DUI Checkpoint

[Lester Green]

I would enter a "DUI checkpoint", and not fear the consequences, because I don't drink and drive. Hell, I barely drink at all. I would do my best to avoid a sign that said "DUI/DL checkpoint" because I fear what would happen to me when I refused to show my ID. But I would still refuse. It would be one of those moments where you get that sinking feeling because even though you are doing what you interperet as right, you know what the consequences are likely going to be. And no, I wouldn't accept what happened afterwords. I would spend every last dollar I had, even if it meant I lost, to prove that I feel it's against what this country stands for. There needs to be a ruling on this from a Supreme Court. And either way that ruling ends up, I would have to accept it. It's an unwarranted search, that lacks PC, and goes against the guidelines set for a DUI checkpoint.

so in other words the next DUI checkpoint you happen to enter, you will refuse to show your DL and go to jail?

nope. you will sit there quietly, be polite, show your DL and be on your way, then you will get online and tell everyone about how you coulda shoulda woulda.

 

[cprbusa]

What the hell are you babbling about?

Pardon me, if this went over your head. Some of us don't believe that DUI checks are legal, regargless of what the SCOTUS says.

Simple enough?

Not all cops walk in lock step.

 

[Rel]

Pardon me, if this went over your head. Some of us don't believe that DUI checks are legal, regargless of what the SCOTUS says.

Simple enough?

Not all cops walk in lock step.

It didn't, I understood what you were saying. However, your personal beliefs are irrelevant when you're wearing your uniform.

If you're ordered to stand the line and man the checkpoint, I'm guessing you'll do what you're told.

 

[eddiet204]

As do I. But wouldn't you stand up for what you feel is right? Even if it might cost you everything?

I totally get where you are coming from and I would encourage you to litigate this if you are ever asked for your drivers license at a DUI checkpoint-after you comply with the officers directions. If you are lucky, you will just receive a citation for 12951 CVC, 148 PC, or both then go to court. Don't try to prove your point at the checkpoint because you are going to be on the losing end if you do. I have been sued a few times by people who believed, as you do, that their rights were violated. One of them not only lost their case, but their job as well. Is it worth it?


From the California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook Section 5.2b IV:

Furthermore, as long as a checkpoint has one of these lawful purposes (DUI in this instance) as its primary objective, there should be no problem with a checkpoint that combines two or more of these purposes. For example, a checkpoint designed primarily to discover drunk drivers, and operating under the usual safeguards and guidelines, would be lawful even where the officers also checked the drivers license status and vehicle registration.

So there it is in writing. If you can get it revised, let us know because I would like nothing better than to have one less thing to do at a checkpoint.

 

[thenewwazoo]

Pardon me, if this went over your head. Some of us don't believe that DUI checks are legal, regargless of what the SCOTUS says.

Simple enough?

Not all cops walk in lock step.

Because there's so much talk of the constitution, keep in mind that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is legal. If they say a thing is legal, it is by definition legal. Why is it legal? It's legal because they say so. Congress decides what the law says, SCOTUS decides what the law means.

You can disagree, but it's like disagreeing with gravity. If you have a problem with that, then you've got a problem with the constitution. Better start collecting signatures for an amendment.

 

[msethhunter]

Not all cops are shitstains, nor are all people who support the police boot lickers.

I would have to agree with you. Even when I was in serious trouble a long long time ago, I got the same respect I gave to the CHP. And quite honestly, I deserved an ass whooping.

 

[bojangle]

Pardon me, if this went over your head. Some of us don't believe that DUI checks are legal, regargless of what the SCOTUS says.

Simple enough?

Not all cops walk in lock step.

Because there's so much talk of the constitution, keep in mind that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is legal. If they say a thing is legal, it is by definition legal. Why is it legal? It's legal because they say so. Congress decides what the law says, SCOTUS decides what the law means.

You can disagree, but it's like disagreeing with gravity. If you have a problem with that, then you've got a problem with the constitution. Better start collecting signatures for an amendment.

^^^What thenewwazoo said. You'd think a LEO would understand this. I don't agree with all laws. I'm strongly opposed to laws making people convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses prohibited persons from owning or possessing firearms, for example. I think they are unconstitutional. But until SCOTUS hears a case related to the issue and rules one way or another those laws remain in effect.

But saying that DUI Checkpoints are not legal despite what SCOTUS says is just plain, well, ignorant? The constitutional buck stops with SCOTUS. They are the final law of the land. If they say it's legal then it is legal until such a time that they revisit the issue and modify or reverse it. At that point it would be illegal.

 

[}Dragon{]

The constitutional buck stops with SCOTUS. They are the final law of the land. If they say it's legal then it is legal until such a time that they revisit the issue and modify or reverse it. At that point it would be illegal.

Our founding Father's who wrote the US Constitution had no IDEA of what a motor vehicle was going to be in the future and how many impaired drivers of such, would affect so many lives.

SCOTUS ruled they are legal and for the tenth time, I'll state saturation patrols are more effective at removing impaired drivers from the roadways, but, checkpoints for DUI are legal.

 

[bojangle]

Our founding Father's who wrote the US Constitution had no IDEA of what a motor vehicle was going to be in the future and how many impaired drivers of such, would affect so many lives.

SCOTUS ruled they are legal and for the tenth time, I'll state saturation patrols are more effective at removing impaired drivers from the roadways, but, checkpoints for DUI are legal.

Saturation patrols are definitely more effective.....and I think they're more fun too if you can get into a competitive spirit. And even better, they rely on reasonable suspicion to enforce the law which takes away this whole discussion.

Half the fun.......no, more like 3/4 of the fun, of doing DUI enforcement has to do with the hunt. DUI Checkpoints take that away. I love the hunt!

 

[}Dragon{]

Saturation patrols are definitely more effective.....and I think they're more fun too if you can get into a competitive spirit. And even better, they rely on reasonable suspicion to enforce the law which takes away this whole discussion.

Half the fun.......no, more like 3/4 of the fun, of doing DUI enforcement has to do with the hunt. DUI Checkpoints take that away. I love the hunt!

Huntin' DUIs is soo fun/effective- even when there is a catch and release (per policy).

 

[Shaggy]

^^^ fuck that! Deuces and 11/5s always to to jail in my book. The half day they spend in jail is the most time behind bars they will see, especially for an 11/5. At least deuces get hit in the pocketbook also.

 

[Junkie]

11/5s?

 

[bojangle]

11/5s?

H&S 11550. (a) No person shall use, or be under the influence of any
controlled substance which is (1) specified in subdivision (b), (c),
or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054,
specified in paragraph (14), (15), (21), (22), or (23) of subdivision
(d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section
11055, or specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (d) or in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 11055, or (2) a narcotic
drug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, except when administered
by or under the direction of a person licensed by the state to
dispense, prescribe, or administer controlled substances. It shall be
the burden of the defense to show that it comes within the
exception. Any person convicted of violating this subdivision is
guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to serve a term of not
less than 90 days or more than one year in a county jail. The court
may place a person convicted under this subdivision on probation for
a period not to exceed five years and, except as provided in
subdivision (c), shall in all cases in which probation is granted
require, as a condition thereof, that the person be confined in a
county jail for at least 90 days. Other than as provided by
subdivision (c), in no event shall the court have the power to
absolve a person who violates this subdivision from the obligation of
spending at least 90 days in confinement in a county jail.

 

[Shaggy]

11/5s?

Cranksters, crack heads, and dope fiends.

The reason I ship them off every time is because the more time they are behind bars, the less time they are on our streets doing other crimes associated with drug use (burglary, theft, vehicle theft, robbery, etc...). One crankster off the street at night probably prevents 2-3 vehicle burglaries my dayshift counterparts have to take reports on.

Sure its just a misdemeanor and the DA doesnt file them all the time, but it's a preemptive strike to prevent other BS from happening.

 

[stoltzf4]

Where was the PC to ask for ID?

I have yet to see one person in this thread show me that.

<<slaps head>> Not this $hit again.

 

[aram]

Cranksters, crack heads, and dope fiends.

The reason I ship them off every time is because the more time they are behind bars, the less time they are on our streets doing other crimes associated with drug use (burglary, theft, vehicle theft, robbery, etc...). One crankster off the street at night probably prevents 2-3 vehicle burglaries my dayshift counterparts have to take reports on.

Sure its just a misdemeanor and the DA doesnt file them all the time, but it's a preemptive strike to prevent other BS from happening.

That's police work I can stand by.

 

[}Dragon{]

^^^ fuck that! Deuces and 11/5s always to to jail in my book. The half day they spend in jail is the most time behind bars they will see, especially for an 11/5. At least deuces get hit in the pocketbook also.

I qual'd as a DRE in court (when challenged) w/o going to DRE school.

I had a lil more med skooling than the DRE class offers and was qual'd as an expert witness. To be honest, I took my most of my 11/5's for (not driving) for 647F.

 

[Shaggy]

How do you articulate that a crankster who is walking and talking is unable to care for themself?

 

[bojangle]

How do you articulate that a crankster who is walking and talking is unable to care for themself?

Well, they're unable to care for themselves because they keep taking drugs and........

[Youtube]Uh7l8dx-h8M&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/YouTube]

arty

 

[Shaggy]

I'd give you $100 to say that on the stand!