[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

Frank, do you fly a Rebel Flag on a pickup truck or something? You compare drunk checks to nazis? Around here it is called the R.I.D.E. program (Reduced Impaired Driving Everywhere), and people are all for it. If you're not drunk, you have no issue - period. I'd MUCH rather be stopped by ride on xmas eve and st. Patty's day and say "no officer, i'm not drinking, you have a good night, bye" then get smashed up by some drunk.

You're against seat belts, helmets and taxation of liquor and smokes to help fund anti-drunk driving campaigns and anti-smoking compagns? Frank, what kind of country do you have in mind? Everybody roaring aorund without helmets on motorcycles drunk coughing up black crap from their cancerous lungs? Oh, was that extreme? I guess we'll just settle for microchips. Again... stop being rediculous... its a red light camera. Don't run the light.

You are seriously afraid enough of getting tangled up with a drunk to forfeit civil liberties??? Wow.

I have a name for that but it's already getting "slippery" in here.

As far as my being "rediculous"... I don't know how long you've been around, but I've been around a block or two and I can remember being alive before mandatory seat belts, mandatory helmets, high liquor taxation, high smokes taxation, blanket sobriety checkpoints, and a whole wagon load of other nanny-state B.S. It is obvious that the America- the one with the proud and free individualists- they bragged up in the propaganda the schools shoved down our throats doesn't exist any more.

"Don't run the light"- I can see I'm wasting my time on you if none of the previous posts sunk in at all. Still, I found this quick read:

DWI/DUI Sobriety Road Blocks or Checkpoints
by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

The Bill of Rights refers to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the fourth of which states that:

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.

Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least “probable cause” that they have committed a crime.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.” 1

Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which strongly promotes them, implies that sobriety roadblocks are legal throughout the entire United States without exception. It says that “the U.S. Supreme Court on June 14, 1990 upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers. Previous appeals to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of such checkpoints had been declined, which allowed high state court rulings to stand. The June 14, 1990 ruling clearly upheld the constitutionality of such enforcement measures.” 4

MADD also dismisses those who question the use of sobriety checkpoints by asserting that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught.” 5 MADD provides no evidence of this assertion and none has been found in any published research study. There are, however, published reports that opposition is especially strong among civil libertarians, judges, law enforcement leaders and conservatives. 6

There are many arguments both for and against the use of roadblocks in our effort to reduce drunk driving. For example, many law enforcement officials and researchers believe that roving patrols are much more effective and are a better use of scarce resources. People of good will can and do disagree on such important matters.

Unfortunately, MADD’s effort to discredit and marginalize those with whom it disagrees is unproductive and doesn‘t help us make the best decisions about how to reduce impaired and drunk driving, whether or not that involves police roadblocks.

Yeah, the Constitution is only a damned piece of paper, but I think it was a good one.

BTW, Fargo has had 42 checkpoints since '04 and, if my interpolated number on the number of vehicles stopped is anywhere near accurate, .9% of the stops resulted in arrests. Wildly successful and totally worth it eh?

Oh look:

FARGO -- Four people were arrested for drunken driving during a sobriety checkpoint here Tuesday night in the 700 block of North University Drive.

One driver arrested for DUI also was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and minor in possession or consumption of alcohol, Sgt. Mike Bernier said.

Another driver arrested for DUI was also arrested for possession of marijuana paraphernalia, and a passenger of one vehicle that entered the checkpoint was arrested for minor in possession or consumption.

The data the .9% statistic came from doesn't even distinguish if it's the DRIVER that may have been the offender.

In addition, every driver’s papers ARE checked. If they don’t have their license or their insurance or if something is wrong with their car (tail light, etc.) they get a ticket.

The checkpoint acts well outside the scope of a DWI checkpoint. It really does equate to a stop without probable cause. I do not understand how the courts have upheld the legality of them.