Constitutionality of Mandatory Police Sobriety Checkpoints

More time and effort should be spent on actively seeking drunk drivers on the road other than check points/location. Wether it be the swervers, can't maintain a lane, blow signs and lights etc. When I have pull over or take alternate routes because of these types on a Fri or Sat night check points are the wrong strategy let alone questionably legal, justified etc.

I will say when drunks and bars near a check point location complain it might have a single night effect if lucky.
 

There is a problem about police preventing crime. Normally, a crime has been committed and police respond. And hopefully, by the actions of the police, the guilty party pays for his transgression. But in preventing crime, or as the cops call it, "crime suppression", they are attempting to change behavior. No crime has been committed. Of course, driving impaired is a risk to everybody, but is it the job of the police to change people's behavior? or to catch criminals? The power to change behavior is kind of scary. Heil Hitler.
 
In Pennsylvania, we have ICL or implied consent laws and so do some other states. We can’t force anyone to take a field sobriety test and there is no penalty for refusing to take a test, if requested, but if the police have probable cause to suspect that the driver may be driving under the influence, the Officer may escort the driver to the hospital for a BAC test. Refusal to do so may cause the driver to lose his driving privileges.

The kicker is that if a person is arrested for DUI and is remanded to court, with attorney fees and fines, they may expect to pay up to $10,000.00 whether they win or lose in court.
 
As powerful as the insurance industry is I'm surprised they have not push through legislation for mandatory blow in the hose devices for vehicles for all convicted DUI drivers. The taxi lobbyists would love it also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top