Are "DUI Check Points" unconstitutional?

[Jeremy]

I just got this email

CCSU, New Britain Police Departments to man DUI Check Point



- In a continuing effort to deter motorists from driving while under the influence of alcohol and or drugs, the Central Connecticut State University and New Britain Police Departments will be conducting a DUI checkpoint on May 6, 2010.

Lt. Chris Cervoni of the CCSU Police Department said the check point will be located on various streets adjacent to the CCSU Campus between the hours of 7:00pm -1:00 a.m.

Each year thousands of lives are lost, many more are injured as a result of alcohol related accident,” noted CCSU Police Chief Jason Powell. “The CCSU and New Britain Police Departments hope that their efforts will provide a safer community for our students, faculty, staff and city residents,” he added. “Both Departments are hoping a greater awareness of the consequences of driving under the influence will help reduce the loss of lives or injuries by removing intoxicated drivers from the roads.”

[SamuraisWisdom]

I went to CCSU for 4 years, the only reason they're doing this is because Thursday is party night at that school (everybody goes home for the weekend) and this is the last Thursday before finals week so it's gonna be huge. Believe me, the New Britain police have way more important things to be worrying about in this city. The crime here is ridiculous.

And yes, I believe DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. There's no warrant for questioning and no probable cause.

[RokiLothbard]

Turns out they were pulling over everybody who was driving on that particular sidewalk that night.

just kiddin. Obviously DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. Its not not even a close call or a grey area is it?

[RedStripe]

Turns out they were pulling over everybody who was driving on that particular sidewalk that night.

just kiddin. Obviously DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. Its not not even a close call or a grey area is it?

It's a close call because for the most part suspicionless checkpoints are only constitutional if they exist to serve an "administrative" purpose such as checking licenses or immigration status at the border.

So, for example, a checkpoint where everyone stops and a drug dog sniffs the cars is unconstitutional because it is not an "administrative" purpose, but rather a search involving "regular criminal activity."

The major exception to this, so far, has been DUI checkpoints (as well as checkpoints they put up if a known murder is in the area, or something extreme like that) simply due to the Supreme Court's "balancing test" where they balance the degree to which such checkpoints interfere with your liberty and the state's need to use that particular method to stop a crime the consider to be high priority. Basically they figure if you're on the road and can be pulled over (constitutionally) under the pretext of any minor traffic violation whatsoever, you don't really have much of an expectation of liberty on the road to begin with.

Now I don't like the result, but it's not really as if the 4th Amendment is very clear on what an "unreasonable" search is, so you can't really blame the courts for bullshitting to some degree.

Oh, and to make it constitutional they might be required to make a public notice of their intention to setup a checkpoint.

[TonySutton]

Unconstitutional!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Ben Franklin~

[angelatc]

SCOTUS ruled that they are unconstitutional, but that they were going to allow them anyway. I'll have to go dig out the decision - I think it was Somebody v Michigan. As an ironic result, Michigan's constitution now forbids them.

Here's the decision, and the quote:
http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz01.html

Where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant [p*450] or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.

(Balance? i don't recall there being a "bill of balancing.")

[RedStripe]

SCOTUS ruled that they are unconstitutional, but that they were going to allow them anyway. I'll have to go dig out the decision - I think it was Somebody v Michigan. As an ironic result, Michigan's constitution now forbids them.

Yea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

SC ruled them constitutional in that case - biiiig stretch from their previous holdings on checkpoints from what I understand.

[Krugerrand]

SCOTUS ruled that they are unconstitutional, but that they were going to allow them anyway. I'll have to go dig out the decision - I think it was Somebody v Michigan. As an ironic result, Michigan's constitution now forbids them.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

[Krugerrand]

The Supreme Court held that Michigan had a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving, and that this technique was rationally related to achieving that goal (though there was some evidence to the contrary). The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government.

Bogus, bogus, bogus.

I wish I could find (somewhere on one of these forums) was a suggestion to keep in your car a letter from your attorney advising you not to answer any questions without that attorney present. When pulled over or stopped, you simply hand a copy of that letter to the officer and do not answer any questions.

[Ninja Homer]

The way I've seen it done in Minnesota was that they would look over the cars in line. If any had the slightest thing wrong with them (light out, plates not up to date, crack in window, etc) they would pull them over then proceed with a breathalyzer. This was done on a busy road leading into Minnesota on a bridge, just when a music festival ended in Wisconsin. I'm not sure about the constitutionality of that... at the very least, it's borderline because their intent was to convict DUI's and that's not the reason they were being pulled over. It looked like they were giving everybody breathalyzers, not just those who appeared intoxicated.

[Anti Federalist]

Bogus, bogus, bogus.

I wish I could find (somewhere on one of these forums) was a suggestion to keep in your car a letter from your attorney advising you not to answer any questions without that attorney present. When pulled over or stopped, you simply hand a copy of that letter to the officer and do not answer any questions.

While not exactly what you're looking for, I always take the opportunity to post this:

YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik)

YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related)

[Anti Federalist]

To answer the OP's question, of course they are unconstitutional.

When has that stopped government?

[angelatc]

In Indiana, they had to announce when and where the roadblocks would be set up. Not sure if that's part of keeping it constitutional, or if that was just specific to Indiana.

The only time I was ever stopped on one was on Clearwater Beach, and another guy in the queue subjected himself to a massive public fail by pulling (as instructed) into a parking space. Unfortunately he didn't stop after doing so, which meant he jumped 2 of those concrete parking blocks and sort of knocked over 2 parking meters in the process.

If this had happened after the beginning of the camera phone era, there would be a picture here.

The cop at my car just tossed my license back at me and said "You have a good night" without even making eye contact as he headed over that way.

[Chester Copperpot]

Unconstitutional...

[Brian4Liberty]

Some would argue that automobiles did not exist at the time of the writing of the Fourth Amendment. But horse-drawn coaches did. How were those treated?

IMHO, the 4th applies, and checkpoints are unconstitutional. And they are truly used as Police State checkpoints. In my area, the majority of the people they arrest are not for DUI. Presumably they are picking up people on outstanding warrants.


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.

[constituent]

Yea, but so is the law requiring all citizens to return home only through designated customs processing facilities (the Tariff Act of 1930). You don't see anyone getting all bent out of shape about that though...

[silentshout]

Yes, I think so. I've been given a breathalyzer after being stopped at a checkpoint while obviously completely sober, and with no broken tail-lights or anything like that. I wonder if they are randomly done. And all the while the cop was taunting me, trying to get me to admit I had been drinking, just because we chose to drive home on a street that housed lots of bars.

[pcosmar]

Unconstitutional
Unacceptable

and unfortunately, not uncommon.
:mad:

[Jeremy]

And just to clarify: I will be leaving class at 8:00 PM, which is in the time range they gave for the checkpoints.

[MRoCkEd]

And just to clarify: I will be leaving class at 8:00 PM, which is in the time range they gave for the checkpoints.
Are you going to submit like a little slave or assert your rights and resist like a true defender of freedom?!


http://www.buddycremeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/braveheart.jpg

[TonySutton]

Maybe we should get like-minded people together and flood the checkpoints with so many vehicles they become unmanageable. :) This would work well in those states where law forces them to publish date, time and location in advance. People could use Flash Mob for those areas that do not require advance notification.

[RedStripe]

So for the anti-illegal immigrant folks out there, you're against checkpoints at the border too, or are you inconsistent?

[angelatc]

Maybe we should get like-minded people together and flood the checkpoints with so many vehicles they become unmanageable. :) This would work well in those states where law forces them to publish date, time and location in advance. People could use Flash Mob for those areas that do not require advance notification.

Oh that would be funny, until they started shooting. :(

[Jeremy]

Are you going to submit like a little slave or assert your rights and resist like a true defender of freedom?!


http://www.buddycremeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/braveheart.jpg

Pssssh. You would submit before I did. You wouldn't even consider civil dis!

[TonySutton]

Oh that would be funny, until they started shooting. :(

I wouldn't give them a reason to shoot. My goal would be to back traffic up so bad that all of the "just show your id unless you have something to hide" crowd will get pissed that their time is being wasted sitting in traffic.

[Don't Tread on Mike]

Are you going to submit like a little slave or assert your rights and resist like a true defender of freedom?!


http://www.buddycremeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/braveheart.jpg

5 bucks he won't :p. And Jeremy if you decide to rebel. please have a camera recording it. I'll come bail you out if they smash your window taze tou and detain you. i promise.

[MelissaWV]

They won't bother Jeremy much. He's Amish.

[Jeremy]

5 bucks he won't :p. And Jeremy if you decide to rebel. please have a camera recording it. I'll come bail you out if they smash your window taze tou and detain you. i promise.

How about you and Mark meet me at the school before 7, and we all drive out at the same time during the checkpoint time. Then we'll see who really has balls!

[MRoCkEd]

5 bucks he won't :p. And Jeremy if you decide to rebel. please have a camera recording it. I'll come bail you out if they smash your window taze tou and detain you. i promise.
Safest bet ever... Jeremy will volunteer a search of his horse and buggy. "You can look, officer! I'm a good little boy! I swear!" :p

[Brian4Liberty]

So for the anti-illegal immigrant folks out there, you're against checkpoints at the border too, or are you inconsistent?

The border is the entrance to the US, it's not inside the US. (Yes, I am against immigration checkpoints that are not directly on the border.)

Do you believe that there should be "check points" when you enter a concert or sporting event?

[constituent]

Do you believe that there should be "check points" when you enter a concert or sporting event?

Did you just compare the United State of America to a concert or sporting event?

[MelissaWV]

"Checkpoints" should only be in place where legality of entry is required to be proven. This includes the borders of a country or, in towns where it's the law, to gain entry into establishments with minimum age limits.

DUI checkpoints are stupid. Most people will just avoid them, and they are attempts at precrime stoppage rather than actually catching someone who is driving carelessly. If the latter were the important thing, then it wouldn't matter whether the person was drunk, tired, applying makeup, or dealing with their kids; they would be pulled over for driving like crap.

Checkpoints for private events should be perfectly fine with everyone. A fair, sporting event, expo, or whatever else has the right to decide what's allowed through their gates. They will, of course, also see marked drops in attendance if they are too intrusive in their searches and restrictions. There's a certain movie theater in a certain mall I will never go to again, because I had leftovers from supper (from in the mall!) that were in a bag and I brought in with me, and the theater usher told me I had to pitch it because it was "outside food and drink." They were so rude, I simply don't go there anymore.

[MelissaWV]

Did you just compare the United State of America to a concert or sporting event?

It's overpriced and overhyped :p

[Brian4Liberty]

I wouldn't give them a reason to shoot. My goal would be to back traffic up so bad that all of the "just show your id unless you have something to hide" crowd will get pissed that their time is being wasted sitting in traffic.

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the Police and Highway Patrol derive their greatest pleasure from backing up traffic and wasting people's time.

And I can verify that they will shoot you. They blocked off all traffic at a major intersection very near where I live, with no detour or way around. It took me 40 minutes to get a block. Every one was pissed. One kid burned out in his car when he finally got around it. The Police chased him an unmarked SUV, blocked him in, and shot him dead in the driver's seat.

[Brian4Liberty]

Did you just compare the United State of America to a concert or sporting event?

I just compared two entrances where you are checked. :eek:

[constituent]

I just compared two entrances where you are checked. :eek:

Using one as a crummy excuse for the other it appears. :eek: indeed.

[Brian4Liberty]

You may get shot...


4/7 Update: "After all of our efforts, they decided to keep it a closed grand jury. This is not the end for us though. We will continue to fight this." Supporters of Eric's family are asking for people to call the Santa Clara County D.A.'s office and complain as a concerned citizen that this case should NOT be a closed Grand Jury. Read more

Eric Kleemeyer was killed by Santa Clara Police on January 4th, 2005. He allegedly did not pull over, as he was driving to his mother's house. He was unarmed and feared for his life, due to a previous beating that went unreported. Police boxed him in a driveway across the street from his mom's house. He was 22 years old. Without identifying themselves or asking him to step out of the car, they opened fire and shot him 9 times. An ambulance arrived, and he was pronounced dead at the scene. The family and their attorney have had their case juggled by several people in the District Attorney's office, and they received very short notice of the hearing that will take place on April 1st. The family recently learned of a third car that had pinned Eric in when he was shot. His family believes that after the shooting, the cars were moved to make the scene look like Eric had rammed a police car.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/03/31/30732.php