Posted: 5/6/2006 10:42:57 AM EDT
|
In what states are these legal? In which states are these Illegal? Do you think they should be Abolished in all states? Discuss. |
|
Nebraska like to put up signs saying "drug checkpoint ahead", "drug dog in use", etc on the freeway. Such checkpoints were found to be unconstitutional, so the is no checkpoint. But LEOs observe the area where the signs are, looking for people doing u-turns on the freeway when they see the signs or other probable cause to stop them. |
yes supposedly to check for DUI types (never mind that all they typically catch are minor traffic violations 99% of the time.....) |
I was actually going for the exact opposite. Many people say "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about" It is not about what I have hidden, it is about what I have been seen doing. Pull me over because you saw me smoking a joint/bowl/drinking a beer fine do it I deserve to get caught. Pull me over to see if I am smoking a joint/bowl/drinking a beer and that is a problem. ETA: I have friends who are police officers and I respect the job they do. It is necessary. But stopping people because someone might be doing something illegal is just plain wrong and downright scarry. V for Vendetta is a good example of how this can go horribly wrong, even though it is for you protection. |
|
Ohio has them still I think. They had to change what they call them at some point because they got taken to court and doing it a certain way or calling it a certain thing was not ok. Ohio will put the locations in the newspaper and some radio stations tell you where they are but I still hate the darn things. I have no clue if tn does them but since I recently moved here it is something I will check on shortly. It is wrong, it will always be wrong, and I don't really care if the court says it is ok or statistics show some improvement of some sort or another. |
Maybe in your state... I'm a former LEO in PA. Here is a hypothetical: I stop a car for a traffic violation and find the driver to be DUI. I arrest the driver for DUI. His lawyer later makes a motion for a suppression hearing to fight the probable cause for the stop. At the hearing, the judge decides that there was not sufficient probable cause for the stop regarding the traffic violation. So, by the fruit of the poison tree doctrine, the DUI gets thrown out... Now explain to me how you can stop a car in legal operation with NO PROBABLE CAUSE WHATSOEVER and then arrest someone for DUI at a police checkpoint. How is the above paragraph's situation legal along with this one? Sorry but it's one or the other. You can't have it both ways. Just because some court has decided it's OK (judicial branch usurping legislative authority), doesn't make it right or Constitutional. Want the checkpoints to stop? You can start by NOT supporting groups like MADD. They have lobbyied for years to get the checkpoints in place. I'm all for getting drunks off of the road, but not by way of police state tactics. BTW in PA, you cannot be stopped for turning and going another way (as long as it is done legally) to avoid a police checkpoint. A little about myself: I've had scores of DUI arrests, but not one of them was from a sobriety checkpoint. I made my arrests through solid police work, not by trampling someone's rights. |
That what it is supposed to be, but if you turn and go another way you are stopped by the Police. I have been through dozens of them, due to the hours I used to work, and every time I turned on a side street to avoid the checkpoint I was pulled over by a Police officer. They would even ask why i turned and didn't go through the checkpoint. ETA: Are they supposed to give you the opportunity to take an alternate route (post signs there is a checkpoint where you have the opportunity to turn off and go around it)? That isn't done here all the time either. |
|
If you did not commit a traffic violation, then they did not have PC for the stop. The next time this happens, demand to know the Officer's probable cause for the stop. If he doesn't have any, he could be in deep shit. Of course he could always lie and say that you didn't signal before turning, etc. I've been out of police work for five years, so unless something has changed in that time, the police cannot stop you for legally turning prior to a police checkpoint in PA. It is not against the law to go another way... That being said, many checkpoint locations are picked exactly because it is at a pinch point where you have nowhere else to go. Our local agencies use to set them up on bridges, etc.. Then you are pretty well stuck... |
As a former LEO I would hope you do realize that PC isnt needed for a traffic stop. |
I am NOT a LEO, (just a confused citizen) but I'm confused by this response. Is it the term "probable cause" that you are talking about? Is there some lesser level of suspicion needed? In my understanding, you have to have some reason to pull someone over, right??? (Like, maybe they are breaking the law, no???) |
Again, not a LEO here. So, if someone takes a sidestreet to avoid a checkpoint, this is RS? Has this been upheld in court? |
Not in PA. They pounded this into us in the academy - Always, ALWAYS probable cause for a traffic stop. An exception to this is an investigatory detention. Example: Your signifigant other calls the police and reports that you beat her. You have already left the area. I am on patrol and an hour later see you in operation of a vehicle. I can stop the vehicle w/o PC to investigate the alleged crime. |
Here's a list of states that allow checkpoints. Never ran into one since I live in TX. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/SobrietyCheck/caselaw.html SCOTUS is a rogue court anyway (has been especially since FDR). Any seizure without any suspicion of a crime smells like tyranny to me. |
Guys, these laws will vary from state to state. What I have written applies to PA only. I have no idea what the laws are like in your state. You would have to check with your local or state police for clarification. |
