ERICBROBOLT
DUI
check points . My belief has changed. I would not have problem with
D.U.I. checkpoints if they were still as they were in the 1990's; where
eradicating the drunk driver from the roads seemed more important than
being briefly stopped in a sobriety checkpoint.
The problem is what seemed like a benign intrusion on our 4th amendment rights that stopping every car in sobriety checkpoints might make it easier to prevent drunken driving is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.
Chief Justice Rehnquist though pro checkpoint had to acknowledged sobriety checkpoints constituted a "Seizure" as determined by the Fourth Amendment.
On the surface D.U.I. checkpoints may seem just an annoyance. The police set up a roadblock for the stated purpose of seeing if the driver shows signs of inebriation. But the officer also asks to see a driver license and gets to look in the car.
In other wards your car is being searched for no legal grounds whatsoever because there are no " Articulable Facts " as required by the Fourth Amendment; just on the off chance you might have something illegal in your car.
In California police officers have been known to call in the license numbers of a checkpoint detainee to do a warrant and probation sweep on them.
Sobriety checkpoints are funded especially in California by the Office of Traffic Safety and or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Both Government entities Core Values are dedicated to the study, education, and implementation of making our roadways safer. Safety by education or enforcement of "safety" rules and regulations to change bad unsafe behavior.
The government grants that fund sobriety checkpoints are obtained for " safety" reasons. These grants are not for illegal searches, seizures, and unwarranted criminal investigations of citizens who are being stopped, profiled, and detained; their God given right and freedom of unhindered free passage being taken away for no probable cause.
Even though there is no statistical report that D.U.I. checkpoints have any significant impact on drunk driving , they are unlikely to go away because they have become an important revenue stream for municipalities. While the justifications for the checkpoints is to locate drunk drivers , police are more likely to find an unlicensed driver , which allows them to impound the car.
The Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley found that vehicle impounds at California D.U.I. checkpoints generates an estimated 40 million dollars in towing fees and police fines, which is split between the cities and towing companies.
In 2005 , an appellate court ruled that police cannot impound cars solely because the driver is unlicensed. And yet, they do. The Berkeley investigative study also found that in one year 24,000 cars and trucks were impounded at California checkpoints. In comparison they made 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. Ironically , police do not typically seize the car of a suspected drunk driver, who is allowed to pick up his car the next day.
I use to argue that DUI checkpoints are valuable because any drunk driver taken off the road is a potential life saved and everyone wants to be a part of that. If that all these checkpoints did, that argument would have moral merit.
In reality , checkpoints have become a slippery civil rights slope at the expense of guaranteed Constitutional protections
The problem is what seemed like a benign intrusion on our 4th amendment rights that stopping every car in sobriety checkpoints might make it easier to prevent drunken driving is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.
Chief Justice Rehnquist though pro checkpoint had to acknowledged sobriety checkpoints constituted a "Seizure" as determined by the Fourth Amendment.
On the surface D.U.I. checkpoints may seem just an annoyance. The police set up a roadblock for the stated purpose of seeing if the driver shows signs of inebriation. But the officer also asks to see a driver license and gets to look in the car.
In other wards your car is being searched for no legal grounds whatsoever because there are no " Articulable Facts " as required by the Fourth Amendment; just on the off chance you might have something illegal in your car.
In California police officers have been known to call in the license numbers of a checkpoint detainee to do a warrant and probation sweep on them.
Sobriety checkpoints are funded especially in California by the Office of Traffic Safety and or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Both Government entities Core Values are dedicated to the study, education, and implementation of making our roadways safer. Safety by education or enforcement of "safety" rules and regulations to change bad unsafe behavior.
The government grants that fund sobriety checkpoints are obtained for " safety" reasons. These grants are not for illegal searches, seizures, and unwarranted criminal investigations of citizens who are being stopped, profiled, and detained; their God given right and freedom of unhindered free passage being taken away for no probable cause.
Even though there is no statistical report that D.U.I. checkpoints have any significant impact on drunk driving , they are unlikely to go away because they have become an important revenue stream for municipalities. While the justifications for the checkpoints is to locate drunk drivers , police are more likely to find an unlicensed driver , which allows them to impound the car.
The Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley found that vehicle impounds at California D.U.I. checkpoints generates an estimated 40 million dollars in towing fees and police fines, which is split between the cities and towing companies.
In 2005 , an appellate court ruled that police cannot impound cars solely because the driver is unlicensed. And yet, they do. The Berkeley investigative study also found that in one year 24,000 cars and trucks were impounded at California checkpoints. In comparison they made 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. Ironically , police do not typically seize the car of a suspected drunk driver, who is allowed to pick up his car the next day.
I use to argue that DUI checkpoints are valuable because any drunk driver taken off the road is a potential life saved and everyone wants to be a part of that. If that all these checkpoints did, that argument would have moral merit.
In reality , checkpoints have become a slippery civil rights slope at the expense of guaranteed Constitutional protections