The Media & St Patricks Day Sobriety Checkpoints

mickeyrat

norm wrote:

Sobriety checkpoints are operations organized by local police department personnel and are designed to check vehicles for signs of driver inebriation. Usually, sobriety checkpoints allow officers to check only every third or fourth car that passes down the road, and the issue is quite controversial among politicians.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, there are certain requirements that must be met in order for sobriety checkpoints to be legal. Police officers must be careful not to violate the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure, which means that sobriety checkpoints are closely monitored.

The following are the requirements for sobriety checkpoints that all police officials must follow, and are derived from the rules and regulations published by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.

(1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.

(2) The local district attorney's office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.

(3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.

(4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.

(5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations.

(6) As drivers approach the sobriety checkpoint, they should be able to see that the police are present. Usually, this is accomplished by starting the flashing light bars on the tops of police cruisers.

(7) If the police intend to send drivers to a test site for chemical testing, there must be an easy and fast route from the sobriety checkpoint to the test site.

(8) Police officers must be able to successfully manage the sobriety checkpoint without unreasonably halting the flow of traffic. They must use standardized procedures and follow the proper protocol for investigation.

(9) The public must be notified aggressively and well in advance of any sobriety checkpoint so that drivers can avoid them if necessary.

In addition to the above, police officers are expected to ask the drivers they stop for feedback as to the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint. Since the practice is intended as a public service, police officers are encouraged to be friendly and accommodating with drivers.

If you have experienced a sobriety checkpoint that fails to meet the above standards, or if you feel that your rights were violated, you have every right to call the precinct under which the sobriety checkpoint was orchestrated. Ask to speak to a high-ranking officer and inform him or her that you wish to make a formal complaint. Give a detailed explanation of your experience, and request to be notified about any developments.
http://voices.yahoo.com/requirements-so ... 96573.html

even with the bolded part, fucktards will still get caught!!!

vant0037

Thorns2010 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, just that as a United States Citizen living abroad, it is very much an eye opening experience to say the least.

That isn't to say that I think America is bad, and that isn't to say I think Australia is good, just that without being in the country, you start to realize a lot of things that happen in America is because America is very much a selfish country and all about me. That isn't a bad thing, just that it is an observation from someone who lives in another country and has to try and explain to his new found friends and family of why America is that way.

I'm the 'expert' on America to the people around me because I had lived there for the first 30 years of my life, and it can be very hard to try and explain why common sense things seem to be so uncommon in America.

Again, at the end of the day, if people truly cared about stopping drunk drivers there would be very little opposition to random checkpoints in my opinion. As I said, in Australia that is all they are looking for, they don't even know your name or run your plates or anything, just have you pull up to an officer and have you blow into a meter. If you blow over the limit, (which is .05 here) they take you either to a mobile police 'bus' or the local station and test you again with a better machine. I think they aim for 15 minutes later. If at that point you are still over you are fined dependent on the amount you blew over.

Again, the requirement that a cop have a reason to stop you has nothing to do with laziness. It has nothing to do with common sense. I'd wager that non-Americans who look at our legal system and think it's based on laziness are probably making pretty baseless assumptions about something they know little about.

Sorry if I'm testy about it, but if you do the least amount of research, you can see that the law of probable cause, search and seizure etc has developed the way it has for some very, very good reasons. It might not be that way in Australia, but so what? Is it our legal system that's "lazy" or the people who make such broad assumptions? :roll: Do some homework on it first, and then tell me if you still think it's lazy.

Thorns2010

vant0037 wrote:

Thorns2010 wrote:

I understand what you are saying, just that as a United States Citizen living abroad, it is very much an eye opening experience to say the least.

That isn't to say that I think America is bad, and that isn't to say I think Australia is good, just that without being in the country, you start to realize a lot of things that happen in America is because America is very much a selfish country and all about me. That isn't a bad thing, just that it is an observation from someone who lives in another country and has to try and explain to his new found friends and family of why America is that way.

I'm the 'expert' on America to the people around me because I had lived there for the first 30 years of my life, and it can be very hard to try and explain why common sense things seem to be so uncommon in America.

Again, at the end of the day, if people truly cared about stopping drunk drivers there would be very little opposition to random checkpoints in my opinion. As I said, in Australia that is all they are looking for, they don't even know your name or run your plates or anything, just have you pull up to an officer and have you blow into a meter. If you blow over the limit, (which is .05 here) they take you either to a mobile police 'bus' or the local station and test you again with a better machine. I think they aim for 15 minutes later. If at that point you are still over you are fined dependent on the amount you blew over.

Again, the requirement that a cop have a reason to stop you has nothing to do with laziness. It has nothing to do with common sense. I'd wager that non-Americans who look at our legal system and think it's based on laziness are probably making pretty baseless assumptions about something they know little about.

Sorry if I'm testy about it, but if you do the least amount of research, you can see that the law of probable cause, search and seizure etc has developed the way it has for some very, very good reasons. It might not be that way in Australia, but so what? Is it our legal system that's "lazy" or the people who make such broad assumptions? :roll: Do some homework on it first, and then tell me if you still think it's lazy.

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.

What I am trying to say, which clearly is not coming across properly, and maybe I shouldn't use the terms 'lazy' and 'selfish' and all that, but what I am saying is this....

If America truly cared about curbing drunk driving, and was a country that was about the better good, the betterment of society, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Someone else earlier quoted me and said they aren't sure if random checkpoints make a difference, and to that I say bullshit.

I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.

Also while not the same of course, but to say that there isn't issues of profiling, or of improper search and seizures of people in Australia is wrong. The Aboriginals of Australia are treated with as much, if not more prejudice then anything I witnessed in America.

At the end of the day if you want to continue to believe that sobriety checkpoints or RBT's as I call them are 'wrong' or will target people or whatever it is that you think is the problem with them that is fine, and I can't change your mind. What I am asking you to do is to see it from a different point of view, and I feel like it is a pretty easy thing to see that it is utter lunacy that America is so against them.

badbrains

81 wrote:

i have no problem with them.

don't get loaded and drive...how hard is that to figure out. :fp:


go read the front page of the chicago tribune

Completely agree. Get a fucken DD. I do it all the time for my boys who want to drink.

MaxGoldenrod

They love them down here in Georgia.

Since I work 2nd shift, I've seen my fair share of them.

More annoying than anything, especially after working a 12 hour day and getting the stupid questions. Even worse, a few years back, I got stopped at one, explained why I was out at 1am, but then a week later, the same cop at the same location, gave me the 3rd degree again. I was like dude I just told you all of this last week, I was even in the same work uniform and had my ID on!

They serve a good purpose. However down here they tend to go a little overboard with them. Once I got stopped at a checkpoint where they were checking for proof of insurance. Guess what a-holes, I have to have proof of insurance transmitted electronically to the state by my insurance company before I can even get tags!

Annoying especially since there was no randomness to it, everyone had to stop. Talk about screwing up traffic

pandora

The media here reminds/warns people that the cops will be out in force for a drinking holiday
like St. Patty's they don't say where or how just will. That and road blocks are a very good thing.
Drunk drivers have caused way too much sorrow.

vant0037

Thorns2010 wrote:

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.

What I am trying to say, which clearly is not coming across properly, and maybe I shouldn't use the terms 'lazy' and 'selfish' and all that, but what I am saying is this....

If America truly cared about curbing drunk driving, and was a country that was about the better good, the betterment of society, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Someone else earlier quoted me and said they aren't sure if random checkpoints make a difference, and to that I say bullshit.

I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.

Also while not the same of course, but to say that there isn't issues of profiling, or of improper search and seizures of people in Australia is wrong. The Aboriginals of Australia are treated with as much, if not more prejudice then anything I witnessed in America.

At the end of the day if you want to continue to believe that sobriety checkpoints or RBT's as I call them are 'wrong' or will target people or whatever it is that you think is the problem with them that is fine, and I can't change your mind. What I am asking you to do is to see it from a different point of view, and I feel like it is a pretty easy thing to see that it is utter lunacy that America is so against them.

Look, I understand everything you're saying. What I still think you're missing is that the "probable cause"/"reasonable articulable suspicion" requirement has nothing to do with lunacy or being lazy. It is a distinct protection against abuses of power that has developed because of the history of race relations. It's not like we just decided one day, on a whim, that we don't like being pulled over, so let's make it a law. This is the law because over two and a half American centuries (ok really, much of it developed between 1950-1980), there were enough instances of disparate enforcement (that's a nice way of saying it) that the Constitution was applied and reapplied and enforced in a number of different ways. I don't doubt that Australia has it's own sordid racial history, but as a student of history, I happen to think it pales in comparison to America's.

So what it comes down to is that an Austrialian thinking American search and seizure law is "lunacy" or "lazy" really means that said Australian isn't familiar with why the laws are what they are. We didn't pick and choose these laws because we don't like speeding tickets; they developed over time as a response to very real government abuse that was occurring against many Americans, but in particular, against racial and ethnic minorities.

As an aside, I never said I disagree with checkpoints. I was contesting what I believe is your ill-informed and hasty claim that Americans are lazy because we want our government to have a reason before stopping us. Critical difference.

unsung

No probable cause. They should not be allowed to exist. Do we stop everyone wearing a backpack under the suspicion that they are transporting a kilo of cocaine?

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

No probable cause. They should not be allowed to exist. Do we stop everyone wearing a backpack under the suspicion that they are transporting a kilo of cocaine?

maybe, but the courts have ruled otherwise.

hedonist

Thorns2010 wrote:

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.

First, congratulations! My guy and I met on the board too, and next month will mark eleven years since he moved here from the other side of the country.

Thorns2010 wrote:

I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.

See, this part I have a bit of a problem with...not so much the end-result of not driving drunk, but shouldn't the fear of punishment/getting caught come second to just not doing it because it's stupid to begin with? Driving drunk, stoned, whatever, is still ultimately a choice someone makes.

(and for what it's worth, in my younger idiotic days, I did the same)

I hope I'm making sense here...still somewhat early

Jeanwah

Of course America isn't serious about drunk driving, why else would they have you avoid checkpoints at all costs? Why are there folks out there with multiple DWIs and not in jail? (I have known of several locally, one even had 7 DWIs, still driving.) How would the corporations producing alcohol and beer fair, if laws were tougher against drinking and driving? They would have a shit fit. After all, if it wasn't for these corps, marijuana might have more of a chance to be more legal.

Fearing competition for dollars spent on entertainment, alcohol and snuff interests have lobbied to keep marijuana out of reach. For example, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed campaign contributions to a committee set up to prevent the legalization of marijuana and taxed. The alcohol industry have big power in America and there's no way that they'll allow alcohol to be any less available. That means taking it easy on the drunks, and the drunks behind the wheel. America is run by corporatism. Corporatism is about profits, not people (we all know this). So why would there ever be stricter laws in effort to protect the people over the special interests???

stardust1976

vant0037 wrote:

Thorns2010 wrote:

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from.

So what it comes down to is that an Austrialian thinking American search and seizure law is "lunacy" or "lazy" really means that said Australian isn't familiar with why the laws are what they are. We didn't pick and choose these laws because we don't like speeding tickets; they developed over time as a response to very real government abuse that was occurring against many Americans, but in particular, against racial and ethnic minorities.

As an aside, I never said I disagree with checkpoints. I was contesting what I believe is your ill-informed and hasty claim that Americans are lazy because we want our government to have a reason before stopping us. Critical difference.

He isn't Australian making a hasty claim on a subject he knows nothing about. He is an AMERICAN. He has lived here in Australia for a very short period of time and when he first arrived here, he had a similar stance to what you are taking here. But having been exposed to another culture, he is now able to see the differences - something you are seeming to not take any notice of.

We have racial issues here as well. I am not going to go into the things that make up our racial problems in Australia, but let me assure you they exist. So to use the excuse that checkpoints are unconstitutional because it might be abused racially seems silly to me. America does not have exclusivity on that subject, yet most Americans seem to think they do.

As for the lazy comment - look at it from this point of view - if you think of young America as a a toddler - when your laws and constitution were being formed America was in its infancy. If you make laws for that toddler, do you expect that toddler to grow up and still expect to have the same laws applied to them now they are a grown person? Or would you expect that those laws would have to evolve over time to allow for the fact that America (the toddler) is now an adult who has grown up and should have a little more common sense than a toddler (or a fledgling nation) had.

It IS lazy to not reassess and change the law based on how society is changing. To site something that was written a couple of hundred years ago and use it as a basis to form laws in today's society seems like total lunacy to the outside world. To use racial vilification as an excuse to not allow police to actually police a law is a cop out. And you can think what you like about that - but in the end, if the American people actually cared about curbing the road toll from drunk driving, the American people would stop and think about the fact that it's only bad if you have done something wrong. If you aren't over the limit you have nothing to be concerned about in terms of having a breath test. As has been stated several times - when you are pulled over here for a breath test, the police say hello, ask you if you have been drinking, ask you to blow into their machine thingy for a minute or two, and if you are under 0.05 tell you to drive carefully and have a nice day. No registration checks, no licence checks, no car searches. REGARDLESS of race or ethnic affiliation.

Yes I understand why the laws exist - you would have to be an idiot to not appreciate the race violence that has occurred in the United States - to say that cannot change and to use it as an excuse for the police to not be able to police their laws is ridiculous. As has been stated, if people genuinely cared about reducing the road toll - racial issues would not come into it. The police cannot see who is driving when you are told to pull over at night - you are waived over to another lane and it is only AFTER that that the police would see the colour of the driver. So racial issues do not come into it. I get that America doesn't have that at the moment - the issue here is that it could be changed to be similar to that IF people actually cared.

stardust1976

hedonist wrote:

Thorns2010 wrote:

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.

First, congratulations! My guy and I met on the board too, and next month will mark eleven years since he moved here from the other side of the country.

Thorns2010 wrote:

I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.

See, this part I have a bit of a problem with...not so much the end-result of not driving drunk, but shouldn't the fear of punishment/getting caught come second to just not doing it because it's stupid to begin with? Driving drunk, stoned, whatever, is still ultimately a choice someone makes.

(and for what it's worth, in my younger idiotic days, I did the same)

I hope I'm making sense here...still somewhat early

We had this exact conversation the other day (see what posts on the board do- they make you crazy and have you talking too much about them outside of the board!!)

Except that while I understand and agree it is still a decision you have to make, in the end it doesn't matter HOW or WHY you came to that decision. If the thought of losing your licence and paying a hefty fine because you are over the limit (and our limit is considerably lower than the States), is what gets you to stop and think and NOT drink drive, it is still achieving the end game. And in this case, the end result is actually what matters, not the decision making process. Anything that causes you to stop and think before you do it, is a good thing.

vant0037

stardust1976 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Thorns2010 wrote:

Ok, lets back it up a bit.

One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from.

So what it comes down to is that an Austrialian thinking American search and seizure law is "lunacy" or "lazy" really means that said Australian isn't familiar with why the laws are what they are. We didn't pick and choose these laws because we don't like speeding tickets; they developed over time as a response to very real government abuse that was occurring against many Americans, but in particular, against racial and ethnic minorities.

As an aside, I never said I disagree with checkpoints. I was contesting what I believe is your ill-informed and hasty claim that Americans are lazy because we want our government to have a reason before stopping us. Critical difference.

He isn't Australian making a hasty claim on a subject he knows nothing about. He is an AMERICAN. He has lived here in Australia for a very short period of time and when he first arrived here, he had a similar stance to what you are taking here. But having been exposed to another culture, he is now able to see the differences - something you are seeming to not take any notice of.

We have racial issues here as well. I am not going to go into the things that make up our racial problems in Australia, but let me assure you they exist. So to use the excuse that checkpoints are unconstitutional because it might be abused racially seems silly to me. America does not have exclusivity on that subject, yet most Americans seem to think they do.

As for the lazy comment - look at it from this point of view - if you think of young America as a a toddler - when your laws and constitution were being formed America was in its infancy. If you make laws for that toddler, do you expect that toddler to grow up and still expect to have the same laws applied to them now they are a grown person? Or would you expect that those laws would have to evolve over time to allow for the fact that America (the toddler) is now an adult who has grown up and should have a little more common sense than a toddler (or a fledgling nation) had.

It IS lazy to not reassess and change the law based on how society is changing. To site something that was written a couple of hundred years ago and use it as a basis to form laws in today's society seems like total lunacy to the outside world. To use racial vilification as an excuse to not allow police to actually police a law is a cop out. And you can think what you like about that - but in the end, if the American people actually cared about curbing the road toll from drunk driving, the American people would stop and think about the fact that it's only bad if you have done something wrong. If you aren't over the limit you have nothing to be concerned about in terms of having a breath test. As has been stated several times - when you are pulled over here for a breath test, the police say hello, ask you if you have been drinking, ask you to blow into their machine thingy for a minute or two, and if you are under 0.05 tell you to drive carefully and have a nice day. No registration checks, no licence checks, no car searches. REGARDLESS of race or ethnic affiliation.

Yes I understand why the laws exist - you would have to be an idiot to not appreciate the race violence that has occurred in the United States - to say that cannot change and to use it as an excuse for the police to not be able to police their laws is ridiculous. As has been stated, if people genuinely cared about reducing the road toll - racial issues would not come into it. The police cannot see who is driving when you are told to pull over at night - you are waived over to another lane and it is only AFTER that that the police would see the colour of the driver. So racial issues do not come into it. I get that America doesn't have that at the moment - the issue here is that it could be changed to be similar to that IF people actually cared.

I'm not citing something that was written 200 years ago. I clearly said I was citing law and Supreme Court jurisprudence established mostly between 1950-1980.

On another point, calm down. Nowhere did he, or I, get personal.

It's easy to take pot shots at American law by saying "well if you really wanted to stop something, you'd just do it," without giving any real thought as to why the law is the way it is. I'd go into equal protection law and the Supreme Court's history of rulings on that and how it that influences criminal law in American, but frankly, we haven't got that much time.

Also, please point to me where I've argued against checkpoints. Someone made a comment about American law that I found to be ill-informed and hasty. Nowhere have I said that I'm against checkpoints.

I think its unfair, hasty and ill-informed to say that Australia does it one way, and because America doesn't, we're lazy or crazy or uninterested in curbing drunk driving. Perhaps Australia is less interested in curbing it's history of racial discrimination? Sounds hasty and ill-informed to say it the other way, doesn't it? But that's the essence of what's been argued here - that American law isn't based on sound principle, but in fact on laziness. My point is that there's far more to our legal philosophy than that. Two minutes of research can pretty well explain that.

vant0037

stardust1976 wrote:

And in this case, the end result is actually what matters, not the decision making process. Anything that causes you to stop and think before you do it, is a good thing.

As a liberal, American and criminal prosecutor, I could not disagree more with the idea that "the ends justify the means."

vant0037

stardust1976 wrote:

Yes I understand why the laws exist - you would have to be an idiot to not appreciate the race violence that has occurred in the United States - to say that cannot change and to use it as an excuse for the police to not be able to police their laws is ridiculous. As has been stated, if people genuinely cared about reducing the road toll - racial issues would not come into it. The police cannot see who is driving when you are told to pull over at night - you are waived over to another lane and it is only AFTER that that the police would see the colour of the driver. So racial issues do not come into it. I get that America doesn't have that at the moment - the issue here is that it could be changed to be similar to that IF people actually cared.

Also, let's clarify: prohibiting arbitrary enforcement of the law to reduce racial discrimination is not the only reason the law has developed the way it has. It's an example of why it has developed the way it has.

stardust1976

vant0037 wrote:

stardust1976 wrote:

And in this case, the end result is actually what matters, not the decision making process. Anything that causes you to stop and think before you do it, is a good thing.

As a liberal, American and criminal prosecutor, I could not disagree more with the idea that "the ends justify the means."

And on most points relating to this idea, I agree that the ends do not justify the means. I am not an idiot. But in this case, the ends DO justify it. There is absolutely no harm to anyone if you choose to not get in the car after drinking, absolutely regardless of what motivated you to not do that.

As for the rest of it - I'm sorry you feel I was coming off aggressively? I wasn't, so there was no need to tell me to calm down, and I never said it was personal - I was merely making you see that the person you were assuming to be Australian is in fact an American, as he had already mentioned but you had refused to see that.

Despite the fact that you are a lawyer and obviously know much much more than I do on American law, I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, as an outside perspective, is this. American law in this case is silly and seems to set the stage for people to break the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and ask them to blow into a breathalyser. It looks from the outside perspective, that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.

So on that note, will have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I am quite sure that your arguing skills, no matter how insane the point seems to be, are going to be better than mine, because that is your job. Your job is to fight the point, whether right or wrong until you win. And I have no desire at all to argue back and forth about this any further. You win, but our laws in this case make far far more sense.

mikepegg44

stardust1976 wrote:

that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.

In your example the police would be called and would assess the situation based on the facts and make a decision, due to probable cause, to make an arrest or not. You simply wouldn't get away with it if you told the cops you were a "removalist". It isn't the same...in order to make the situations the same you would have to change your example to read that the cops stopped someone on the street at random to find out if they violated any laws even though they had been given no reason to do so.
In a country that has proven over time it cannot always be trusted to do the right thing in regards to its citizens, why would you grant them more power than they should have? The rules that dictate what a legal check point is are there to protect the citizens from the gov't, a main guiding principle of the constitution. There are ways to change the constitution if the 4th amendment seems crazy, but since it doesn't seem that crazy to anyone, the rules of checkpoints are set up to at the very least give the appearance of 4th amendment rights being adhered to...
The 4th, 5th and 6th amendments were great ideas when they were written, and are even greater ideas now considering technological advancements in law enforcement.
I would much rather take the bad that comes freedom and the protections from the state, than the "good" that could possible come from living in a police state. I firmly believe, and admittedly maybe even to the point of paranoia, there would be no middle ground here in the states. As common sense as you think a DUI check point is, when you have around 300 million people who could careless about gov't interactions until it affects them directly, common sense would run rampant in the wrong direction.
I understand the frustration with due process and constitutional protection of the guilty, but many more people would be "guilty" if the police didn't have to follow procedure.

vant0037

stardust1976 wrote:

And on most points relating to this idea, I agree that the ends do not justify the means. I am not an idiot. But in this case, the ends DO justify it. There is absolutely no harm to anyone if you choose to not get in the car after drinking, absolutely regardless of what motivated you to not do that.

As for the rest of it - I'm sorry you feel I was coming off aggressively? I wasn't, so there was no need to tell me to calm down, and I never said it was personal - I was merely making you see that the person you were assuming to be Australian is in fact an American, as he had already mentioned but you had refused to see that.

Despite the fact that you are a lawyer and obviously know much much more than I do on American law, I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, as an outside perspective, is this. American law in this case is silly and seems to set the stage for people to break the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and ask them to blow into a breathalyser. It looks from the outside perspective, that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.

So on that note, will have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I am quite sure that your arguing skills, no matter how insane the point seems to be, are going to be better than mine, because that is your job. Your job is to fight the point, whether right or wrong until you win. And I have no desire at all to argue back and forth about this any further. You win, but our laws in this case make far far more sense.

Boy, a few backhanded compliments there. Thanks. But it's not my job to "argue until I win." It's to uphold the Constitution. To prosecute in search of justice, not convictions. I took an oath. I take it seriously.

A few points:

First, I wasn't mistaken that Thorns is an American. He stated his friends' (presumably Australians) position on the issue, and I disagreed with it. Thus my reference to an Australian misunderstanding American law.

Second, let's be clear on what we're talking about. You seem to be arguing with me on whether I agree or disagree with checkpoints. I am merely defending the American legal requirement that police possess a legal reason prior to stopping a driver. Please point out where I argued for or against checkpoints.

Third, again, calling my point insane or our laws lunacy does not make your point more valid or correct. It makes you seem disrespectful, hasty, and unwilling to have a reasoned discussion based on anything other than your opinion. That's why I continue to implore you to research why the law here is what it is before you call it crazy or hasty. I'd gladly discuss it with you if your argument is based on the most cursory of research, and not only your opinion.

Fourth, you are right. You're completely entitled to an opinion. But once you offer that opinion up to the world, especially in a forum of ideas, prepare to be challenged on it.

Fifth, your statement of what American law on drunk driving is, well, a misstatement (conveniently too, as it fits your opinion). Most drunk driving laws are NOT "you can drive drunk unless you get caught." But our laws also prohibit an officer from stopping a vehicle without a reason. We take seriously the idea that our police officers are charged with enforcing the law equally, and that they not have the ability to pick and choose whom they enforce it against. A random stop, without more, puts an enormous amount of discretion, power and authority in an officer's hands, which in America, can be a dangerous thing. In Johannesburg, Turkey, the Phillipines or Belfast, it's a dangerous thing.

Now, protection against arbitrary enforcement of the law doesn't ensure that DWI drivers get away scot-free, so long as they can drive undetected. Whether or not a DWI driver goes detected by cops has nothing to with the legal prohibition against random stops. Imagine a DWI driver going through a town with only one officer on duty. If that officer is out on a call, that DWI driver gets away. Problem? Sure. Would random stops fix it? Nope. The fact that some criminals get away and making sure cops don't abuse their power are two separate things. The only thing the above legal protection does is ensure that if the officer is making the stop for any reason but a valid, legal and inarbitrary one, the person will have a remedy in court. That's equal protection before the law. We take it seriously here.

I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.

vant0037

In 2009, approximately 9 out of every 1,000 Australian drivers given a random breath test were over the legal limit. If, out of those 1,000 drivers, another 9 or 50 or 100 drivers were stopped only because they were African or Japanese or Sudanese (see the Victoria profiling scandal on this one), would the ends still justify the means?