one of us? open carry at dui checkpoint

Yard Sale said:

That's a gross misrepresentation of Sitz. The Rehnquist court found suspicionless seizures at roadblocks to be per se violations of the fourth amendment and unconstitutional. The court allowed them anyway, thus they are legal where allowed by states.


There is no such thing as a dui checkpoint or sobriety checkpoint in the Nevada Revised Statues, nor in the local muni code. If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.


Obstruction of what? The road? Arrested under what law? If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.

Click to expand...

Then you are arguing that the checkpoint was not properly conducted. Which still does not give you the right to obstruct. If you felt that the checkpoint was not legal there are avenues to address that. But instead of availing yourself of the legal channels to address that you had a temper tantrum.

Phoenix David said:

No. He could have remained mute but obey the lawful orders of the police. I.E when they told him to get out of the car. Obstruction. I hope they throw the book at him.

Click to expand...

He did obey orders. They threatened him with obstruction long before he was told to get out of the car. They were upset off the bat that he didnt roll his window all the way down which he is not required to do. While they LIED and said they couldnt hear him when clearly they did.

My guess is you are or were a LEO and cant stand the fact that a citizen stood up for himself.

Phoenix David said:

Then you are arguing that the checkpoint was not properly conducted. Which still does not give you the right to obstruct. If you felt that the checkpoint was not legal there are avenues to address that. But instead of availing yourself of the legal channels to address that you had a temper tantrum.

Click to expand...

So, from your take a DUI check point is valid reason to stop you and do anything they want to you for no reason what-so-ever? He didn't want to roll down his window so you think he should be charged with obstruction? wtf?! Seriously?

How did that obstruct the dui check point? He stopped where he was suppose to and obeyed the lawful commands while standing his ground against uinlawful commands. Where in the DUI regulations does it say you must roll down your window? Please cite the federal, state, or local statute. He exited the vehicle after being commanded and advising the officers he feared for his safety. Clearly he had a reason to be fearful of them. He was being stopped for no good reason, removed from his vehicle at gun point and arrested under threat of death.

It is the OP's opinion that the officers lied about smelling alcohol. And apparently the charges were dropped? Soo... if the DUI charges were dropped then that must mean he wasn't drinking right? Makes you kinda go hmmm....

Phoenix David said:

By a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional

Is the contention that the checkpoint was not properly conducted? If so how? And if your going to say how it was run you should know the legal requirements to conduct one.

Everyone is happy when there is a decision by the Supreme Court that they like, well I don't like the fact that they are legal but the US Supreme Court has said they are and so they are.

It's very hypocritical when you will listen to only the parts of the Constitution or the decisions that the Supreme Courts that you agree with. But then rail against someone doing that same from the anti-gun position.

Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.

Click to expand...

Yardsale is accurate on several fronts, First DUI Roadblocks are Consensual and you have to consent. Not consenting is NOT obstructing, I fail to see a lawful order, I would like to hear a argument that the roll down your window "order" or any other, was authorized under law.
There has to be a turn out so you may avoid the checkpoint, if desired. and the only requirement by law is to obay traffic control, lawful commands and or directions. There is no "roll down the window statute" and a lawful order is one that is given with reasonable suspicion, that a crime was, is, or has, been committed. here is the statute on roadblocks.

NRS 484B.570 Administrative roadblock: Establishment; minimum requirements.

1. The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, administrative roadblocks upon the highways of this State for any lawful purpose other than identifying the occupants of a vehicle or because of the existence of an emergency.

2. To warn and protect the traveling public, administrative roadblocks established by police officers must meet the following requirements:

(a) The administrative roadblock must be established at a point on the highway clearly visible to approaching traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards in either direction.

(b) At the point of the administrative roadblock, a sign must be placed near the centerline of the highway displaying the word “Stop” in letters of sufficient size and luminosity to be readable at a distance of not less than 50 yards in the direction affected by the roadblock, either in daytime or darkness.

(c) At the same point of the administrative roadblock, at least one red flashing or intermittent light, on and burning, must be placed at the side of the highway, clearly visible to the oncoming traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

(d) At a distance of not less than one-quarter of a mile from the point of the administrative roadblock, warning signs must be placed at the side of the highway, containing any wording of sufficient size and luminosity to warn the oncoming traffic that a “police stop” lies ahead. A burning beam light, flare or lantern must be placed near the signs to attract the attention of the traffic to the sign.

(Added to NRS by 1969, 1495; A 1987, 1073)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.359)

NRS 484B.573 Temporary roadblock: Establishment; minimum requirements.

1. The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, or in other jurisdictions within this State, temporary roadblocks upon the highways of this State:

(a) To apprehend persons known to be wanted for violation of the laws of this State, another state or the United States, and using the highways of this State for the purpose of escape; or

(b) To control traffic at or near the scene of a potential or existing emergency or hazard.

2. To warn and protect the traveling public, temporary roadblocks established by police officers must meet the following requirements:

(a) The temporary roadblock must be established at a point on the highway clearly visible at a distance of not less than 100 yards in either direction.

(b) At the point of the temporary roadblock, an authorized emergency vehicle, plainly and clearly marked as such and with its warning lights in operation, must be placed so as to be clearly visible to traffic affected by the roadblock at a distance of not less than 100 yards. When so placed, at least one of the vehicle’s flashing red lights must be visible to approaching traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

(c) At the same point of the temporary roadblock, sufficient cones, reflectors, burning flares or similar devices must be in place to identify the point of the roadblock and direct, as necessary, the path to be followed by a vehicle approaching the roadblock. The devices, when in place, must be clearly visible to traffic affected by the roadblock at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

(d) At a point located not less than 200 yards, but not more than 400 yards, from the point of the temporary roadblock, cones, reflectors, burning flares or similar devices must be placed on both shoulders of the highway and near the centerline of the highway to warn traffic that a condition hazardous to traffic exists in the immediate vicinity.

(Added to NRS by 1987, 1072)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.3591)

NRS 484B.577 Authority of police officers not limited by provisions relating to roadblocks. The provisions of NRS 484B.570 and 484B.573 do not limit the existing authority of police officers in the performance of their duties involving traffic control.

(Added to NRS by 1987, 1073)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.3593)

NRS 484B.580 Failure to stop at roadblock; penalties.

1. It is unlawful for a person to:

(a) Proceed or travel through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock without subjecting himself or herself to the traffic control established at the roadblock.

(b) Disobey the lawful orders or directions of a police officer at an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock.

2. A person who unlawfully proceeds through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock shall be punished:

(a) If the person is the direct cause of a death or substantial bodily harm to any person, or damage to property in excess of $1,000, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

(b) If no death, substantial bodily harm or damage to property in excess of $1,000 occurs, for a gross misdemeanor.

(Added to NRS by 1987, 1073; A 1995, 1298)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.3595)

If officers did not need reasonable suspicion, what would keep them from making you roll down your window, and administering a PBT (portable breath test) on every driver?
also when you quote sitz, remember approx 1/3 of the decision was based on minimal intrusion. That Michigan roadblock only saw 125 vehicles. and I venture to guess no one was stuck in line for ten mins.

Again, I agree that DUI check points infringe on rights. However in cases like this, it is best to voice your right and cooperate (especially with simple requests), and fight the battle from home rather than a jail cell. Like the military, the police are require to follow the instructions from the top. ******* with the cops will just in this type of situation will just make them react to your actions. Here is what I wou;d have done.

-Rolled down the window
-Asked what the reason was for the stop
-Asked to further clarify what I did to cause the stop.
-Inform the police officer that under the law the stop is a violation of my rights and if it continued I would file a formal complaint and consult a lawyer.
-Continue to cooperate, record the incident, and impress the fact that you do not consent, that your rights are being violated, but remain cooperative.

Truth be told, the system is corrupt at the top. Even if you remain out of jail and take this to court, you will probably lose..and not because the law is not on your side, but because I doubt they care about the law or constitution. I rather fight it in a more intelligent way and stay out of jail.

Now if the situation absolutely requires me to go to jail, I would. But I rather not get shot by a few cops on edge about my standoffish attitude when they notice my pistol. Just not smart.

Good luck Yard Sale,

If 240 years ago everyone sat around kissing King George's ass afraid to piss him off and just capitulated to his on the fly ruleset, we'd probably be in the same boat as the British citizens currently find themselves in.

What some people define as stupidity others may see as courage.

What some people define as polite cooperation or surrender with a smile others may see as complacency and cowardice.


I respect the firm stand you took and honestly can't say I could be strong enough to do it but that's mostly due to the limitation set by my own ignorance. I've taken a stand at a sobriety checkpoint by asserting my 5th amendment rights and then my 4th as well but when I was told to step out of my vehicle, I complied because at that point I wasn't sure about the authority I was under and didn't want to mistakenly commit a crime by even passively resisting removal at that point. I was also open carrying a handgun but as I was in line in the backed up traffic, I removed it from my belt and put it away in a container on my seat out of sight so it wouldn't become either a hassle or even a danger to me. Little did I know I would still have that weapon seized out of my vehicle and then be swept with it twice while an officer attempted to unload it while pointing it at my midsection.

If I have to deal with a police encounter, I will stick to whatever limited understanding of the law and my rights that I am comfortably sure about.

MilitaryMike said:

-Rolled down the window
-Asked what the reason was for the stop
-Asked to further clarify what I did to cause the stop.
-Inform the police officer that under the law the stop is a violation of my rights and if it continued I would file a formal complaint and consult a lawyer.
-Continue to cooperate, record the incident, and impress the fact that you do not consent, that your rights are being violated, but remain cooperative.

.

Click to expand...

He did all those things.

To some extent I agree that some fights are best fought in court and not in the streets, but I wouldn't rule out the vast potential that can be derived from peaceful civil disobedience.(If you can even call it that,as he broke no law)

Whether it's Rosa Parks, or even Tim here on the forums, peaceful resistance to unlawful and unreasonable demands if often the best way to fight a system that derives its power from the fear of the consequences of non-compliance.

Vegassteve said:

He did obey orders. They threatened him with obstruction long before he was told to get out of the car. They were upset off the bat that he didnt roll his window all the way down which he is not required to do. While they LIED and said they couldnt hear him when clearly they did.

My guess is you are or were a LEO and cant stand the fact that a citizen stood up for himself.

Click to expand...

Wrong. What I can't stand is a hypocrite. The Supreme Court has declared them constitutional so they are. What Mr Hypocrite should have done is rolled down the window and when the officer asked any question he should have remained mute. He did not have to engage the officer in any conversation. The odds would have been very high that the officer not detecting any signs of impediment i.e smell of alcohol, and Mr Hypocrite would have been on his way having done the minimum amount possible to comply with the law.

Mr Hypocrite decides that despite what the Supreme Court has ruled that it's unconstitutional and he is going to act like a child and throw a temper tantrum. Again I hope they throw the book at him.

Yard Sale said:

That's a gross misrepresentation of Sitz. The Rehnquist court found suspicionless seizures at roadblocks to be per se violations of the fourth amendment and unconstitutional. The court allowed them anyway, thus they are legal where allowed by states.


There is no such thing as a dui checkpoint or sobriety checkpoint in the Nevada Revised Statues, nor in the local muni code. If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.

Click to expand...

It's amazing that you alone out of all the police, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law clerks, reporters and lets not forget the ACLU you are the only person in the state that has uncovered a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of thousands of citizens through an illegal and highly publicized DUI checkpoint program. The law school that you went to must have been one of the top in the world.

One would think that that some other lawyer would have realized that these DUI checkpoints are in fact illegal under the law and had his clients DUI cases dismissed and then went onto file a federal civil rights violation lawsuit that would have netted him millions upon millions of dollars from the state. I guess your state just has a dump truck full of dumb lawyers.

nomidlname said:

So, from your take a DUI check point is valid reason to stop you and do anything they want to you for no reason what-so-ever? He didn't want to roll down his window so you think he should be charged with obstruction? wtf?! Seriously?

How did that obstruct the dui check point? He stopped where he was suppose to and obeyed the lawful commands while standing his ground against uinlawful commands. Where in the DUI regulations does it say you must roll down your window? Please cite the federal, state, or local statute.

Click to expand...

OK I'll play your silly game cite where the police can tell you to take your hands out of your pocket? Please cite in federal, state or local law where you are allow to watch TV?

How do you think the police detect that it is possible that someone is driving impaired? Unlike the TV commercial where the cab of the vehicle is filled with beer that sloshes out to the pavement, they have to use things like erratic driving, or the smell of alcohol. It is generally accepted that smells do not penetrate glass. So if you don't want to roll down the window you are impairing/obstruction the ability of the officer to fulfill the legally allowed purpose of the DUI checkpoint.

It's no wonder there is such dislike of the OC community when it has such hypocrites

Phoenix David said:

ss. So if you don't want to roll down the window you are impairing/obstruction the ability of the officer to fulfill the legally allowed purpose of the DUI checkpoint.

Click to expand...

Ahh so now he was obstructing because he didnt roll the window down all the way. Before you said he was obstructing by not getting out of the car. They have no duty to smell his breath, as there is nothing in the statute about dui checkpoints and consenting to a sniff test.The statutes were posted I see you choose not to read them.They could hear him and respond to him just fine as it was.

Also remaining mute is no longer strong enough after the recent supreme court ruling. Now we do have to state we dont wish to answer.

Phoenix David said:

It's amazing that you alone out of all the police, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law clerks, reporters and lets not forget the ACLU you are the only person in the state that has uncovered a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of thousands of citizens through an illegal and highly publicized DUI checkpoint program. The law school that you went to must have been one of the top in the world.

One would think that that some other lawyer would have realized that these DUI checkpoints are in fact illegal under the law and had his clients DUI cases dismissed and then went onto file a federal civil rights violation lawsuit that would have netted him millions upon millions of dollars from the state. I guess your state just has a dump truck full of dumb lawyers.

Click to expand...

Believe me, there are more than enough lawyers out there who maintain that these roadblocks are unconstitutional. The system is built in a way that makes it cost prohibitive to challenge it. You can't bring suit unless you are "Harmed," therefore it takes someone putting themselves in jeopardy of harm for a court to rule that something was unconstitutional, establishing precedent.

It's not that there is not a plethora of lawyers ready to fight for this cause, It's that there are not enough people willing and/or able to mount a fight when it is cheaper to a) tolerate the violation of their rights, or B) avoid the fight all together. It's no different than the North Las Vegas ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms in a car remaining on the books when clearly it is unenforceable, or Clark County Parks and Recreation banning firearms in parks. It has less to do with those laws being legal and more to do with the fact that few people are willing to risk arrest, prosecution and conviction to get a high court to rule that the arrest was unlawful by virtue of a violation of constitutional rights.

Lawyers cost thousands of dollars. Most people either don't have or are unwilling to spend the money it takes to fight things like this, that is why these injustices keep perpetuation themselves, not because they are lawful.

Keep in mind that Phonix David lives in a place where laws have been passed that shift the burden of proof onto the accused rather than the accuser. In his state, an officer can detain you until you prove your legal status as a resident of the United States. He seems to be one of the many in Arizona who has grown so accustomed to living in a Police State that now he will not only accept it as the way things ought to be, but he will defend it as well. This is the logical end that government is seeking. A people who are so blind and unaware that their rights have been violated that they embrace the violation as if it were a 2 year old child's security blanket. If government is allowed to continue down this path, films like V for Vendetta will be far less fictional representations of the future.

Phoenix David said:

OK I'll play your silly game cite where the police can tell you to take your hands out of your pocket?

Click to expand...

I believe this policy might be derived out of the officers concern for the safety of self and those around them. There are many lethal weapons that can be concealed in a pocket. For instance I can conceal my full sized Springfield XD in my sweatshirt pocket. Additionally when I'm standing around in the cold I like to use said pocket to keep my hands warm. Knowing that other people can also hide weapons in similar pockets I see it very reasonable for someone whose life is on the line when dealing with you to request(order) you to keep your hands in plain sight instead of inside cavernous pockets containing who-knows-what.

Realistically the only way for an officer to know what a person may be concealing in their pockets is to search them themselves. Unless you're advocating a desire for officers to start patting down everyone they encounter in their duties without first obtaining RAS I would be careful about using this as an argument. I REALLY don't want police officers having to turn into TSA agents.

Where they can draw the line between fearing for their own safety and the inconveniencing of others is an interesting question, but violating our rights is a good sign that they've crossed said line. As to what provision specifically grants them the authority to order you to do so(keeping your hands in plain sight), IANAL so I don't know the specific code but I suspect it exists and this specific order would be legal.

Phoenix David said:

Please cite in federal, state or local law where you are allow to watch TV?

Click to expand...

Here is where we have a problem. In our society laws are written to prevent actions from being allowed(making those actions illegal). They are not written to make actions permissible. Just as we obtain the ability to Openly Carry a firearm because no law exists to prevent it, where there is presently no law that exists(to my knowledge) to prevent us from watching TV, the action is LEGAL.

I'm guessing you know this, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're implying that because an officer has the right to tell you to do one thing out of reasonable fear for his safety that he has the right to tell you to do anything he wants is just plain bs. We are not required to obey unlawful orders, we are required to comply with lawful orders to the extent required by law.

Phoenix David said:

How do you think the police detect that it is possible that someone is driving impaired?

Click to expand...

This is not my problem, this is THEIR(police officers) problem. It's not our job to make ourselves available for interrogation at the whim of another person. Ordering someone to do that requires a subpoena. The OP declared his intention to plea the fifth and not speak to the police. This is NOT an admission of guilt whatsoever, it's a statement designed to inform the officer that they would NOT be getting an opportunity to get him to make any such statement via deception or any other form of intimidation.

As far as I think most of us are concerned, if a person exercises their Fifth Amendment rights they should not be forced to speak another word to the officer. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, in the youtube audio the ignorant officer then blatently lied and said "You're not under arrest, so that doesn't apply" BS. "We just have a few questions for you, you're not under arrest...you don't need a lawyer." I'm sure there are MANY convicted persons who regret believing in those words. Police are not our friends, and as long as there's a strong mentality of "Us vs them" and the "Blue Code of silence" in the force I see no reason to inconvenience myself to make their lives any easier.

There's a youtube video from a law professor full of reasons why you should NEVER speak to the police under any circumstances. Especially when you've done nothing wrong. I'm also fairly certain that the officer insisting that he continue speaking with the OP after he declared his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and requesting legal counsel constitutes a violation of protocol in and of itself. But this isn't about that.

The fact that the OP(and others) is not comfortable dealing with what they perceive as a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights; and exercise their Fifth Amendment right to shield themselves from it makes police angry or frustrated is irrelevant. It is not a crime to make a person or group of people uncomfortable or pissed off. I'm an atheist, I don't believe god exists. I'm pretty sure I just pissed someone off with that sentence, but it's not a crime to do so.

As to whether the current Supreme Court decision can be the be-all-end-all determination as to whether DUI Roadblocks are constitutional, I'd like to remind you that at one time that same court ruled in FAVOR of slavery/discrimination. The fact that they later went on to rectify their mistake and overrule that decision means that they are not infallible and their decisions CAN BE WRONG.

As to whether or not this is one of those times remains to be seen, I know that many people think it is. That belief does not make them hypocrites, it makes them patriots. Warrantless wiretaps, imperialism, imprisonment without due process, torture. Just because our government or those acting on its behalf do something does not make it right or just.

Phoenix David said:

Unlike the TV commercial where the cab of the vehicle is filled with beer that sloshes out to the pavement, they have to use things like erratic driving, or the smell of alcohol. It is generally accepted that smells do not penetrate glass. So if you don't want to roll down the window you are impairing/obstruction the ability of the officer to fulfill the legally allowed purpose of the DUI checkpoint.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree that erratic driving(and even the smell of alcoholic beverages - alcohol is odorless) is a good sign of intoxication. However, it's not our duty to violate our privacy in order to convince an Officer that we're NOT violating the law. Innocent until proven guilty in this country, remember? It's not our job to prove ourselves innocent of a crime to LEO's by jumping through their hoops designed to entrap and deceive.

Not wanting to roll down your window is not obstructing their ability to do their job, and I'm fairly certain that's why the OP's case is going to be dismissed in the end. It's the whole slippery slope problem. It's just a "little" thing they want you to do, it's nothing too invasive. All of those "little" things add up. First any expectation of privacy in your vehicle is gone, then your expectation of privacy outside your home(traffic & surveillance cameras everywhere), then your expectation of privacy.

What if officers took this desired mentality a step further and started going door to door making sure nobody had illegal drugs, or pirated movies & music. What if they started allowing and performing random scans of your Hard Drive from the internet to make sure you didn't have those things? What if they had the ability to turn any cellphone into a surveillance bug without your consent? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear...right? Why not comply? You haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear...why not open your door/drop your firewall and let them look inside?

Is drunk driving a problem? ABSOLUTELY! If the goal of the police force was truly cracking down on DUI wouldn't they use the method that was statistically proven to work...Saturation patrols.

omegadeity said:

Is drunk driving a problem? ABSOLUTELY! If the goal of the police force was truly cracking down on DUI wouldn't they use the method that was statistically proven to work...Saturation patrols.

Click to expand...

Because DUI enforcement is the cover they use to mask the true intent of the road blocks. The Road Block's true purpose is to generate revenue from violations that are harder to find, like no insurance, not registering you car in Nevada within the required time frame, seat belt violations, etc. These citations generate massive revenue, catching a few drunk drivers is how the justify it.

The vast majority of those citations are paid without contest in court because it is often cheaper to pay the fine then it is to hire an attorney and fight it. When so many people live paycheck to paycheck, the funds for a legal defense are just not there irregardless of the unconstitutionality of their detention and the investigation that leads to the citation. The fact of the matter is, even DUI is a charge that's more expensive to contest in court. It is that way by design. I know this to be true, because I've been charged with OWI and payed about $5000 in legal fees to defend myself, While I prevailed in criminal court, I certainly paid for it. The prosecutor even said to me after court, "why are you even bothering to fight this? it will cost you a fraction to simply plea guilty." My response to her was simple, "somethings principals are worth fighting and paying to defend."

Back to the original topic, These roadblocks may be constitutional, but that constitutionality hinges on consent. Clearly Yard Sale did not consent to anything, that was made clear when he yelled "STOP THAT" when an officer tried to gain warrant-less entry into his vehicle. Personally, he would have been better off letting them break out his window because it would be hard for them to claim that he consented when they had to use brute force to make contact with someone whom they had no other reason to contact other than the fact that they happened upon a roadblock.

Nevada carrier said:

Because DUI enforcement is the cover they use to mask the true intent of the road blocks. The Road Block's true purpose is to generate revenue from violations that are harder to find, like no insurance, not registering you car in Nevada within the required time frame, seat belt violations, etc. These citations generate massive revenue, catching a few drunk drivers is how the justify it.

Click to expand...

I am not sure about Nevada but in Missouri grants from the federal government are the big cash cow in regards to these checkpoints. The citations are just a bonus.

MK said:

I am not sure about Nevada but in Missouri grants from the federal government are the big cash cow in regards to these checkpoints. The citations are just a bonus.

Click to expand...

Same here.

Phoenix David said:

How do you think the police detect that it is possible that someone is driving impaired? Unlike the TV commercial where the cab of the vehicle is filled with beer that sloshes out to the pavement, they have to use things like erratic driving, or the smell of alcohol. It is generally accepted that smells do not penetrate glass. So if you don't want to roll down the window you are impairing/obstruction the ability of the officer to fulfill the legally allowed purpose of the DUI checkpoint.

Click to expand...

This sounds alot like being forced to give evidence against yourself. The 5th amendment isn't just about being able to keep your lips closed. It's about not having to give up evidence against yourself. What is constitutional about being forced to give officers evidence to convict you?

The US Supreme Court kept their "approval" of checkpoints very narrow in scope. The temporary seizure of the person is the ONLY thing they said was constitutional, because it was a "minor intrusion". Nothing else. The Supreme Court said stopping the driver was allowed, but that doesn't mean police can just start doing whatever else they want. There are plenty of ways of detecting intoxication. For example, if I look at you, you might be able to tell my eyes are red or glassy. If I speak, even just to say "I don't consent", you might be able to hear me slurring. No statute requires me to look at the officer or speak to him in any way. Why then do you believe that the statute-less demand to roll down my window is any different?

Phoenix David said:

It's no wonder there is such dislike of the OC community when it has such hypocrites

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I feel this is precisely what you are. You presumably support gun rights, so why do you so disrespect non-gun rights? SCOTUS might have said stopping vehicles at checkpoints is legal, but that certainly doesn't automatically allow police to engage in any other constitutionally-questionable activities just because a part of the checkpoint has been made legal. It's not the stopping of the vehicle that's being challenged. None of us like it, but like you said, SCOTUS has already opined on this topic, so it's the law and not open for debate. It's what happens after the stop that's in question. And it's a question SCOTUS has never reviewed or answered.

Phoenix David said:

Wrong. What I can't stand is a hypocrite. The Supreme Court has declared them constitutional so they are.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court declared it legal to throw 80,000 Americans and their families into concentration camps for the heinous crime of having Japanese ancestry. The Supreme Court signed off on slavery and on denying rights to people based on the color of their skin. The Supreme Court CAN MAKE MISTAKES, and it is up to the governed to withhold our consent and resist those mistakes long enough to give the politicians a chance to fix them.

Since driving is a privilege, not a right, can't the State regulate it as they need to? License, implied consent laws, etc...?

I guess you can make the arguement, that if you don't like traffic laws, then don't drive. Nobody if forcing you to drive. How many CAT buses are stopped in a DUI roadblock?...zero. How many taxis are stopped?...zero. How many joggers are stopped?...zero.

privilege vs. right ???