Well, I haven't heard a good argument at ALL that this is removal of anyone's freedom. The key phrase during my whole point is PRIVILEDGE. I'll say it 20 thousand times if that's what it takes to make people understand. If you were somewhere where it's your RIGHT to be there or use that resource, that's completely different then where you're using something that is a priviledge that can be taken away if you refuse to follow the proper laws.

It's the same as this website. It's a priviledge for you to use this resource. I can take it away anytime I want to because you don't follow the rules. There is a distinct difference here that I think most people don't understand.

 

Well, I know courts have jumped through philosophical hoops to rule otherwise, and I'm no lawyer, but such stops seem like a 4th amendment violation to me.

 

I personally have never come across a "checkpoint" in Michigan. They might have them, but I never seen one.

On another note, I think there are far more crimes happening in this country that law enforcement should be working on other than someone not wearing their safety belt!

You figure they pull over 200 cars and if 100 people are not wearing seatbelts, they just netted about $7500! Not bad for a couple hours of work. Throw a few drunks in the mix and you just doubled or tripled the amount!

Meanwhile, people are being mugged, killed, robbed, etc... everywhere else... that doesn't bring in much revenue, so why bother with it?

That's my opinion...

Tony

 

Does that make it any less of a violation? In addition, I want to know that the State Police in my state ARE enforcing traffic laws. For one, that is their main purpose. For two, I want to know that the people who I have to share the highway with take some kind of reasonable measure to make sure their vehicle is in decent working order, and that they ARE following traffic laws so that I might be a little less at risk of being killed by some idiot who thinks they're too good to follow traffic laws.

Despite the fact that most conspiracy theorists think this is the reason for traffic laws, it's not. It's also NOT the intention of most law enforcement officers to go out and write as many tickets as possible for the sole purpose of making money for the state. To insinuate such a thing is ridiculous for the majority of agencies out there. There may be SOME who have that mindset but given my experience, I find that not to be the case with most law enforcement officers I know. .... and I know a LOT of them.

That is the job of city and county police departments and sheriffs. Again, that doesn't make traffic laws any less enforceable. In addition, unless you can magically come up with a way to make it so every police officer can show up to a scene in 30 seconds or less, things will NEVER change from the way they are now.

I don't get the point here. People can complain about this all day long, but think about how many people would be getting hurt or killed if we didn't enforce traffic laws! It would be MUCH MUCH more than criminal injuries. It already IS. Just imagine if not a single cop or state trooper cared if you decided to travel at 90 miles per hour down the highway, or if you weaved in and out of traffic like a madman, or if you drink and drive! Think about how many people would be injured or killed. This argument never has, and never will make sense to me.

 

I think most courts are getting it right, such as the following case in Michigan (speaking of Michigan...):
"In Sitz, we evaluated the constitutionality of a Michigan highway sobriety checkpoint program. The Sitz checkpoint involved brief suspicionless stops of motorists so that police officers could detect signs of intoxication and remove impaired drivers from the road. 496 U. S., at 447-448. Motorists who exhibited signs of intoxication were diverted for a license and registration check and, if warranted, further sobriety tests. Id., at 447. This checkpoint program was clearly aimed at reducing the immediate hazard posed by the presence of drunk drivers on the highways, and there was an obvious connection between the imperative of highway safety and the law enforcement practice at issue. The gravity of the drunk driving problem and the magnitude of the State's interest in getting drunk drivers off the road weighed heavily in our determination that the program was constitutional. See id., at 451."

I agree with this ruling. ...and I would go so far as to say that it's within the ruling for license and insurance checks too. Most courts seem to agree with my opinion that it IS constitutional.

 

ahhh, one more ruling I found in the State of Michigan. See below:

"In Prouse, we invalidated a discretionary, suspicionless stop for a spot check of a motorist's driver's license and vehicle registration. The officer's conduct in that case was unconstitutional primarily on account of his exercise of "standardless and unconstrained discretion." 440 U. S., at 661. We nonetheless acknowledged the States' "vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed." Id., at 658. Accordingly, we suggested that "[q]uestioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops" would be a lawful means of serving this interest in highway safety. Id., at 663."


I agree with this too. This ruling goes to my point exactly, and explains it better than I've been able to.

It seems that the majority of people agree that this practice is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment, and that if practiced properly, allows people to use their PRIVILEDGE on the roads and remain as safe as reasonably possible.

 

I definitely like the checkpoints; the closer to home the better. Believe me where I live on this brand spakin' new 4-lane highway, they help a lot. I'd be eager to have one at the end of my driveway 24/7. The more screams of harassment and illegal seizure I get to hear, as the officers cuff them and stuff them, the more I like it.
Nat

 

I disagree with the roadblocks. Perfect example of communisim.
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=Communism
Here's another one.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=socialism
Look specifically at #2
Not trying to be argumentative. Alot of folks think that "if they arent doing anything wrong" then it is ok. It is no mystery how/what power trips are. This is what has happened to our goverment. What good does a weapon (your choice) do you if somone breaks into your home, and it has to be locked in a gun safe?
What good does it do for you to carry a pistol in the cab of your rig when you have to have it unloaded and have the ammunition locked away somwhere away from the weapon? This is the insanity that I am talking about. in either situation do you ask the perpetrator to please wait patiently while you gather your weapon? And that brings up this point. What happens if you do shoot them? The crimal now goes and sues you because he is dead or diabled??????

 

I tend to agree with the dissenters in that case. To elaborate on the "philosophical hoops" to which I referred, the reference to ...the magnitude of the State's interest... pretty much sums it up. There's no exception in the 4th amendment that I can find that refers to the level of the state's interest rendering the amendment moot. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer, I just read the text and assume that it means what it says.

 

Priviledge, yes and to earn that priviledge, one must have demonstrated the ability to operate a/the vehicle, the vehicle should be in compliance with all necesarry requirements, registrarion, inspection, insurance etc. The vehicle should be operated in a safe maner, and so one.
The question arises on what grounds do they ask: "where are you going?"
All laws/regulations pertaining to vehicular trafic, and associated with the PRIVILEDGE have been instituted as a measure of safety on the roadways. Destination was and should never be a factor.
So why the curiosity? It is the little details that errode slowly and steadily the freedoms. The police may not have the right to ask, but they do and get away with it, based on intimidation wether outright displayed or subtely implied. The answer to where are you going should always be "that is irrelevant for the purposes of this safety check point"

 

I am no conspiracy theorist but I disagree. And no saddly I can not substanciate my position either. But the fact remains that a lot of tickets are written wether because "quotas" have to be met, or it may be the way to substanciate performance on the part of the officer. It is also a fact that in MOST cases that I have knowledge of, the officer's performance was substandard. What I mean by that is that the officer lacked the curtesy and respect that is part of the job, was on a power trip, was out to hassle people, etc. With very few exceptions, trafic cops have the atitude of dieties and they break the same laws they enforce with impunity. When was the last time you saw a cop drive at the speed limit? Enough said, the people deserve and pay for better.

 

Check points are a good way for local cops to feed the county coffers with OWI fines, nothing more. The only time I have ever seen a check point here was on the busiest route out of Knoxville, IA after the Outlaws Nationals. Drivers licenses my achin butt. They only did this the week of the nationals. Not speaking for other areas of the country of course, but cops here are for revenue development, not law enforcement.

 

I feel the need to jump in here. How would you feel about checkpoints if you had someone close to you killed by a drunk driver, who might have been taken off the road by one of those checkpoints? Good friends lost their 21 year old daughter to a drunk. If the checkpoints remove the drunks from the roads where my family drives, good for them. There can be abuses of power by anyone in authority, and the police are certainly not exempt from this. But in my opinion the good done far outweighs the bad. And as Jack said, driving is a priveledge, not a right. And it is your right to refuse a search of your vehicle, that is a constitutional right.

ramlovinvet, I just read the article you linked, and THAT makes my blood boil. Those people are complaining that the checkpoints are snagging too many ILLEGAL aliens?????? Well, DUH!

DeWain

 

We have "safety checks" this time of year when "ditch weed" is ready to harvest. That's wild marijauna to you city folks. It ain't no good (don't ask me how I know) but every year city folks from Omaha & Lincoln head to the country to make their fortune in "Husker Gold". They catch truck loads every year.

Sorry about the people killed. However, we loose 50K people to driving each and every year, drunk or not.

 

And 25,000 of those highway deaths are caused by drunk drivers.