DUI checkpoint!

[Logan]

Well I think we've established a few things.

1. Checkpoints are unconstitutional
2. "If you aren't drunk you have nothing to worry about" equals "guilty until proven innocent" (The feeling of safety is not worth the freedom you sacrifice)
3. Checkpoints are inefficient (20-25 cops required when they could be patrolling and getting more arrests)
4. Drunk Driving laws for actual offenders are too lenient.

We have DUI check points. Then we have some more Muslim terrorist attacks on our nation. Some CIA intelligence says that there's a chance that a Muslim immigrant has a suitcase size nuke.

How hard do you have to push yourself to imaging the government starting complete searches of your vehicle at check points everywhere, justifying it by saying, "Well, we've stopped vehicles at DUI check points for years. All we're doing now is checking their papers to make sure they're citizens, and looking in the trunk while we're at it."?

I find that a very reasonable line of logic given the legislative history over the past 6 years and it is a very scary one.

Anyone have any counter arguments?

 

[MikeFlynn74]

I find that a very reasonable line of logic given the

Its an idiotic fallicy. Why anyone would believe in US intelligence after IRAQ WMDs and the lack of finding one man with a failing kidney....

 

[shafferpilot]

Careful, let's try to stick to the topic at hand. We have an entire year to talk about the rest of our nation's political outlook

 

[PeteOz77]

Careful, let's try to stick to the topic at hand. We have an entire year to talk about the rest of our nation's political outlook

OK, then I won't bring up the subject of the US government holding an Aussie citizen in Guantanamo Bay for 5 YEARS without charging him with any crime..

I promise, I won't mention it.

 

[shafferpilot]

Come on now, this is a good thread. I don't want a mod walking by and hearing us yelling at each other and shutting it down. Not that there's much left to talk about, but still.....

 

[Pugilist]

In my state it takes 20 to 25 officers to run a checkpoint. On average, in my state, they arrest 5 to 6 people per checkpoint. That is a HUGE waste of resources. So while that guy three blocks from the checkpoint doesn't get killed by one of those 5 or six drunks, 5 other people are dying in other places in my state, because someone decided that making a public appearance of being tough on DUI offenders out-weighs the realities of the issue. So, even if we are willing to give up our rights, we should still be anti-checkpoint!

The manpower issue is a good point I forgot to mention. A local town by me ran a checkpoint that was funded by the township and the county. They failed to make one arrest for DWI. The officers involved felt it was a waste of time and I wholly agree. In this state (NJ) again due to HEAVY hits on peoples wallets more and more people are taking cabs, which is great. Most towns run a few extra patrols on weekend and holiday nights assigned to specifically DUI enforcement. That to me is a much more economically sound option. I still feel in states where DUI is a major problem, checkpoints are a viable option.

I also cannot get my head around people saying a checkpoint is a violation of rights. The officer will not have you step out of your vehicle and test you if you dont have the odor of alcoholic beverage on your breath, or slurred speech, etc. If you DO have any of these signs, it is no different then the officer making a traffic stop on your vehicle after observation of your vehicle.

As well, saying a DUI checkpoint will lead to a Nazi state of stopping vehicles and searching them, or going into peoples homes and ripping them apart without full legal reasons is ludicrous. No American, myself included would stand for such things, that is what seperates our country from so many others.

 

[shafferpilot]

So you'd be furious if they wanted to search your house, but you are willing to allow your body to be searched without due cause? As stated before, if the fourth amendment applies to citizens, then it does. If it is to be ignored, then it doesn't mean anything. it's a "have your cake and eat it too" issue. Ten years ago, i would have said that the United States would NEVER invade a sovereign nation. Defend nations against another's invasion, sure. But surely if a president tried to use the United States Armed Forces to invade another country, Americans would run him out of office in a NY minute...... things change, and if you aren't wary of every move the government makes, it'll be too late when you decide to take a stand. The only thing we have to support us as individuals is the Bill of Rights. That document is being slowly carved up. Which of your inalienable rights has to be cut before YOU decide it's too much?

 

[Evan!]

Well I think we've established a few things.

...

4. Drunk Driving laws for actual offenders are too lenient.

Oh, we've established that, have we? We've established that imprisoning someone, taking their license away (thus in many cases taking their job away), making them take all these classes scolding them for being alcoholics, and forcing them to pay about 10 thousand dollars in fees and fines, all for blowing a bullsh*t number on a bullsh*t machine that gets it wrong half the time, is too lenient? No, I don't think we've established that. I don't think we've established that it's okay to punish someone to the point of ruining their life because they blew a .08, while others can talk on their cellphone (proven in multiple studies to be about equal in impairment to having a .10 BAC) with almost absolute impunity.

I believe the opposite to be true. I believe that we the people should be able to have access to the source code of the breathalyzers that so often comprise the entire court case against defendants. I believe that punishments should be commensurate with the actual level of impairment, and should be equal among all forms of impairment, whether it be drinking, chatting, skimming through your iPod or thumbing through your CD collection, reading or yelling at your whining kids in the backseat. I believe that the more egregious offenders (.14+) should be the target of enforcement, as they are the cause of the vast majority of injuries and deaths. I believe that laws should be based on facts, not emotion and hyperbole.

 

[maltMonkey]

Serial killers murder people. Should police be allowed to do random house searches to determine if people are serial killers?

That is not even remotely relevant nor applicable to anything I have said.

You don’t see the relevance? Really? You’re saying that you don’t mind giving up some personal freedoms or suffering “inconveniences” because it might stop something bad. It’s exactly the same situation I presented.

My point is I STRONGLY support every citizens rights under our constitution, bearing arms (I own 23 guns), freedom of speech, etc. BUT! If traffic being slowed and stopped to weed out people driving drunk saves the life of one American citizen, shouldn't that be enough?

No.
If I go through a DUI checkpoint, I am being detained, questioned, and searched for no reason. That is at least harassment, and a violation of my rights.
We can all agree that drunk driving accidents are bad, but your arguments are based solely on emotion, which is a dangerous way to think.

If you dont appear to have been drinking, or smell like alcohol, you are on your way. The people that scream my rights are being violated and "cops are on a power trip" are 99% of the time ones who have either had 1 or more DUI's, or have the baggy of fun stuffed in their sock.

That is an unfair and irresponsible allegation to make. What if I said that anyone who supports DUI checkpoints is either a communist or facist? That’s called a straw man.

 

[Evan!]

That is an unfair and irresponsible allegation to make. What if I said that anyone who supports DUI checkpoints is either a communist or facist? That’s called a straw man.

Actually, it's more of an Ad Hominem fallacy. He's not misrepresenting the argument, he's attacking the people making the argument and trying to use those attacks to disqualify the argument therein. Just because Charles Manson argues that 2+2=4 doesn't make it wrong.

The Ad Hominem committed above is even worse given that the accusations being made (that 99% of those arguing against police power abuse are DUI offenders) are flat-out wrong.

 

[maltMonkey]

Actually, it's more of an Ad Hominem fallacy. He's not misrepresenting the argument, he's attacking the people making the argument and trying to use those attacks to disqualify the argument therein. Just because Charles Manson argues that 2+2=4 doesn't make it wrong.

The Ad Hominem committed above is even worse given that the accusations being made (that 99% of those arguing against police power abuse are DUI offenders) are flat-out wrong.

It's maybe a little bit of both....I read it as "Anyone who is against DUI checkpoints only feels that way because they want to drive drunk or carry drugs."

At any rate it infuriates me when I see statements like this go unchecked.

 

[Evan!]

It's maybe a little bit of both....I read it as "Anyone who is against DUI checkpoints only feels that way because they want to drive drunk or carry drugs."

At any rate it infuriates me when I see statements like this go unchecked.

Me too---Ad Hominem, Strawman, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority...ugh...the internetz are replete with these fallacies, and it gets real old...

 

[shafferpilot]

Sounds like you guys are trying to point out the difference between arguing and debating. I hate the first one and love the second. many people don't even know that those two words mean different things.

 

[srm775]

This sort of blind faith in the courts is dangerous. Just because the supreme court ruled one way doesn't necessarily make it right. That is an appeal to authority of the worst kind. The courts also ruled to make abortion legal. Does that mean ethicists should just throw up their hands and give up debate? If you want to play this game, though, there were multiple ruling before the most recent that declared it a breach of rights. Further, the most recent wasn't even unanimous. There was, in fact, a dissenting opinion.

It's not blind faith in the court system. It's merely stating a fact. Until it's ruled unconstitutional by a future court and a new precedent is set, it is not in violation of the 4th amendment. Neither the constitution nor the case law that's derived from it are static, but rather ever changing.

There rarely is a unanimous decision with the court, which is why there are 9 justices and not eight or ten. Infact, there were 3 dissenting opinions.

By the way, appeal to authority would be if I said, sobriety checkpoints are good because Dr. Smith works in the ER and see the victims of drunk driving and said it's aweful. See, the two have nothing really in common. Whereas saying that the Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints aren't unconstitutional (then stating the case law) and they are the final say on the constitution isn't an appeal to authority ... it's stating an outright fact.

And once again, slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. You still have yet to show why you disbelieve mine.Even if this were true, it wouldn't sway me. This type of utilitarianism is completely untenable.

Actually, what's more relevant is you have yet to prove how it is a slippery slope. You've yet to show how the Sitz case has been used to justify unchecked expansion of police powers to seach persons, effects or residents. The simple fact of the matter is that it hasn't. In fact, the Sitz case was used to justify an Ohio case where a checkpoint was set-up to find drivers driving on suspended licenses, registrations and various other road-related offenses. That case was overturned by the Supreme Ct. stating it violated the 4th amendment.

So, really after more than 20 years of sobriety checkpoints being used, and nearly 18 years of the Sitz ruling, you have yet to show how it is a slippery slope. With zero data to show that it has led to something more, your slippery argument is a fallacy.

The key word here is, one COULD lead to another. The idea here is that it sets a president! Once you get use to something, it's not a hard stretch to justify doing a little more. Stuff like this builds on itself. We banned automatic because "Who needs something like that, and besides it's OK, because we're not banning ALL guns." Now the socialist republic of California has been banning simi-auto weapons, because "they look like automatics, and could be used to scare people".

See above.

 

[Pugilist]

I posted that 99% was a high figure. I see the liberal side of alot of people coming out and thats what I dont understand. My perception of extreme liberals is they want to undermine police and military authority because it violates their civil rights.

Extremes of police and military abuse are all over history, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Middle Eastern countries, and most recent developments in Kenya. Calling a DUI checkpoint a violation of rights and equating it to being stripped of your constitutional rights is absurd.

As well, if there is an escaped criminally insane murderer loose in a residential area, would you object to a checkpoint there to make sure the person is not slipping away in a vehicle? Or would you rather have your "rights" protected and have the police just hope for a lucky break?

I also do feel this a "debate" and not personal attacks. Hopefully people can keep it in perspective. The one right in the US we all cherish is being able to have an opionion and voice it. Flame on....

 

[Evan!]

I posted that 99% was a high figure. I see the liberal side of alot of people coming out and thats what I dont understand. My perception of extreme liberals is they want to undermine police and military authority because it violates their civil rights.

Well, hey, if stereotypes work for ya, then...

Extremes of police and military abuse are all over history, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Middle Eastern countries, and most recent developments in Kenya. Calling a DUI checkpoint a violation of rights and equating it to being stripped of your constitutional rights is absurd.

You know what's absurd? Presenting the most extreme examples in recent history of police & military abuse next to these abuses and saying "see, it's not that bad". What you've done is no different than putting a video of the Aushwitz prisoners being stuffed into gas chambers up next to a video of an old lady getting her purse stolen, and saying "see, stealing a purse isn't that bad, and your feelings against theft are absurd". You can't win a debate simply by showing instances of much worse violations and quipping, "it's not that bad by comparison". Our rights aren't validated by relativity...

As well, if there is an escaped criminally insane murderer loose in a residential area, would you object to a checkpoint there to make sure the person is not slipping away in a vehicle? Or would you rather have your "rights" protected and have the police just hope for a lucky break?

I always love it when people put "rights" in air quotes. Like they're something that aren't really important. Again, I'll quote Franklin:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

There are tons of things that we could do to make us safer...if we're willing to give up essential liberties. Letting the government spy on my e-mails might make me safer by making it easier for them to catch terrorist *******---but my essential right to privacy is bigger than simply feeling safer from the miniscule chance of a terrorist murdering me. There must be a principled approach, rather than simply looking at our rights and saying "hey, let's just get rid of them if it makes us safer".

 

[srm775]

As it's been said before in this thread, we're not talking about whether or not drinking and driving is right...it's not! What I'm talking about, is not trading our rights and freedoms for 'security'. Even if it doesn't seem like a big trade now, I truly believe it's setting a precedent for the future.

First, everyone in a society, especially a modern society, relinquishes certain freedoms for order, security and convenience ... it's a part of the social contract so to speak. Additionally, we all have individual rights/freedoms. However, some of those rights we all enjoy are directly contrary to other rights we also enjoy, at that point certain rights of one individual outweigh the rights of the other individual. For example, you have a right to listen to whatever music you like and at what levels you like, UNTIL it interfers with my right to peaceably enjoy my surroundings. At that point, my rights trump your rights.

Again, how has the Sitz case set a precedent for anything other than properly run sobriety checkpoints? It hasn't (see post above) and it was ruled upon 18 years ago.

Additionally, everyone keeps mentioning "unwarranted" and "without cause" but the fact of the matter is that there is cause and warrant when a properly run sobriety checkpoint is setup. Checkpoints are set up in statistically high areas of drunk driving related accidents and arrests. That is one of the "sniff tests" the Supreme Court uses the test the constitutionality of a case involving a checkpoint.

(truncated for brevity)
How hard do you have to push yourself to imaging the government starting complete searches of your vehicle at check points everywhere, justifying it by saying, "Well, we've stopped vehicles at DUI check points for years. All we're doing now is checking their papers to make sure they're citizens, and looking in the trunk while we're at it."?

See my post above, it hasn't in fact lead to it and there has been a case similar (not quite as drastic, but similar) and the case was over turned as unconstitutional. The slippery slope just isn't applicable here.

I mean come on! Look at what they did with the phone tapping in an 'interest of national security' after 9/11.

I think that those cases involving the immediate post 9/11 hysterics that have been tested are being thrown out, and I think you'll continue to see them get tossed by the courts.

but my essential right to privacy is bigger than simply feeling safer from the miniscule chance of a terrorist murdering me. There must be a principled approach, rather than simply looking at our rights and saying "hey, let's just get rid of them if it makes us safer".

See, there's the rub (in bold). When we're talking about sobriety checkpoints, they're located in a statistically high area of dd related accidents and offenses at times where the likeliness dd incidences are even higher. So you're really not talking about a made-up or miniscule danger, but rather a very real danger.

 

[olllllo]

How's it going in here?

Are we still able to look each other in the eye?

Have you found someone on the board that you would NOT like to have a beer with?

I see alot of back and forth, like grooves on a metal record.
Do I need to go back and read for content? I glanced and saw the word infuriating and something along the lines of imbecile and a reference to poor debate tactics.

WE all good?

 

[Evan!]

How's it going in here?

Are we still able to look each other in the eye?

Have you found someone on the board that you would NOT like to have a beer with?

I see alot of back and forth, like grooves on a metal record.
Do I need to go back and read for content? I glanced and saw the word infuriating and something along the lines of imbecile and a reference to poor debate tactics.

WE all good?

yuh yuh yesss, massa...we behavin', honest!

I don't know if anyone said "imbecile", tho...regardless, in my opinion, it seems pretty civil so far. A little tense at times, but that's to be expected. Personal attacks are relatively rare so far...

 

[ArcaneXor]

In my opinion, drunk driving should be automatic jail time and loss of driver's license, even if you don't cause any injury or damage. I love my beer, but I am also aware that some 20,000 people die and who knows how many others get injured each year in the US alone by idiots who think they are above the law and/or basic principles of toxicology/metabolism.

That said, I do not like police roadblocks. There are better ways to go about arresting drunks without harassing others.

 

[maltMonkey]

I posted that 99% was a high figure. I see the liberal side of alot of people coming out and thats what I dont understand. My perception of extreme liberals is they want to undermine police and military authority because it violates their civil rights.

You're missing the point: instead of debating the issue you are making a sweeping, fallacious character judgment about the people who are against checkpoints.

As well, if there is an escaped criminally insane murderer loose in a residential area, would you object to a checkpoint there to make sure the person is not slipping away in a vehicle? Or would you rather have your "rights" protected and have the police just hope for a lucky break?

I would be extremely upset if I got pulled over and searched to see if I was harboring a fugitive without any just cause.

I also do feel this a "debate" and not personal attacks. Hopefully people can keep it in perspective. The one right in the US we all cherish is being able to have an opionion and voice it. Flame on....

No flames or personal attacks here--you have every right to your opinion, I just disagree.

 

[beala]

Until it's ruled unconstitutional by a future court and a new precedent is set, it is not in violation of the 4th amendment. Neither the constitution nor the case law that's derived from it are static, but rather ever changing.

You contradict yourself. If a ruling of the courts made something either undeniably constitutional or unconstitutional, then nothing could ever be overturned. How can something that is incontestable be ever changing? A court could always dismiss a case on the grounds that: Law B was ruled unconstitutional, and that ruling is incontestable.

This also leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that segregation was in fact constitutional at one point (Plessy v. Ferguson). That is to say, at one point in time, the segregation laws were just, and it wasn't until recently they became unjust.

What's more likely the case is that there is an objective truth to the interpretation of the constitution, but the courts aren't as infallible an authority as you'd like to think. The upshot of this is that we can say segregation laws were never constitutional, the court was simply wrong at one point. This is my argument concerning checkpoint laws.

By the way, appeal to authority would be if I said, sobriety checkpoints are good because Dr. Smith works in the ER and see the victims of drunk driving and said it's aweful. See, the two have nothing really in common. Whereas saying that the Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints aren't unconstitutional (then stating the case law) and they are the final say on the constitution isn't an appeal to authority ... it's stating an outright fact.

Let's settle this once and for all.
Wiki:
"There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious."

Given that the courts aren't some sort of divinely inspired judges of the constitution, this is indeed an appeal to authority.

What's perhaps more devastating to your argument, is the fact that you're begging the question. You're using the court case that instated certain laws, as evidence that those laws are just. That is, we ask the question "Is the ruling of the courts concerning checkpoint laws just?" And you answer with "Yes, it is just, because the court says so."

Actually, what's more relevant is you have yet to prove how it is a slippery slope.

It's a slippery slope because the justification for checkpoints could also be used to justify other obviously unjust actions. Just because a certain reason could be used for justification, doesn't mean it will, but the fact that it could is enough to show its folly. Perhaps the better way of putting this would be a reductio ad absurdum. I've shown that following your reasoning to it's logical end results in unacceptable (absurd) conclusion.

 

[cheezydemon]

Ummm...the entire premise of this thread was how well he handled the cops. One huge paragraph about it(in case you missed it, it is the first post)

If he wasn't even a little drunk, then what is there to brag about.

There is a real misconception that "if you can manage to get home without weaving and you obey traffic laws, you shouldn't be pulled over"

Is it still OK if your reaction time is slowed? What if a kid runs out in front of you?

The check points do catch people that otherwise may have gotten home without weaving too much, or who may have gone on to kill somebody.

 

[Evan!]

In my opinion, drunk driving should be automatic jail time and loss of driver's license, even if you don't cause any injury or damage.

Quick question for ya: multiple independent university studies have concluded that talking on a cellphone while driving is equal in impairment to roughly a .10 BAC. So, knowing that, do you also support automatic jail time and a loss of drivers license for people who talk on their cellphone while driving, even if they don't cause injury or damage?

 

[maltMonkey]

How's it going in here?

Are we still able to look each other in the eye?

Have you found someone on the board that you would NOT like to have a beer with?

I see alot of back and forth, like grooves on a metal record.
Do I need to go back and read for content? I glanced and saw the word infuriating and something along the lines of imbecile and a reference to poor debate tactics.

WE all good?

I would have a beer with anyone on this forum I definitely did not mean to attack anyone so my apologies if anything I said were taken that way.

Cheers everyone, it's Friday

 

[Evan!]

The check points do catch people that otherwise may have gotten home without weaving too much, or who may have gone on to kill somebody.

Yes, I know, I know, the old "ends justifying the means" argument, in conjunction with the "if you've done nothing wrong then you don't have anything to worry about" argument---they've been used in quite a few debates to justify the abrogation of our rights. I mean, honestly, if putting a video camera in every home in america catches just one terrorist, then who are we to whine about privacy?

 

[cd2448]

Quick question for ya: multiple independent university studies have concluded that talking on a cellphone while driving is equal in impairment to roughly a .10 BAC. So, knowing that, do you also support automatic jail time and a loss of drivers license for people who talk on their cellphone while driving, even if they don't cause injury or damage?

I'm all for the punishments being equivalent but I don't think automatic jail time is right in either case. There is no reason for anyone to be drinking and driving or talking on a (non-handsfree) cell while driving.

 

[seethe303]

I just want to say I think this is a great thread. There are well put together ideas on both sides. I have seen this exact discussion on other message boards come to bickering extremely fast, so kudos to you all.

 

[WortMonger]

HBT=Pleasantness in even the most heated of conversations/arguments. Because we have real arguments, not word fights. I am so happy to belong to this group, we really can all be proud of that fact. I think others don't understand an argument is not a one sided conversation but a way to voice an opinion and hear what others have to say in retort. I am constantly saying something, getting better information from another, and in some instances completely changing my stance. Other forums should be envious because we ALL rule!!!!:rockin:

 

[cheezydemon]

Yes, I know, I know, the old "ends justifying the means" argument, in conjunction with the "if you've done nothing wrong then you don't have anything to worry about" argument---they've been used in quite a few debates to justify the abrogation of our rights. I mean, honestly, if putting a video camera in every home in america catches just one terrorist, then who are we to whine about privacy?

Excellent point my friend.

Allow me to reply.

The statistics (and I would have to make them up at this point) I am sure, point to a much higher instance of alcohol related fatalities than terrorist acts from inside people's homes.

*SPOILER - (the rest of this is not all nicey nice, but is not aomed at Evan or anyone specifically - Thanks!)

And F*ck people who stop using their turn signals (not to mention common F*cking sense) when they talk on their cell phones and drive. And f*ck those of you who don't use turn signals even when you are not on the phone and sober.

It is just really inconsiderate.