I was once stopped at a DUI checkpoint in Colorado. Interestingly, I was not asked for my license, registration, nor proof of insurance. The deputies made it clear this was strictly a DUI checkpoint. I was asked, “Sir, have you been drinking in the past four hours?” Me, “Yes.” “What have you had to drink?” Me, “Two cups of coffee and a bottle of water.” Deputy, “This is serious; you don’t need to be a smart Alec. Have you consumed any alcohol in the past four hours?” Me, “No alcohol. You can’t have it both ways: You can arrest me if I lie to you. If I tell you the truth, I’m not being a smart Alec.” Supervisor, “Sir, thank you for your time and honesty. It’s important to keep hydrated in our dry climate. Have a good day.” As I was restarting my truck, I heard the supervisor say, “He’s right. We can arrest him for lying to a LEO. You need to ask, ‘Have you been drinking alcohol?’” Best regards, Gottfried
That they are legal in many states to detect impaired drivers is bad enough, but the police have adopted the idea of asking for your drivers license and registration to run back ground checks for revoked license and felony warrants, thus taking these stops into a whole different territory. This is the problem with any authority given the police they immediately push the envelope. Where is the supreme court on these violations?
To begin with, a DUI Checkpoint does not, "Stop every single person driving down that road to see if you have been drinking..." If you are an off-duty policeman, for instance, you simply need to flash your badge/credentials and you will be waived right through regardless of how much you had to drink. Ex-Cop have confirmed this, as if we even needed that confirmation.
The common method I've observed is that law enforcement will make up a reason to stop someone and then observe for any plain view violations. For example, on my home from a black tie gig one evening I was pulled over for tossing a cigarette out the window. When I chuckled because I don't smoke, the officer actually laughed too and sent me on my way. I'm sure he was looking for a seat belt violation or hoping to get a whiff of alcohol or pot. Apparently it's ok for authorities to lie about their reasons for detaining.
If they have deemed DUI check points legal why do so many of them ask for your drivers licence, insurance and registration? My wife was stopped and asked to provide those at a DUI checkpoint. How on earth is that constitutional? Its done to make money is why...
If they are checking for intoxication, which is the reason for the stop, then asking for drivers license, registration, etc. should be considered unreasonable, under the 4th amendment.
But they aren't "Pulling people over at random." They're making a blanket accusation of DUI against everyone for simply travelling past a particular point, and demanding they prove their innocence.
Unfortunately, the response has to be "take it up with the supreme court", apparently? I personally agree on principal. They're laying the accusation down _without_ evidence, and _then_ seeking evidence to back up the accusation. That's not a warranted search, IMO. I understand the logical desire to keep drunk drivers off the road, and the logic behind road blocks after bars close ... but if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. Tough luck, cops. Guess you better stay awake and watch for swerving cars or driver missteps so you can be _justified_ in stopping and searching a citizen.
MADD has much to do with this and with how the supreme courts view the history law books. Its well known that most of the alcohol law enforcement and the many DMV laws are manipulated by those in MADD. The courts are not facing up to MADD and their continued crys for change. Judges simply allow MADD to get away with fines, punishment, more fines and fees and this and that etc. all because MADD wants it and won't stop bugging judges/courts. Still, we should blame the courts and the judges because they give up and allow suggestions of MADD to be "the law" when in fact, its not.
The cool thing about living in a police state is that everything is legal. The definition of legal is very flexible and changes according to how our masters feel. Rule of law is so passe.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - seems pretty clear DUI checkpoints are illegal
I'm in CA but I've only been in one checkpoint, coming back from the beach on a weekend. We were stuck in traffic on the only hwy. For over 3 hours......!!!!! This was not reasonable! We had a child in the car with low blood sugar and couldn't get food into him for hours. It seriously jeopardized his health.
@@ygrittesnow1701 Duh Yeah I should have remembered that. Must have been having a brain fart. In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was also not a citizen of any state and, accordingly, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the US Constitution requires for a US federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.[3] After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the US Congress's constitutional powers.
They tried that in my home town Martinez California back in the sixties, but were force to stop because it was unconstitutional, based on the fourth Amendment. This was the beginning, where cops believe they do could almost anything they wanted because back then without the internet, nobody new the law except lawyers, but at least when the citizens complained the courts listened unlike today. You cannot balance what citizens expect with what cops expect. The cops have no say in how a law should be interpreted. William Rehnquist was working for the deep state under the mistaken opinion that citizens only have rights that the state gives them. As far as we are concerned the 4th Amendment is sacrosanct and cannot be turned asunder because one man doesn't believe so. We can no longer allow one man to rip apart our constitution just because he is called a "Chief Justice". We need to make additions to the Constitution with a new law under the Bill of Rights which state that the Supreme Court must be unanimous in their adjudications and conclusions, otherwise you end up with just five men/women making decisions that affect three hundred and twenty million people. Sorry I don't buy into our current judicial system where Congressional Representatives are being rewarded with large bankrolls from their criminality, and very few are ever prosecuted. Does John Roberts ring any bells. He change his mind about ObamaCare, midstream when he was threatened because he had illegally adopted an Irish child and was being blackmailed over it. It was Robers who managed to force the American people to accept the worst law that had ever been written to subjugate the American people. We can no longer allow this type of Jurist Prudence to prevail, because it has become apparent that if you don't like a specific decisions, you can always find someone else through the appeals process who will side with you and adjudicate in your favor. This also has to stop.
Here is my stance on this. I do NOT drink. I cant. My stomach issues means that a shot , or a beer makes me very sick to my stomach almost immediately. I also don't do a lot of soda at all. I am a NON COMBATANT in the war on drunk driving. An innocent bystander , and I will fight as hard as humanly possible NOT to be dragged in to it. I will NOT answer questions for NO REASON, and I will not do ANY stupid human tricks on the side of the road for NO REASON! I have a very good lawyer who is a close family friend, and I will 100% let some scumbag cop , (who lets his ego force him into arresting a 100% sober person ,) take me to jail , and tow my car, and the whole deal...…, BUT! I will be taking a hospital supervised blood and urine test with my lawyer AS SOON , as I am released, and I WILL be filing a lawsuit for that absolute maximum amount humanly possible. MADD gives police donations every year of money they make off the stories of their dead children, and after cashing the check , ALL the cops head down to the bar and drive home NICE n TOASTY! , yet I don't drink , and have to stand on the side of the road , and dance for my freedom! FUCK THEM!
I'm not going to debate the exact threshold under which this is OK, but the ruling is absolutely correct in that - at SOME point - public safety can take precedence over a minor inconvenience. This isn't much different than an airport security screening to check for weapons - similarly, there would be no reason to believe that YOU personally have a bomb, but SOMEONE might and the consequences of letting one through are too dire.
@@NorthernKitty There's no way they will conclude before setting up DUI stops that they will improve public safety. The public is better served when the police patrol the city vs. the city drive through a DUI stop.
@@Garth2011 I would concur with you in that I believe there are better methods in most regions and circumstances. Especially as it's a method that can be easily abused. My point is merely that the ruling on "safety vs. inconvenience" argument is a valid ruling, should legislators and authorities choose the DUI checkpoint method. It's up to us as citizens to push for and vote in people who implement smarter solutions. This is a great example of "just because you CAN do it that way doesn't mean you SHOULD" when it comes to enforcement. Frankly, I think it's a very lazy and inefficient approach.
@@NorthernKitty Yes some of that is true but when the system or those involved come up with obtuse ideas and put them into action, its 100 times more difficult to undo the methods they come up with. Yes, its a lazy method for police and inefficient burden on the public. Cops can do their jobs much better by patrolling in more ways than one. Frankly, we have a lot of inexperienced and inept examples getting into Government jobs and not held to accountable methods.
DUI check points sounds like Gestapo methods to me, officers should do do their jobs by observing drivers actions while driving. Check points are just fishing expeditions for over zealous cops making as many arrests as possible so they look good to their boss...
Cops are outlandishly paid, retire with fat pensions at or before 50, all the ones I know are drug addicts, and despite the huge cost to the taxpayers, they depend on ANYTHING except what they were taught and are paid to do - observe a crime and arrest the criminal. 911 calls to rat out a drunk driver? Where the hell are the cops? That's THEIR job.
My brother(driver) and I got stopped in Nebraska at a DUI checkpoint once. And, the NHP was asking for every driver to show their driver's license, vehicle registration, and insurance cards. Also, the member's of the NHP told my brother that if he didn't provide all of the asked for information, that he would be arrested and his truck would be towed and impounded. That's how Nebraska does their DUI checkpoints.
In states where they have laws that require you to change lanes to avoid emergency vehicles all checkpoints of any kind are illegal because they, by law, are entrapment to violate the laws requiring you to change lanes. It all gets very murky with purpose and poor writing too. About 90% of all states' laws are actually illegal or unenforceable because of writing, assumptions or the "use of intent" which is now a violation of Civil Rights granted by the United States Constitution. There is no longer any "intent" in law, only the wording... and that means abridging intent such as special purpose laws are not legal. The only "papers" officers are allowed to request from you unless you have committed a moving violation, actual misdemeanor of equipment maintenance or a clear visible felony (roughly equivalent to waving a gun/car in public) while you are in your vehicle are your license plate and the VIN from the dash. If they push any farther than that, request a notarized copy of the judge signed warrant that specifically orders them to detain you or interfere with traffic on the road you are on. They won't have it. There must be a legally valid purpose, not an intent, behind their actions relating directly to *you* specifically by vehicle/plate or by your name/DL#
Once they become the norm , it's not just about DUI , they are checkpoints for any infraction the police can catch in their web , registration , insurance , seatbelt ,license issues etc ..and it's not limited to small streets , they'll use major thoroughfares with an army of tow trucks to generate funds , the wait line can depend on the time of day , some will do it rush hour if they can get away with it...
People dont see that though, they automatically just think "oh yeah its for our safety". nobody every critically analyzes whats going on. At what point do these stops become too much? next itll be for some other random thing and then we'll be getting stopped every 5 miles.
@Peter Angles well these guys use to on route 66 .. but that was over a decade ago , but they were getting popular and irritating everyone of of us that just wanted to get home without a traffic clog for 10 to 15 minutes.. this after being in the freeway traffic for an hour ..
As you stated, a 25 or 30 second delay is AFTER the driver has waited in a line of perhaps an hour or more. Some years back, police set up a checkpoint on the George Washington bridge between NY and NJ. All traffic between the states on that crossing was stopped for many hours. Emphasis by the court on the short delay is misleading and dishonest.
Guess I'm a little confused by some of the comments; they seem to suggest that the SCOTUS ruled that DUI checkpoints in Michigan are LEGAL. However, as Steve explained, the Court simply addressed the 4th Amendment issue (according to the US Constitution) and and ruled that the checkpoints do NOT violate that amendment. Not only that, the SCOTUS, according to Steve, effectively let the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling stand, which states that the checkpoints are ILLEGAL because they violate Michigan's constitution. So it doesn't seem as if the SCOTUS sided with the Michigan State Police on this.
Welcome to the police state. The police can do anything because they have no bounds. If you disagree or have the audacity to film them, you can get beat up for "resisting arrest". Of course you still have all of your rights...on paper.
In Mississippi and Louisiana both as you said they’re not illegal but they go one step further I think the skirt this issue… What I’ve seen them to do in the last few years is now they called them safety checkpoints. The ones that I have been through, they’re not specifically checking for DUI, what they will check for is license registration and proof of insurance and they will check your inspection sticker. I went through one over the recent holiday weekend on the Fourth of July on a state highway on my way home… The trooper basically just asked me for my license glanced at my inspection sticker and another trooper at the same time glanced at my license plate to see that they both matched up. Then they pointed me on my way. They were also ticketing people for not wearing their seatbelt or not having their children in a child seat. I saw several people pulled over for that on the side of the road. I’m fairly certain if you looked intoxicated they would wanna have a conversation, but they don’t specifically call it a DUI checkpoint. I guess that’s how they get around these attorneys trying to beat the system.
I knew a guy that had to go to court for being sober. The officer asked him to blow into the breathalyser, came up 0. The officer said that can't be right please do it again. Again it came up 0. The officer then asked for the driver to blow into the breathalyser a 3rd time. The driver refused and got charged with refusing a breathalyser which can lead to his license being taken away. The judge says it says here you refused to do a breathalyser test. The driver said for the third time in a row and explained the results from the first two breathalysers. The judge is like your free to go license intact.
Years ago in Boynton Beach, Florida, one of my sons was assigned community service and he elected to aid in traffic check points. My son heard the sergeant running the check point at the briefing tell his officers that everyone either gets a ticket or gets arrested. Avoid check points if possible.
Check points of this nature are constantly done here in Tennessee , if you give them any static or refuse to be ID you will be arrested. They still do policing for profit here. You will be yanked out of your car and it will be ripped apart and searched without a warrant
@@MegaGeorge1948 Last time i looked the checkpoints are illegal in 12 states. Sometimes in Alabama the game warden will be there also looking in boats and coolers for over the limit game fish. People from up north used to vacation down here and take back hundreds of crappie! Those days are over.
@@tmo4330 4th Amendment only covers US soil, not water. This is why the Coast Guard will wait until pull off the dock to stop you without probable cause.
@@theBear89451 Great info Bear! I have been pondering these practices. They have their good points and bad points. Glad to know someone smarter than me is in charge!
The dissenting justices in the Sitz case were Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall, all considered to be liberal justices. Concurring with Rehnquist were White, Blackmun, O'Conner, Scalia, and Kennedy, who were considered conservative or swing justices, except for Blackmun, who was considered liberal.
So if i understand this correctly the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and requirement of warrant with specificity only applies if there is a subjective undue hardship? So what is to stop the police from random stops without any probable cause? If you sentence diagram the 4th amendment you will see it actually is stating that all searches and seizures require a warrant and even spells out what must be included in the warrant. How about random searches of your home, backpack, pockets, etc. as long as they only hold you for that subjective short time? The problem with subjective rulings is it constitutes no ruling at all. It leaves it open to interpretation by whomever is looking at it at the time. Today Justice Rehnquist, tomorrow officer Joe Smith, the next day Joe the plumber sitting for 2 hours waiting to get to the front of the line for his 25 second interaction. One person's idea of reasonable or short is completely different from another person's. Reminds me of the legal definition of pornography which is " I know it when I see it." Give me specificity and equal enforcement in all laws and opinions please. Define undue hardship in specific terms. 5mins? 10 seconds? "What, your honor, exactly did Rehnquist mean by undue? Well, then the ruling and therefore the law and enforcement policy lacks specificity and therefore is no law at all, I am requesting a jury nullification." I would love to see more defense attorneys specifically attempt to get jury nullification so maybe we can get rid of some of these ridiculous over-reaches. Most juries do not even know that they have the ability to examine the law itself and not just the act in question. Not a lawyer here, just a peeved off citizen that is annoyed at how our very specific Constitution has been interpreted to mean whatever will give the federal government more power at the time. Example: "shall not be infringed" is not really hard to understand. "Congress shall make no law" is kind of a no-brainer as well really. Of course that was working under the assumption the legislative branch would handle all the law making. Which bring up another point. The term "regulation" at the time the Constitution was written was synonymous with enforcement, not writing specificity into broad law. Regulatory law by strict interpretation of the Constitution would be equivalent to enforcement policy and not have the weight of law at all. Like I said, I am not a lawyer. Nor am I stating how things are. Just how I think they should be based on basic English comprehension and some application of the rules of logic. All laws should be interpreted by strict methods and use the definitions as they were at the time the law was written. If it can not be determined to a minimum of 99% accuracy then the law is thrown out. OK, Rant off. Thanks for whomever took the time to read this diatribe. LOL Even though I wish it were not so I do appreciate you taking the time to tell us of how things really are. Reality in operation is almost always different than philosophy of design. Knowledge of both is very important.
In California, there has been litigation over how these "sobriety checkpoints" are actually de facto registration checks instead, leading to most of the enforcement activity centering around impounding vehicles with expired tags. Basically, the cops set one of these shows up, in part to ensure that their federal funding doesn't get cut, delay and annoy everyone, don't find any drunks, the ostensible reason for the charade, and impound a lot of cars for profit. I've seen very few such checkpoints since the lawsuits started... getting the cops to patrol more seems to be much more effective overall as a means of improving traffic safety. As always with police and state powers, it is necessary to have the courts watching over the watchers.
Where in the constitution does it specify the 'reasonableness' of a seizure during a DUI checkpoint is the standard for review of the potential for violation of the 4th amendment? Using that logic here allows the government to pretty much violate all constitution rights as long as they only do it a 'slight' impact to each citizen. Next the government can review all of your electronic files that it intercepts because the impact to each person in miniscule. Wait, they kinda do that already...
I was stopped last night. The checkpoint was poorly lit. I had no idea what was going on until I was literally on top of an officer, had to slam on breaks. I was pulled for a sobriety test. They hounded me about the beer I had nearly 4 hours ago. I passed but they were still super suspicious. They insisted I was lying about how much I had to drink. I was begrudgingly allowed to leave. I felt like my freedom was hinging on somebody's attitude.
If DUI checkpoints are lawful, then they can come into your house to determine whether you are breaking any laws regarding drugs, firearms, child rearing, domestic abuse, and so many more.
False comparison. This is occurring on a public road and only if you're operating a motor vehicle capable of endangering others if operated improperly. It's basically a "safety inspection". Airport screenings - which are considerably MORE intrusive, they can pat you down, make you strip and search your luggage - are pretty much the same concept. There is a point at which the rights of the public to be safe from harm outweigh a temporary inconvenience to the individual out in public. I won't argue the exact threshold with you - you're more than welcome to argue that this is a "step too far" - but the threshold exists. It's generally the court's job to determine that threshold. I don't know why people keep making the mistake of thinking that every single right is "absolute". They're not - the moment one right can conflict with another, they are prioritized based on potential for harm.
Yep dui check points are illegal in Oregon. Passed in 87. Probably part of why I have never seen one in Oregon. They have been illegal for most of my life.
Its scary to think they "weigh" the constitution based on effectiveness. Does it say in the constitution its okay to violate 100 peoples constitutional rights as long as you catch at least one person doing something illegal?
What's great about these is that while they are trolling for someone who is 0.08 ( which is less impaired than someone changing a radio station ), they are NOT out there catching the 0.18 and 0.28 ( whatever ) driving around. It's a mis-use of resources.
In my state, Indiana, I have been through dozens of sobriety checkpoints. But they list them in the papers where and when they are to take place. Also, in almost all of them, the police don't check every car. It's "random". The police actually has a counter in his hand and two or three cars will pass through and they will stop one. But it's a joke because they have already selected the cars that they believe will net them a drunk. You will see three cars go by then a stop. Then five go by then a stop. Then one goes by then a stop. There's no rhyme or reason to their pattern, and that's the "random" aspect to their check. While your sitting there, you are being evaluated. I don't drink so I really don't care, but the principal kinda rubs me the wrong way
DUI checkpoints are about more than just DUI (ID check, reg check, check for warrants, peek inside the car, question the driver). Those things were not addressed in the Sitz case.
I'm disappointed too :-( Sadly no government is perfect and it is up to the people to uphold the values of democracy. I'm still surprised with blatant the corruption was in the legislature when they passed the sick leave bill. It makes absolutely no sense for companies over 500 workers not to have to pay sick leave while those under 500 employees do!! What it does do is give the ones with more than 500 employees an unfair advantage over the smaller ones.
In my city checkpoints are common, the amount of people found DUI is minimal and several people have done studies showing that saturated patrols on weekends in problem areas are far more effective and can be done at a cost that's comparable to what the checkpoints cost. Unfortunately my sheriff's department uses the checkpoint to ticket for any and all infractions that they find .... so you may not be impaired but you have a bulb out and a hubcap missing ..💲💲💲
It is a slippery slope. If groups of people can be detained without probable cause, that could go bad quick. Such as when Japanese Americans were detained during World War II.
Bob Wilson our constitutional rights over rule any “laws” that violate those rights. Stopping someone without probable cause is unconstitutional period.
@@InvestorAcademyPodca You're correct that only the supreme courts decision matter when defining the law. However, they've clearly made past decision that stand in opposition to the constitution. Civil forfeiture is an obvious one. The OP should probably reword to 'Without probable cause it’s clearly in violation of the text of the fourth amendment."
Great breakdown of DUI Checkpoints. It's important to note, that even though they may not violate the 4th amendment, DUI Checkpoint do not override the 5th amendment. The State can stop and ask, but you are under no obligation to answer their questions. Steve, how would you suggest we respond to exercise our 5th amendment right? Is silence the best option, or a polite refusal, or by stating the classic line from TV and movies "Under the advice of council I choose to invoke my 5th amendment right against self incrimination"?
They are big on doing these in NC. I haven't seen them do it in SC. They will ask for license and registration in NC. They stopped me one night at 3am after I worked 12 hours in my work uniform and I got 50 questions none of which was any of their business.
The area I live in used to do DUI checkpoints fairly regularly, especially during the typical drinking holidays. Within the past couple of years though, the city has changed tactics and they now opt for more patrols by officers rather than doing a checkpoint. It also probably didn't help that with social media nowadays, people can quickly become aware of checkpoints and find a different route.
Goes to show that there's a difference between lawful and legal. It's legal because corrupt judges say it is, although it is certainly unconstitutional, therefore unlawful.
Governments and mainly the police could care less about state or federal constitutions unless they get caught their main purpose is to collect Revenue and better their own careers at your expense.
Rehnquist was obviously wrong. A non-intrusive *sampling* of drivers being required to traverse a course of cones [and not tip any of them] set up in a convenient lot could be legal but the general stop of everyone is a very bad precedent for which we will pay in the future.
@@davidsuper879 Good point. However, the failure to traverse the course is then "probable cause" for a sobriety test... which, presumably, the rotten un-drunk driver would pass and be on his way... along with the normal drivers who got through the course un-coned. Also, remember only a sampling of drivers would be directed to the cone course to begin with so relatively few(er) would be (minimally) inconvenienced. 🤠
@ I hate being right sometimes... Well, at least at the state level, these procedures can be made illegal (which might be a political opportunity for some bright young lad, eh.).
Here in Western Australia the police set up what is called Random Breath Tests(RBT). Basically there will be approx 6 police standing in a line and they have hand held breathalysers and you are required to blow into a tube that is fitted to the breathalyser and within about 10 seconds a result is shown. If reading is below 0.05 your on your way. If it is over that your then required to have a second test which is done in a van with another machine. The Police patrol cars can also set up these sort of tests with just the two officers doing the tests. As to licence checks they used to do them but not anymore. The last time I had to show my licence at a RBT we had alphabetical codes for what we were licenced to drive. My licence showed the codes of A B F L which were for car heavy truck Bus/coach and motor cycle. The office had no idea what the codes were for and had to ask her supervisor.
As a reserve Police Officer in Georgia a LONG time ago, we didn't have a set "checkpoint", but would "monitor" some of the busiest "watering holes" in the city. Especially, on those days (nights, too) that new Basic Training Recruits had their first weekend pass. As part of a "deal" made with the public when they voted to approve "by the drink" operations (instead of BYOB "by the bottle") the local SO/PD would monitor some of the "hot spots", especially during closing time for obvious candidates. The owners bitched constantly about us "keeping an eye out" hurting their business. All that bitching came to a halt one night. One of the owners came out to where we were parked (openly, not hiding) and started letting us have a piece of his mind. As he was winding up for a big finish, a "candidate" for an "interview" came staggering out of the bar, wobbled over to his car, got in and started to drive off. As we watched, he crossed the parking lot, then swerved across the road and then hit a median guard rail divider, stopping just short of crashing into another car turning into the bars parking lot. I mentioned that "it looks like we have a winner" as we drove the short distance to where the offenders car came to rest. The bar owner that had been giving us a "lecture" suddenly shut up! When we got out and started our crash investigation, although that "almost" car was not involved except as a witness, it turned out to be the bar owners wife coming to pick him up!!! I said "That is why we do this"! He NEVER said another complaint and actually blocked out a special parking space for us! He also got very deliberate on those "last call". That was back when not everybody could afford two cars with insurance, gas, etc. And because he only had the one car, his wife had to bundle the kids up with them when she went pick him up. He would even bring out coffee or soft drinks when we were out there.
It's such a shame that something like this has to happen before some people 'see the light'. What's even more disappointing is when people have to have it happen to them personally and can't learn from someone else's experience.
Nice story. But it doesn't excuse you from violating 4th amendment rights. I really don't care if its under the guise of "public safety." I will not agree to having my rights eroded, even a minor infringement. I would never agree to the state getting their foot in the door to erode my rights even further. You NEED to have probable cause to stop, detain and ID, bottom line. In your story, you got your probable cause. He caused an accident. Now you may investigate. Your exception isn't the rule, at least not in my state. Personally, I can't stand pigs. Especially when they are infringing on my rights. But it appears you have a fan @flick22601. Only because he's a boot licker and doesn't understand the minor erosion of a right makes it easier to erode your right even further. I guess sheep need a master. Hahaha. Apparently you're fine with having your rights eroded too. Its a two way street, and you yourself aren't immune to it either. So in essence, you are saying you prefer to have your rights eroded. Is that why the average IQ of police officers is that of average intelligence?
@@mrtwister9002 I never said I was for the checkpoints so how about you take back your bullshit ideas. THE ISSUE IS WHEN YOUR AT A BAR MOST PEOPLE DDDDDDRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKK. Did I get that message thru your hilly billy brain? Are you so dense as to not see the problem of people DRINKING at a BAR that is an establishment for DRINKING ALCOHOL or did this fact go way over your head? The probable cause to pull you over is the fact you were at a bar where the main reason people go is to say it with me DRINK ALCOHOL. What do most people do at the bar DRINK ALCOHOL. What do most drunk people do here's a hint DRINK ALCOHOL. So no checkpoints are a bad thing I never once said they weren't. So stop putting words in my mouth. By saying they shouldn't be allowed to pull people over for going to an establishment with the main reason to go is to DRINK ALCOHOL and most people will drive and bars aren't allowed to take your keys because by law they're suppose to stop serving you before your drunk. Why else do people go to bars? Every bar I've been in it's about drinking. Unless somewhere in your magical state people don't go to the bar to drink, which i highly doubt, you would want cops at the bars looking for drunks trying to drive home. So once again simply put are you so dense that you say there's no probable cause to pull someone over after going to an establishment who's main reason for being there is alcohol. That's like saying people going to the weed store is only there to talk to the guy be hide the counter not to buy weed. So please shut the fuck up and go back to school because you didn't learn basic logic of cause and effect.
I support the need to do sobriety checkpoints even though I had about a 40 minute delay on I-84 going east bound in New York on Labor Day weekend a few years ago and then ANOTHER ONE in Connecticut (only about 5 minute delay)! What was nice about the Connecticut one was the local boy scout troops were offering free coffee and donuts (even at 3am) for the holiday travelers. I gave them $10 for a coffee and donut and saw where it was obvious many drivers did the same. Slow pokey job in New York and Nice service in Connecticut is my experience with sobriety check points. I am still amazed at those scouts and leaders.
The bigger issue is she is being charged with a "could have happened" crime. Charged before she had a wreck or damaged property. I am a non-drinker, but am appalled that most people think that "could of" justice is ok.
You can also get a ticket for no insurance - thus you have to pay for something you haven't done. Driving a vehicle on a public roadway is a privilege and they can regulate and make laws around that.
If you need RAS to identify, and if there needs to be cause for a traffic stop, and the traffic stop cannot be extended beyond the original purpose, how can initiating a nonconsensual encounter where they insist on identification be legal?
It seems like at a checkpoint there is no RAS, so you could refuse to ID and present registration/insurance until they decided you'd failed a sobriety test. At that point there would be RAS.
Help me out here. The 4th amendment (as I understand it) protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Your explanation indicates that the brief stop conducted at DUI checkpoints is in fact a seizure. The drivers are stopped despite having shown no signs of intoxication (that has to be the case, otherwise not every single car would be stopped). That to me sounds like the stops have no reason behind them - unreasonable, in other words. How then is this ruling determined on the basis of a 'balance' of benefit to the state vs. degree of intrusion on the motorists? I'm not sure how the benefit to the state should matter if there is any intrusion. The wording of the bill of rights is usually pretty clear, and doesn't use language like 'balance of benefit vs degree of intrusion'.
I think it has to go along the same lines as "cruel and unusual punishment" where it was ruled that it can be either or but not both. So you can be seized with out reason or you can be searched without reason, but not both at the same time? So im guessing that they can stop every one and once they have reason to suspect you of a crime they can then seize and search you because now they have a reason.
@@stevelehto I don't think it's a leap in logic at all. If the SC thinks it's reasonable to randomly stop citizens without cause, under the guise of catching drunk drivers, then by that logic random house searches under the guise of catching terrorists massing weapons would be reasonable. It's a slippery slope. Give an inch here, and an inch there, and before you know it you have no constitutional rights.
@@stevelehto How is this a leap in logic? Check out what they are doing in Canada. globalnews.ca/video/4828305/new-impaired-driving-rules-give-police-sweeping-powers
@thunderbird002 I watched about half of it. The cops are investigating a case. Guy with camera walks over and starts talking to a witness. Cop asks him to not talk to her at that moment about the incident they are investigating. He starts the first amendment thing. Yes, he has rights. But the cops have a job to do. The first amendment is not absolute. Looked to me like the guy was being a bit of a tool.
I remember hearing about a lawyer (I think in Florida) making a pdf for people to print out stating that they plead the 5th. He suggested that people put it in a bag on a rubber band with their license, registration and proof of insurance and trap the end of the rubber band in the closed window. Theory being that if the window is closed, they cannot smell anything. If you do not speak, they can not claim slurred speech. You have provided all necessary info related to a traffic stop and given officers no viable reason to question your sobriety. The lawyer did suggest checking the legality of trying it in each state before doing it.
@chief tp once again, that is why I stated that it was a lawyer in Florida and that he even claimed to check the legality of such an action in different jurisdictions. In most places though, the letter with all necessary documents would satisfy the legal requirements of a traffic stop and any further actions taken by an officer to infringe upon your 5th and 4th Amendment rights could leave a department open for a very nasty lawsuit afterwards.
I've been though a few of these in NY. Always a quick experience, have never even needed to provide my ID. Just a "where are you headed to, have you had anything to drink?" and I'm off. I know they're also looking for no seat belts and things like that, but they don't even take the time to run registration or anything. Usually not delayed any longer than a normal red light.
I think my biggest problems with these are (1). Law Enforcement select the road/location of the checkpoint (2). They require all vehicles to stop at the checkpoint. - So, neither of those 2 are randomized selections - (3). Then, an officer has a brief encounter with the driver of the car - and it’s never made clear what criteria the officer is using to either allow the driver to go freely onward versus detained for additional processing.
I know they have them in Florida but the reason why they can do it is because they posted on the sheriff's office website and by doing so they have technically notified the public with when where in between what times they are going to do it
Once again the "Supreme's" are wrong! You cannot compromise the God given rights. It's Illegal search and seizure plane and simple! Maybe the real question is, has this illegal action reduced DUI's? NO! But a whole industry has exploded out of this action. Here is Texas, as you pointed out its illegal yet it will cost minimum $17,000.00 for first offense! So once again is this about reducing highway deaths or about making money? I worked in Colorado in the 90's and one of my employees had 5 DUI's and still driving on a "red" license! Really?
The courts should require checkpoints at all of their entrances for employees. The Capitol building should checkpoint all of congress as they come and go to the parking lot. Likely they will find a large number of drunk on the job folks.
When I was in the Army in Georgia in the mid to late 90's I would come across DUI check points all the time. They also have registration and insurance checkpoints. In Georgia instead of a birthday your registration expired on a certain date for the whole state. The day after they would start checkpoints.
I remember when Michigan's was like that (a LONG time ago). There were always huge lines at the Secretary of State's office because so many people put it off to the last minute.
In 1980, Maryland, there is a local bar that is at the end of a road, on a selected Friday nights there was a DUI checkpoints on the other side of that road. Every car was stopped, and everyone was checked if they were drunk, driver license and registration. Many as given tickets.
I do think that Supreme Court ruled incorrectly here (a lot of the Rehnquist court's ruling were kind of kludges, IMO), but that and a buck may get you a cup of coffee. It's my understanding that some states skirt the issue by characterizing the checkpoints as "license checks" instead of DUI checks, and since the Supreme Court has ruled that a driver's license is a privilege instead of a right, the state has more leeway to check if you have a license or not. Of course, if in the course of checking your license, an officer detects some evidence of intoxication, he then has reasonable cause to give you a field sobriety test or other form of test for intoxication.
@@theBear89451 I think they say that so when people refuse breathalyzer tests they can suspend their license etc. and in effect give them the same penalty for drunk driving.
Right, and you won't beat it in court. Best thing to do is show them your id and be on your way. Any smart ass that refuses to roll down window in my state will be sorry. If i were a cop i wouldn't put up with that "am i being detained" either. I never gave them a problem, they never gave me a problem.
I know each state is different, but Delaware did this often but stated they were checking seat belts and “safety devices” no idea of any process they had, I was always told to move on.
While they say it does not violate the 4th Amendment I, or anyone else, is not required to answer any questions, roll down any window, or show ID or paperwork until the cops have developed reasonable, articulable suspicion independent of me exercising my right to not assist the government in it's investigation of me. That checkpoint does not suspend my other rights under the U.S. Constitution of the California Constitution. Here in California checkpoints are legal and you must be allowed to make a legal u-turn or otherwise legally avoid the checkpoint by turning onto a side road. The problem is that motorcycle cops are stationed so that anyone who avoids the checkpoint by making a legal u-turn is chased down and stopped and the cops will argue that the fact that you exercising your right to not participate in the checkpoint is reasonable suspicion to stop you.
Looking at DOhman's post below, along with my observations regarding the perponderance of people with multiple DUI priors still driving. The failure of the local courts to jail those who continue to drive with revoked licenses is where the system fails us. The court often has the discretion to applyt a maximum sentence and the still put the person on probation . First driving while revoked stop puts them safely in jail.
You covered the supreme court's ruling on the fourth amendment, but what about the fifth? Every video I have seen of DUI check points, regardless of who the video recorder is (civilian, dash cam, body cam, etc), the police always demand that you speak to them.If you manner of speech can be used as a factor in determining if you are intoxicated, can making you speak to the officer be a violation of the fifth amendment against self-incrimination?
I agree wholeheartedly. If you are stopped at a check point and the cop asks you if you have been drinking, the fifth amendment says that you don't have to answer that question but invoking the fifth will almost certainly get you directed to the next level of questioning. Little doubt that the next officer will ask you to take a sobriety field test but I think that probable cause is required for that test and exercising your fifth amendment rights should not be probable cause. I live in South Carolina for what it's worth.
Most of the videos the person say they do not want to answer questions or say under the 5th they do not want to talk. They still keep flapping there gums and continue to talk to the officers. If they do that they are doing it on there own.. It is there own fault for not keeping quite
@@caracarson5205besides being completely subjective with no ability to prove you slurred or more often "smelled alcohol", notice that eventually they force you to speak or just take you to jail for not speaking. guilty till proven innocent. the modern police tactic.
Whenever a cop asks you a question in an official capacity, the only words out of your mouth should be to POLITELY state: *"I'm sorry officer but I do not answer questions without a lawyer present. Am I free to leave?"* Always comply, never cooperate.
My town has checkpoints several times a year. I have not been trapped but ticket results are posted afterwards. Besides dui tickets are given for license, insurance, seat belt etc violations. Location and time is predictable so I avoid that stretch of road after any drinking. My advice is don’t drink and drive, it too easy to spill your drink on yourself and car.
Just got home from a 10 hour Saturday non-overtime work day, thought I'd sit back and relax. *watches video, twitches a little*. Steve, do a video of some of the funniest cases you've dealt with, unless you already have, then kindly direct me to it. Thanks!
If it is a DUI checkpoint, then why are drivers required to show dl, reg, and poi? Because it is a fishing expedition. It has less to do with catching drunk drivers for safety of the community and more to do with herding drivers like cattle in hopes of finding revenue generating violations. No, I do not drink and drive. Did it when I was young and got lucky. Times have changed, laws have changed. Make good decisions... Don't drink and drive! Always wear a condom! Stop thinking you are fooling anyone by holding your phone below the steering wheel!
@@TheRealDrJoey I had no idea why this comment appeared in my notifications. Then I re-read my comment and realized the humor. Thanks for the laugh Dr Joey.
Talking about the amount of intrusion or amount of violation of constitutional and personal liberties should be enough to make something unconstitutional. Idgaf about balancing the state’s interests. If it violates personal liberties at all it is unconstitutional.
I found it interesting that the Delaware task force was mentioned....in the 90s it was popular for DE to ask for ID from ALL OCCUPANTS of any vehicle that was detained at a checkpoint....i have serious issues with the constitutionality of this....I am in favor of the checkpoints for the purpose of discouraging DUI but this use is a serious reach for probable cause...where is the cause in this type of activity? I would love to hear Steve's thoughts on this
They can call it whatever they want but we all know it's nothing more than a fishing expedition. I know a few smart people who don't answer anything they are asked at those checkpoints. They pointed out unless they are being detained they don't have to tell them anything nor answer them. Few of them got this on camera and posted it up on RUclips. Cop realize there was nothing they could do. Even though the officers tried all the power tripping words they could think of.
I take about 20 medications. I would be reluctant to answer this question. They don't seem to impair my driving. Should I refuse to answer any and all questions to avoid this issue? I could never pass any of the dexterity questions, or count backwards, or so on. I'm 68 and in poor health. The tests don't seem to correlate directly to driving ability.
My question is over the legality of arrests for firearms, drugs, or other offences at these checkpoints. In Ohio, they are called OVI and result in more arrests for other offences. There are many cases where vehicles were searched and passengers were arrested. One passenger was "detained" when he refused to talk with police. Lawsuit filed.
I heard that they were ruled a violation of the 4th amendment but the police were still allowed to conduct them providing that they gave prior notice to the public as to the time and location of the checkpoint. Since the police gave notice, your 4th amendment rights arent violated because you have given implied consent to be stopped.
I went through one in the '90s. This could explain why I have not since then. I have also gone through two licenses and registration. The last one was a day or two after getting my new car and they forgot to inspect it. In this case, I was out of state and was passed through. In the first case, LA I think, I was getting off a freeway and turned to go under the overpass. There was a "license and registration" checkpoint.
Not trying to debate any of the great information you are providing... respectfully, Im confused...if stoping vehicles on checkpoints, is no question there are seizures....then, which part of seizures the Supreme Court doesnt understand? Reasonable under 4th Amendment? How the Supreme Court came out with that conclusion...WTH!
It’s a seizure but the 4th amendment allows for seizures without a warrant as long as they are as the court defines “reasonable”. I personally don’t think it is reasonable, but they used the balancing test he described in video to say it was.
@@austino.674 I agree, how is stopping every car "reasonable"? That's like searching every house in the neighborhood because you think there is marijuana in one! WTH. This is unjust.
We have DUI checkpoints, but I've only ever personally seen one. I was in another area of my state (PA) and they were stopping everyone. I think it was about 3 minutes or so until I got to the front of the line. I ended up being waved through without having to stop so I don't really have any first-hand experience with them. However, I don't really see the issue. It does take a few minutes, most of which is waiting in line, but when they see you aren't drunk they just tell you to go. Not a big deal, at least as long as they are occasional. I could see it getting unreasonable if it was a fairly regular thing.
Could you do a show on traffic laws regarding actions that might be illegal, but have extenuating circumstances. EG driving across grass to get from a highway to a service road during a 1) traffic jam, 2) road blocked by fire, 3) road washed away. I assume that extenuating circumstances might apply in some of these. The crossing property issue might also come into play, if the traffic control device is malfunctioning.
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States for 33 years, first as an Associate Justice from 1972 to 1986, and then as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause. Wikipedia
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I was once stopped at a DUI checkpoint in Colorado. Interestingly, I was not asked for my license, registration, nor proof of insurance. The deputies made it clear this was strictly a DUI checkpoint. I was asked, “Sir, have you been drinking in the past four hours?” Me, “Yes.” “What have you had to drink?” Me, “Two cups of coffee and a bottle of water.” Deputy, “This is serious; you don’t need to be a smart Alec. Have you consumed any alcohol in the past four hours?” Me, “No alcohol. You can’t have it both ways: You can arrest me if I lie to you. If I tell you the truth, I’m not being a smart Alec.” Supervisor, “Sir, thank you for your time and honesty. It’s important to keep hydrated in our dry climate. Have a good day.” As I was restarting my truck, I heard the supervisor say, “He’s right. We can arrest him for lying to a LEO. You need to ask, ‘Have you been drinking alcohol?’”
Best regards,
Gottfried
Not an attorney,,,but relative to the 5th Amendment,, are you legally obligated to answer ANY questions at one of these events??
@@4catsnow No, but it just might take longer to asses if you are drunk.
LEO? What does that stand for? Sorry acronyms are not my thing.
@@ygrittesnow1701 Thank you.
@@Parents_of_Twins Law Enforcement Officer
That they are legal in many states to detect impaired drivers is bad enough, but the police have adopted the idea of asking for your drivers license and registration to run back ground checks for revoked license and felony warrants, thus taking these stops into a whole different territory. This is the problem with any authority given the police they immediately push the envelope. Where is the supreme court on these violations?
To begin with, a DUI Checkpoint does not, "Stop every single person driving down that road to see if you have been drinking..." If you are an off-duty policeman, for instance, you simply need to flash your badge/credentials and you will be waived right through regardless of how much you had to drink. Ex-Cop have confirmed this, as if we even needed that confirmation.
Laws for thee and not for me
The common method I've observed is that law enforcement will make up a reason to stop someone and then observe for any plain view violations. For example, on my home from a black tie gig one evening I was pulled over for tossing a cigarette out the window. When I chuckled because I don't smoke, the officer actually laughed too and sent me on my way. I'm sure he was looking for a seat belt violation or hoping to get a whiff of alcohol or pot. Apparently it's ok for authorities to lie about their reasons for detaining.
If they have deemed DUI check points legal why do so many of them ask for your drivers licence, insurance and registration? My wife was stopped and asked to provide those at a DUI checkpoint. How on earth is that constitutional? Its done to make money is why...
That is NOT legal. Only checking for DUI is
They do it because when you refuse they will arrest and book you and tow your car.
Then they'll drop the charges and kick you out if jail at 1am
If they are checking for intoxication, which is the reason for the stop, then asking for drivers license, registration, etc. should be considered unreasonable, under the 4th amendment.
But they aren't "Pulling people over at random."
They're making a blanket accusation of DUI against everyone for simply travelling past a particular point, and demanding they prove their innocence.
Unfortunately, the response has to be "take it up with the supreme court", apparently? I personally agree on principal. They're laying the accusation down _without_ evidence, and _then_ seeking evidence to back up the accusation. That's not a warranted search, IMO. I understand the logical desire to keep drunk drivers off the road, and the logic behind road blocks after bars close
... but if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. Tough luck, cops. Guess you better stay awake and watch for swerving cars or driver missteps so you can be _justified_ in stopping and searching a citizen.
MADD has much to do with this and with how the supreme courts view the history law books. Its well known that most of the alcohol law enforcement and the many DMV laws are manipulated by those in MADD. The courts are not facing up to MADD and their continued crys for change. Judges simply allow MADD to get away with fines, punishment, more fines and fees and this and that etc. all because MADD wants it and won't stop bugging judges/courts. Still, we should blame the courts and the judges because they give up and allow suggestions of MADD to be "the law" when in fact, its not.
The cool thing about living in a police state is that everything is legal. The definition of legal is very flexible and changes according to how our masters feel. Rule of law is so passe.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- seems pretty clear DUI checkpoints are illegal
I'm in CA but I've only been in one checkpoint, coming back from the beach on a weekend. We were stuck in traffic on the only hwy. For over 3 hours......!!!!!
This was not reasonable! We had a child in the car with low blood sugar and couldn't get food into him for hours. It seriously jeopardized his health.
The Supreme Court also said it was OK to own slaves.
Where? I'm trying to think of that case and I can't which is why I ask.
@@ygrittesnow1701 Duh Yeah I should have remembered that. Must have been having a brain fart. In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was also not a citizen of any state and, accordingly, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the US Constitution requires for a US federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.[3] After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the US Congress's constitutional powers.
The Supreme Court has to say that because they own all of us weather you like it or not.
@@speed8701 The Corporations do. It is cheaper to make us house and feed ourselves and then pay us little to nothing for our work.
If the founders knew that one day citizens would be stopped on the road, and their papers checked, they would have had a collective stroke.
I would never comply at a licence checkpoint.
@@davidnievesjr.9478 Let us know how that works out for you when it happens.
@@RustyOpel I sure will. A DUI checkpoint, I would swallow my pride and comply. A license checkpoint is absolutely illegal.
Yes, we fought to war of independence over far less...
@@davidnievesjr.9478 avoid California... came across one just north of Long Beach / south of LA..
They tried that in my home town Martinez California back in the sixties, but were force to stop because it was unconstitutional, based on the fourth Amendment. This was the beginning, where cops believe they do could almost anything they wanted because back then without the internet, nobody new the law except lawyers, but at least when the citizens complained the courts listened unlike today.
You cannot balance what citizens expect with what cops expect. The cops have no say in how a law should be interpreted. William Rehnquist was working for the deep state under the mistaken opinion that citizens only have rights that the state gives them. As far as we are concerned the 4th Amendment is sacrosanct and cannot be turned asunder because one man doesn't believe so. We can no longer allow one man to rip apart our constitution just because he is called a "Chief Justice".
We need to make additions to the Constitution with a new law under the Bill of Rights which state that the Supreme Court must be unanimous in their adjudications and conclusions, otherwise you end up with just five men/women making decisions that affect three hundred and twenty million people. Sorry I don't buy into our current judicial system where Congressional Representatives are being rewarded with large bankrolls from their criminality, and very few are ever prosecuted.
Does John Roberts ring any bells. He change his mind about ObamaCare, midstream when he was threatened because he had illegally adopted an Irish child and was being blackmailed over it. It was Robers who managed to force the American people to accept the worst law that had ever been written to subjugate the American people. We can no longer allow this type of Jurist Prudence to prevail, because it has become apparent that if you don't like a specific decisions, you can always find someone else through the appeals process who will side with you and adjudicate in your favor. This also has to stop.
I am a retired LEO and I do not like them, nor have ever participated in one. THERE IS NO PC (probable cause).
Good for you, and I agree
Here is my stance on this. I do NOT drink. I cant. My stomach issues means that a shot , or a beer makes me very sick to my stomach almost immediately. I also don't do a lot of soda at all. I am a NON COMBATANT in the war on drunk driving. An innocent bystander , and I will fight as hard as humanly possible NOT to be dragged in to it. I will NOT answer questions for NO REASON, and I will not do ANY stupid human tricks on the side of the road for NO REASON! I have a very good lawyer who is a close family friend, and I will 100% let some scumbag cop , (who lets his ego force him into arresting a 100% sober person ,) take me to jail , and tow my car, and the whole deal...…, BUT! I will be taking a hospital supervised blood and urine test with my lawyer AS SOON , as I am released, and I WILL be filing a lawsuit for that absolute maximum amount humanly possible. MADD gives police donations every year of money they make off the stories of their dead children, and after cashing the check , ALL the cops head down to the bar and drive home NICE n TOASTY! , yet I don't drink , and have to stand on the side of the road , and dance for my freedom! FUCK THEM!
@@jimstone2235 Im sorry. I don't answer questions from law enforcement without my attorney .
Completely blocking all traffic without suspicion isn't unreasonable? Amazing. Stupid judges.
Judges get their pay check from the county, conflict of interest every time especially if the county paid cops are involved.
I'm not going to debate the exact threshold under which this is OK, but the ruling is absolutely correct in that - at SOME point - public safety can take precedence over a minor inconvenience. This isn't much different than an airport security screening to check for weapons - similarly, there would be no reason to believe that YOU personally have a bomb, but SOMEONE might and the consequences of letting one through are too dire.
@@NorthernKitty There's no way they will conclude before setting up DUI stops that they will improve public safety. The public is better served when the police patrol the city vs. the city drive through a DUI stop.
@@Garth2011 I would concur with you in that I believe there are better methods in most regions and circumstances. Especially as it's a method that can be easily abused. My point is merely that the ruling on "safety vs. inconvenience" argument is a valid ruling, should legislators and authorities choose the DUI checkpoint method. It's up to us as citizens to push for and vote in people who implement smarter solutions. This is a great example of "just because you CAN do it that way doesn't mean you SHOULD" when it comes to enforcement. Frankly, I think it's a very lazy and inefficient approach.
@@NorthernKitty Yes some of that is true but when the system or those involved come up with obtuse ideas and put them into action, its 100 times more difficult to undo the methods they come up with. Yes, its a lazy method for police and inefficient burden on the public. Cops can do their jobs much better by patrolling in more ways than one. Frankly, we have a lot of inexperienced and inept examples getting into Government jobs and not held to accountable methods.
DUI check points sounds like Gestapo methods to me, officers should do do their jobs by observing drivers actions while driving. Check points are just fishing expeditions for over zealous cops making as many arrests as possible so they look good to their boss...
Cops are outlandishly paid, retire with fat pensions at or before 50, all the ones I know are drug addicts, and despite the huge cost to the taxpayers, they depend on ANYTHING except what they were taught and are paid to do - observe a crime and arrest the criminal. 911 calls to rat out a drunk driver? Where the hell are the cops? That's THEIR job.
My brother(driver) and I got stopped in Nebraska at a DUI checkpoint once. And, the NHP was asking for every driver to show their driver's license, vehicle registration, and insurance cards. Also, the member's of the NHP told my brother that if he didn't provide all of the asked for information, that he would be arrested and his truck would be towed and impounded. That's how Nebraska does their DUI checkpoints.
In states where they have laws that require you to change lanes to avoid emergency vehicles all checkpoints of any kind are illegal because they, by law, are entrapment to violate the laws requiring you to change lanes. It all gets very murky with purpose and poor writing too. About 90% of all states' laws are actually illegal or unenforceable because of writing, assumptions or the "use of intent" which is now a violation of Civil Rights granted by the United States Constitution.
There is no longer any "intent" in law, only the wording... and that means abridging intent such as special purpose laws are not legal.
The only "papers" officers are allowed to request from you unless you have committed a moving violation, actual misdemeanor of equipment maintenance or a clear visible felony (roughly equivalent to waving a gun/car in public) while you are in your vehicle are your license plate and the VIN from the dash.
If they push any farther than that, request a notarized copy of the judge signed warrant that specifically orders them to detain you or interfere with traffic on the road you are on.
They won't have it. There must be a legally valid purpose, not an intent, behind their actions relating directly to *you* specifically by vehicle/plate or by your name/DL#
Once they become the norm , it's not just about DUI , they are checkpoints for any infraction the police can catch in their web , registration , insurance , seatbelt ,license issues etc ..and it's not limited to small streets , they'll use major thoroughfares with an army of tow trucks to generate funds , the wait line can depend on the time of day , some will do it rush hour if they can get away with it...
People dont see that though, they automatically just think "oh yeah its for our safety". nobody every critically analyzes whats going on. At what point do these stops become too much? next itll be for some other random thing and then we'll be getting stopped every 5 miles.
@Peter Angles well these guys use to on route 66 .. but that was over a decade ago , but they were getting popular and irritating everyone of of us that just wanted to get home without a traffic clog for 10 to 15 minutes.. this after being in the freeway traffic for an hour ..
As you stated, a 25 or 30 second delay is AFTER the driver has waited in a line of perhaps an hour or more. Some years back, police set up a checkpoint on the George Washington bridge between NY and NJ. All traffic between the states on that crossing was stopped for many hours. Emphasis by the court on the short delay is misleading and dishonest.
Guess I'm a little confused by some of the comments; they seem to suggest that the SCOTUS ruled that DUI checkpoints in Michigan are LEGAL. However, as Steve explained, the Court simply addressed the 4th Amendment issue (according to the US Constitution) and and ruled that the checkpoints do NOT violate that amendment. Not only that, the SCOTUS, according to Steve, effectively let the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling stand, which states that the checkpoints are ILLEGAL because they violate Michigan's constitution. So it doesn't seem as if the SCOTUS sided with the Michigan State Police on this.
Nice job Steve! You are providing a very valuable public service.
Welcome to the police state. The police can do anything because they have no bounds. If you disagree or have the audacity to film them, you can get beat up for "resisting arrest". Of course you still have all of your rights...on paper.
I'd like to know how many Supreme Court justices have spent time waiting for their "brief" stop at a DUI checkpoint. Always curious.
In Mississippi and Louisiana both as you said they’re not illegal but they go one step further I think the skirt this issue… What I’ve seen them to do in the last few years is now they called them safety checkpoints. The ones that I have been through, they’re not specifically checking for DUI, what they will check for is license registration and proof of insurance and they will check your inspection sticker. I went through one over the recent holiday weekend on the Fourth of July on a state highway on my way home… The trooper basically just asked me for my license glanced at my inspection sticker and another trooper at the same time glanced at my license plate to see that they both matched up. Then they pointed me on my way. They were also ticketing people for not wearing their seatbelt or not having their children in a child seat. I saw several people pulled over for that on the side of the road.
I’m fairly certain if you looked intoxicated they would wanna have a conversation, but they don’t specifically call it a DUI checkpoint. I guess that’s how they get around these attorneys trying to beat the system.
I knew a guy that had to go to court for being sober. The officer asked him to blow into the breathalyser, came up 0. The officer said that can't be right please do it again. Again it came up 0. The officer then asked for the driver to blow into the breathalyser a 3rd time. The driver refused and got charged with refusing a breathalyser which can lead to his license being taken away. The judge says it says here you refused to do a breathalyser test. The driver said for the third time in a row and explained the results from the first two breathalysers. The judge is like your free to go license intact.
Years ago in Boynton Beach, Florida, one of my sons was assigned community service and he elected to aid in traffic check points. My son heard the sergeant running the check point at the briefing tell his officers that everyone either gets a ticket or gets arrested.
Avoid check points if possible.
Check points of this nature are constantly done here in Tennessee , if you give them any static or refuse to be ID you will be arrested. They still do policing for profit here. You will be yanked out of your car and it will be ripped apart and searched without a warrant
Time for litigation in Tennessee to oppose this then?
George Travers it’s been tried. No luck.
@@MegaGeorge1948 Last time i looked the checkpoints are illegal in 12 states. Sometimes in Alabama the game warden will be there also looking in boats and coolers for over the limit game fish. People from up north used to vacation down here and take back hundreds of crappie! Those days are over.
@@tmo4330 4th Amendment only covers US soil, not water. This is why the Coast Guard will wait until pull off the dock to stop you without probable cause.
@@theBear89451 Great info Bear! I have been pondering these practices. They have their good points and bad points. Glad to know someone smarter than me is in charge!
The dissenting justices in the Sitz case were Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall, all considered to be liberal justices. Concurring with Rehnquist were White, Blackmun, O'Conner, Scalia, and Kennedy, who were considered conservative or swing justices, except for Blackmun, who was considered liberal.
I personally don't consider any detention or involuntary interaction with the police to be a "slight" intrusion on my rights.
So if i understand this correctly the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and requirement of warrant with specificity only applies if there is a subjective undue hardship? So what is to stop the police from random stops without any probable cause? If you sentence diagram the 4th amendment you will see it actually is stating that all searches and seizures require a warrant and even spells out what must be included in the warrant. How about random searches of your home, backpack, pockets, etc. as long as they only hold you for that subjective short time? The problem with subjective rulings is it constitutes no ruling at all. It leaves it open to interpretation by whomever is looking at it at the time. Today Justice Rehnquist, tomorrow officer Joe Smith, the next day Joe the plumber sitting for 2 hours waiting to get to the front of the line for his 25 second interaction. One person's idea of reasonable or short is completely different from another person's. Reminds me of the legal definition of pornography which is " I know it when I see it." Give me specificity and equal enforcement in all laws and opinions please. Define undue hardship in specific terms. 5mins? 10 seconds? "What, your honor, exactly did Rehnquist mean by undue? Well, then the ruling and therefore the law and enforcement policy lacks specificity and therefore is no law at all, I am requesting a jury nullification." I would love to see more defense attorneys specifically attempt to get jury nullification so maybe we can get rid of some of these ridiculous over-reaches. Most juries do not even know that they have the ability to examine the law itself and not just the act in question. Not a lawyer here, just a peeved off citizen that is annoyed at how our very specific Constitution has been interpreted to mean whatever will give the federal government more power at the time. Example: "shall not be infringed" is not really hard to understand. "Congress shall make no law" is kind of a no-brainer as well really. Of course that was working under the assumption the legislative branch would handle all the law making. Which bring up another point. The term "regulation" at the time the Constitution was written was synonymous with enforcement, not writing specificity into broad law. Regulatory law by strict interpretation of the Constitution would be equivalent to enforcement policy and not have the weight of law at all. Like I said, I am not a lawyer. Nor am I stating how things are. Just how I think they should be based on basic English comprehension and some application of the rules of logic. All laws should be interpreted by strict methods and use the definitions as they were at the time the law was written. If it can not be determined to a minimum of 99% accuracy then the law is thrown out. OK, Rant off. Thanks for whomever took the time to read this diatribe. LOL Even though I wish it were not so I do appreciate you taking the time to tell us of how things really are. Reality in operation is almost always different than philosophy of design. Knowledge of both is very important.
In California, there has been litigation over how these "sobriety checkpoints" are actually de facto registration checks instead, leading to most of the enforcement activity centering around impounding vehicles with expired tags.
Basically, the cops set one of these shows up, in part to ensure that their federal funding doesn't get cut, delay and annoy everyone, don't find any drunks, the ostensible reason for the charade, and impound a lot of cars for profit.
I've seen very few such checkpoints since the lawsuits started... getting the cops to patrol more seems to be much more effective overall as a means of improving traffic safety.
As always with police and state powers, it is necessary to have the courts watching over the watchers.
Where in the constitution does it specify the 'reasonableness' of a seizure during a DUI checkpoint is the standard for review of the potential for violation of the 4th amendment?
Using that logic here allows the government to pretty much violate all constitution rights as long as they only do it a 'slight' impact to each citizen. Next the government can review all of your electronic files that it intercepts because the impact to each person in miniscule. Wait, they kinda do that already...
I was stopped last night. The checkpoint was poorly lit. I had no idea what was going on until I was literally on top of an officer, had to slam on breaks. I was pulled for a sobriety test. They hounded me about the beer I had nearly 4 hours ago. I passed but they were still super suspicious. They insisted I was lying about how much I had to drink. I was begrudgingly allowed to leave. I felt like my freedom was hinging on somebody's attitude.
If DUI checkpoints are lawful, then they can come into your house to determine whether you are breaking any laws regarding drugs, firearms, child rearing, domestic abuse, and so many more.
False comparison. This is occurring on a public road and only if you're operating a motor vehicle capable of endangering others if operated improperly. It's basically a "safety inspection". Airport screenings - which are considerably MORE intrusive, they can pat you down, make you strip and search your luggage - are pretty much the same concept. There is a point at which the rights of the public to be safe from harm outweigh a temporary inconvenience to the individual out in public. I won't argue the exact threshold with you - you're more than welcome to argue that this is a "step too far" - but the threshold exists. It's generally the court's job to determine that threshold. I don't know why people keep making the mistake of thinking that every single right is "absolute". They're not - the moment one right can conflict with another, they are prioritized based on potential for harm.
Yep dui check points are illegal in Oregon. Passed in 87. Probably part of why I have never seen one in Oregon. They have been illegal for most of my life.
Its scary to think they "weigh" the constitution based on effectiveness. Does it say in the constitution its okay to violate 100 peoples constitutional rights as long as you catch at least one person doing something illegal?
Depends on what state you live in.
What's great about these is that while they are trolling for someone who is 0.08 ( which is less impaired than someone changing a radio station ), they are NOT out there catching the 0.18 and 0.28 ( whatever ) driving around. It's a mis-use of resources.
In my state, Indiana, I have been through dozens of sobriety checkpoints. But they list them in the papers where and when they are to take place. Also, in almost all of them, the police don't check every car. It's "random". The police actually has a counter in his hand and two or three cars will pass through and they will stop one. But it's a joke because they have already selected the cars that they believe will net them a drunk. You will see three cars go by then a stop. Then five go by then a stop. Then one goes by then a stop. There's no rhyme or reason to their pattern, and that's the "random" aspect to their check. While your sitting there, you are being evaluated. I don't drink so I really don't care, but the principal kinda rubs me the wrong way
DUI checkpoints are about more than just DUI (ID check, reg check, check for warrants, peek inside the car, question the driver). Those things were not addressed in the Sitz case.
They are illegal in Idaho since these checkpoints violate a citizens right to travel without being molested by the state.
In other words, they can pull you over without cause. I love how judges interpret a law to fit a narrative.
I'm disappointed with how the Supreme Court ruled, but very much appreciate your break-down, and the information you gave in your video
I'm disappointed too :-( Sadly no government is perfect and it is up to the people to uphold the values of democracy.
I'm still surprised with blatant the corruption was in the legislature when they passed the sick leave bill. It makes absolutely no sense for companies over 500 workers not to have to pay sick leave while those under 500 employees do!! What it does do is give the ones with more than 500 employees an unfair advantage over the smaller ones.
In my city checkpoints are common, the amount of people found DUI is minimal and several people have done studies showing that saturated patrols on weekends in problem areas are far more effective and can be done at a cost that's comparable to what the checkpoints cost.
Unfortunately my sheriff's department uses the checkpoint to ticket for any and all infractions that they find .... so you may not be impaired but you have a bulb out and a hubcap missing ..💲💲💲
Thanks for your informational videos. I'm a Michigan driver and wasn't aware of a lot of the items you bring up. Happy New Year.
It is a slippery slope. If groups of people can be detained without probable cause, that could go bad quick. Such as when Japanese Americans were detained during World War II.
Yes ,and all their property was seized and as far as I know never returned.
Bobby Isaac's #71 on your shelf is an eye catcher for sure. There's so much history with that car.
Without probable cause it’s an illegal stop, plain and simple.
When the Supreme Court rules, that is the law, plain and simple. Their opinion is the only one that matters.
Bob Wilson our constitutional rights over rule any “laws” that violate those rights. Stopping someone without probable cause is unconstitutional period.
@@InvestorAcademyPodca You're correct that only the supreme courts decision matter when defining the law. However, they've clearly made past decision that stand in opposition to the constitution. Civil forfeiture is an obvious one.
The OP should probably reword to 'Without probable cause it’s clearly in violation of the text of the fourth amendment."
Great breakdown of DUI Checkpoints. It's important to note, that even though they may not violate the 4th amendment, DUI Checkpoint do not override the 5th amendment. The State can stop and ask, but you are under no obligation to answer their questions. Steve, how would you suggest we respond to exercise our 5th amendment right? Is silence the best option, or a polite refusal, or by stating the classic line from TV and movies "Under the advice of council I choose to invoke my 5th amendment right against self incrimination"?
They are big on doing these in NC. I haven't seen them do it in SC. They will ask for license and registration in NC. They stopped me one night at 3am after I worked 12 hours in my work uniform and I got 50 questions none of which was any of their business.
Dennis W please don't take this the wrong way. I am curious if race was a factor in your case.
Never answer questions
The area I live in used to do DUI checkpoints fairly regularly, especially during the typical drinking holidays. Within the past couple of years though, the city has changed tactics and they now opt for more patrols by officers rather than doing a checkpoint. It also probably didn't help that with social media nowadays, people can quickly become aware of checkpoints and find a different route.
@@jackielinde7568 Probably more like declining revenue.
Goes to show that there's a difference between lawful and legal. It's legal because corrupt judges say it is, although it is certainly unconstitutional, therefore unlawful.
Governments and mainly the police could care less about state or federal constitutions unless they get caught their main purpose is to collect Revenue and better their own careers at your expense.
Rehnquist was obviously wrong. A non-intrusive *sampling* of drivers being required to traverse a course of cones [and not tip any of them] set up in a convenient lot could be legal but the general stop of everyone is a very bad precedent for which we will pay in the future.
Putting up a course with cones would not work because some folks just suck at driving.
@@davidsuper879 Good point. However, the failure to traverse the course is then "probable cause" for a sobriety test... which, presumably, the rotten un-drunk driver would pass and be on his way... along with the normal drivers who got through the course un-coned.
Also, remember only a sampling of drivers would be directed to the cone course to begin with so relatively few(er) would be (minimally) inconvenienced. 🤠
@ I hate being right sometimes... Well, at least at the state level, these procedures can be made illegal (which might be a political opportunity for some bright young lad, eh.).
@@vanscoyoc ... and we are stuck with the stupidity he left behind.
In Texas we have "No Refusal Weekends". This is where if you refuse to do a field sobriety test they will hold you down and take your blood. CRAZY
Thats scary
The obvious problem is you're not stopped just briefly. If 20 people are ahead of you in line, you're stopped for the duration of their stop too.
Here in Western Australia the police set up what is called Random Breath Tests(RBT). Basically there will be approx 6 police standing in a line and they have hand held breathalysers and you are required to blow into a tube that is fitted to the breathalyser and within about 10 seconds a result is shown. If reading is below 0.05 your on your way. If it is over that your then required to have a second test which is done in a van with another machine. The Police patrol cars can also set up these sort of tests with just the two officers doing the tests. As to licence checks they used to do them but not anymore. The last time I had to show my licence at a RBT we had alphabetical codes for what we were licenced to drive. My licence showed the codes of A B F L which were for car heavy truck Bus/coach and motor cycle. The office had no idea what the codes were for and had to ask her supervisor.
As a reserve Police Officer in Georgia a LONG time ago, we didn't have a set "checkpoint", but would "monitor" some of the busiest "watering holes" in the city. Especially, on those days (nights, too) that new Basic Training Recruits had their first weekend pass. As part of a "deal" made with the public when they voted to approve "by the drink" operations (instead of BYOB "by the bottle") the local SO/PD would monitor some of the "hot spots", especially during closing time for obvious candidates. The owners bitched constantly about us "keeping an eye out" hurting their business. All that bitching came to a halt one night. One of the owners came out to where we were parked (openly, not hiding) and started letting us have a piece of his mind. As he was winding up for a big finish, a "candidate" for an "interview" came staggering out of the bar, wobbled over to his car, got in and started to drive off. As we watched, he crossed the parking lot, then swerved across the road and then hit a median guard rail divider, stopping just short of crashing into another car turning into the bars parking lot. I mentioned that "it looks like we have a winner" as we drove the short distance to where the offenders car came to rest. The bar owner that had been giving us a "lecture" suddenly shut up! When we got out and started our crash investigation, although that "almost" car was not involved except as a witness, it turned out to be the bar owners wife coming to pick him up!!! I said "That is why we do this"! He NEVER said another complaint and actually blocked out a special parking space for us! He also got very deliberate on those "last call". That was back when not everybody could afford two cars with insurance, gas, etc. And because he only had the one car, his wife had to bundle the kids up with them when she went pick him up. He would even bring out coffee or soft drinks when we were out there.
It's such a shame that something like this has to happen before some people 'see the light'. What's even more disappointing is when people have to have it happen to them personally and can't learn from someone else's experience.
Nice story. But it doesn't excuse you from violating 4th amendment rights. I really don't care if its under the guise of "public safety." I will not agree to having my rights eroded, even a minor infringement. I would never agree to the state getting their foot in the door to erode my rights even further. You NEED to have probable cause to stop, detain and ID, bottom line. In your story, you got your probable cause. He caused an accident. Now you may investigate. Your exception isn't the rule, at least not in my state. Personally, I can't stand pigs. Especially when they are infringing on my rights.
But it appears you have a fan @flick22601. Only because he's a boot licker and doesn't understand the minor erosion of a right makes it easier to erode your right even further. I guess sheep need a master. Hahaha. Apparently you're fine with having your rights eroded too. Its a two way street, and you yourself aren't immune to it either. So in essence, you are saying you prefer to have your rights eroded. Is that why the average IQ of police officers is that of average intelligence?
I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with random checks on the road wasting my valuable time.
@@mrtwister9002 I never said I was for the checkpoints so how about you take back your bullshit ideas. THE ISSUE IS WHEN YOUR AT A BAR MOST PEOPLE DDDDDDRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKK. Did I get that message thru your hilly billy brain? Are you so dense as to not see the problem of people DRINKING at a BAR that is an establishment for DRINKING ALCOHOL or did this fact go way over your head? The probable cause to pull you over is the fact you were at a bar where the main reason people go is to say it with me DRINK ALCOHOL. What do most people do at the bar DRINK ALCOHOL. What do most drunk people do here's a hint DRINK ALCOHOL.
So no checkpoints are a bad thing I never once said they weren't. So stop putting words in my mouth. By saying they shouldn't be allowed to pull people over for going to an establishment with the main reason to go is to DRINK ALCOHOL and most people will drive and bars aren't allowed to take your keys because by law they're suppose to stop serving you before your drunk. Why else do people go to bars? Every bar I've been in it's about drinking. Unless somewhere in your magical state people don't go to the bar to drink, which i highly doubt, you would want cops at the bars looking for drunks trying to drive home.
So once again simply put are you so dense that you say there's no probable cause to pull someone over after going to an establishment who's main reason for being there is alcohol. That's like saying people going to the weed store is only there to talk to the guy be hide the counter not to buy weed. So please shut the fuck up and go back to school because you didn't learn basic logic of cause and effect.
I support the need to do sobriety checkpoints even though I had about a 40 minute delay on I-84 going east bound in New York on Labor Day weekend a few years ago and then ANOTHER ONE in Connecticut (only about 5 minute delay)! What was nice about the Connecticut one was the local boy scout troops were offering free coffee and donuts (even at 3am) for the holiday travelers. I gave them $10 for a coffee and donut and saw where it was obvious many drivers did the same. Slow pokey job in New York and Nice service in Connecticut is my experience with sobriety check points. I am still amazed at those scouts and leaders.
The bigger issue is she is being charged with a "could have happened" crime. Charged before she had a wreck or damaged property. I am a non-drinker, but am appalled that most people think that "could of" justice is ok.
I disagree with you. I don't think most people think that is OK. I think most people (at least people with a brain) think it is unconstitutional.
You can also get a ticket for no insurance - thus you have to pay for something you haven't done. Driving a vehicle on a public roadway is a privilege and they can regulate and make laws around that.
In Texas DWI check points are considered illegal as of 2018 without any courts involved. It is considered being against the 4th Amendment.
If you need RAS to identify, and if there needs to be cause for a traffic stop, and the traffic stop cannot be extended beyond the original purpose, how can initiating a nonconsensual encounter where they insist on identification be legal?
It seems like at a checkpoint there is no RAS, so you could refuse to ID and present registration/insurance until they decided you'd failed a sobriety test. At that point there would be RAS.
Help me out here. The 4th amendment (as I understand it) protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Your explanation indicates that the brief stop conducted at DUI checkpoints is in fact a seizure. The drivers are stopped despite having shown no signs of intoxication (that has to be the case, otherwise not every single car would be stopped). That to me sounds like the stops have no reason behind them - unreasonable, in other words. How then is this ruling determined on the basis of a 'balance' of benefit to the state vs. degree of intrusion on the motorists? I'm not sure how the benefit to the state should matter if there is any intrusion. The wording of the bill of rights is usually pretty clear, and doesn't use language like 'balance of benefit vs degree of intrusion'.
I think it has to go along the same lines as "cruel and unusual punishment" where it was ruled that it can be either or but not both. So you can be seized with out reason or you can be searched without reason, but not both at the same time? So im guessing that they can stop every one and once they have reason to suspect you of a crime they can then seize and search you because now they have a reason.
What's next? Random home searches?
Lol. I wouldn't surprised by anything anymore.
@@stevelehto I don't think it's a leap in logic at all. If the SC thinks it's reasonable to randomly stop citizens without cause, under the guise of catching drunk drivers, then by that logic random house searches under the guise of catching terrorists massing weapons would be reasonable. It's a slippery slope. Give an inch here, and an inch there, and before you know it you have no constitutional rights.
@@jesuscross9 excellent!!!
@@stevelehto How is this a leap in logic? Check out what they are doing in Canada.
globalnews.ca/video/4828305/new-impaired-driving-rules-give-police-sweeping-powers
@thunderbird002 I watched about half of it. The cops are investigating a case. Guy with camera walks over and starts talking to a witness. Cop asks him to not talk to her at that moment about the incident they are investigating. He starts the first amendment thing. Yes, he has rights. But the cops have a job to do. The first amendment is not absolute. Looked to me like the guy was being a bit of a tool.
I remember hearing about a lawyer (I think in Florida) making a pdf for people to print out stating that they plead the 5th. He suggested that people put it in a bag on a rubber band with their license, registration and proof of insurance and trap the end of the rubber band in the closed window. Theory being that if the window is closed, they cannot smell anything. If you do not speak, they can not claim slurred speech. You have provided all necessary info related to a traffic stop and given officers no viable reason to question your sobriety. The lawyer did suggest checking the legality of trying it in each state before doing it.
@chief tp once again, that is why I stated that it was a lawyer in Florida and that he even claimed to check the legality of such an action in different jurisdictions. In most places though, the letter with all necessary documents would satisfy the legal requirements of a traffic stop and any further actions taken by an officer to infringe upon your 5th and 4th Amendment rights could leave a department open for a very nasty lawsuit afterwards.
We, the government, can violate your rights as long as we, the government, don't take our time.
I've been though a few of these in NY. Always a quick experience, have never even needed to provide my ID. Just a "where are you headed to, have you had anything to drink?" and I'm off. I know they're also looking for no seat belts and things like that, but they don't even take the time to run registration or anything. Usually not delayed any longer than a normal red light.
But it's none of their business where you are headed to.
I think my biggest problems with these are
(1). Law Enforcement select the road/location of the checkpoint
(2). They require all vehicles to stop at the checkpoint.
- So, neither of those 2 are randomized selections -
(3). Then, an officer has a brief encounter with the driver of the car - and it’s never made clear what criteria the officer is using to either allow the driver to go freely onward versus detained for additional processing.
True the officers need to declare that you are detained but the checkpoint almost insinuates implied detention
I know they have them in Florida but the reason why they can do it is because they posted on the sheriff's office website and by doing so they have technically notified the public with when where in between what times they are going to do it
Once again the "Supreme's" are wrong! You cannot compromise the God given rights. It's Illegal search and seizure plane and simple! Maybe the real question is, has this illegal action reduced DUI's? NO! But a whole industry has exploded out of this action. Here is Texas, as you pointed out its illegal yet it will cost minimum $17,000.00 for first offense! So once again is this about reducing highway deaths or about making money?
I worked in Colorado in the 90's and one of my employees had 5 DUI's and still driving on a "red" license! Really?
The courts should require checkpoints at all of their entrances for employees. The Capitol building should checkpoint all of congress as they come and go to the parking lot. Likely they will find a large number of drunk on the job folks.
When I was in the Army in Georgia in the mid to late 90's I would come across DUI check points all the time. They also have registration and insurance checkpoints. In Georgia instead of a birthday your registration expired on a certain date for the whole state. The day after they would start checkpoints.
I remember when Michigan's was like that (a LONG time ago). There were always huge lines at the Secretary of State's office because so many people put it off to the last minute.
Not only are DUI checkpoints illegal in Minnesota but so are traffic cameras that have the sole purpose of generating revenue.
Red light cameras would bother me less if they would give you a safe amount of time to stop.
In 1980, Maryland, there is a local bar that is at the end of a road, on a selected Friday nights there was a DUI checkpoints on the other side of that road. Every car was stopped, and everyone was checked if they were drunk, driver license and registration. Many as given tickets.
I do think that Supreme Court ruled incorrectly here (a lot of the Rehnquist court's ruling were kind of kludges, IMO), but that and a buck may get you a cup of coffee.
It's my understanding that some states skirt the issue by characterizing the checkpoints as "license checks" instead of DUI checks, and since the Supreme Court has ruled that a driver's license is a privilege instead of a right, the state has more leeway to check if you have a license or not. Of course, if in the course of checking your license, an officer detects some evidence of intoxication, he then has reasonable cause to give you a field sobriety test or other form of test for intoxication.
They can say driving is a privilege all they want, but the fact is no state revokes driver's licenses without due process.
@@theBear89451 I think they say that so when people refuse breathalyzer tests they can suspend their license etc. and in effect give them the same penalty for drunk driving.
Right, and you won't beat it in court. Best thing to do is show them your id and be on your way. Any smart ass that refuses to roll down window in my state will be sorry. If i were a cop i wouldn't put up with that "am i being detained" either. I never gave them a problem, they never gave me a problem.
I know each state is different, but Delaware did this often but stated they were checking seat belts and “safety devices” no idea of any process they had, I was always told to move on.
While they say it does not violate the 4th Amendment I, or anyone else, is not required to answer any questions, roll down any window, or show ID or paperwork until the cops have developed reasonable, articulable suspicion independent of me exercising my right to not assist the government in it's investigation of me. That checkpoint does not suspend my other rights under the U.S. Constitution of the California Constitution.
Here in California checkpoints are legal and you must be allowed to make a legal u-turn or otherwise legally avoid the checkpoint by turning onto a side road. The problem is that motorcycle cops are stationed so that anyone who avoids the checkpoint by making a legal u-turn is chased down and stopped and the cops will argue that the fact that you exercising your right to not participate in the checkpoint is reasonable suspicion to stop you.
Looking at DOhman's post below, along with my observations regarding the perponderance of people with multiple DUI priors still driving. The failure of the local courts to jail those who continue to drive with revoked licenses is where the system fails us. The court often has the discretion to applyt a maximum sentence and the still put the person on probation . First driving while revoked stop puts them safely in jail.
You covered the supreme court's ruling on the fourth amendment, but what about the fifth? Every video I have seen of DUI check points, regardless of who the video recorder is (civilian, dash cam, body cam, etc), the police always demand that you speak to them.If you manner of speech can be used as a factor in determining if you are intoxicated, can making you speak to the officer be a violation of the fifth amendment against self-incrimination?
I agree wholeheartedly. If you are stopped at a check point and the cop asks you if you have been drinking, the fifth amendment says that you don't have to answer that question but invoking the fifth will almost certainly get you directed to the next level of questioning. Little doubt that the next officer will ask you to take a sobriety field test but I think that probable cause is required for that test and exercising your fifth amendment rights should not be probable cause. I live in South Carolina for what it's worth.
Most of the videos the person say they do not want to answer questions or say under the 5th they do not want to talk. They still keep flapping there gums and continue to talk to the officers. If they do that they are doing it on there own.. It is there own fault for not keeping quite
@@caracarson5205besides being completely subjective with no ability to prove you slurred or more often "smelled alcohol", notice that eventually they force you to speak or just take you to jail for not speaking. guilty till proven innocent. the modern police tactic.
Whenever a cop asks you a question in an official capacity, the only words out of your mouth should be to POLITELY state:
*"I'm sorry officer but I do not answer questions without a lawyer present. Am I free to leave?"*
Always comply, never cooperate.
@@bigdickpornsuperstar That is not going to get you any where but
My town has checkpoints several times a year. I have not been trapped but ticket results are posted afterwards. Besides dui tickets are given for license, insurance, seat belt etc violations. Location and time is predictable so I avoid that stretch of road after any drinking. My advice is don’t drink and drive, it too easy to spill your drink on yourself and car.
Just got home from a 10 hour Saturday non-overtime work day, thought I'd sit back and relax. *watches video, twitches a little*. Steve, do a video of some of the funniest cases you've dealt with, unless you already have, then kindly direct me to it. Thanks!
One more thing , Having a check point is basically saying you are guilty until proving your innocent
So you are guilty until proven innocent!!!!
If it is a DUI checkpoint, then why are drivers required to show dl, reg, and poi? Because it is a fishing expedition. It has less to do with catching drunk drivers for safety of the community and more to do with herding drivers like cattle in hopes of finding revenue generating violations. No, I do not drink and drive. Did it when I was young and got lucky. Times have changed, laws have changed. Make good decisions... Don't drink and drive! Always wear a condom! Stop thinking you are fooling anyone by holding your phone below the steering wheel!
@@TheRealDrJoey I had no idea why this comment appeared in my notifications. Then I re-read my comment and realized the humor. Thanks for the laugh Dr Joey.
If a right can be ignored if it benefits others, it’s not a right.
Talking about the amount of intrusion or amount of violation of constitutional and personal liberties should be enough to make something unconstitutional. Idgaf about balancing the state’s interests. If it violates personal liberties at all it is unconstitutional.
I found it interesting that the Delaware task force was mentioned....in the 90s it was popular for DE to ask for ID from ALL OCCUPANTS of any vehicle that was detained at a checkpoint....i have serious issues with the constitutionality of this....I am in favor of the checkpoints for the purpose of discouraging DUI but this use is a serious reach for probable cause...where is the cause in this type of activity? I would love to hear Steve's thoughts on this
They can call it whatever they want but we all know it's nothing more than a fishing expedition. I know a few smart people who don't answer anything they are asked at those checkpoints. They pointed out unless they are being detained they don't have to tell them anything nor answer them. Few of them got this on camera and posted it up on RUclips. Cop realize there was nothing they could do. Even though the officers tried all the power tripping words they could think of.
I haven't had a drink in 30 plus years.CT police give you no respect..they flash led strobe light in your eyes..despicable.
On a related note, you will be relieved to know that it is no longer illegal to carry nunchucks - at least in the state of New York.
Road trip!
I take about 20 medications. I would be reluctant to answer this question. They don't seem to impair my driving. Should I refuse to answer any and all questions to avoid this issue?
I could never pass any of the dexterity questions, or count backwards, or so on. I'm 68 and in poor health. The tests don't seem to correlate directly to driving ability.
My question is over the legality of arrests for firearms, drugs, or other offences at these checkpoints. In Ohio, they are called OVI and result in more arrests for other offences. There are many cases where vehicles were searched and passengers were arrested. One passenger was "detained" when he refused to talk with police. Lawsuit filed.
Random searches are unconstitutional. By DUI checkpoint logic, they could search you, your car, or your home, for weapons to reduce violent crime.
This comment right here. People dont understand this concept and where DUI checkpoints could lead. at what point do they start coming into homes, etc.
Well, they are probably snooping your calls and emails too, at this point.
I heard that they were ruled a violation of the 4th amendment but the police were still allowed to conduct them providing that they gave prior notice to the public as to the time and location of the checkpoint. Since the police gave notice, your 4th amendment rights arent violated because you have given implied consent to be stopped.
bull $h&t
Did you watch the video?
It’s bad enough stopping people for nothing, but then expanding the sobriety check, into a document/general fishing expedition is wrong.
I went through one in the '90s. This could explain why I have not since then.
I have also gone through two licenses and registration. The last one was a day or two after getting my new car and they forgot to inspect it. In this case, I was out of state and was passed through. In the first case, LA I think, I was getting off a freeway and turned to go under the overpass. There was a "license and registration" checkpoint.
Not trying to debate any of the great information you are providing... respectfully, Im confused...if stoping vehicles on checkpoints, is no question there are seizures....then, which part of seizures the Supreme Court doesnt understand? Reasonable under 4th Amendment? How the Supreme Court came out with that conclusion...WTH!
It’s a seizure but the 4th amendment allows for seizures without a warrant as long as they are as the court defines “reasonable”. I personally don’t think it is reasonable, but they used the balancing test he described in video to say it was.
@@austino.674 I agree, how is stopping every car "reasonable"? That's like searching every house in the neighborhood because you think there is marijuana in one! WTH. This is unjust.
We have DUI checkpoints, but I've only ever personally seen one. I was in another area of my state (PA) and they were stopping everyone. I think it was about 3 minutes or so until I got to the front of the line. I ended up being waved through without having to stop so I don't really have any first-hand experience with them. However, I don't really see the issue. It does take a few minutes, most of which is waiting in line, but when they see you aren't drunk they just tell you to go. Not a big deal, at least as long as they are occasional. I could see it getting unreasonable if it was a fairly regular thing.
Could you do a show on traffic laws regarding actions that might be illegal, but have extenuating circumstances. EG driving across grass to get from a highway to a service road during a 1) traffic jam, 2) road blocked by fire, 3) road washed away. I assume that extenuating circumstances might apply in some of these. The crossing property issue might also come into play, if the traffic control device is malfunctioning.
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States for 33 years, first as an Associate Justice from 1972 to 1986, and then as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.
Wikipedia