# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/161 "2010-01-14T15:49:01Z")
> [@Daylate](#): > > Everyone was pretty pissed about this, so (and I admit, I was one of the instigators of this), almost everybody involved in this immediately called the State Patrol to complain bitterly. I guess their lines were pretty well tied up that morning - the lady I finally got thru to sounded very harrassed. And the Patrol never did anything like that ever again. > > One of the few times in my life that I’ve been able to strike a blow for Liberty. When I was in high school the police decided that drag racing in the parking lot was a crime that required every car owner to be interrogated. After about 15 minutes of waiting to leave we all just started honking our horns. They gave up and let us go. ---
**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 14, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/162 "2010-01-14T16:37:51Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > I take that back. I reread the post where I thought you had and it did not say what I thought it said. s’alright. In point of fact, I think there could be certain things that exist in some kind of blurred middle ground overlapping both ‘right’ and ‘privilege’ - and that driving may be one of them. ---
**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 14, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/163 "2010-01-14T17:34:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Are the police in America just inherently less trustworthy than elsewhere? People want to blame the police because they’re the visible faces. But the police don’t write the laws or set the policies. ---
**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 15, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/164 "2010-01-15T09:26:10Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Are the police in America just inherently less trustworthy than elsewhere? > (that’s an earnest question, not a potshot) In many cases, [yes.](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story) We have a lot of very corrupt departments here. Chicago and Boston are notorious examples of major cities where the cops are basically just another gang on the street. Google “Rampart Scandal” for info on how the LAPD was operating. Here in “Beautiful Burbank” the FBI is investigating the local force for being thugs, one of the named officers in the investigation shot himself in the chest outside his home a few weeks ago and the Chief has stepped down. Whole lotta smoke there for there to be no fire… ---
**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 15, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/165 "2010-01-15T13:47:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > People want to blame the police because they’re the visible faces. But the police don’t write the laws or set the policies. No, they just step beyond the agreements they have made and have turned DUI checkpoints into fishing expeditions, going beyond the authority they were originally granted. ---
**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 15, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/166 "2010-01-15T13:51:27Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > No, they just step beyond the agreements they have made and have turned DUI checkpoints into fishing expeditions, going beyond the authority they were originally granted. Again, there was no “agreement”. If they are violating the Supreme Court and individual State rulings on how DUI checkpoints are run, then they are exceeding their authority and should stop immediately. If they aren’t, then they’re fine. In this case, your hyperinflated rhetoric aside, we don’t know. ETA: I know many very good, honest police officers. There. I’ve established that police officers in the US are very good and honest. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/167 "2010-01-15T14:32:36Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Again, there was no “agreement”. If they are violating the Supreme Court and individual State rulings on how DUI checkpoints are run, then they are exceeding their authority and should stop immediately. If they aren’t, then they’re fine. In this case, your hyperinflated rhetoric aside, we don’t know. > > ETA: I know many very good, honest police officers. There. I’ve established that police officers in the US are very good and honest. I have met both, sometimes at the same time. There is no justification for randomly stopping drivers in a DUI fishing expedition. Allowing random searches is a bad precedent because there are an infinite number of ways we could be delayed in the name of crime prevention. A precedent may seem innocuous by itself but it’s mere existence provides a platform for additional. We have defended freedom of speech against the most obnoxious of human expression because to do otherwise opens up a challenge to our very thoughts. This is no different. ---
**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 15, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/168 "2010-01-15T15:07:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I have met both, sometimes at the same time. There is no justification for randomly stopping drivers in a DUI fishing expedition. The Supreme Court disagrees. As they explained, while it is a stop under the 4th Amendment, the governmental interest in stopping drunk driving outweighs the minor inconvenience to a driver. > [@Magiver](#): > > Allowing random searches is a bad precedent because there are an infinite number of ways we could be delayed in the name of crime prevention. A precedent may seem innocuous by itself but it’s mere existence provides a platform for additional. Additional what? Again, in the over 20 years it’s been allowed, I have not seen it extended at all. If the police officers are doing it outside the limits, it’s wrong. We agree. But I haven’t seen the extension of the DUI checkpoints extended to … say Terry stops, or questioning random people, or pretty much anything else. > [@Magiver](#): > > We have defended freedom of speech against the most obnoxious of human expression because to do otherwise opens up a challenge to our very thoughts. This is no different. Driving 2 tons of steel drunk is certainly a big difference than saying “Bush sucks!!” If that difference escapes you, I fear we are at an impasse. ---
**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 15, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/169 "2010-01-15T15:20:07Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The Supreme Court disagrees. That does not mean they are right. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Additional what? Again, in the over 20 years it’s been allowed, I have not seen it extended at all. If the police officers are doing it outside the limits, it’s wrong. We agree. But I haven’t seen the extension of the DUI checkpoints extended to … say Terry stops, or questioning random people, or pretty much anything else. 20 years is not that long. If the right “reason” to randomly stop people becomes popular, these DUI checkpoints are going to set a precedent that allow those stops to occur. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Driving 2 tons of steel drunk is certainly a big difference than saying “Bush sucks!!” If that difference escapes you, I fear we are at an impasse. If you don’t see that all of our constitutional rights should be protected, then we are at an impasse. ---
**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 15, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/170 "2010-01-15T15:27:59Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > 20 years is not that long. If the right “reason” to randomly stop people becomes popular, these DUI checkpoints are going to set a precedent that allow those stops to occur. Well, we’ve seen the increase in the “Drug War” and the “War on Terrorism”, both of which have been “right reasons”, yet they haven’t extended these “random stops”. Maybe it’s a lack of imagination, but I’m not seeing a better reason than those coming along. > [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > If you don’t see that all of our constitutional rights should be protected, then we are at an impasse. This is so inane, I won’t even comment on it, just let the world revel in it’s stupidity once again. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/171 "2010-01-15T15:32:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > People want to blame the police because they’re the visible faces. But the police don’t write the laws or set the policies. I’m pretty sure that no court or legislative body is **mandating** that police departments conduct checkpoints. The departments involved pick the place, pick the date, pick the time, pick the number of personnel involved (which has a direct correlation to the intensity of the traffic jam created and the length of detention of each driver) and whether or not they’re going to publicize the checkpoint and how. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/172 "2010-01-15T15:57:12Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The Supreme Court disagrees. As they explained, while it is a stop under the 4th Amendment, the governmental interest in stopping drunk driving outweighs the minor inconvenience to a driver. The Supreme Court is full of crap. First, it is a recognition of the detainment involved. Second, they are justifying a precedent that nullifies the 4th Amendment with opinion and nothing more. There is no evidence that DUI’s are remotely effective in the use of labor-hours to reduce drunk drivers. Your suggestion that this has not shown up in other forms is also wrong. Look at what is being done with airport security. Instead of investing money in the identification of terrorists we are pouring money into high tech equipment that is invasive, time consuming, and ineffectual in stopping the movement of dangerous materials. ---
**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 15, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/173 "2010-01-15T16:10:22Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Well, we’ve seen the increase in the “Drug War” and the “War on Terrorism”, both of which have been “right reasons”, yet they haven’t extended these “random stops”. Maybe it’s a lack of imagination, but I’m not seeing a better reason than those coming along. > **[The Lawrence Crime Blotter | Police checkpoint near Wakarusa causing a stir](http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/lawrence_blotter/2006/jun/07/promoterupset/?wakarusa_2006)** > > A police check lane that appeared yesterday near the Wakarusa Music & Camping Festival is expected to continue throughout the day today and through Thursday afternoon, as an estimated 15,000 revelers pour into town for the four-day festival.It’s... ---
**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 15, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/174 "2010-01-15T16:12:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Your suggestion that this has not shown up in other forms is also wrong. Look at what is being done with airport security. Do you think that airport security measures are unconstitutional also? Why? Note: I am not asking whether you think they’re a stupid waste of resources, but rather do you think they violate the 4th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/175 "2010-01-15T16:17:11Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The Supreme Court disagrees. As others have observed, the fact that the S.C. has upheld something makes it the law. It does not necessarily mean all reasonable people must consider it correct or desireable. > [@](#): > > Again, in the over 20 years it’s been allowed, I have not seen it extended at all. Do you consider DUI checkpoints to be entirely separate from Illinois v. Lidster, 540 US 419 (2004), in which the Supremes upheld a checkpoint for the purposes of requesting information from vehicle occupants about a previously-committed crime? Or Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 (2005) where the Supremes upheld the use of a drug-sniffing dog on the car of a guy who had been stopped for speeding? ---
**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 15, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/176 "2010-01-15T16:25:35Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > [The Lawrence Crime Blotter | Police checkpoint near Wakarusa causing a stir | News, Sports, Jobs - Lawrence Journal-World: news, information, headlines and events in Lawrence, Kansas](http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/lawrence_blotter/2006/jun/07/promoterupset/?wakarusa_2006) [City of Indianapolis v. Edmund](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-1030). ---
**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 15, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/177 "2010-01-15T16:33:43Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > [City of Indianapolis v. Edmund](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-1030). The checkpoint in the link I posted occurred in Kansas, not Indianapolis. It was also in 2006. I guess your point is that some checkpoints are found to be unconstitutional. As far as I know, the checkpoint in Kansas was never ruled to be unconstitutional. If DUI checkpoints were not allowed, though, perhaps it would have been. ---
**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 15, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/178 "2010-01-15T16:35:35Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > As others have observed, the fact that the S.C. has upheld something makes it the law. It does not necessarily mean all reasonable people must consider it correct or desireable. I understand that. Feel free to disagree with the Supreme Court. > [@Dinsdale](#): > > Do you consider DUI checkpoints to be entirely separate from Illinois v. Lidster, 540 US 419 (2004), in which the Supremes upheld a checkpoint for the purposes of requesting information from vehicle occupants about a previously-committed crime? > > Or Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 (2005) where the Supremes upheld the use of a drug-sniffing dog on the car of a guy who had been stopped for speeding? Let me be more precise. When the Supreme Court allowed the use of DUI checkpoints, it did have the effect of increasing the use of that particular police method. And if you think that it was wrongly decided, you will think that the other uses (such as Lidster) of it are wrongly decided and thus, you have your slippery slope. By allowing the DUI checkpoint, the Supreme Court has provided a precedent for the use of other vehicle checkpoints and stops. In that sense, if you disagree with the Supreme Court, you think there is a slippery slope with it’s application to ALL kinds of vehicle stops. I, however, agree with the Supreme Court, and do not think the application of the checkpoint caselaw to other vehicle checkpoints that have likewise been upheld (Lidster) is a slippery slope, simply the application of the same thinking to a different fact situation. And, in City of Indianapolis v. Edmonds, the Supreme Court drew a line limiting how far down that “slope” it would allow. I should have been more precise earlier in the thread. Of course if you think DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, anything like those will be unconstitutional and the result of a slippery slope. I just disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/179 "2010-01-15T16:36:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Do you think that airport security measures are unconstitutional also? Why? Note: I am not asking whether you think they’re a stupid waste of resources, but rather do you think they violate the 4th Amendment. As a function of cause and effect, yes, they are in violation of the 4th Amendment. I say this based on the assumption that no measure was taken in regards to probability and the resulting intrusion. Without any discussion we are now getting electronically naked because of the DUI precedent. ---
**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 15, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494/180 "2010-01-15T16:37:33Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > The checkpoint in the link I posted occurred in Kansas, not Indianapolis. It was also in 2006. I guess your point is that some checkpoints are found to be unconstitutional. As far as I know, the checkpoint in Kansas was never ruled to be unconstitutional. As far as I know (and checked on Westlaw) it was never even challenged in court and reported. Which is why I should have listened to myself about getting involved in a thread like this, because there is such a lack of information that would make all the difference in a determination of the Constitutionality of an action. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-papers-please-dui-checkpoints-now-general-purpose-dragnets/524494.md?page=10)