theizzardking
New member
i'll just leave this here...
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
also:
Legality of Sobriety Checkpoints
According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, unreasonable searches and seizures of U.S. citizens are forbidden. There must be probable cause for a law enforcement agent to arrest or search people on their private property. This means that an officer must have reasonable suspicion based on facts that a crime has occurred.
This leads many people to ask how officers can legally stop drivers at sobriety checkpoints.
The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.
The dissenting judges argued that the Constitution does not provide exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. Judge Brennan argued, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”
Judge Stevens, who also dissented in this case, argued that the net effect of checkpoints on traffic safety is small, and possibly negative. He also stated that even if roadblocks were effective, conducting them would not justify violating people’s constitutional rights.
Many DUI attorneys call this ruling “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has made this exemption to the Constitution, eleven states did not abide by the decision. These states found that sobriety checkpoints violate their constitution or outlawed them. People in these states have more protections against unreasonable searches and police DUI roadblocks are prohibited.
The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.
and now please refer back to my quote
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
also:
Legality of Sobriety Checkpoints
According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, unreasonable searches and seizures of U.S. citizens are forbidden. There must be probable cause for a law enforcement agent to arrest or search people on their private property. This means that an officer must have reasonable suspicion based on facts that a crime has occurred.
This leads many people to ask how officers can legally stop drivers at sobriety checkpoints.
The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.
The dissenting judges argued that the Constitution does not provide exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. Judge Brennan argued, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”
Judge Stevens, who also dissented in this case, argued that the net effect of checkpoints on traffic safety is small, and possibly negative. He also stated that even if roadblocks were effective, conducting them would not justify violating people’s constitutional rights.
Many DUI attorneys call this ruling “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has made this exemption to the Constitution, eleven states did not abide by the decision. These states found that sobriety checkpoints violate their constitution or outlawed them. People in these states have more protections against unreasonable searches and police DUI roadblocks are prohibited.
The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.
and now please refer back to my quote
Last edited:
