My god…I am really experiencing … cultural dissonance?.. having a police officer ask “are you having a good day?” is an intrusion? I’m really not getting it…I’m sorry, can please try to explain in words of one syllable?
I am not interested in “more free” vs. “less free” discussions. This is not rooting for this team or that. We are discussing whether or not DUI checkpoints are general purpose police dragnets, in the US. By extension, we are also discussing if Australia (and maybe NZ) checkpoints are also dragnets.
It may surprise you at this point to realize that the vast majority of US folks support checkpoints as they are also, but that in no way negates the points being made here regarding the properness of the tactic.
Same here in a few states I think (but am not sure)
Same here.
Police there don’t verify the identity, the validity of the ID and who knows what else from the comfort of their car, while you wait there?
If not, that is interesting, and sounds like policing in NZ is (in these regards anyway) similar to 1950s era US policing. You wait and see 
How do you know they didn’t observe the driver wife for signs of drinking, in the speech, in the eyes, in the odor of her breath?
Just asking a question about if you would object if the stops get a little more onerous in the future in a foreseeable way?
I don’t talk to cops when they speak to me like that, or at all if pulled over in a dragnet. I might say “Am I under arrest or free to go”.
I do not believe that is the case anymore, nor is it with Canada, so in fact Americans must show a passport to enter any other functioning sovereign nation. Mexico, Canada and the USA are making arrangement to create passport-compliant ID cards that would serve the same purpose, however.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, where do you have the RIGHT to cross a border? As a Canadian, I have no right at all to cross the border into the USA. If they allow me to do so it is at the pleasure of the government of the United States. I do have the right to cross back… but I only have that right because I am Canadian and thus entitled to the right of re-entry as enumerated in our Constitution, and it’s a reasonable thing to ask that I produce some evidence I’m Canadian.
The one place I can think of you have a right to cross an actual national border is in the European community, and if I am not mistaken they don’t have to show passports to do it.
Of course they check - I said “for anybody OTHER than the driver”
No need to observe - the alcohol sniffer has already told them all they need to know, of course they will keep an eye on the person, but no more so than they would have done in any other circumstance (say if the car was stopped at the lights)
Can please please somebody explain how saying hello to a police officer can be construed as a search?
This just seems hyperbolic and over the top. Its not even a “terry stop” (is this the right term to use?).
I’ve been through checkpoints, it really is a case of “no sir, I have not been drinking” followed by the officer saying - ok, on your way…
That’s it, nothing more, how can that possibly be a problem? I didn’t even have to wind down the rear windows of the car and my passengers were not even acknowledged. That is how its done where I come from.
Exactly. So it is not “random” by any measure of “randomness”. It is Orwellian, which describes a lot of Singapore life as I understand it.
But it is. You are forced to converse with him on his terms. If you approach him, fine. But he approaches you, physically stops you, and it is at his discretion that he keeps it short, not yours.
I would argue that the deterrent effect, if any, comes from an understanding that the Courts will not see this as a violation on his part.
In the US, the Supreme Court has already ruled against this very tactic precisely on these grounds, despite the politeness and briefness of the conversation. None of that is relevant in the context of this discussion.
Irrelevant in the US, in fact, that is the issue the OP raised, read it again please.
How can you possibly make a blanket statement like that and expect to be taken seriously?
We have provided the legal definition of a “search” in the US. By US terms, they are being searched, and the only issue would be is it reasonable (it was found not to be).
Can you provide us with the LEGAL definition of search in the countries you are talking about, and any legal precedents relating to this type of stop? There must be some…
Contradicted by your own story about the seatbelts not being on earning a ticket. To whom do they issue them if they can’t ask for ID?
So there is an equilibrium for now. You feel good about being stopped every now and then in exchange for an arguably small increase in safety. That equation is very delicate though, broader history has shown.
Now you are starting to recognize the problem. You say the programs are the same, except that in Singapore the officer has more discretion. What is to say later the officer in another country won’t have the same or more discretion?
Uh huh.
When it Rome…
Right. Why are you arguing that Singapore is a good supporting example for you again?
Right again. No one here is saying that, we are saying that allowing officers at checkpoints increasing discretion is a sign of a slippery slope towards broad erosions of freedom. You are making the case for us now!
No. It would be a DUI checkpoint. Anything that is found incidental to that is just the cherry on top of the whipped cream.
I think we have addressed it, but apparently not sufficiently.
“Search” is a legal term-of-art.
Does it mean something different where you are?
No need to. Our Courts have already ruled that tactic illegal. You can look up the cases if you want.
In your local case, no one has asserted that one is the cause of the other, only that they are correlated.
Please don’t argue that Singapore is a “free” country. Let’s dismiss that here.
I already showed an erosion of freedoms in Australia over time.
But since I think it was ME who raised the RBT issue at all in a discussion abotu the US, and you who took up the mantle, can you tie it back to the US and tell us why it is relevant to the matter of the OP. Since it is already illegal here, the onus is on you to show us why out Courts should revert, if it is to be seen as anything other than a diversionary red-herring to the thread.
As for your countr(ies), Singapore I am not aware of any recent rights news, so nothing new there to worry about. Australia, we have noted is on a slippery slope and why it concerns the US as a trend. NZ, Ihaven’t seen enough data here to be alarmed one way or the other.
I would like to see that study please.
That is what ME said “everyone knows” in Australia.
You would expect that, it is a fine hypothesis, the statistical methods for testing it are not that complex, the data exists, and the motivation to demonstrate the truth would seem to be there. So where is it?
Right. I get it. You and many countrymates are not protective of freedoms. In the case of DUI checkpoints, neither are most Americans. But the law is not a poll on the evening news in any of the countries under discussion.
You are stuck thinking “search” means “pulled over an examined for evidence”. That is not what search means in law.
Perhaps this will help clear it up.
And that is a problem how?
1 - it would be built into the car, or up to you to add as an aftermarket device. Maybe you get a discount on insurance if you add it, who knows?
2 - it would have presumably the same capabilities as the police have when they make you blow during an RBT.
Now what?
I had a really long, detailed reply planned out, but I realised I’d just be wasting my time with it.
Bengangmo, like myself, is originally from NZ. We can both authoritatively speak about RBTs in NZ having lived in and driven in NZ and encountered them.
Now, no-one disputes that Singpore is not exactly a bastion of Personal Freedoms. But to try and argue that Australia is some sort of Tyrannical Police State, is- as I said- insulting.
I just don’t think we can bridge the cultural gap here. As long as you lot assume that a policeman saying “hello, how are you?” is this terrible encroachment on your liberties and that being stopped for 30 seconds for an RBT is the final step before America collapses into Totalitarianism, we’re just never going to see eye to eye. You’re not going to convince me that we live in some Authoritarian Police State where our [del]precious bodily fluids[/del] Very Freedoms are being eroded day by day, and I’m not going to convince you that you sound like an unreasonable slightly paranoid fundamentalist who thinks they should be able to do whatever they want, even if it endangers other members of society.
And FYI, alcohol interlocks on cars are, IMHO, a far greater intrustion on Liberty and Freedom than an RBT. They put interlocks on the cars of convicted repeat drink-drivers in some states here now, and the driver has to pay for it- $3-5k, IIRC- out of their own pocket. And again, no-one I know has a problem with the interlocks, just the cost of them.
I cannot even begin to fathom how being stopped for 30 seconds to see if you’ve been drinking (especially on the weekend near a pub, for example) is a Hitler Gambit to Destroy Your Freedoms Forever, but not even being allowed to start your car until you’ve proved you haven’t been drinking is OK.
I’m sorry, I just don’t think I can participate much more in this thread without completely losing my sanity.
How did the officer manage to say hello to you while he was standing on the side of the road and you were driving down the road at 100 km/hr? If he waves to you fine.
But you say he manages to say it to you though your open window. How did that happen?
And you also say that before he is done, and you are free to continue, you will have to blow in some piece of electronics, and he will read and assess the result before HE decides you can go.
Maybe this does all take 15 seconds or less once you have stopped the car.
But the amount of time is not the issue at all. It could be 1 second and still the issue is, is it a legally sufficient search?
Where you are, apparently it is.
Here, and RBT clearly is not, and DUI checkpoint is still an open question.
Well, yeah, that is because of our increased pressure on others due to 9/11.
But Mexico really? How will they do that? We went there on a cruise ship. It says here that Mexico does not have, nor desire to have the resources to post customs at every entry point, in every 2-bit port.
And where they might post someone (Tijuana perhaps?) I am sure $5 -$15 US gets you by.
[QUOTE]
Ah, so they are doing way more than saying hello to the driver (and even more than making her blow) - they are looking for violations that might or might not involve passengers too.
Glad to clear up it is not as friendly and positive and good for the driver and passengers as you have been insisting
Again, so it is not the officer being friendly as you have been insisting, but that it involves real and standard police work, no different than if you were pulled over by other means.
Their is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, a person is seized, if only briefly, and evidence of a crime that may or may not have occurred or is occurring is collected.
That is a search, in legal terms.
The issue is not if it is a search, it is, is it reasonable under the laws that exist at the time the search occurs.
Terry Stops (with some info on searches)
An attorney, in any country, will see it through a different prism of course. That is what they are there for.
Not to be snarky, but have you ever seen the classic movie “Casablanca”? It is a good way to be entertained for a few hours while seeing how random stops to show papers might not be in anybody’s best interests.
And that applies to the US, tot he OP how again? Maybe we lost track of the point you are making regarding the OP?
“The vast majority accepts (has been persuaded) that giving up liberty for safety is a good idea” is not persuasive. We know it happens, we accept that might be your current state. We suggest that you really really ought to ponder the history of the world and see if it is really a good deal or might be just temporarily convenient.
I am sure most people feel that way here too.
But the OP pointed out, the law is that they have to be doing DUI work, but there are increasingly fewer DUI arrests (none in my town on New Years Eve) but increasingly more for other reasons.
He raised the question, are the police following the law in this situation? Have they done their job of deterrence so well that they can devote their resources to the other crimes of which apparently there are still sufficient numbers?
That is the OP.
RBT as an option is not a possibility, because they are already illegal here.
The DUI checkpoint laws, as confirmed by SCOTUS, indicate that the stops must be for preventing DUI. If they are not effective for that, but may be effective for something else, their is a legitimate question as to whether they are really DUI prevention, or pretexts for other searches.
It is truly an open question.
I think this discussion boils down to one point:
Can the police stop you and do a cursory search of your car without cause? No, unless it is at a DUI checkpoint. So it it right that this one exception should exist? Apparently SCOTUS says yes but is it really right?
REally? I ahve encountered checkpoints in the US, have been driving 30 years now, and bonus trivia was trained by the driving instructor in Borat.
I’d hardly offer any of that as evidence of the propriety or not of chceckpoints. If that is all you have, then we are wasting our time.
And you too are putting words in my (or our) mouth(s). No one has said any such thing. Stop it, it is very bad form on here, you have been around long enough to know that.
And you have not said that. If I am in line at a cafe and a cop comes up behind me and says “hello how are you”, then fine.
What you are describing is actually a brief detention. You may have been moving 100 km/hr, he was mobile, and somehow he finds himself in a position to say “hello how are you”?
And even when he does, he has more according to you. You might not have to say anything back, but you are not free to leave until he makes you blow into his machine, and assesses the results for evidence of a crime.
See the difference?
You seem to be the one most concerned with the actual threat of “Authoritarian Police State” - you insist on using the term over and over. I don’t even know what it means.
I prefer to discuss things rationally here. It is not too late for you to join in.
LOL. OK. Have you even read the Bill of Rights before you categorize people who are interested in protecting them?
How does my insisting on my rights endanger any member of society?
Who is that member and how is he or she endangered?
Didn’t you say the situation changed somehow between 1930-150-ish? Weren’t you gonna explain what you meant? Without that I don’t think you are making any sense at all, I don’t see what you think you know about our country and how you come to your conclusions.
Make the rational argument, start with the history you know, what you think you know, and then make the case. But you foundations in our history appear at this point to be very weak.
Note the difference: when I want to know about your history or foundation, I ask. Hence the long turn into RBT, which turned out to be a tactic already illegal here and thus of no use in making a point in the US.
I don’t know about them relative to each other, but they are intrusive indeed. I met the man who has the patent on them a few years back and turned down an opportunity to discuss marketing them. I am sure that was a costly decision as courts and legislatures are starting to impose them on convicted DUI drivers
More money I gave up. Damn!
What if they were built into new cars as standard equipment, and their was no requirement to be convicted?
Well, if your rhetorical skills are at the level that you are spending time dreaming up phrases like that, in effect accusing me of Godwinising the threads, then it does not surprise me that you are not putting in the effort to understand.
You mentioned you are Uni? Can I ask what you are studying? When I was in college, I spent lots of time (and still do) sincerely trying to understand those who have opposing viewpoints. More interesting really. It is a good skill or measure I think, if you could actually effectively debate from the opposing point of view.
Is that not the way college kids today study, or is it possibly an Australian/NZ Uni quirk?
New York
Yes. I don’t think it’s legal for private citizens to set up roadblocks,
Quite frankly, I can’t quote the relevant law.
The premise was that they had credible evidence that the Zodiac Killer was in the area.
Is it true that Dorothy loved you best of all?
Nobody is claiming that this is the apocalypse. What we are saying is that it’s an increase in police powers and that it’s being used for purposes other than it was origianlly declared to be for.
And this was when? 30 years ago? Before even the existing SCOTUS cases? Then it is pretty moot, don’t you think?
Did you find him? Was the evidence credible in retrospect? Was it presented to a court to obtain a warrant?
Were there any lawsuits threatened or filed?
Highly skeptical of any of this, but I will play along …
You’re the one who started going on about how Australia has all these terrible restrictions on our speech. Don’t they have hyperbole in the US?
I see the difference. What I don’t see is why you think it’s a big deal that you’ve been “detained” (to use your words) for 30 seconds to establish that you are using public roads in accordance with existing laws. What about if they set up RBTs at traffic lights and breathalysed people when they hit a red light? You couldn’t leave then even if you wanted to, or else you’d be running a red light. Are red lights and stop signs and infringement of your civil liberties too?
As someone mentioned upthread, there’s no effective way to check for drunk-driving until after the fact. And “after the fact” usually means “after a nasty accident and people either in hospital or the morgue”. So, the only way to make sure people are not driving drunk (because lots of people do drink and drive) is to set up RBT checkpoints and breathalyse people. As people see them or get caught by them, the message “Don’t Drink & Drive or you’ll be sorry” (which is backed up by TV ad campaigns etc) gets across pretty clearly.
Your alternative (the interlocks) basically says “You’re an alkie who can’t be trusted with a car”.
That would be a Police State where the “citizens” have no freedoms at all. Think of the world shown in V For Vendetta and you’ve got a pretty good idea what an Authoritarian Police State is.
Yes, I have. And I think the people who are defending them are, in many cases, over-zealous. You differ in opinion. That’s fine.
It means you (hypothetical you, not you personally) could get completely shitfaced- as is your “right” and get behind the wheel of a motorcar and then drive- whilst not in a fit state to do so- on public roads and endanger other road users.
All other road users in proximity to that “hypothetical you”; they are endangered by being exposed to a much greater risk of being involved in a nasty (and possibly deadly) prang because “hypothetical you” is operating a motor vehicle whilst completely tanked.
My understanding is that from the 1920s and Prohibition there was an increase in funds and emphasis for Law Enforcement; including things like the establishment of the FBI, the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934 (restricting the sale of automatic weapons), various increasingly broader interpretations of what “Interstate Commerce” covered, and then WWII and various National Emergency Powers etc thereof. After WWII would had McCarthyism and The Fear Of Communism, and by that stage The Government had so much jurisdiction over things (again, that “Interstate Commerce” clause covers a lot, I’m told) it was a bit late to start suggesting that The Government shouldn’t be doing much more than keeping the highways paved, delivering the mail, and maybe maintaining a small professional army.
As far as I can tell, “RBT” and “Sobriety Checkpoint” are synonyms. They’re checkpoints on the side of the road in which the police test for intoxicated drivers. Didn’t your Supreme Court say that was OK?
I’m in my final semester of a Masters degree in Journalism. And I do understand your opposing viewpoint. I just think it’s wrong. Just as you think I’m wrong. We’re not going to agree, ever, on this whole issue, I think.
Right. I discussed it rationally, and even provided a long list of examples I discovered in support of what I was saying.
You are spouting hyperbole in support of your position.
This is Great Debates. See how hyperbole might no be helping?
Because that is what lies at the very heart of what it means to be American.
I have explained it in detail before. Is there something in particular that you didn’t get, or do you just reject the explanations outright?
For the final time, I hope, our Supreme Court already decided that RBTs are illegal, because they are essentially not sufficiently random over the population, the time, or the location.
What you suggest now would make them even LESS random.
The issue, again I hope for the final time, is not also that, but that either the legal standard of "reasonable prior suspiction’"is met, or if there is some sort of specific, one-off exception that can be carved out.
That is the principle from Ameican jurisprudence, and if you want to present hypotheticals fine, but at least please try to vary them so they matter on those lines.
Otherwise, the location does not matter until those issues (and others I have previously listed) are met. Your hypotheticals are still not relevant.
Actually, in the US, traffic control devices such as you mention are entirely subservient to instructions of a police officer. It is as though the devices are not there. There is no violation if a cop waves you through a red light or stop sign.
And a red light that is solid on, even if it is malfunctioning, is the same as a stop sign, and the rule is, stop and proceed when safe to do so.
You mean broadly check? I am not trained, and even I can spot a car weaving and make a damn good guess.
And if we can’t broadly (using this tactic, others such as remote interlock would work), without infringing on people’s rights, then too bad. That’s what having rights means. The world won’t stop because he cops can’t stop people, and frankly, the cops will adjust their tactics as they should.
Are you even thinking about what you write before you write it? You honestly believe
1 - every drunk driver ends up mangled and dead
2 - there is no way to identify them until they are mangled and dead unless you set up a random block?
Would I be safe in assuming that in the countries with RBT, there are no drunk driving accidents anymore?
Oh there are?
So RBTs don’t solve the problem? Is that what you mean to say?
Do you also mean to say that you are willing to accept a certain level of carnage, but not 20% more?
Hmmm that is interesting to know.
Come on.
That is the only way?
You could ban alcohol.
You could ban driving.
You could ban driving at certain places and times.
You could tolls on certain roads to discourage their use at certain times.
There are lots of things you could try.
Why are you hung up on this one, when it doesn’t even solve your problem, and why are you recommending it for us, when in addition to all that, it is already illegal here?
And the evidence for that is the total absense of drunk driving accidents, and they never catch anyone drinking and driving at these checks?
Is that it?
Noting a marketing campaign won’t solve. And if all cars have them, then no one is singled out…
See how you can argue both sides of an opinion?
Not familiar with that film, but surely have seen others in the Genre.
Are you talking about movies in this thread? We are talking about real life. Maybe that is the disconnect?
And if you are talking about real life, how do you think states get to be that way? Which states would you put in that class now? Even the worst, perhaps N Korea, people must have some minor freedom, even if it is to decide what time to pee each day. What do you mean “no freedoms at all”?
I have seen you on some sci-fi threads. Those books are not my thing, but is it possible those are coloring your view a little bit?
So you think they are the Bill of Nice-to-have-for-nows?
Does anyone have the right to any sort of guaranteed safety on the roads? Or even safety from shit-faced drivers? I am not aware of any such right.
But we are generally aware that our rights stop when they cause immediate, impending harm to others.
We have laws against drunk driving. It is a crime. There are no other crimes I can think of that cops have the power to investigate people for with no suspicion, by stopping them in a public place.
Why, of all the things we could do that could maybe cause harm to people, is this one special? Special enough for us to abandon the Bill of Rights special, I might add?
What is special about this?
And for that matter, I could damage people while drunk in other ways too, guns, fire, noxious fumes, who knows what else, using readily available and legal materials.
Maybe we should just outlaw being drunk? Outlawing alcohol would do the trick, no?
So hypothetical me causes hypothetical risks to hypothetical others, and you would have all of the very real us give up our very real rights?
Couldn’t you make equally or more scary hypothetical cases to justify getting rid of every right we have?
Is it possible that in deciding what rights we have over a nearly 1000 year period now (since roughly the Magna Carta), we are well aware that all of us having rights entails such hypothetical risks, and that sometimes shit happens, but that is the price of freedom for all of us?
I suppose that is an interesting enough topic in itself, but OK for the purposes of this thread IMHO.
Where does that have anything to do with a change in rights of individuals?
No, as I listed at the top of this thread IIRC, and alluded to many times since, quite the opposite.
Random is out. Verboten. Fuhgettaboudit.
The ruling was that the stops must, in addition to other restrictions, must stop ever nth driver, with n >=1. Not “average k/n by the end of the night, with k= # cars that went by”, but “every nth car”.
That is the antithesis of “random”.
They also must advertise the location, leave people a chance to turn around, and not follow them if the do turn around unless the method of the turn itself is evidence of a reason to stop them (dui or otherwise).
The checkpoint, by SCOTUS standards, must also be for the sole purpose of promoting safe driving, which does not for the purpose of catching drunk drivers, and also not for the purposes of seeing what else illegal happens buy.
See how this is all very very different from how you and others have described RBT?
The OP was specifically positing that the last part of that, the very last part, has become the purpose, and I gave some supporting data from my town’s recent checkpoints. I am sure pretty much anywhere would have similar data.
Hence, it is an open question as to whether our DUI checkpoints as they currently exist meet the standards set out for them by SCOTUS, that could make its way back to the Supreme Court someday.
Didn’t see the Journalism one coming
Are you suggesting I am wrong on the facts that I have presented, regarding the situation here or Australia’s censorship laws? Or that we agree on the facts, but my conclusions are not justified given the facts? Or that you are simply going to make an emotional decision, facts be damned?
Because I don’t think you think I am wrong for the same reason I think you are wrong. I think you are wrong because you are not applying your Australian point of view to a US problem.
I think you are wrong your view that it is a trifle that my demonstration that over time, Australia has increased its laws and ability to reduce freedom of communication and movement, even if has not drastically prosecuted its abilities, is nothing to be concerned about long term, and is not similar to the patterns other countries such as China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et. al. have exhibited and continue to exhibit.
That was the extent of my opinions wrt to Australia by the way, nothing hyperbolic about it, that was your characterization, but you offered nothing to counter the trend, only some anecdotes that people don’t seem to mind.
I feel you are adopting an emotional, irrational point of view on that last one especially, I don’t know why, and I find it more than a little disturbing to be coming from a Masters level Journalism student.
I will guess you will say you think I am a selfish American, not thinking about the hypothetical safety of a hypothetical family, forgetting that I take the same risks as everyone else. That I am selfish for not advocating giving up Rights people truly died for, to give police forever new and infinitely expandable powers to detain and search, contrary to 1000 years of our history, for the abstract possibility of a minuscule reduction in a hypothetical risk on the roads.
I know, crazy me for thinking such a thing !
Look, we’re never going to see eye to eye on this, so I’m out of this thread. Sorry. It’s just not worth trying to explain any of it because we’re never, ever going to see a middle ground on it.
It’s been an interesting discussion, though.
OK, if you say so, I will take it as a cultural difference to try to be aware of in the future as I communicate with people from Aus. and NZ.
I have some old friends in both countries, Americans, who have lived there since the mid 1980s. Maybe time to step up and renew those friendships…
I think its time I bowed out as well.
For what its worth, I don’t and never will view saying hi to a cop, whether its at a roadblock or not as a search. We tend to be a more pragmatic lot than that and view “search” as the cop actually searching us - not saying hi. Also for your info, for an alcohol sniffer you don’t have to blow into it. With people like Alice around I am not surprised that US cops have such a difficult life, and turn into some sort of militaristic arseholes. so in that sense I think you are getting what you deserve. We tend to treat our cops with a little more respect and look what we get (police in new zealand don’t even need to carry handguns on partol)
Also for whaat its worth, I think Alice is not reading my posts carefully, and is deliberatley mis-interpreting what I am saying, but no, I am not going to give a blow by blow of this (mostly because I dunno how to nest posts and I don’t have time)
I understand that you think a cop saying hi is the same as a search, and that stopping at a checkpoint is a detention. I just don’t get that…stopping at a checkpoint is no different to stopping at a light, or for roadworks, or to ask if you happened to witness an accident. It just does not compute with me.
Take care and be good