Dui Checkpoints

[JimmyAGR 54]

Where will your rights be when you are killed by a drunk. Let's fight for reasonable infringements

 

of the 4th.

 

Scig

 

So you agree with reasonable infringements? Who decides what is reasonable. I would give my life for this country and the constitution that I swore to uphold, as supposedly did the politicians who represent us. Maybe we should have a king so he can tell us what reasonable is? Oh wait we had that once....

[Jon 264]

Seems easy to me. Sit in the parking lot across the street from the bar and watch who stumbles to their car. Follow a short distance and pull over if they are driving like ****.

 

No bars in town....

[this_is_nascar 162]

Just so we can all level-set, exactly which right(s) are being violated by being pulled over at at checkpoint of any kind, whether it be for DUI, seat belts, fugitives, missing persons, etc? Driving is not a right, so the act of driving is taken off the table. So, which right(s) are being challenged?

[Anselmo 87]

Just so we can all level-set, exactly which right(s) are being violated by being pulled over at at checkpoint of any kind, whether it be for DUI, seat belts, fugitives, missing persons, etc? Driving is not a right, so the act of driving is taken off the table. So, which right(s) are being challenged?

 

You are right, the act of driving is immaterial. It's the act of the police stopping me without reasonable cause that violates the 4th amendment. I've been arguing that being stopped by the police absent reasonable cause is a 4th amendment violation throughout this thread. The courts have basically said yes, it violates the 4th amendment but it's for a good cause so it's ok.

[this_is_nascar 162]

FOURTH AMENDMENT [u.S. Constitution]

 

'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.'

 

 

To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

 

In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest. See id.

 

Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

 

Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' a**'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy'); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 ('66) (compulsory blood test 'plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment').' '[f]or the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619; accord Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, No. 95-590, 1995 WL 373274, at *3 (June 26,'95) ('the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is `reasonableness''). A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83).

 

Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).

 

The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 ('85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 ('69).

 

Nevertheless, everyday 'booking' procedures routinely require even the merely accused to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether investigation of the crime involves fingerprint evidence. See Smith v. U.S., 324 F.2d 879, 882 (D.C. Cir.'63) (Burger, J.) ('it is elementary that a person in lawful custody may be required to submit to . . . fingerprinting . . . as part of the routine identification processes'); Napolitano v. U.S., 340 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir.'65) ('Taking fingerprints [prior to bail] is universally standard procedure, and no violation of constitutional rights.'). Thus, in the fingerprinting context, there exists a constitutionally significant distinction between the gathering of fingerprints from free persons to determine their guilt of an unsolved criminal offense and the gathering of fingerprints for identification purposes from persons within the lawful custody of the state.

 

Although the drawing of blood from free persons generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a person has committed a criminal offense and that his blood will reveal evidence relevant to that offense, see Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-71; U.S. v. Chapel, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. at 5753-54 (9th Cir.'95) (en banc), the absence of such a warrant does not a fortiori establish a violation of the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.

 

The Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that the drawing of blood constitutes only a minimally intrusive search. Skinner, 489 U.S. at 625 (blood tests do not 'infringe significant privacy interests'); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 62 ('85) (not 'an unduly extensive imposition'); Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 771 ('commonplace'); Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 36 ('57) ('routine' and 'would not be considered offensive by even the most delicate').

 

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2 (holding that a warrant was not required in part because 'in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program, there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate'). The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed and expanded the principle first enunciated in Skinner, stating that, in some contexts, 'testing based on `suspicion' of [wrongful activity] would not be better, but worse' than suspicionless testing. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, at *8. In Acton, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a school district's practice of conducting random, suspicionless urine testing of school athletes for drug use. The Court rejected the proposition that the school district could conduct such testing only if school officials had suspicion that a specific athlete was using drugs, holding that this alternative 'entails substantial difficulties -- if it is indeed practicable at all.' Id. Accusatory drug testing would 'transform[] the process into a badge of shame' and would increase the risk that school officials would impose testing arbitrarily upon disfavored, but not drug-using, students. Id.

 

Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' Chambers v. Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70). Because '[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained.' Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70.

 

Only when law enforcement faces an exigent circumstance, such as a need to preserve evanescent blood alcohol evidence, and has probable cause to link the sought-after information to a crime under investigation is it constitutional to conduct nonconsensual blood testing without a warrant. Id. at 770-71. Therefore, forced extraction of blood not only 'implicates the Fourth Amendment,' as the majority notes, but also falls squarely within the area of privacy interests for which the traditional probable cause requirement determines reasonableness in the law enforcement context. Forced blood extraction intrudes on the private personal sphere and infringes upon an individual's 'most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.' Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 60 ('85).

 

Searches Involving Intrusions Beyond The Body's Surface.

 

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 69 ('66). The Schmerber Court posed two questions: (1) whether the police were justified in imposing a nonconsensual blood test and (2) whether the procedures themselves were reasonable. Id. at 768. In answering the first question, the Court recognized that it was 'writ[ing] on a clean slate' regarding the treatment of searches that involve intrusions into the human body. Id. at 767-8. It concluded that such searches require probable cause. Id. at 770-1.

 

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 ('85), recognized that Schmerber's threshold standard was a requirement of probable cause 'where intrusions into the human body are concerned,' which implicate 'deep-rooted expectations of privacy.' Id. at 761, 760. The Winston Court then acknowledged `other factors'' beyond these standards' that must be considered in determining whether a particular intrusion is reasonable: whether 'the procedure threatens the safety or health of the individual' and 'the extent of the intrusion upon the individual's dignitary interests.' Id. at 761 (emphasis added). In regard to the additional 'dignitary' factor (beyond the threshold inquiry of invasion of bodily integrity), the Winston Court noted Schmerber's recognition that blood extraction is not 'an unduly extensive imposition.' Id. at 762. The Court contrasted this lesser bodily invasion, which the Schmerber Court had upheld upon demonstration of probable cause, with the more drastic measure of dangerous surgery to recoup criminal evidence, which the Winston Court concluded would violate the individual's Fourth Amendment rights even when supported by probable cause. Thus again, the context of the quotation demonstrates that the Court places blood extraction squarely within the probable cause requirement because it is an invasion of bodily integrity, while at the same time acknowledging that it is a less extensive imposition on dignitary interests than surgical removal of a bullet.

 

Investigatory Stops Of Motorists At Sobriety Checkpoints.

 

The unique situation in which the Supreme Court has approved suspicionless searches in the traditional law enforcement context. See Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 ('90). The Sitz Court relied on well-settled law that motorists have a lessened expectation of privacy regarding stops and visual searches of automobiles on the nation's roadways. Id. at 450 (explaining the importance of the context of 'police stops of motorists on public highways'). At these sobriety checkpoints, which motorists may choose to avoid, only the initial brief stop and preliminary questioning may take place without individualized suspicion: 'more extensive field sobriety testing' requires justification. Id. at 450-2.

 

Like the highway sobriety checkpoints, the 'special needs beyond normal law enforcement' rationale supports searches on lesser grounds than probable cause only in a very few, carefully tailored regulatory contexts that do not involve apprehension of criminal perpetrators. See, e.g., National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 65-66 ('89) (applying the special needs exception to suspicionless quasi-consensual drug testing of Customs Service employees seeking transfer to positions having a direct involvement in drug interdiction).

 

The special needs exception covers testing which 'is not designed to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement [because] . . . results may not be used in criminal prosecution.' Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 666 (emphases added). Even so, a search in the special needs context almost always requires individualized suspicion. See, e.g., Portillo v. U.S. Dist. Court, 15 F.3d 819, 823 (9th Cir.'94) (requiring individualized suspicion for urinalysis testing under the probationer special needs exception). The rare special needs cases which do not require individualized suspicion involve persons who voluntarily participate in a highly regulated context. See, e.g., Von Raab, at 671, 677 (noting that 'certain forms of employment may diminish privacy expectations' for the 'employees who seek to be promoted' to certain positions); Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, *6-*7 (U.S. June 26, '95) (noting that schools are highly regulated and 'like adults who choose to participate in a `closely regulated industry,' students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy').

 

Nonetheless, routine searches that intrude into prisoners' bodies without probable cause may be upheld only when the search is undertaken pursuant to a valid prison regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 87-91 ('87); see, e.g., Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 387 (9th Cir.'90) (remanding for evidence of a specific penological objective because 'general protestations of concern for the welfare of the citizens of Nevada and the prison community are simply insufficient to render the involuntary seizure of blood specimens, even from prison inmates, constitutionally reasonable').

 

Individuals have a categorically different and lesser expectation of privacy in their fingerprints, visual images, or voice prints

 

- even when their production is compelled -- because they are personal attributes that are routinely exposed to the public at large in daily life. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 51 ('67) (finding a lesser expectation of privacy in personal effects that 'a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office').

 

The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what 'a person knowingly exposes to the public'. Like a man's facial characteristics, or handwriting, his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear. No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world.

 

The required disclosure of a person's voice is thus immeasurably further removed from the Fourth Amendment protection than was the intrusion into the body effected by the blood extraction in Schmerber . . . . Rather, this is like the fingerprinting in Davis, . . . [which] 'involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search.' U.S. v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 14-15 ('73) (quoting Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 51 ('67), and Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 27 ('69)) (emphases added).

 

'Fingerprinting' - like the compelled production of other aspects of an individual's identification that are routinely exposed to and superficially observable by the public at large, such as voice prints, handwriting exemplars, and photographs - simply belongs to a different category of search that 'represents a much less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types of searches and detentions.' Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 14 ('85).*fn10 The majority's analysis obliterates this critical constitutional distinction between coerced fingerprinting and blood extraction for DNA genetic pattern analysis.

 

Blanket Searches.

 

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

 

In Zurcher, the Supreme Court held that a search of the offices of a university newspaper, which was not involved in any criminal activity, for photographs of demonstrators who had assaulted police officers did not offend the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court concluded: '[T]he Amendment has not been a barrier to warrants to search property on which there is probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located, whether or not the owner or possessor of the premises to be searched is himself reasonably suspected of complicity in the crime being investigated.' Zurcher v. Stanford Daily ('78) 436 U.S. 547, 549-50.

 

Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).

 

A permanent resident alien is entitled to constitutional protection. See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-4 ('82) ('[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.'). In particular, to Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizures. See Benitez-Mendez v. INS, 760 F.2d 907, 09-10 (9th Cir.'85) (finding that INS seizure of alien violated Fourth Amendment); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 213 n.1, 215-21 ('84) (considering whether questioning of resident aliens by INS agents amounted to seizure for purposes of Fourth Amendment); Martinez v. Nygaard, 831 F.2d 822, 824, 826-28 (9th Cir.'87) (analyzing whether seizures of three resident aliens complied with Fourth Amendment).

 

 

Here's the source.

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

 

 

Is a right being taken away based on what's listed above? Possibly, but in the case of a checkpoint, I have no issue with that.

[PeteF 1,044]

Seems easy to me. Sit in the parking lot across the street from the bar and watch who stumbles to their car. Follow a short distance and pull over if they are driving like ****.

 

I agree 100%. Punish the behavior not some arbitrary number. 17 and drive like crap, 90 have no idea where you are, drunk and clueless, should get busted. Had 2-3 drinks driving fine leave alone.

[Jon 264]

I agree 100%. Punish the behavior not some arbitrary number. 17 and drive like crap, 90 have no idea where you are, drunk and clueless, should get busted. Had 2-3 drinks driving fine leave alone.

 

This is what's already done! If you are driving poorly, get pulled over and smell like alcohol, you will have to perform field sobriety checks. Pass the checks, and go on your merry way.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Is a right being taken away based on what's listed above? Possibly, but in the case of a checkpoint, I have no issue with that.

 

Yes, you fail to realize that there is still no reasonable/probable cause for the stop in the first place. The only thing the court decision up held is that "probable cause" holds more discretion during a motor vehicle stop and is all that is needed to search only the passenger compartment. In respect to having your home searched, where as probable cause holds little to no meaning and you don't have to let anyone in your house with out a search warrant. The point many people in here are making, is that regardless of what the courts uphold, it is still a violation of the 4a. Giving the cops the right to violate our rights..... we know about this all to much...

 

At these sobriety checkpoints, which motorists may choose to avoid, only the initial brief stop and preliminary questioning may take place without individualized suspicion

This is called being detained with no rhyme or reason, you may not pass through the stop with out first being interrogated... if it wasn't a violation of the 4a they wouldn't have had a case over it and had to make an "exemption". Why would it only translate to motor vehicle stops? were not talking about your right to drive a car, were talking about your rights in general. Oh god, and please tell me exactly my choice is to avoid such checkpoints? They wrote that in the most vagueness of terms as if people have a choice to go around the checkpoint...

 

My guess... people were getting away with getting out of DUI's by claiming their 4th amendment rights... Instead of getting rid of them, the courts did the exact opposite and decided to exempt.

 

 

And why the hell do cops who make salary get paid overtime for this? It's not like teachers get paid overtime for back to school night... or any other events they're required to attended after hours.

[this_is_nascar 162]

 

And why the hell do cops who make salary get paid overtime for this? It's not like teachers get paid overtime for back to school night... or any other events there required to attended after hours.

 

 

Like I said, I have no problem with the checkpoints. I think they're worth the little bit of inconvenience and if they've been deemed an exception, then so be it. This, however, I have a huge issue with. I never knew this.

[PeteF 1,044]

This is what's already done! If you are driving poorly, get pulled over and smell like alcohol, you will have to perform field sobriety checks. Pass the checks, and go on your merry way.

 

No its not.

 

DUI stop

 

Had anything to drink tonight?

Yes 2 or three

Step out of the car please sir.

Walk the line. No problem

Touch the nose. Good to go

Count backwards. Piece of cake

Blow in breathalyzer. Ooopppps you're over the magic number.

Sir I'm placing you under arrest for drunken driving.

[Prax 8]

My friend lost his license for 6 months after blowing a .08.

[Soju 153]

I don't think BAC should be used at all. If you fail a field sobriety test you are impaired and shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle. If you pass the test you aren't impaired by definition. People have different tolerances. I don't drink like I did in my early 20's and now I'm impaired after 3 beers in an hour. With that said....

 

 

 

Terrible idea, and here is why.

 

While BAC might not be the best indication of being drunk at all times, it is has merit, and it is objective. Furthermore, it is defined. So if accurate, even if you are not drunk, you are in violation of the law. Now let me just caveat that with saying I may not even agree, but it is something that is clearly defined, and allows the individual the ability to follow.

 

If you introduce the discretion of a human as the sole factor in determining if a crime has been committed, you are now relaying on no objective evidence. It is all entirely subjective based on the individual giving the test. Additionally, many field sobriety tests are designed to be failed. There have been studies in which officers were tasked with determining who was/wasn't drunk based on their sobriety test. The rate they got correct, 14%. They thought that 18/21 had been drinking. In fact, all 21 were completely sober.

 

Ok, I'll be Black, you be Kettle.

 

Deal!

 

 

Like I said, I have no problem with the checkpoints. I think they're worth the little bit of inconvenience and if they've been deemed an exception, then so be it. This, however, I have a huge issue with. I never knew this.

 

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

 

So based on your agreement or disagreement it should supersede the rights of others?

How disappointing to hear.

[tommy3rd 132]

.08 is a "per se" violation, written in the law books. doesn't matter how well you perform the SFST (standard field sobriety test), you blow an .08 you're getting charged. even if you blow below the limit, there could still be a DUI no reading charge if you look impaired and a DRE (drug recognition expert) evaluates you.

[this_is_nascar 162]

No its not.

 

DUI stop

 

Had anything to drink tonight?

Yes 2 or three

Step out of the car please sir.

Walk the line. No problem

Touch the nose. Good to go

Count backwards. Piece of cake

Blow in breathalyzer. Ooopppps you're over the magic number.

Sir I'm placing you under arrest for drunken driving.

 

 

As he/she should if you're over the legal limit. Are you sure your issue is with the checkpoints or is it with the definition of what's over the limit as it relates to the blood alcohol content?

[Babaganoosh 192]

Might I add that a few pages back a guy said he got arrested for a .08 that turned into a .02 a little later. If it was 1986 wasn't the limit back then .10?

 

I'm not saying his story is BS, I am just trying to picture the scenario

[KpdPipes 388]

No its not.

 

DUI stop

 

Had anything to drink tonight?

Yes 2 or three

Step out of the car please sir.

Walk the line. No problem

Touch the nose. Good to go

Count backwards. Piece of cake

Blow in breathalyzer. Ooopppps you're over the magic number.

Sir I'm placing you under arrest for drunken driving.

Noe in NJ... in NJ You are arrested BEFORE YOU EVER SEE A BREATH TEST..PERIOD

[CageFighter 236]

can I refused the field sobriety tests? what if I dont answer the "have u been drinking tonight"? -just trying to avoid the fishing expedition.

 

Since I worked in a bar for over 10yrs, I see the way drunks act 1st hand. I never put myself in a situation of driving drunk. Im not afraid to call wife, friends or even my parents to come get me. If someone drives drunk and hits a tree, I dont care. The problem I have is the innocent victim that gets hurt, etc as a result of the drunks stupidity!

[tommy3rd 132]

you can be charged (surprised?) with a refusal. it will be a no reading DUI.

[djg0770 481]

can I refused the field sobriety tests? what if I dont answer the "have u been drinking tonight"? -just trying to avoid the fishing expedition.

 

I wondered along these lines the other day, not that I was driving drunk, but when the officer asks you to do something, do you not have the right to first consult with counsel? Can I, in reply to "will you take a breathalyzer?" respond, I want to consult with counsel first? or will that result in a charge for failure to take a BA test?

[RedBowTies88 41]

In the past 4 years I've been hit by 3 drunks, I absolutly can't stand the scumbag that gets wasted and decides to go on a joyride.

 

However i hightly disagree with checkpoints. Complete viloation of my rights as far as im concerned. Not to mention these so called "dui checkpoints" Love to pop people to tint, exhaust, worn tires, or anything else they damn well please instead of just concentrating on the drunks.

 

I have a good friend who got a ticket for a non-operation parking brake at one of these checkpoints. His truck is bagged and lays frame, absolutly no needed for a p-brake...they didn't care.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Noe in NJ... in NJ You are arrested BEFORE YOU EVER SEE A BREATH TEST..PERIOD

 

Ok, I don't get it. Why is a person arrested before they do a breath test? Why not after and only if they fail? What am I missing? Are they arrested for something like Suspicion of Drunken Driving? What happens if you arrest them before the test, they then take the test and blow a .02? Do you let them go?

[coldsolderjoint 84]

In the past 4 years I've been hit by 3 drunks, I absolutly can't stand the scumbag that gets wasted and decides to go on a joyride.

 

However i hightly disagree with checkpoints. Complete viloation of my rights as far as im concerned. Not to mention these so called "dui checkpoints" Love to pop people to tint, exhaust, worn tires, or anything else they damn well please instead of just concentrating on the drunks.

 

I have a good friend who got a ticket for a non-operation parking brake at one of these checkpoints. His truck is bagged and lays frame, absolutly no needed for a p-brake...they didn't care.

 

They usually happen late at night in the dark and spend no more than 30 seconds on each car? how did they know he had no parking break? Did he get stopped at a MVC inspection checkpoint? And even then, nowadays, aren't they just looking for emissions?

 

AFAIK, Tint is a secondary Violation, you have to be stopped for a first one first.

 

I got a tint ticket from Keyport a few years ago, and it was only after they pulled me over for "no front plate" because I was a ricer and had it on the dashboard.

[RedBowTies88 41]

They saw a bagged truck and a young kid driving and decided to tag him with whatever they could. I went though the same checkpoint which was supposed to be a dui checkpoint and got hasseled for tint and exhaust. only my RTA card saved me from the tickets. this was about 3 years ago.

 

everyplace is different im sure, but here if they see you in anything besides a stock quiet vehicle you're getting sent to the other line. 90% of these check points i encounter and all the ones i've ever been hassles at where in the somers point/northfield area

 

also, I'm not sure on this but i have been pulled over for tint as the sole reason at leasta half dozen times. several LEO friends of mine have told me that they use tint as en excuse to stop people to check for drugs or warrants. Whether or not that is legal or not i'm not sure.

[KpdPipes 388]

Ok, I don't get it. Why is a person arrested before they do a breath test? Why not after and only if they fail? What am I missing? Are they arrested for something like Suspicion of Drunken Driving? What happens if you arrest them before the test, they then take the test and blow a .02? Do you let them go?

 

You are arrested for Driving Impaired based on my Observations. your actual BAC is immaterial to your impairment. I;ve seen people who, unless you did SFST's looked pretty straight at a High .2+ BAC, and others who were utterly DEMOLISHED at that .02 that you were talking about. The .08 limit is the court's reference level that says the Majority of people who's BAC is at that level are too impaired to safely operate a vehicle. Yes there are people who can drive perfectly at a .08, and there are some who can't drive after ONE drink. i don't NEED the Alcotest (or brethalyzer before that) results to get a conviction. I need to be able to articulate my Probable Cause for making the arrest based on my observations, coupled with my Education, Training, and Experience. or let's take Narcotics..It takes WEEKS to get back the lab results from Blood or Urine..yet they are still charged before those results are in hand.

[KpdPipes 388]

They saw a bagged truck and a young kid driving and decided to tag him with whatever they could. I went though the same checkpoint which was supposed to be a dui checkpoint and got hasseled for tint and exhaust. only my RTA card saved me from the tickets. this was about 3 years ago.

 

everyplace is different im sure, but here if they see you in anything besides a stock quiet vehicle you're getting sent to the other line. 90% of these check points i encounter and all the ones i've ever been hassles at where in the somers point/northfield area

 

also, I'm not sure on this but i have been pulled over for tint as the sole reason at leasta half dozen times. several LEO friends of mine have told me that they use tint as en excuse to stop people to check for drugs or warrants. Whether or not that is legal or not i'm not sure.

tint is a gray area...while there is a statute that limits it..it also doesn't actually set the Criteria for what constitutes a violation. MOST states have a meter that they use to determine If the tint is too dark, NJ, it all depends on what the local Municipal judge considers good.

[KpdPipes 388]

They usually happen late at night in the dark and spend no more than 30 seconds on each car? how did they know he had no parking break? Did he get stopped at a MVC inspection checkpoint? And even then, nowadays, aren't they just looking for emissions?

 

AFAIK, Tint is a secondary Violation, you have to be stopped for a first one first.

 

I got a tint ticket from Keyport a few years ago, and it was only after they pulled me over for "no front plate" because I was a ricer and had it on the dashboard.

 

Remember also that Checkpoints have very strict rules on how they are to be conducted, which includes anly stopping cars at certain intervals to make it "Random" usually it's every 5th car or so, so in driving up on the checkpoint, you have an 80% chance of just being waved through. i PERSONALLY don't like the checkpoints, and I wont work them..not that we do them all that much, in my 24 years I THINK we've done a total of maybe 8, 5 of which were in the last couple of years. the majority of the Arrests that were generated from the checkpoints were from people doing REALLY stupid crap..like panicking and pulling an illegal u-turn to avoid it, or trying to blow through it..or, my favorite, Stopping 30 feet from the checkpoint and swapping drivers.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

tint is a gray area...while there is a statute that limits it..it also doesn't actually set the Criteria for what constitutes a violation. MOST states have a meter that they use to determine If the tint is too dark, NJ, it all depends on what the local Municipal judge considers good.

 

Grey area? you can have any windows tinted but the front windows to any percentage you want.... no grey area i know of.. and no mirror tint

[RedBowTies88 41]

Grey area? you can have any windows tinted but the front windows to any percentage you want.... no grey area i know of.. and no mirror tint

 

Ditto.

[joecs1 11]

No its not.

 

DUI stop

 

Had anything to drink tonight?

Yes 2 or three

Step out of the car please sir.

Walk the line. No problem

Touch the nose. Good to go

Count backwards. Piece of cake

Blow in breathalyzer. Ooopppps you're over the magic number.

Sir I'm placing you under arrest for drunken driving.

 

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!

[CageFighter 236]

You are arrested for Driving Impaired based on my Observations. your actual BAC is immaterial to your impairment.

 

Can I refuse the sobriety tests in the field? I know I need to blow in the Alcotest (or breathalyzer) at the station in which I doubt Id refuse.

But again, do I need to answer his questions about drinks & take the field tests? I'd prefer to plead the 5th & keep my mouth shut & stay in the car.