Police plan DUI checkpoints in county

Despite several efforts to reduce the number of people in the county who drink and drive, police say some people still haven't gotten the message.

[Colts fanatic]

Glad to hear it. Now if they would start passing laws against cell phones while driving, we'd all be better off.

[YouHelpFixIt]

900 cars and 10 drivers arrested. That's 1.1%, does anyone consider this probable cause?

[YouHelpFixIt]

"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."

[You help fix what]

The probable cause for a DUI checkpoint is the fact that there is no expectation of privacy on the roadway. Driving on the roadway is a privilege not a right. DUI kills millions of people every year so the effectiveness of a DUI checkpoint is very high. The quote from the Constitution is nice but it doesn't apply to this situation. Alot of DUI checkpoints are open to volunteers and citizens to give them a first hand look at the operation. I have an idea....instead of posting erroneous facts and quotes why don't you go to a DUI checkpoint and actually observe what takes place and then you would have some facts to post on this forum.

[YouHelpFixIt]

You help fix what wrote:

The probable cause for a DUI checkpoint is the fact that there is no expectation of privacy on the roadway. Driving on the roadway is a privilege not a right. DUI kills millions of people every year so the effectiveness of a DUI checkpoint is very high. The quote from the Constitution is nice but it doesn't apply to this situation. Alot of DUI checkpoints are open to volunteers and citizens to give them a first hand look at the operation. I have an idea....instead of posting erroneous facts and quotes why don't you go to a DUI checkpoint and actually observe what takes place and then you would have some facts to post on this forum.

Do you consider the facts I took from the article or the forth amendment erroneous?

Perhaps you can explain to us why the rules of probable cause apply to other traffic stops and not at a DUI checkpoint?

[You Help Fix What]

I don't consider either to be facts that apply to this situation. Again, let me reiterate. There is no expectation of privacy in a vehicle. A DUI checkpoint does not violate your civil liberties. Have you ever been through a DUI checkpoint ? Do you know how they operate ? Each checkpoint is publicized and prior to entering each checkpoint you have the option of leaving the area and taking an alternate route. Nobody forces you to go through a DUI checkpoint. The fourth (not forth) amendment does protect your right to privacy however it does not give you the right to drive drunk on the roadway. Explain what part of the fourth amendment applies to a DUI checkpoint. Again, the probable cause is the fact that there is no expectation of privacy inside a vehicle. Hopefully this helps you out. Get back to me after you volunteer at a DUI checkpoint and let me know how it goes and what you learned.

[Firefighter Steve]

it would be great if they did more of them per year, unfortunately the funding isn't there.

I hope the judge throws the book at all of the bums that were stopped and arrested. No excuse for getting behind the wheel when you are drunk. What's a taxi ride cost now? I bet it's cheaper than spending a year in prison and loosing your license. You know what the consequences are if you do it, so if you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

YouHelpFixIt,

In 2005, there were nearly 9,000 alcohol-related wrecks in Maryland. That same year, 235 people died as a result of those crashes. There's your probable cause.

[YouHelpFixIt]

Firefighter Steve wrote:

it would be great if they did more of them per year, unfortunately the funding isn't there.
I hope the judge throws the book at all of the bums that were stopped and arrested. No excuse for getting behind the wheel when you are drunk. What's a taxi ride cost now? I bet it's cheaper than spending a year in prison and loosing your license. You know what the consequences are if you do it, so if you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.
YouHelpFixIt,
In 2005, there were nearly 9,000 alcohol-related wrecks in Maryland. That same year, 235 people died as a result of those crashes. There's your probable cause.

I take 'probable' as being more likely than not. Perhaps probable for you is arround 1%. You should stay away from Las Vegas.

[YouHelpFixIt]

You Help Fix What wrote:

I don't consider either to be facts that apply to this situation. Again, let me reiterate. There is no expectation of privacy in a vehicle. A DUI checkpoint does not violate your civil liberties. Have you ever been through a DUI checkpoint ? Do you know how they operate ? Each checkpoint is publicized and prior to entering each checkpoint you have the option of leaving the area and taking an alternate route. Nobody forces you to go through a DUI checkpoint. The fourth (not forth) amendment does protect your right to privacy however it does not give you the right to drive drunk on the roadway. Explain what part of the fourth amendment applies to a DUI checkpoint. Again, the probable cause is the fact that there is no expectation of privacy inside a vehicle. Hopefully this helps you out. Get back to me after you volunteer at a DUI checkpoint and let me know how it goes and what you learned.

Simply saying the fourth amendment does not apply and claiming anyone without direct experience cannot understand does not answer my question, and appears to be deliberate avoidance.

Here is an example were the court upheld the fourth amendment rights of a passenger. Because the traffic stop was illegal (no probable cause).

http://www.aclunc.org/issues/racial_justice/s...

Again, can you explain to us why the rules of probable cause apply to other traffic stops and not at a DUI checkpoint?

I would also ask you what other checkpoints would you allow. How about checkpoints for seat belts, guns, drug possession, drug use, child safety seats, vehicle maintenance, unlicensed drivers, or vehicle emissions. All of these are also valid public safety concerns.

I think we agree that in most cases, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle on a public road; however, I do not see how that makes any difference in an illegal traffic stop. I also agree that a breathalyzer test is not an unreasonable search once probable cause is established.

[Firefighter Steve]

Funny you say that, because I used to live in Summerlin, Las Vegas. I was a medic in the city and saw more dead bodies from drunk driving accidents than I cared to.
A DUI check point is more contact with the driver than stopping the person for a specific infraction. Once the driver exhibits signs of intoxication, then it becomes a traffic stop under the guide lines. This from an officer friend of mine. I'll take his word for it because my specialty is in cutting the cars apart to get the victim out after the cars are smashed to hell.

[YouHelpFixIt]

Firefighter Steve wrote:

Funny you say that, because I used to live in Summerlin, Las Vegas. I was a medic in the city and saw more dead bodies from drunk driving accidents than I cared to.
A DUI check point is more contact with the driver than stopping the person for a specific infraction. Once the driver exhibits signs of intoxication, then it becomes a traffic stop under the guide lines. This from an officer friend of mine. I'll take his word for it because my specialty is in cutting the cars apart to get the victim out after the cars are smashed to hell.

So how does a DUI checkpoint differ from a traffic stop (other than no probable cause is needed)? Is it ok if I decide not to stop?

And I don't want to harp on it but just how is 1.1% probability of a crime considered probable?

[Firefighter Steve]

If you decide not to stop, then it is ignoring direction and a lawfully ordered command by a Peace Officer. I guess it is all in how you word it....1.1% is still showing probability...what percentage would be required to show probability? Is there a percentage required to show probability? What is it?

[YouHelpFixIt]

Firefighter Steve wrote:

If you decide not to stop, then it is ignoring direction and a lawfully ordered command by a Peace Officer. I guess it is all in how you word it....1.1% is still showing probability...what percentage would be required to show probability? Is there a percentage required to show probability? What is it?

And I don't want to harp on it but just how is 1.1% probability of a crime considered probable?

So, you are saying that your fourth amendment rights depend on how the justification for the stop is worded and not on your actions or the police officers actions.

I would consider 1% possible not probable, and greater than 50% is probable (more likely than not).

[Firefighter Steve]

If you approach an officer at a check point and the officer sees your condition (rosey cheeks, glassy eyes, ect) he must make a determination to either have you pass or make the "Official stop". The technicality is that you have not been "officially stopped" until the officer orders you to the side of the road, not the officer saying hello, how are you this evening, where are you coming from. The officer then while writing the arrest report must justify what the grounds were for the "official stop" and arrest. the officer could be telling you that the road is out ahead and if he or she detects that you are possibly under the influence, he or she has to make the "offical stop" to then question you about your condition and determine to arrest.
I'm not a legal expert, as I stated earlier....As I did say earlier, I am the guy who cuts the cars apart to get the victims out...I do know how the officers operate and what their procedures are for the stops because I have been in the meat box as the operating medic for the event. If you want to know more about the law, try asking a lawyer. If you feel you are being victimized or having your rights violated by stopping so an officer with the intention of keeping a drunk driver off the road can do his job, call your congressman and state your case.
Are you a lawyer/student? Have you recently been stopped and are now prepping your case on here so you can go before a judge? Serious question...

[Eric]

Then how come the police have to get a warrant to search my car then. Because you still have your rights even in your car.

[Eric]

You guys are missing the point. If being in your vehicle doesn't count, then how come an officer must get a warrant to search my car UNLESS HE ALREADY SEES SOMETHING ILLEGAL. How come at any other time an officer can not pull me over anytime he wants? Further, how come "drug check points'(DUI checkpoints but for drugs) have been ruled illegal?

[Eric]

There are violent murders in Baltimore. I bet 1% of the household there have an illegal gun. So for "our protection" we should allow searches of someones house anytime the police want. I mean, if you aren't doing anything illegal than why would you care? You have nothing to hide...

[YouHelpFixIt]

Firefighter Steve wrote:

If you approach an officer at a check point and the officer sees your condition (rosey cheeks, glassy eyes, ect) he must make a determination to either have you pass or make the "Official stop". The technicality is that you have not been "officially stopped" until the officer orders you to the side of the road, not the officer saying hello, how are you this evening, where are you coming from. The officer then while writing the arrest report must justify what the grounds were for the "official stop" and arrest. the officer could be telling you that the road is out ahead and if he or she detects that you are possibly under the influence, he or she has to make the "offical stop" to then question you about your condition and determine to arrest.
I'm not a legal expert, as I stated earlier....As I did say earlier, I am the guy who cuts the cars apart to get the victims out...I do know how the officers operate and what their procedures are for the stops because I have been in the meat box as the operating medic for the event. If you want to know more about the law, try asking a lawyer. If you feel you are being victimized or having your rights violated by stopping so an officer with the intention of keeping a drunk driver off the road can do his job, call your congressman and state your case.
Are you a lawyer/student? Have you recently been stopped and are now prepping your case on here so you can go before a judge? Serious question...

It doesn't really matter if I am a lawyer, student, police officer, or even a judge. Please do not let my profession distract you from the topic. The inconsistency remains, that probable cause is needed for some stops intended to catch criminals but not others. Trying to say it is not a "official" traffic stop and then calling it a crime if you do not stop is also inconsistent.

The officer is telling you the road is out, does have probable cause to believe that you will be committing a crime in that if you continue you will likely drive on a road that is closed to the public.

[Inconsistencies]

Sorry but there are no inconsistencies establishing probable cause. You are creating these inconsistencies by straying from the topic at hand which is DUI checkpoints. Eric is too busy focusing on murders in Baltimore and trying to compare them to DUI checkpoints. Both of you fail to understand the main premise here is that DUI checkpoints save lives. I am sure both of you would have different viewpoints if someone you loved was killed by a drunk driver. You can argue all you want about probable cause but it sounds like both of you are clueless about the realities of drinking and driving. The problem is your biases against the police cloud your rational thought processes. Post as many quotes and links as you want but the one link you will not find is that drunk driving is acceptable.

[Eric Needs Education]

Eric wrote:

There are violent murders in Baltimore. I bet 1% of the household there have an illegal gun. So for "our protection" we should allow searches of someones house anytime the police want. I mean, if you aren't doing anything illegal than why would you care? You have nothing to hide...

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with DUI checkpoints? A checkpoint is not a search and there is no expectation of privacy in a car. Haven't you been reading these posts ?