UConn James Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I'm against DWI checkpoints period. I've never actually been stopped at one - I rarely drink, and rarely drink more than two beers when I do. Certainly don't drink and drive anywhere. And the chances of me being out driving on a Fri/Sat night are pretty slim (tells you something about my exciting social life). I just think it goes against the 4th amendment - 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. I don't think being out driving Fri/Sat night is probable cause. But what do I know. 374188[/snapback] I was getting a little worried that everyone is just fine with checkpoints. You took the words out of my mouth. If someone's driving erratically, etc. then by all rights, pull them over. But there is zero probable cause for DWI checkpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Hmmmm...as one poster previously stated, I can't fault a person who has lost a loved one because of a reckless and avoidable act. Having said that, they have no business being at a police checkpoint. I think we all agree driving while intoxicated should be punished, but I personally happen to find MADD's motives/methods to be suspect and invasive. In fact we used them as a case study in a grad level stats course I took last year. Professor was Dutch, so I'll assume his intent was to point out their ridiculous use of statistics and the suspect math that goes along with it, as opposed to just railing on MADD. Due to the large distances we have to drive to get to bars in Atlanta (sprawl sucks) my buddies and I are strict about having a DD. Every now and then we run into a checkpoint (I've heard they bag more people who don't have insurance than they to drunk drivers.) We just ask the officer if the driver can take the breathalyzer and avoid the stupid human tricks. I believe that they need to establish probable cause before they give you the breathalyzer (hence the field sobriety test)...unless you give consent. I'll look for civilians next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I think if I got caught at a checkpoint with a MADD person there, I might act drunk - just for the chance to flip them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I suppose that could be true. But I've worked jobs where I'd be driving to or from work in the wee hours of the morning. I don't think that is cause for the police to pull me over. 374592[/snapback] True, however, you must agree that the percentage of people up to no good at that hour should be higher.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 6, 2005 Author Share Posted July 6, 2005 I was getting a little worried that everyone is just fine with checkpoints. You took the words out of my mouth. If someone's driving erratically, etc. then by all rights, pull them over. But there is zero probable cause for DWI checkpoints. 374707[/snapback] The big winners in checkpoints are precinct commanders, who pump up their number of summonses and insurance companies, who get to raise rates because many summonses are issued for inspections, seat belts, and other violations. As invasive as checkpoints are, imo the presence of MADD civilians turn them into a dangerous circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts