Constitutionality of Mandatory Police Sobriety Checkpoints

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
I was reading this article about how some people have been keeping their windows up at these sobriety checkpoints, and giving all information required visibly with a special state form, which includes their driver's license, registration and insurance information.

They are permitted in my state, but I have never had to deal with one, and I do not drive at all if I've been drinking. However, I don't like the idea of the police forcing me to stop and give them my information if I have done nothing wrong. So I am against these sobriety checkpoints, and understand that they are a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

Amendment IV

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.

Who initially voted to make these checkpoints legal in the US?? I know that states have the power to enforce them, but not all states have banned them. What's your opinion? Are you for or against these checkpoints? Are they allowed in your state?

Here's a short video of people in Florida using those special forms.

 

We have random breath checks in OZ.
The police set up a check point, wave every n**th driver to the kerb and ask you to submit to a breath test.
You don't have the option to refuse unless you are asking to have a blood test instead.

If you are over the statutory legal limit for blood alcohol you then have to produce identification, license etc but otherwise you simply continue your journey.
People who are over the limit are asked to have a blood test to eliminate the possibility that the alcohol is from the mouth rather than from the bloodstream. You also get a little bit of time to see whether by the time the test is taken, you BA may have dropped enough to be in the clear. Refusal to co-operate results in charges being laid.

** I'm not sure what the actual number is but it is definitely a random selection.
 
In California DUI checkpoints are common around the "drinking" holidays(4th of July, Cinco de Mayo, St Patrick's day). Catching law breakers isn't unconstitutional, driving impaired is illegal and a threat to public safety. It is not illegal to refuse a breath or blood test, but your driving privileges can be revoked for 6 months.
 

Well, if they think you're driving while drunk and a threat to public safety, then yes, I can see the cops pulling you over to check you out. But stopping drivers without cause at these checkpoints is what I'm against. If someone is breaking the law, they should go after them, if someone is not, then they should be left alone.
 
When the 4th Amendment was written, there were No cars or drunks speeding down the highways at 80MPH. The drunks have forced the police to use these kinds of tactics in order to try to prevent many thousands of accidents and hundreds of lives lost, every year, due to fools driving drunk or under the influence of drugs. Sure, it is an "inconvenience" to be stopped at one of these checkpoints, but if a person is sober, they have little to fear other than a couple of minutes delay in getting to their destination. If people behaved themselves, these kinds of thing would not be necessary, but given the reality of what goes on nearly every night, and especially on weekends and around holidays, I'll take a little delay if it lessens the chances of being involved in a bad wreck with one of these drunks.
In addition, I usually try to avoid being on the road between 10PM and 2AM....especially if we are in the city on a weekend or Holiday.
 
Every day in America (and I suspect the world as well) innocent women, men, children and pets lives are senselessly snuffed out or their bodies maimed or paralyzed because some stupid drunk gets into as car and drives on our highways. As a young man I worked a few years doing nights and weekends police photojournalism in Southern California, I saw more death and destruction than I care to remember. Driving a car and using our roads is a privilege NOT a right. I favor any action that takes these people off the road before they kill someone. Sometimes the rights of one must be relinquished for the good of the most. Those innocents out there have "rights" too. Before anyone asks, yes I drink, but not if I'm driving.
 
I think drunk drivers should be punished for sure. I was hit by one myself when I was young, he came right up on the sidewalk going 40+mph, nodded off at the wheel. Luckily I was just clipped with the front corner of the bumper, but had a couple of broken bones, stitches and did some hospital time. I don't drink and drive either.
 
Random breath tests have definitely changed the way Australians behave. One person tends to be nominated the designated driver who has the responsibility of getting everyone else home safely. The designated driver either doesn't drink at all or limits themselves to no more than two standard drinks over the whole evening.

Our proscribed blood alcohol level is 0.05 .

If someone is seen to be driving erratically the police will still pull them over and check their blood alcohol level but it is the random checks that have actually changed behaviour of the general population.

There are some rules about it. They are no allowed to set up just near a pub or club. We passed one recently that was tucked away in a section of road where there was an interchange from one motorway to another. There was no indication that they were there, nor could you change direction once you had taken that exit. The speed limit on that motorway was 110 km/hr (68.4 mph) so alcohol impaired driving is extremely dangerous.

I'm always pleased to see them active on the roads.
 
Every day in America (and I suspect the world as well) innocent women, men, children and pets lives are senselessly snuffed out or their bodies maimed or paralyzed because some stupid drunk gets into as car and drives on our highways. As a young man I worked a few years doing nights and weekends police photojournalism in Southern California, I saw more death and destruction than I care to remember. Driving a car and using our roads is a privilege NOT a right. I favor any action that takes these people off the road before they kill someone. Sometimes the rights of one must be relinquished for the good of the most. Those innocents out there have "rights" too. Before anyone asks, yes I drink, but not if I'm driving.

I agree. An inconvenience is not the same as losing a right. A small price to pay to save lives.
 
Like I always say... My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.. So count me in on the YES... keep checking team. If it can save one life or avoid heartbreak... I have no problem with the practice
 
We have DUI checkpoints here in PA. Some people have to be protected from themselves. They are constitutional, so long as the date, time and location are all pre-announced. The State Police also post the checkpoints on our website and sometimes in newspapers. So, if you are sensitive to being checked, avoid the roads being checked.

I know for some it is an inconvenience, but besides alcohol, you would be surprised at what we have found and who we have found. I had on fellow blow a 4.4. He probably shouldn't have even been alive. When I opened this man's car door, he virtually fell out of the car and passed out.
 
We have DUI checkpoints here in PA. Some people have to be protected from themselves. They are constitutional, so long as the date, time and location are all pre-announced. The State Police also post the checkpoints on our website and sometimes in newspapers. So, if you are sensitive to being checked, avoid the roads being checked.

I know for some it is an inconvenience, but besides alcohol, you would be surprised at what we have found and who we have found. I had on fellow blow a 4.4. He probably shouldn't have even been alive. When I opened this man's car door, he virtually fell out of the car and passed out.

A 4.40? I went to the net and the highest BA recorded was less than 2.00. Are you mixing the reading up somehow?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
 
I don't like the idea for several reasons. And yes I know of several people caught for dui without a checkpoint so there still will be enforcement of DUI laws. I know of people who got the DUI with the probable cause for the stop was failure to hold a lane or reckless driving. In other words you shouldn't need a check point to catch these hazards. I had an SUV snake it's way down the road one night for a over a mile. Several times I had to stop because I feared passing them would cause an accident.

Unfortunately because of the repeat offender DUI drivers sooner or later every car will wind up with one of those breathalyzer locks for the car. A lot tech heads want in on that market. I even find that intrusive. I assume there are drunks on the road and there is a risk to driving. I'm not willing to sacrifice rights to make it zero risk.

I don't want to see check point but I do want to see a device or process to get those who are high on drugs.
 
If we want to talk about hazardous drivers, there is One Group that certainly needs to be included...That being Cell Phone addicts. Distracted driving via the use of Cell Phones has replaced drunks and druggies, as leading causes of wrecks, and at least 25% of auto accidents are being caused by people fooling with their cell phones while driving. In addition to breathalyzer lock for the drunks, I would like to see a device that sounds a LOUD alarm whenever a cell phone is being used when the car is in motion.

I make it a point to stay off the roads anywhere near the time when the bars are closing, but 90+% of the cars I've seen weaving around in traffic have a driver with a cell phone in his/her ear.
 
I don't like the idea for several reasons. And yes I know of several people caught for dui without a checkpoint so there still will be enforcement of DUI laws. I know of people who got the DUI with the probable cause for the stop was failure to hold a lane or reckless driving. In other words you shouldn't need a check point to catch these hazards. I had an SUV snake it's way down the road one night for a over a mile. Several times I had to stop because I feared passing them would cause an accident.

Unfortunately because of the repeat offender DUI drivers sooner or later every car will wind up with one of those breathalyzer locks for the car. A lot tech heads want in on that market. I even find that intrusive. I assume there are drunks on the road and there is a risk to driving. I'm not willing to sacrifice rights to make it zero risk.

I don't want to see check point but I do want to see a device or process to get those who are high on drugs.

As long as we are in automobiles there will always be risk. Checkpoints are not new, they have been in existence for decades. They do catch many thousands of the drunks that kill and maim. They may offend you but I applaud them as a way to save innocent lives. I have seen the carnage they bring to entire families in many cases. Your individual indignation means nothing when stacked against that. Go tell your little story to the children and husband of the mother who won't come home because of some carefree drunk who more often than not walks away from the devastation he caused.
Fire dispatcher killed in wrong-way crash


















PHOENIX (KSAZ) - It's a difficult time for members of the Phoenix Fire Department. One of their emergency dispatchers and a mother of two young boys is killed in a head-on collision.
Investigators say she was hit early this morning by a suspected impaired driver who was going the wrong way on Interstate 17.
Department of Public Safety officers say the suspect got on to I-17 going the wrong direction early this morning, slamming into two cars, one of them belonging to a 26-year-old fire dispatcher.
She was on her way to work in a Phoenix Fire dispatcher uniform. First responders knew it was one of their own that was critically injured, she later died at the hospital.
"She dedicated her life and her career to save lives," said Jim Frazier. 26-year-old Megan Lange was killed in the accident on I-17 near Camelback Road. "She was a wonderful person, she cared deeply about what she did, she loved her family and her kids, there's going to be a huge gap we're going to be missing now that she is gone."
Lange was a wife and a mother to two boys; 2 and 6-years-old. She worked as a dispatcher for the Phoenix Regional Fire Dispatch Center. Firefighters and members of her family gathered outside the hospital Tuesday.
"The community is losing someone who answered their 911 calls, Megan delivered babies over the phone when firemen couldn't be there fast enough, Megan answered your calls when you pulled your kids out of your pools, she provided CPR instruction," said Frazier.
A DPS Highway Patrol officer was on his way home and spotted the wrong way driver; he tried to stop him. "The driver chose to drive around him, he tried to do a traffic break to get people off the road but was unsuccessful and the suspect struck Mrs. Lange's car," said Bart Graves with DPS.
Before he hit Lange, the driver sideswiped another vehicle. Police arrested the wrong-way driver, 39-year-old Stephen B. Martin. Investigators suspect he was impaired and could face 2nd degree murder charges for the death of Lange.
"It's senseless, it's not worth the risk, you're hitting a loved one, you're taking away a family member, somebody from the community," said Frazier.
I-17 northbound was closed at Camelback for several hours on Tuesday morning.
Lange's uncle said she was the breadwinner for the family while her husband attended nursing school. The Phoenix Fire Department set up a fund to help him and her two children.
If you would like to donate to the family, you can mail a check to the United Phoenix Firefighters Association, 61 E. Columbus Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012, indicate it is for Megan Lange.
 
Unfortunately because of the repeat offender DUI drivers sooner or later every car will wind up with one of those breathalyzer locks for the car. A lot tech heads want in on that market. I even find that intrusive. I assume there are drunks on the road and there is a risk to driving. I'm not willing to sacrifice rights to make it zero risk.
I don't see it as a rights issue. It can be an inconvenience to stop at a check point but I can't remember the last time I was waved to the kerb. It's been in in NSW for about 35 years now and it has changed driving behaviour and reduced the road toll. So have compulsory seat belts and child restraints but it took a lot of education to get some people to see the value of these measures.

There is no such thing as zero risk but risk can be reduced.
 
A 4.40? I went to the net and the highest BA recorded was less than 2.00. Are you mixing the reading up somehow?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content


My bad. 0.44

I will tell you what's worse than drunk drivers, in my opinion.....Stalkers on women. I consider these men the most dangerous people in the world next to serial killers and rapists. Their minds are defective and they are unpredictable because they are not all the same or behave the same. They cannot be profiled because when they are thinking rational like you and I, they are as normal as you and I, but when they switch back to stalker or predator, they minds just don't work right.
 
Who initially voted to make these checkpoints legal in the US?? I know that states have the power to enforce them, but not all states have banned them. What's your opinion? Are you for or against these checkpoints? Are they allowed in your state?
The Supreme Court did. Yes they are allowed in Ohio just as Driver License checkpoints are permitted.
 
I was reading this article about how some people have been keeping their windows up at these sobriety checkpoints, and giving all information required visibly with a special state form, which includes their driver's license, registration and insurance information.

They are permitted in my state, but I have never had to deal with one, and I do not drive at all if I've been drinking. However, I don't like the idea of the police forcing me to stop and give them my information if I have done nothing wrong. So I am against these sobriety checkpoints, and understand that they are a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.



Who initially voted to make these checkpoints legal in the US?? I know that states have the power to enforce them, but not all states have banned them. What's your opinion? Are you for or against these checkpoints? Are they allowed in your state?

Here's a short video of people in Florida using those special forms.

LOL - making the cops twist their heads to read that document! šŸ˜‚
 
I have sat through a number of these checks when my boyfriend brings me home from his house on a Sunday night. They stop every car on both sides of the road. Of course, we have not been drinking so he does not have to take a test. They talk to him first and I guess if they smell alcohol on your breath they would give him the test.

I am not against them though as I would rather they get the drunk drivers off the road before they kill someone.
 
My problem with the high-profile holiday checkpoints is that they always announce them on the news. I understand that this is probably intended as a deterrent but it also allows many folks to simply take an alternate route.

The other thing that annoys me is that law enforcement is always able to write several tickets at these high-profile events but they don't seem to be able to do something similar when the bars are closing every night at 2:30 am.

IMO it's just a game and has very little to do with actually enforcing the law or protecting the public.
 
My problem with the high-profile holiday checkpoints is that they always anno

unce them on the news. I understand that this is probably intended as a deterrent but it also allows many folks to simply take an alternate route.
The case authorizing such was based on guidelines, any variation would be outside Sitz, so states enact thier policy dictates.

At 445:

Here, checkpoints are selected pursuant to guidelines, and uniformed officers stop every vehicle. The resulting intrusion is constitutionally indistinguishable from the stops upheld in Martinez-Fuerte. Pp. 451-453

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/
 
Last edited:
I was reading this article about how some people have been keeping their windows up at these sobriety checkpoints, and giving all information required visibly with a special state form, which includes their driver's license, registration and insurance information.

They are permitted in my state, but I have never had to deal with one, and I do not drive at all if I've been drinking. However, I don't like the idea of the police forcing me to stop and give them my information if I have done nothing wrong. So I am against these sobriety checkpoints, and understand that they are a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.



Who initially voted to make these checkpoints legal in the US?? I know that states have the power to enforce them, but not all states have banned them. What's your opinion? Are you for or against these checkpoints? Are they allowed in your state?

Here's a short video of people in Florida using those special forms.

Over and above a checkpoint, my advice to you, SeaBreeze, always pullover at a safe location where people are around to serve as witnesses.
 

Back
Top