Several arrested at checkpoint

"Several citations and warnings also were issued for driving without a license, driving while suspended and equipment violations".

WOW - So you don't get arrested for driving while suspended? No wonder so many people don't worry about losing their license,having insurance, valid tags,etc...
As my friend "Juan" says, "jus drive man,jus drive" !

Do they make these checkpoints public ahead of time? I overheard some guy telling another guy about it a few days ago.

POd wrote:

Do they make these checkpoints public ahead of time? I overheard some guy telling another guy about it a few days ago.

Who cares. Checkpoints are unconstitutional. The judges who have ruled favor of checkpoints are enemies of the constitution.

This is not a war zone. The people of the United States of America continue to lose their freedoms and liberty for the sake of "our children".

Unconstitutional.

Anyone who supports checkpoints without a declaration of martial law is an enemy of the constitution and an opponent of freedom and liberty.

Bil98z24 wrote:

Unconstitutional.
Anyone who supports checkpoints without a declaration of martial law is an enemy of the constitution and an opponent of freedom and liberty.

So how drunk were you when you were caught at one of these checkpoints? If you aren't driving under the influence or aren't a criminal you shouldn't have a problem with this. They are trying to save innocent people.

I personally think anyone caught driving under the influence should be charged with a more severe charge such as attempted murder since you are breaking a law and putting other people in bodily danger. Maybe this would crack down on the problem and stop it before these drunks actually do kill someone.

If there are so worried about drinking and driving, make it a law that you cant drink.They did smoking in some places. But they will never do that because it is a very big money maker to catch a person for dui.

just my opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
So how drunk were you when you were caught at one of these checkpoints? If you aren't driving under the influence or aren't a criminal you shouldn't have a problem with this. They are trying to save innocent people.
I personally think anyone caught driving under the influence should be charged with a more severe charge such as attempted murder since you are breaking a law and putting other people in bodily danger. Maybe this would crack down on the problem and stop it before these drunks actually do kill someone.

So you really think drinking and driving is a problem? Is .08 BAC really going to impair someone that drinks every day? People who drink every day is used to drinking and driving. It's natural for them. The ages listed above are probably people that are used to drinking and driving and are probably not dangerous.

Want a bunch of drunks. I can't believe you people are arguing in favor of DUI. Way to go pillars of society.

Checkpoints are great for catching all you criminals.

If they are unconstitutional shoe me the case law.
Show me where a checkpoint DUI arrest was thrown out be cause of that.

Cops should be allowed to sit in the tavern parking lots and arrest your drunk a$$ when you start your car.

Justin Baker wrote:

<quoted text>So you really think drinking and driving is a problem? Is .08 BAC really going to impair someone that drinks every day? People who drink every day is used to drinking and driving. It's natural for them. The ages listed above are probably people that are used to drinking and driving and are probably not dangerous.

I acknowledge your point and can't really comment/argue because I am not knowledgeable enough to know just how many drinks it takes to get a .08 BAC. I'm sure that there are some people who can function at that level easily. Everybody handles alcohol differently. Unfortunately for them, you have to draw the line somewhere to protect innocent people from the idiots who are too drunk to walk and then get into a car to drive. So if we do away with enforcing BAC as a way to determine drunk driving, how do you suggest we decide who is too drunk to drive? It would almost be at the police's discretion which would be really unfair.

While I do agree that DUI laws need to be aggressively enforced, there are some interesting opinions on the constituitionality of the checkpoints...

While I do not mind being stopped or slowed at a checkpoint (because I am not drunk), we have to look at the bigger picture. Why are the police allowed to obstruct our free movement? Very interesting constitutional points.

Yes, DUI is a big "money maker" but look how many people are killed in DUI crashes every year. PA roads are unsafe enough without a drunk on the road. I think the police could do just as well saturating a certain area and conducting lawful traffic stops which would catch just as many people, because any of you that have been in a bar know, word gets around as to where the checkpoint is, and they (drunks) just go a different route.

Good thing for check points, keep the drunks and losers off the road. We need more check points.

just my opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
I acknowledge your point and can't really comment/argue because I am not knowledgeable enough to know just how many drinks it takes to get a .08 BAC. I'm sure that there are some people who can function at that level easily. Everybody handles alcohol differently. Unfortunately for them, you have to draw the line somewhere to protect innocent people from the idiots who are too drunk to walk and then get into a car to drive. So if we do away with enforcing BAC as a way to determine drunk driving, how do you suggest we decide who is too drunk to drive? It would almost be at the police's discretion which would be really unfair.

I agree with you and don't really care about the checkpoints. I quit drinking in 1988 but I can tell you...before that, it was normal to pick up a six pack for the road. It was also normal for me to drink every day because of the low life life I used to live. Those days are gone and I'm better now. Less brain cells but better. I agree with you.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

POd wrote:

Do they make these checkpoints public ahead of time? I overheard some guy telling another guy about it a few days ago.

Yes, they give you a vague idea, but if you know a cop or any number of other people, you can find out the details pretty easily.

They do not restrict your free passage. The law (in Maryland, at least, not sure about PA to be honest) requires that motorists be alerted far enough before the checkpoint that they have the opportunity to turn around. I've done it and wasn't followed or chased or anything. I just pulled on a sidestreet, did a U turn and went another route. I'd had two beers earlier, felt fine, but didn't want to risk it.

August West wrote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

There are dozens of laws that could fall into that category. They are protecting the public for the likes of you and the drunk from Hunt Valley.

If this was to protect the public, they should be conducted at 5pm-10pm when sober people are on the road. They are usually conducted in the very late evening or very early morning hours when the only people on the road are drunks.

Ah, nevermind... you don't get it.

Right wrote:

<quoted text>
There are dozens of laws that could fall into that category. They are protecting the public for the likes of you and the drunk from Hunt Valley.

oh know..my rights are being violated....Good Job Troopers, too bad you can't catch all the scum bags out there...I can hear them now, "this isn't fair, no one told me you had a checkpoint" or "I'm calling my attorney"