am I required to wait until the officer decides to allow me to leave? Somewhere in between, if memory serves. If you say “Can I leave now?” the officer either has to say “Yes” or arrest you, otherwise he’s illegally detaining you. But if you leave without asking, he can pursue and arrest you for resisting arrest. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/98 "2010-01-12T22:33:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Really? So the government owns the right to drive and we have to ask the government’s permission to drive? I thought the general principle was that the government had to come to us for permission and not the other way around. There are lots of things which, under established law, you can’t do at all without the government’s permission – drive a motor vehicle; practice medicine, law, or any other licensed profession; etc. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/99 "2010-01-12T22:36:11Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > Temporarily stopping everyone driving down a particular street in order for them to present identification Why should a drunk driving checkpoint require drivers to present identification? the OP’s concern is valid. Drunk driving checkpoints are supposed to be a valid infringement on liberty because they’re a response to a very significant and present publicdanger; drunk driving. There is no reason whatsoever to ask to see a driver’s license at such a checkpoint. I’ve been through a dozen or more such checkpoints here in Ontario and not one single time was I ever asked to produce my driver’s license. What justification would there be for that? The purpose of a drunk driving checkpoint should be to see if the driver is drunk, NOT if he’s licensed. You can find that out if he seems drunk and fails a sobriety test. ---
**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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/100 "2010-01-12T22:43:49Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > In the case it wouldn’t be a DUI checkpoint - it would just be a checkpoint, no? You would have them ignore everything else? Guns, drugs, dead hookers, pipe bombs, a cd of Vanilla Ice, should all be ignored because they can only arrest DUI offenders? Does that hold for search warrants too? If they get a search warrant for drugs and find bombs, kiddie porn, and costumes used in a bank robbery sitting out, they should ignore those too? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=6)