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.
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.”
Don’t ask. He’s probably talking about some kiddie porn shit.
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.
How so? I’ve often said that I favor very wide gun control.
Well, I give them credit for being original! 
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
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.
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?”
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?!
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?
The point is that an unannounced checkpoint is impossible to avoid. Just for funsies, here’s a map of the checkpoint I encountered.
[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.
What other way?
And if it’s never announced in the media at all?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?