Your papers please- DUI checkpoints now general purpose dragnets.

[Hamlet]

@Little_Nemo

We’re already sliding down it. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searchs but we’ve now established a precedent that a search can be reasonable even in the absence of any prior evidence of a crime having been committed. The police are now able to investigate random citizens in order to look for evidence of crimes.

Wherever do you get that idea? Terry v. Ohio still requires reasonable suspicion for a brief stop. It’s still good law, the Supreme Court has not overruled it, courts still exclude evidence because of it.

@Little Nemo

And as the OP noted, this procedure was established for the supposed purpose of arresting DUI violators but most of the actual arrests that have been made were not for DUI violations. So again, we’ve slid beyond the original intent of this procedure.

And, again, if the police are issuing tickets or making arrests because they’ve gone beyond the limits of a valid DUI checkpoint, that evidence should be suppressed because it was improperly seized. But the police are not required to ignore evidence of crimes they see in plain view at a valid DUI checkpoint.

[Hamlet]

@Dinsdale

In my prior post, I tried to suggest the basis for my impression that there has been a progressive increase in police powers WRT stops and searches, probable cause and consent regarding persons, structures, vehicles, communications and records. I’m sure the ACLU and a number of other organizations could provide lists of citations they (and I) consider indicative of such a trend.

While there may very well be more incursions into Fourth Amendment, that is not, in any way I’ve seen, related to DUI checkpoints. If you’re arguing, as people are in this thread are, that allowing DUI checkpoints leads to even more violations, those violations need to be tied to DUI checkpoints.

And, as a complete aside, the largest reason for the degrading of 4th Amendment rights is the exclusionary rule.

[Hamlet]

@Magiver

One that comes to mind are drug laws that allow seizure of assets regardless of whether or not it was proved that such assets were purchased with drug money.

I’d be interested in seeing something about this, because it’s the first I’ve heard of it.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

On the street if they pull you over and you refuse you run afoul of implied consent laws.

No, it doesn’t. (take this with a huge grain of salt, it is highly jurisdiction specific). Implied consent laws kick in when you have been arrested for the DUI and you subsequently refuse to give them blood/breath/urine evidence. PBT’s (preliminary breath tests, “breathalyzers”) are tools to give the cop probable cause to make your arrest.

To wit:

Illinois
(625 ILCS 5/11‑501.1) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑501.1)
Sec. 11‑501.1. Suspension of drivers license; statutory summary alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds related suspension; implied consent.
(a) Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this State shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of Section 11‑501.2, to a chemical test or tests of blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the content of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds or any combination thereof in the person’s blood if arrested, as evidenced by the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Ticket, for any offense as defined in Section 11‑501 or a similar provision of a local ordinance, or if arrested for violating Section 11‑401.

Texas
Sec. 724.011. CONSENT TO TAKING OF SPECIMEN. (a) If a person is **arrested **for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating a motor vehicle in a public place, or a watercraft, while intoxicated, or an offense under Section 106.041, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the person is deemed to have consented, subject to this chapter, to submit to the taking of one or more specimens of the person’s breath or blood for analysis to determine the alcohol concentration or the presence in the person’s body of a controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug, or other substance.

California
23612. (a) (1) (A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.

[Dinsdale]

@Hamlet

While there may very well be more incursions into Fourth Amendment, that is not, in any way I’ve seen, related to DUI checkpoints. If you’re arguing, as people are in this thread are, that allowing DUI checkpoints leads to even more violations, those violations need to be tied to DUI checkpoints.

It has been at least a couple of years since I carefully read any stop and search decisions. But my recollection is that when one decision is made as to what constitutes permissable/reasonable detention/consent/etc., it is common for courts to look to decisions regarding similar situations and police actions. So - for example and with no specific case citation in mind - I would expect to find references to DUI checkpoints in decisions allowing the detention of motorists stopped for traffic violations to bring in drug dogs.

Same way searches of vehicles look to searches of homes and persons for guidance. So I think it somewhat overly restrictive for you to suggest that the discussion of the erosion of rights be limited to each specific category.

Are we discussing whether we are sliding down one big slope, or a whole bunch of unconnected little slopes? The discussion could be joined on either premise, but the parties ought to agree as to what they believe they are discussing.

Perhaps to take things extremely generally - I personally believe that if an individual is behaving in an ostensibly law-abiding manner, he ought to be free from any interruption by police beyond a possible exchange of pleasantries such as I might welcome from any individual. I place a VERY high value on my right to personal privacy, and what I imprecisely consider my right to anonymity.

And yes, I acknowledge that my preference would make things much harder on LEOs, and would allow a far greater precentage of “illegal activity” to go undetected and unpunished.

[Dinsdale]

@Hamlet

I’d be interested in seeing something about this, because it’s the first I’ve heard of it.

One of my biggest beefs with asset forfeiture laws is the reversal of the burden of proof. In many (if not most) instances, authorities can seized property with a much diminished showing of cause, after which the property owner bears the burden of proving that the property was NOT obtained or used illicitly.

[gonzomax]

Driving is not a privilege. If you pass the tests and buy insurance , you have a right to drive. The police can not just take it away whimsically. To take that right away ,they have to take you to court and prove that you have transgressed. It is a legal process. If you comply with the law, you have a right to drive.

[Mangetout]

@gonzomax

Driving is not a privilege. If you pass the tests and buy insurance , you have a right to drive. The police can not just take it away whimsically. To take that right away ,they have to take you to court and prove that you have transgressed. It is a legal process. If you comply with the law, you have a right to drive.

Sure, but you still have to drive within state-imposed constraints - for example, stopping at red traffic lights and driving within the speed limit. I think DUI checkpoints are (in concept, if not in practice) more like one of those constraints than they are like, say, house-to-house searches.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Rumor_Watkins

No, it doesn’t. (take this with a huge grain of salt, it is highly jurisdiction specific). Implied consent laws kick in when you have been arrested for the DUI and you subsequently refuse to give them blood/breath/urine evidence. PBT’s (preliminary breath tests, “breathalyzers”) are tools to give the cop probable cause to make your arrest.

My comment was based upon the assumption that all states had implied consent laws similar to Pennsylvania’s law.

Here you are required to take the test if it is demanded even before you are arrested. If you refuse you will lose your license for one year regardless of the eventual disposition of your case.

[Sinaptics]

@Mangetout

Sure, but you still have to drive within state-imposed constraints - for example, stopping at red traffic lights and driving within the speed limit. I think DUI checkpoints are (in concept, if not in practice) more like one of those constraints than they are like, say, house-to-house searches.

When posited that way, nearly everything can be defined as a privilege. Our freedom for example; don’t abide by the state imposed constraints and your freedom is taken away. Is our freedom a privilege?

The webster’s definition is:

@Webster

Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege
Pronunciation: \ˈpriv-lij, ˈpri-və-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
Date: 12th century

: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

Driving is not a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor. It’s a right we have until it gets taken away by due process.

[Little_Nemo]

And, again, if the police are issuing tickets or making arrests because they’ve gone beyond the limits of a valid DUI checkpoint, that evidence should be suppressed because it was improperly seized. But the police are not required to ignore evidence of crimes they see in plain view at a valid DUI checkpoint.

You’re missing the point. The issue is did the police have a valid reason to stop you in the first place? When they saw your car a couple of blocks away did they have any reason to think you had broken any laws? Did they even have any reason to think that any crime had occurred in the area?

If not, then the police should not have stopped your car. The police should not have the power to pull over random citizens just to look them over.

[Leaffan]

@Little_Nemo

You’re missing the point. The issue is did the police have a valid reason to stop you in the first place? When they saw your car a couple of blocks away did they have any reason to think you had broken any laws? Did they even have any reason to think that any crime had occurred in the area?

If not, then the police should not have stopped your car. The police should not have the power to pull over random citizens just to look them over.

Well, apparently they do, under the DUI exception.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Sinaptics

Driving is not a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor. It’s a right we have until it gets taken away by due process.

Are you sure? I meant to post something about this earlier – I think something that’s throwing discourse off is that when people say “driving is a privilege,” they’re using privilege in the legal sense, not the lay dictionary sense. It gets muddy because it quickly gets used without a strong distinction being made.

There’s also a difference between arbitrarily taking away an ability (e.g., driving) and setting standards and requirements (e.g., stopping at a checkpoint) to have/partake of an ability. Compare that to one of the standards in rights discussions – speech. The government cannot place restrictions on it, period, full stop, with an asterisk for nitpickers.

[Hamlet]

@Little_Nemo

You’re missing the point. The issue is did the police have a valid reason to stop you in the first place? When they saw your car a couple of blocks away did they have any reason to think you had broken any laws? Did they even have any reason to think that any crime had occurred in the area?

If not, then the police should not have stopped your car. The police should not have the power to pull over random citizens just to look them over.

The only reason I may have missed the point is that you keep changing it. My response to you was about the problems with the slippery slope argument and your making assertions “The police are now able to investigate random citizens in order to look for evidence of crimes” that have not, in fact, come true. Now, you’re simply re-asserting that DUI checkpoints are wrong. Which is fine, if that’s your only point.

[Hamlet]

@Dinsdale

One of my biggest beefs with asset forfeiture laws is the reversal of the burden of proof. In many (if not most) instances, authorities can seized property with a much diminished showing of cause, after which the property owner bears the burden of proving that the property was NOT obtained or used illicitly.

It’s been awhile since I’ve done asset forfeitures, so maybe you could help me out with a cite. Because, as I remember it, law enforcement needs probable cause to seize the property and then, if there is a claim against the property by the owner, the government bears the burden of proving it was illegally obtained by a preponderance of evidence. Has that changed?

[gonzomax]

@Hamlet

It’s been awhile since I’ve done asset forfeitures, so maybe you could help me out with a cite. Because, as I remember it, law enforcement needs probable cause to seize the property and then, if there is a claim against the property by the owner, the government bears the burden of proving it was illegally obtained by a preponderance of evidence. Has that changed?

Apparently it varies by state. There have been many articles about police pulling cars over, taking the drivers money and sometimes their cars. Some small towns are financing the town with ill gotten gains. If you control the cops and the judges in an area, you can get away with a lot.
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html

[Rhythmdvl]

@Hamlet

It’s been awhile since I’ve done asset forfeitures, so maybe you could help me out with a cite. Because, as I remember it, law enforcement needs probable cause to seize the property and then, if there is a claim against the property by the owner, the government bears the burden of proving it was illegally obtained by a preponderance of evidence. Has that changed?

I’ve never done asset forfeitures. But …

Where does the burden “preponderance of evidence” fit on the spectrum? What’s the standard for a taking? Since its forfeiture related to a criminal act, isn’t the lower standard tantamount to a major burden shift?

[gonzomax]

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~kbaicker/BaickerJacobsonForfeiture.pdf Here is a more legaleze article on it.

[Sinaptics]

@Hamlet

It’s been awhile since I’ve done asset forfeitures, so maybe you could help me out with a cite. Because, as I remember it, law enforcement needs probable cause to seize the property and then, if there is a claim against the property by the owner, the government bears the burden of proving it was illegally obtained by a preponderance of evidence. Has that changed?

It may vary by jurisdiction, but in PA from here:

http://www.willdefend.com/CM/DrugCrimes/Personal-Property-Forfeiture.asp

Under federal and Pennsylvania law, any property that law enforcement thinks was used to commit (or with intent to commit) a drug crime can be permanently confiscated by the police. Forfeiture law also allows law enforcement to take cash or property that they believe was purchased with “drug money.” They do not have to prove that it actually was purchased with money from drug sales… but to get it back you must prove that it was not.

So, not only do YOU have to prove it wasn’t drug related. Police can seize anything remotely connected to a crime. Doing drugs in your house? Possible forfeiture.

[Sinaptics]

@Rhythmdvl

Are you sure? I meant to post something about this earlier – I think something that’s throwing discourse off is that when people say “driving is a privilege,” they’re using privilege in the legal sense, not the lay dictionary sense. It gets muddy because it quickly gets used without a strong distinction being made.

There’s also a difference between arbitrarily taking away an ability (e.g., driving) and setting standards and requirements (e.g., stopping at a checkpoint) to have/partake of an ability. Compare that to one of the standards in rights discussions – speech. The government cannot place restrictions on it, period, full stop, with an asterisk for nitpickers.

Here’s the legal definition:

@legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

A particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a right but, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability.

Still doesn’t compute. I think referring to driving as a privilege is just a common misnomer.