Spot on! I should have read further down because you put it much more eloquently than I did
That’s fine. We’re a free country and you have the right to step forward and voluntarily participate in all the random police investigations you wish.
But as we are a free country, I should have the right to step back and decline to participate in any random police investigations.
For obvious reasons, I disagree with this as well. I have no problem with the police doing their job. I just want the principle to be that they serve the people, not vice versa.
Well way to go and offend at the very least Australians, New Zealanders and Singaporeans by telling them that they live Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. IN all three countries we have random breath testing (yes its called that because a check point is set up on a road and all are tested via alcohol sniffers first) and in all three countries I have yet to see any resultant drop in freedom as a result of this activity, or some rash of people having problems with the cops.
In fact in all three countris the breath testing is strongly supported by the “general public”. Here we understand that drink driving is bad, and want to get drunks off the road, we also understand that being asked if we have been drinking is not an invasion of privacy and we don’t have to be scared of the cops.
We also understand that the car is NOT going to be searched, unless of course we leave the bong on the dashboard for the cop to see - and if we do that we deserve what’s coming to us.
Secondly, you know for a fact that the article is lying do you? So you were there? You saw what was going on? What happened “last time” to you is perfectly indicative of what happens everytime? So next time I can go get blind drunk, and the cops will accept an explanation of “but officer, last time I was tested I was sober”? No? I didn’t think so.
Some of us have a problem with twitchy guys with guns shining lights in our faces to blind us while “requesting” things, be it information or behavior.
And that’s completely ignoring those of us who are members of groups that the police specifically target in a discriminatory fasion.
Don’t get me started on Australia. Please don’t.
What’s wrong with Australia? (besides the fact that it’s full of Australians)
I take issue with their free expression laws. Particularly the lack thereof.
The fact that I can be deemed a criminal for owning a written story is reason enough to take issue with the country.
How on earth did you extract that meaning from what I wrote? Let’s try again:
Aside from the debate at hand, why would the police choose to do something so seemingly ineffective as checking for a specific criminal activity, whilst giving anyone (including those knowing that they’re in the wrong and would be caught) an easy way to opt out of the check? It seems ridiculously naive.
Just wanted to add my voice to those who oppose stops absence cause. Also to emphasize that this really needs to be viewed in conjunction with the entirety of stop/search/consent laws.
I forget the cite of a relatively recent SCt case out of my home county upholding a traffic stop and arrest on a road I travel regularly. It was not a DUI checkpoint, but instead, to see if any drivers had info about a recent traffic accident on that stretch of road. When questioning drivers, they arrested one guy for DUI. And that was upheld.
Add in the string of cases upholding “brief” detentions of drivers stipped for traffic offenses, to allow a drug dog to be brought to the scene, as well as determining that use of a drug dog is not a search.
And for you, Leaffan
get back to me after you are stopped, and find out that when your kid borrowed the family car the other day, one of their friends left a roach in the ashtray, which the cops find allowing them to confiscate your car.
I can imagine how someone could argue away each of these instances as not hugely terrible. But in combination - along with warrantless wiretaps and holding US citizens indefinitely with no access to counsel - I don’t care for the trend.
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…
I have a question. It may seem loaded, but I’m not sure how the conventional wisdom would shake out on this, especially as there are multiple perspectives that stereotypically conflict when grouped.
If a policeman sees someone with a firearm, should the policeman have the authority to ask to see his or her permit?
Do any factors change your opinion (e.g., concealed or open carry, unusual location, brandishing but not threatening anyone, etc.)?
I am especially interested in the opinion of those with an opinion opposite to that of the car stop. I suspect arguments could be made for both types of opposite situations (yes car, no weapon; no car, yes weapon).
I asked above for GQ-like information, but no one answered, so let’s ignore for the moment what the law is – what’s your opinion/desire about what the law should be?
I am for road blocks for breath testing.
I am also for asking for proof of legal ownership of any gun a person on the street may be carrying. I think there are enough illegal guns and general crazy in the US to make this a reasonable request
Because most people won’t - and because the police have no alternative. They can’t pull everyone over from a feasibility standpoint (probably not from a constitutional standpoint, either), so they operate a checkpoint at place X - typically in a place where you cannot turn around without committing a traffic infraction. If you can legally turn around, that’s not your fault, and that’s their problem.
Let’s change some words around:
The police LIED when they said that refusing to grant police access to search your house would not provide probable cause for a magistrate to issue a warrant
Aside from any rights/wrongs for a moment… these seem utterly absurd things to promise - especially the last one. What would be the point of setting them up [door-to-door searches of houses] if anyone who knows they have been [dealing drugs from their house/abusing babies] can opt out?
Cops bank on people’s utter lack of knowledge when it comes to their constitutional rights to refuse to answer a cop’s question (other than identifying yourself), and to refuse to do anything a cop asks of you.
Would you support a program of mandatory fingerprinting? Mandatory DNA sampling?
Would you support a proposal to have a monitoring device put in your car so the police can check if you driven over the speed limit? What if the monitor kept a record of everywhere you drove?
How about a requirement that you carry an identification card? Suppose it listed your home address and you had to obtain a pass to travel more than two hundred miles away from home?
What if you had to check in with your local police department at least once a month?
These would all provide the police with valuable means of apprehending criminals. And they are all genuine ideas that have been proposed or are in existence somewhere. But at what point would you feel that these police powers have become too intrusive?
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.
The Constitution may not say who gets to use the roads, but the state does get to decide by what criteria the roads may be used. Violate that and your vehicle may be impounded and sold, your license revoked, or worse, you end up in prison. There is no right to drive. Poor people who have no cars or others who have no license cannot drive. It is absolutely a privilege. Now I’m wondering how you define privilege and rights, because I’m just not seeing what you’re seeing
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
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.
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 
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)
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.
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.
If the person in question (in possession of a firearm) is otherwise obeying the law (i.e. not threatening or assaulting anybody), then I don’t think the police have any legitimate reason to demand to see a permit. But for that matter, I don’t think that requiring permits to carry firearms is constitutional, either. (I don’t have a problem with prohibiting people convicted of violent felonies or having mental problems from possessing firearms, though.)
I also think that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. However, I have no issue with requiring drivers’ licenses. Unlike the right to bear arms, there is no constitutional right to drive an automobile. I do think that there is a constitutional right to proceed along the public rights-of-way without being stopped by police without probable cause.