• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

DUI Checkpoint

eddiet204 said:
Perhaps the SCOTUS will hear the case lol.
Click to expand...

No meed to. They failed to consent to a sobriety checkpoint. The window was open an inch. These guys were tools. A simple "No officer I haven't been drinking" would have worked just fine in their case. And, if you do some research, Escondido no longer asks for a DL at their checkpoints thanks to the ACLU.
 
msethhunter said:
No meed to. They failed to consent to a sobriety checkpoint. The window was open an inch. These guys were tools. A simple "No officer I haven't been drinking" would have worked just fine in their case. And, if you do some research, Escondido no longer asks for a DL at their checkpoints thanks to the ACLU.
Click to expand...

I admire your passion, however in this case, you're simply wrong. Remember, driving is a privilege not a right.
 
Rel said:
I admire your passion, however in this case, you're simply wrong. Remember, driving is a privilege not a right.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment. But the 4th amendment goes well beyond a privilage, which is why SCOTUS ruled on DUI checkpoints. The privilage of driving can be revoked. The 4th amendment can never be, even while excersing the privilage of driving.
 
msethhunter said:
Thank you for the compliment. But the 4th amendment goes well beyond a privilage, which is why SCOTUS ruled on DUI checkpoints. The privilage of driving can be revoked. The 4th amendment can never be, even while excersing the privilage of driving.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however you're trying to force an issue where an issue does not exist.
 
msethhunter said:
And there was a question about submitting to the TSA in this thread earlier. I looked (not very hard) and it's gone now.
Click to expand...

Just so you don't think I'm trying to pull a fast one. It wasn't deleted. You just didn't look hard enough:

Nick said:
At a DUI checkpoint, simply driving through is a lawful detention. Terry v. Ohio and reasonable suspicion does not apply, IMO because it deals more with investigative stops. You're not suspected of any criminal activity prior to boarding an airplane, but you are required to show ID.
Click to expand...

Good luck if you ever come across a checkpoint that requires you provide a DL. Just remember, like Bojangle said... They're not asking for ID. They are asking for your driver license, which you are required to possess while operating a motor vehicle. It's more specific than "Papers please."

:thumbup
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Lester Green said:
he's all talk. wants to think he's up on this and that law and he can swing his meat like this and that. but when it really comes down to it, he's not willing to put his money where his mouth is. just someone with a cracker jack education on the law. poser.
Click to expand...

Hardly a cracker jack education. And you're right, I won't go out looking for trouble. That's completely foolish, and I'm no fool. If that makes me a "poser" than so be it. At least I have the balls and the where with all to challenge authority when I think it's wrong without name calling and can actually support my argument with case law and facts. Ranger than just showing up to a checkpoint with my camera rolling. Like I said, I have a life to live, and there is a proper way to challenge authority. You need yo have very specific knowledge of your rights before you do. And a little bit of help from a former civil rights attorney goes a long way.

BTW, there is no need to be a dick.
 
Yes, refuse to show your license at the next checkpoint and let us know how it works out for you.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to stop when they created the 4th amendment. What part of "UNWARRANTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE" is not understood?

I was under the impression that the Constitution had precedent over and state law. And just because there was a bogus law created, doesn't mean its right, does it?

eddiet204 and others, do you not respect and believe in the Constitution?

We are falling down that 'SLIPPERY SLOPE'.
 
Last edited:
msethhunter said:
And you're right, I won't go out looking for trouble. That's completely foolish, and I'm no fool.
Click to expand...

So, would you voluntarily enter a DUI/Driver License checkpoint or would you go around? If you voluntarily enter the checkpoint, will you show your driver license?

If you don't, are you willing to accept everything that happens afterwords?

terdog55 said:
eddiet204 and others, do you not respect and believe in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

:rofl
 
Rel said:
So, would you voluntarily enter a DUI/Driver License checkpoint or would you go around? If you voluntarily enter the checkpoint, will you show your driver license?

If you don't, are you willing to accept everything that happens afterwords?



:rofl
Click to expand...

I would enter a "DUI checkpoint", and not fear the consequences, because I don't drink and drive. Hell, I barely drink at all. I would do my best to avoid a sign that said "DUI/DL checkpoint" because I fear what would happen to me when I refused to show my ID. But I would still refuse. It would be one of those moments where you get that sinking feeling because even though you are doing what you interperet as right, you know what the consequences are likely going to be. And no, I wouldn't accept what happened afterwords. I would spend every last dollar I had, even if it meant I lost, to prove that I feel it's against what this country stands for. There needs to be a ruling on this from a Supreme Court. And either way that ruling ends up, I would have to accept it. It's an unwarranted search, that lacks PC, and goes against the guidelines set for a DUI checkpoint.
 
msethhunter said:
I would enter a "DUI checkpoint", and not fear the consequences, because I don't drink and drive. Hell, I barely drink at all. I would do my best to avoid a sign that said "DUI/DL checkpoint" because I fear what would happen to me when I refused to show my ID. But I would still refuse. It would be one of those moments where you get that sinking feeling because even though you are doing what you interperet as right, you know what the consequences are likely going to be. And no, I wouldn't accept what happened afterwords. I would spend every last dollar I had, even if it meant I lost, to prove that I feel it's against what this country stands for. There needs to be a ruling on this from a Supreme Court. And either way that ruling ends up, I would have to accept it. It's an unwarranted search, that lacks PC, and goes against the guidelines set for a DUI checkpoint.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I admire your dedication to your cause, however, I hope it never comes to fruition.
 
Rel said:
Like I said, I admire your dedication to your cause, however, I hope it never comes to fruition.
Click to expand...

As do I. But wouldn't you stand up for what you feel is right? Even if it might cost you everything?
 
msethhunter said:
As do I. But wouldn't you stand up for what you feel is right? Even if it might cost you everything?
Click to expand...

No - I would not risk everything just for principal. You have to pick your battles carefully, and risking losing everything over an officer asking to see your divers license while you're behind the wheel of a car is not worth losing everything - at least not to me.
 
terdog55 said:
This is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to stop when they created the 4th amendment. What part of "UNWARRANTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE" is not understood?

I was under the impression that the Constitution had precedent over and state law. And just because there was a bogus law created, doesn't mean its right, does it?

eddiet204 and others, do you not respect and believe in the Constitution?

We are falling down that 'SLIPPERY SLOPE'.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right in my opinion and not ALL of us badge holders believe in this BS, and as one of "us" said earlier “driving is a privilege” well so is being a cop.
 
msethhunter said:
As do I. But wouldn't you stand up for what you feel is right? Even if it might cost you everything?
Click to expand...

If I'm going to fight that fight, I'm going to make damn sure I'm right.... In this case, you believe one way and the law, and SCOTUS believes another way. Granted, persons who challenge the system, sometimes, do get laws changed.

Just like the 2stroke thread, I admire his passion and commitment to the cause, however his execution of his plan is flawed.

Not all cops are shitstains, nor are all people who support the police boot lickers.

There are easier ways to get things changed. Driving into a checkpoint and pitching a bitch isn't the way to go. Use your media outlets and elected officials to make a change.
 
cprbusa said:
You're exactly right in my opinion and not ALL of us badge holders believe in this BS, and as one of "us" said earlier “driving is a privilege” well so is being a cop.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you babbling about?
 
Nick said:
The question was answered when he stated the guy was convicted of 148(a)(1) PC for refusing to provide a DL at the DUI Checkpoint. Where is the confusion?

You're arguing a point because you don't agree with it, not because you have factual evidence to prove otherwise. The guy was convicted. Clearly 12 of your peers (and possibly a judge during a 1538.5 motion) agreed.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer but doesn't pretty much EVERY supreme court (criminal) decision start with someone being arrested and convicted? The cop that made the arrest and the court that convicted followed the law. Maybe the law is wrong?

I've only driven through one check point, almost 20 years ago, so personally I have not been unduly inconvenienced by them. I still don't like the whole "show me your papers" routine.
 
tgrrdr said:
I'm not a lawyer but doesn't pretty much EVERY supreme court (criminal) decision start with someone being arrested and convicted? The cop that made the arrest and the court that convicted followed the law. Maybe the law is wrong?

I've only driven through one check point, almost 20 years ago, so personally I have not been unduly inconvenienced by them. I still don't like the whole "show me your papers" routine.
Click to expand...

Correct, but if it were as clear cut as the OP seems to think it is, then the trial court would have more than likely agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top