DUI checkpoint discussion

[Kamakazie Sith]

But how do you know if a round is chambered or they're a restricted person WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO CHECK THESE THINGS?

Let's go with the motor vehicle analogy. I just can't stop a vehicle without a traffic violation. I can't do a "drivers license" check. I can't do a "registration check". I have to see a traffic violation and then I can stop them to inspect these things. EDIT - If I run someones license plate and see "NO INSURANCE AS OF (date)" then I can stop them to check for insurance but I have reasonable suspicion. I could also run the owners name and if the owner doesn't have a valid license then I could stop them but I need a reason beyond a compliance check.

Well, with a person who is open carrying. I can't do a "firearm check". I can't do a "license check" unless I have primary reason to stop them.

[weemadando]

So you can't just have a random breath/drug test and vehicle safety checkpoint set up because being on a public road in a vehicle isn't cause enough to ensure you are complying with the laws you agreed to? Wow.

Civil liberties in America are all kinds of screwed up. Way to focus on the small issues and miss the big stuff.

[Stark]

Yeah dude, probable cause only gets funnier with the other rights violations everyone tolerates. It's like a magical talisman.

[RogueIce]

So you can't just have a random breath/drug test and vehicle safety checkpoint set up because being on the road in a vehicle isn't cause enough to ensure you are complying with the laws you agreed to? Wow.

Yes and no. DUI checkpoints do exist and are legal but they're a little more complicated than just "random".

Not sure about the vehicle safety checkpoint thing but never heard of them. Not sure what you're thinking there, TBH, could you clarify? Most of the vehicle safety stuff I could think of that can be easily checked is clearly visible anyway (non-functioning lights, etc), though bad tires are a bit tougher to see on the road so there's that.

Not much of a car guy though so how would you check, say, brake condition in a roadside checkpoint easily?

[weemadando]

The fact that someone would see this:



As a dangerous infraction upon their civil liberties makes me way more scared of them than of the gubmint.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So you can't just have a random breath/drug test and vehicle safety checkpoint set up because being on a public road in a vehicle isn't cause enough to ensure you are complying with the laws you agreed to? Wow.

Haha. Interesting that you brought up checkpoints. Not all states do them and in those that do conduct DUI checkpoints there has been a lot of controversy of them. In Utah a judge must approve a checkpoint and advanced notice of the checkpoint and its location must be given to the public.

Here's all the requirements for a checkpoint in Utah; http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE77/htm/77_23_010400.htm

Civil liberties in America are all kinds of screwed up. Way to focus on the small issues and miss the big stuff.

Frankly, that's what happens when you have such a divided country and government.

[Aaron MkII]

And that is what?

Police here do seatbelt checks and drinking and driving stops where they stop traffic and if you've been drinking, etc but it's usually just a couple cops.

[Stark]

Is the location given to the public as a way of giving implied consent when they drive past it anyway?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yeah dude, probable cause only gets funnier with the other rights violations everyone tolerates. It's like a magical talisman.

I wouldn't say everyone. No, certainly not. Your concerns, warrant-less wiretapping and the killing of american citizens, is a hot issue. The ACLU is all over it and they have a large number of supporters.

What would you like to see though?

[weemadando]

Yes and no. DUI checkpoints do exist and are legal but they're a little more complicated than just "random".

How so, are the police only allowed to set them up in certain locations? Are they preannounced? Is there some restriction on who they can stop?

In Australia they are allowed to stop you anywhere on a public road at any time and conduct a breathalyser and drug test as well as confirm your vehicle is registered, license is current etc.

Not sure about the vehicle safety checkpoint thing but never heard of them. Not sure what you're thinking there, TBH, could you clarify? Most of the vehicle safety stuff I could think of that can be easily checked is clearly visible anyway (non-functioning lights, etc), though bad tires are a bit tougher to see on the road so there's that.

Not much of a car guy though so how would you check, say, brake condition in a roadside checkpoint easily?

In that picture I posted it gives you a good idea of the size of some of the random stops - large groups of police where the majority of the time you'll be through in under a minute after just doing a simple breatho. But sometimes you'll be asked to pull off for a more detailed check. In one case in Hobart I had a relatively thorough inspection of my vehicle completed before I was allowed to move on - tyres checked, lights all checked, windscreens, mirrors, wipers, rust checks and cursory inspections of other systems as well as running rego, VIN and other serial numbers. It's by no means a full inspection but it's enough to check if you need to have anything remedied or if something warrants further investigation.

I've also seen these combined with drug dog searches for all vehicles - if the dog shows any interest in your car as it walks past you get taken aside from a more thorough search.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is the location given to the public as a way of giving implied consent when they drive past it anyway?

Basically, yes.

[weemadando]

Is the location given to the public as a way of giving implied consent when they drive past it anyway?

That seems especially hilarious given that Victoria I believe now has new penalties for drivers who attempt to avoid RBT stops by turning off when in sight of them etc.

[RogueIce]

How so, are the police only allowed to set them up in certain locations?

Sort of. They can go anywhere but it has to be decided on beforehand, it's not just "Well this seems like a good spot" and they break out the cones.

Are they preannounced?

Yes.

Is there some restriction on who they can stop?

Sort of. They can't just randomly pick whoever they feel like, but they can make the decision that everybody gets stopped. It has to be a neutral thing, though: every car, every third car, etc and they have to stick with that.

That's in general, though. It'll vary state to state, as with so much else dealing with US law. Some don't allow them period.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The fact that someone would see this:



As a dangerous infraction upon their civil liberties makes me way more scared of them than of the gubmint.

My home state not only bans random vehicle checks (which are retarded--the US states that have such things just require you to get a yearly inspection when you renew your registration) but also bans drunk driving checkpoints. I consider not being stopped for "papers please" under such a specious excuse to be fairly fundamental to my liberty. I suspect gun ownership and such attitudes strongly coincides in the US, though such attitudes would be much more common. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, I believe also Nevada and Minnesota, not sure about Nebraska. We form a very large territorial block in which no kind of roadway checkpoint is lawful except when hunting for someone actively evading justice after a serious crime. When the Border Patrol tried to institute citizen checkpoints in the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, the population responded by refusing to identify themselves to the BP personnel and the local sheriffs announced they would not take anyone from the checkpoints to jail or respond to calls for assistance from the checkpoints. The BP gave up in a year and we were all very pleased at having turned back some of the retardation.

[Thanas]

This is stupid beyond belief.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Perhaps from your perspective, but I find the idea of security points on roads inside the United States to be something completely contrary to the world's natural order, to the freedom I was born and raised in. I made sure to move to a state that also doesn't allow DUI checkpoints. This from someone who won't drink within twelve hours of driving (not like they work worth a damn anyway, they're just there so the cops can harass people to look for other illegal things); it's general principle which matters here.

[Thanas]

Don't let people check for DUI with unscheduled checkpoints for that would infringe upon my freedom.

[Aaron MkII]

I...you do understand the difference between a "papers comrade" checkpoint and a stop for seatbelts, yes?

[Soontir C'boath]

Driving is a privilege and not a right. There is no amendment or wording in the constitution that gives you the right to drive a car. However, for firearms you have the US constitution and in addition to that many states have their own constitution and firearm ownership is listed as a civil right in these constitutions.

It'd be interesting if the Constitution was re/drafted in the 50's when the car boom, interstate highway program, and suburbia were becoming a huge thing wherein owning and driving a car is a right.

In other words, the Second Amendment among others (slave vote for instance) are a product of their time and could very well be a privilege like the car is instead of a right.

[Mr Bean]

Driving is a privilege and not a right. There is no amendment or wording in the constitution that gives you the right to drive a car. However, for firearms you have the US constitution and in addition to that many states have their own constitution and firearm ownership is listed as a civil right in these constitutions.

It'd be interesting if the Constitution was re/drafted in the 50's when the car boom, interstate highway program, and suburbia were becoming a huge thing wherein owning and driving a car is a right.

In other words, the Second Amendment among others (slave vote for instance) are a product of their time and could very well be a privilege like the car is instead of a right.

Would not work to many famous repeat drunk driving incidents even in the 1950s to survive it becoming a "right" because even in the 1950s it was possible to murder two families in a year by getting sauced and getting behind the wheel.

[Simon_Jester]

I...you do understand the difference between a "papers comrade" checkpoint and a stop for seatbelts, yes?

There are three classes of checkpoints.

There are "papers comrade" checkpoints, as you say- which exist to document and control internal movement. Identities of people who pass through are monitored. People who pass through are quizzed if not harassed about their intentions.Even if the state doesn't actually mind you traveling, they can do this to make sure people don't travel lightly. It exists to deter movement, and make sure movement is not 'free' in any sense of the word.

There are... call them 'specific' checkpoints, which exist in a specific place and time, for a specific reason. Say, because the police are looking for a green 2004 Ford SUV in connection with a kidnapping. Or because there's been a disaster and they're trying to stop random people from straying into the middle of a chemical fire.

The third kind is somewhere in the middle. There's a specific theoretical purpose, but in practice it gets used in all kinds of other, looser ways. Much of the draw for the police is that it helps them monitor traffic for lawbreakers. And it will exert something of a chilling effect because it slows and inconveniences travel.

The second, you'd have to be kind of bonkers to object to. The first, you'd have to be bonkers to NOT object to. The third? I can see valid objections there.


I think, from Duchess's perspective, the argument goes something like this:

"The right to not be suspected is absolute and sacred. The status of 'innocent until proven guilty' is vital. If there's no special reason to interfere with my actions, the state should stay the hell out of my actions as long they're harmless. They can take my money to pay for necessary functions, they can regulate products or behavior as consistent with safety, but they should only drop law enforcement on me if they have specific cause to think I am breaking the law. So checkpoints and routine sweeps meant to 'find criminals' by trawling the general populace are an unjust imposition on my time and liberties."

For someone who feels likely to be harassed unjustly by the law, and who very much desires to avoid that complication, it's understandable.

[Thanas]

As if getting stopped would be so much of a detriment that stopping drunk drivers would not be worth it in exchange.

[weemadando]

The average contact time for a RBT checkpoint in Australia is 45 seconds. Most I've waited to get to that contact was about 2 minutes and that was when I made the mistake of driving near a major horse racing event where police had set up to get everyone leaving.

Usually its pull straight in, blow into a breatho and away you go. Only rarely are they more rigorous, but but I have encountered them.

And why is this so disconcerting?

You're on a public road, driving a vehicle that requires a licence to operate and comes with many restrictions on its operation... Why is it not acceptable to stop and ensure compliance?

It's not like they're impeding freedom of movement by detaining you for a week or anything. It's literally a minute of your time. Unless of course you happen to be breaking the law.

[Korto]

In one case in Hobart I had a relatively thorough inspection of my vehicle completed before I was allowed to move on - tyres checked, lights all checked, windscreens, mirrors, wipers, rust checks and cursory inspections of other systems as well as running rego, VIN and other serial numbers.

Fuck's sake, Ando, what'd you do to piss the copper off? Made oinking noises as he walked up to the car or something?

I've also seen these combined with drug dog searches for all vehicles - if the dog shows any interest in your car as it walks past you get taken aside from a more thorough search.

To use Simon's 3 categories, there's a sliding scale of grey in that 3rd type, of stopping someone for a random check of a specific item, and we fall on a darker side than I would like. A real argument can be made that stopping a random person without any cause and subjecting them to checks and medical tests violates a person's presumption of innocence, to have a drug sniffer dog then "wander" past the car then takes it right out of the bounds of checking the car is roadworthy and the driver in a fit state; it's not like they're just taking the damn dog for a walk. Fortunately we don't have a Bill of Rights, so that's all right then.
I'm uncomfortable but can live with breath testing in trouble spots at trouble times, and a cursory glance at the vehicle's condition seems reasonable. Of course, the police tend to agree with this too, as they have better things to do then go fishing where there's nothing biting. But I don't like them being able to ask for rego and license without some kind of cause (rego sticker out of date, report of a missing car, even just odd behavior by the car occupants).

[weemadando]

The drug dog one usually happens either end of the Spirit of Tasmania crossings. Quarantine dogs sometimes, police dogs other times.

As for pissing off a copper? Nada, they were just having a crackdown. Stopping all cars on the intersection of Elizabeth and Liverpool in Hobart. I was driving a 15yo Hyundai at the time, so a deeper safety check was kind of good.