Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: DWI Checkpoints

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596

    DWI Checkpoints

    I have read a few topic on this subject. People not wanting to show I.D. and complaining that its a violation of their rights. So I thought I would start a thread of discussion.
    Firts, I have no issue with DWI checkpoints because I dont drink. I have actually been through a few in the New Mexico area. Around Carlsbad, and Artesia. I have read one thread where one of our members was jacked up because he was carrying a gun, but other than that, im fine with it. As we are all aware, sometimes we run across some cops that are nothin more than Natzi Cops. Those idiots that gave the man a bunch of crap in Artesia for exercising his rights should be punished, and from what I understand they were.
    Here in West Texas, I often read about accidents involving a drunk driver. If the SOB's kill themselfs I just dont care. Thats never the case though. In the past few months we have had several DWI accidents that left people dead. One of the most recent accidents, a Drunk POS right here in my home town killed both parents of a child.

    We complain too damn much about stuff like this, because it could actually help with negative issues that pleague us all. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying I support harrasment by LE, I just support the effort to reduce drunk driving.
    Should we suppot checkpoint, I think we should. With the same effort of support we should also make it know when LO's act in a nebative manner toward the public. When good cops conduct this type of activity, we will all benefit.
    Like I said, I have been through these checkpoint afew time and never had any problem, but thats just me. Actually I have done some stupid crap like driving down the wrong side of the road in Carlsbad, and found myself going head on with a Carlsbad city cop. Believe it or not, I didnt even get a ticket. I have yet to run across Natzi Cops in other areas I travel, not yet... Most of my LE issues are right here where I live. Maybe thats why I never spend any money at home, but love to go somewhere else to spend it!

  2. #2
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    I am 100% against DUI check points. If you have no reasonable suspicion to detain someone, you should not be doing it. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled that checkpoints are 'minimally invasive and are balanced by public safety'. I disagree wholeheartedly with that argument.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    105
    Sobriety checkpoints are not the answer. This is indicative of a police state function. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional—as long as the individuals have a lawful means of escape; however checkpoints are once again, a function of a police state.

    If people suspect a drunk driver, they should call law enforcement... law enforcement can spot drunk or impaired drivers easily! We do not need police state functions or Nazi ID laws.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    I am 100% against DUI check points. If you have no reasonable suspicion to detain someone, you should not be doing it. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled that checkpoints are 'minimally invasive and are balanced by public safety'. I disagree wholeheartedly with that argument.
    +1

    Rights are not a balancing act.

    Just the fact that the government invented the spin term "checkpoint" for something that is really a roadblock, tells you something is up.

    As could be predicted, in the years these unconstitutional seizures of drivers have been perpetrated, evidence has been stacking up that they are ineffective, thus even the Court's "balance" argument is proven hollow.

    Never forget that the Constitution nowhere gives SCOTUS the power to declare constitutionality. SCOTUS assumed this power to itself in 1803 in Marbury vs Madison.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-01-2011 at 04:21 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +1

    Rights are not a balancing act.

    Just the fact that the government invented the spin term "checkpoint" for something that is really a roadblock, tells you something is up.

    As could be predicted, in the years these unconstitutional seizures of drivers have been perpetrated, evidence has been stacking up that they are ineffective, thus even the Court's "balance" argument is proven hollow.

    Never forget that the Constitution nowhere gives SCOTUS the power to declare constitutionality. SCOTUS assumed this power to itself in 1803 in Marbury vs Madison.
    I just learned about this in my constitutional history class. You are absolutely right. This is where Justice John Marshall used 'judicial review'.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by AFPVet View Post
    I just learned about this in my constitutional history class. You are absolutely right. This is where Justice John Marshall used 'judicial review'.
    If not the power to declare what is and is not constitutional, what do you think Article 3 meant by "judicial Power"?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    If not the power to declare what is and is not constitutional, what do you think Article 3 meant by "judicial Power"?
    We can go around in circles on this all day. Heh, heh, probably for about 207 years, too.

    While Marshall's arguments in Marbury v Madison make sense, the real problem, in my view, is that the constitution does not expressly give SCOTUS such authority. Nor, does the constitution give such authority exclusively to SCOTUS--see, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

    The point is not whether SCOTUS needs some degree of latitude (power) in determining such questions in order to do its job. The point is whether appointed-for-life political party creatures can be trusted to protect freedom if they have that power, and they alone.

    History has proven they can't. No more so than the legislative branch can be trusted to protect freedom. No more so than the executive branch can be trusted to protect freedom.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-01-2011 at 07:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    History has proven they can't. No more so than the legislative branch can be trusted to protect freedom. No more so than the executive branch can be trusted to protect freedom.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lokster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Unincorporated Jefferson County
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    We can go around in circles on this all day. Heh, heh, probably for about 207 years, too.

    While Marshall's arguments in Marbury v Madison make sense, the real problem, in my view, is that the constitution does not expressly give SCOTUS such authority. Nor, does the constitution give such authority exclusively to SCOTUS--see, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

    The point is not whether SCOTUS needs some degree of latitude (power) in determining such questions in order to do its job. The point is whether appointed-for-life political party creatures can be trusted to protect freedom if they have that power, and they alone.

    History has proven they can't. No more so than the legislative branch can be trusted to protect freedom. No more so than the executive branch can be trusted to protect freedom.
    Well said, Citizen. I wish more people would understand that and the fact that originally the Constitution was only intended to apply to the Fed. The SCOTUS is not the be-all and end-all of the debate.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    Firts, I have no issue with DWI checkpoints because I dont drink.
    Will there be anyone left to help when they come for you?

    Those that would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security. Ben Franklin

    One should always air on the side of liberty, lest they come for you.

    It could be "checkpoints" for anything next.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Citizen:

    I do not want to put words in your mouth, so let me state what I think you might be saying, and then you can correct me when I'm wrong.

    I believe you are saying that the SCOTUS, as originally formed, had the duty and authority to rule on Congressional laws or Executive branch decisions only, not State laws that someone might feel runs against the intent of the United States Constitution. Much in the same way Congress does not make State laws, and the President does not make governor-type descisions for States.

    I first read your comments to mean that the SCOTUS (as intented) did not have the authority to declair ANY law or ruling unconstitutional. That would seem to be a strange argument, for what else would such a court have a purpose for?

  12. #12
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Will there be anyone left to help when they come for you?
    I believe you and I were thinking of the same quote when we read MR Redneck's comment.
    "They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band
    It ain't what they call rock and roll
    And the Sultans...
    Yeah the Sultans, they play Creole"

    OCDO Member
    NCGO Member

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by sultan62 View Post
    I believe you and I were thinking of the same quote when we read MR Redneck's comment.
    Probably. I did it again over in the Nevada thread yard sale mentioned.

    Somebody somewhere don't mind if they take all of our guns because they don't own any.
    Last edited by rodbender; 01-01-2011 at 10:51 PM.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    We can go around in circles on this all day. Heh, heh, probably for about 207 years, too.

    While Marshall's arguments in Marbury v Madison make sense, the real problem, in my view, is that the constitution does not expressly give SCOTUS such authority. Nor, does the constitution give such authority exclusively to SCOTUS--see, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

    The point is not whether SCOTUS needs some degree of latitude (power) in determining such questions in order to do its job. The point is whether appointed-for-life political party creatures can be trusted to protect freedom if they have that power, and they alone.

    History has proven they can't. No more so than the legislative branch can be trusted to protect freedom. No more so than the executive branch can be trusted to protect freedom.
    You earlier said the constitution does not give the judicial branch the power to determine constitutionality. I disagree with that, because inherent in the concept of "judicial Power" was the ability to judge the validity of any particular law against the metric of the constitution. This was discussed in the federalist papers, number 78, where Hamilton remarked "Limitations [on legislative power] can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void." The supreme court did not assume this power, it was inherent in the idea of the overall law of the land.

    A further look at the history of the judicial branch shows that, certainly, the judicial branch was meant to have broad oversight of the laws passed in this country. In that same Federalist paper, it is remarked that one of the defects of the existing Confederation was a lack of such a judicial power. Continuing his discourse on the domain of powers such a judiciary must oversee, Hamilton remarks in Federalist 80 that the judiciary must rule on all cases "which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation;". To this end, the early supreme court found it could not overturn certain state-enacted provisions, because the initial protections of the Bill of Rights were meant and secured only against federal authority. However, to deny the history that follows is to presume the constitution was birthed a perfect document, free from needing any alteration.

    In ratifying the 14th amendment, a supermajority of the states agreed that those principles which were so fundamental that we held them against the strongest power in our land should also be applied against each state and for all citizens and persons in each state. Though the court faltered in this when it ruled on the Slaughter-House Cases, it has slowly realized and reattained this goal, culminating most recently with Thomas's concurring majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago that revitalized the privileges or immunities clause. One should not ignore the history that lead to our modern situation, where part of the agreement between the union and the states is the limitation of state powers against our rights, enumerated and not. It is due to that part of the agreement that the judiciary most definitely has the power to determine constitutionality of laws, and it is quite clear from the Federalist papers that the power to interpret constitutionality was an intended consequence of "judicial Power".
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    So I thought...
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack

    "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

    Thomas Jefferson
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    You earlier said the constitution does not give the judicial branch the power to determine constitutionality. I disagree with that, because...
    You are right. This is exactly why I said we can go around in circles all day. Marshall makes lengthy discussion on this in Marbury vs Madison. Like I said, it makes sense. Yet, he had to extract a bunch of implied powers to do it. It ain't in there, except as an implied power.


    Separately, entirely separately, be careful with relying on Hamilton's Federalists for arguments. It is well understood the Federalist Papers were just op-ed letters intended to mollify antagonism towards the proposed constitution. Essentially, they were a PR campaign. Hamilton is on record as strongly desiring a British-like government, senators appointed for life, and a president appointed for life. He was no friend of liberty. He wanted the strongest central government he could get. Trust little of what he says in Federalist; some of his stuff has already been proven wrong, and other stuff was easily spotted as being so much smoke even at that time. He was basically just trying to write whatever he thought would be convincing in order to reduce resistance to the constitution.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-02-2011 at 12:44 AM.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    SNIP Citizen:...I first read your comments to mean that the SCOTUS (as intented) did not have the authority to declair ANY law or ruling unconstitutional. That would seem to be a strange argument, for what else would such a court have a purpose for?
    In a sense. But, read Tawnos' posts, and Marbury vs Madison, too, because they both align on your view.

    Then consider the outcome, 221 years later, of leaving an implied power totally to the discretion of the group exercising that power.

    Oh, and don't forget to weigh it against the only legitimate reason for government: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Note that it doesn't say all powers; only the just ones.

    I'm not saying either side is wrong. I'm saying "think about this."

    And, while I think about it: SCOTUS can no more have an implied power to legitimize rights violations than the other branches to perpetrate them in the first place. Stare decisis (following precedent) or not. By Marshall's own logic about the seniority of the constitution, the constitution is senior even to stare decisis.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-02-2011 at 01:01 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Citizen, I don't want to debate (but I guess I am...), I just want to play devils advocate and try to understand your view and role of the SCOTUS.

    So, California's constitution does not have a RTKBA clause. California denies its residents the ability to bear firearms for all intensive purposes. Are you saying that the 2A doesn't apply within CA, since as long as the feds are not disarming U.S. citizens, it is ok for states to? Keeping that in mind, do you think it inappropriate for McDonald to have taken Chicago to federal court over his right to keep arms?

    If your answer to California's 2A problem is 'it is the people's duty to press their legislators to repeal unjust laws' or some similar aspect, what about when (as in CA), the majority may want to deprive the minority (gun owners/would be carriers) of that 'fundamental right'?

    Without a legal recourse, what options due they have?

    What is your view of the role of the SCOTUS in government?

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    SNIP So, California's constitution does not have a RTKBA clause. California denies its residents the ability to bear firearms for all intensive purposes. Are you saying that the 2A doesn't apply within CA, since as long as the feds are not disarming U.S. citizens, it is ok for states to? Keeping that in mind, do you think it inappropriate for McDonald to have taken Chicago to federal court over his right to keep arms?
    Sorry, I didn't think to specifically address your state's rights question. I didn't even have that issue in mind at all.

    Broadly, the whole scene is a mess. One big patchwork of cobbled-together jurisprudence.

    Add that Article III is incomplete. The Judiciary Act of (1789?) is considered by some scholars, and not just recent one's, to actually be an amendment to the constitution. It filled in the rest of Article III without going through the amendment and ratification process.

    I think we would all be better off if Marshall had just said, "Uh. The constitution doesn't give us the authority to rule on all these points, and I don't wanta set precedent that will open cans and cans of worms down the road. Congress is gonna hafta float another amendment for approval. Sorry, Mr. Marbury." The irony is that the Court didn't give Marbury his commission, anyway.

    I guess the main objection is that SCOTUS formalized the concept of judicial review in Marbury v Madison, rather than the constitution or Bill of Rights formalizing it.

    Separately, as far as McDonald is concerned, realize that your questions have perhaps an underlying premise that SCOTUS is/was the only remedy, ever, for the ills mentioned. Part of the problem is that SCOTUS set themselves up as the arbiter and solidified that position across time to the point where everybody has come to think of them as the only arbiter.

    There is no law of the cosmos that says McDonald was needed in order to get self-defense rights back in states where they were severely abridged. It just turned out that way because of the way system evolved. For all we know, gun makers and concerned citizens could have lobbied congress critters for a commerce-clause law requiring those states to loosen their gun restrictions because the state laws were reducing gun sales. (Heh, heh. Think of the argument. OC must be legalized everywhere because prohibition of OC is reducing gun sales--people won't buy what they can't carry. )
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-02-2011 at 02:04 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Firts, I have no issue with DWI checkpoints because I dont drink.
    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn't a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn't a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.
    Well, I did, as the "me's" still comprised the other 60% of us, and by that time, we were pissed!!!

    That's why we won the war.

    That's also why we'll win the next one.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    Citizen, I don't want to debate (but I guess I am...), I just want to play devils advocate and try to understand your view and role of the SCOTUS.

    So, California's constitution does not have a RTKBA clause. California denies its residents the ability to bear firearms for all intensive purposes. Are you saying that the 2A doesn't apply within CA, since as long as the feds are not disarming U.S. citizens, it is ok for states to? Keeping that in mind, do you think it inappropriate for McDonald to have taken Chicago to federal court over his right to keep arms?

    If your answer to California's 2A problem is 'it is the people's duty to press their legislators to repeal unjust laws' or some similar aspect, what about when (as in CA), the majority may want to deprive the minority (gun owners/would be carriers) of that 'fundamental right'?

    Without a legal recourse, what options due they have?

    What is your view of the role of the SCOTUS in government?
    But California does because it acknowledges the U.S. constitution as the supreme law.


    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


    SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
    United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
    supreme law of the land.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Well bust my chops why dont ya.
    First, I have tried the commented , " See a drunk, call the cops". That doesnt work where I live. I have done this many times. Followed the vehicle all the way across town and never a cop in site.
    Second, I dont need introductions to Thomas Jefferson's quotes. Im a bigger fan of Jefferson than most people could emagine.

    My issue with the checkpoint is simply a desire to reduce drunk driveing.
    Like I said in my post, the one's I have been through in New Mexico were pretty mild.
    Also understand that my experiance didnt involve question about where am I going, What an I doing, Are there any guns in your truck, ect....
    All I got was a simple " hello sir, have you been drinking". And sometimes a follow up of what the check point is attempting to prevent.
    When focussed on something as negative to us as drunk driving is, I think it could be a good thing.
    Now if the LE abuses the original meaning of DWI checkpoint while im there, yall will be reading a new post " I got thrown in jail"!!!

    Im the first person to always say LE sucks. But im also the first person who offers help when needed. When LE does something that actually " PREVENT's CRIME" such as catching drunks before they run me over, how can I complain.

    After reading all yall's post, I do understand what everyone thinks. I also think the same thing. " Give the Law and Law Makers a little, and they want more untill they have it all" !! The goal is to establish methods such as this that will limit all negative results.
    Is it possible???

  24. #24
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    The goal is to establish methods such as this that will limit all negative results.
    Is it possible???
    You should want all negativity erased, not limit it.

    Detention without RAS for ANY small period of time is negative.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  25. #25
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Las Vegas DUI Checkpoint

    "I'd like to be free to go.....let him go"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupH...eature=related

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •