The Not So Gradual Erosion of the 4th Amendment at the Hands of Well Intentioned Laws

[ConHog]

I know someone that was stopped for minor traffic infraction, maybe speeding 5 miles over, something like that. When the police asked if he minded if he searched his vehicle, he asked the policemen if he could search the police vehicle while the policeman was searching his. The police let him go.

You owe me for one keyboard! Coffee all over the sonofabitch! Flipping HILARIOUS! I LOVE IT.

That is pretty funny.

 

[ConHog]

This just in from the California Driver's Handbook:

"U-turns are strictly forbidden on freeways and most highways."

Serious question. Have any LEO ever been crazy enough to try to set up a sobriety checkpoint on a California interstate? No I doubt that.

 

[George Costanza]

This just in from the California Driver's Handbook:

"U-turns are strictly forbidden on freeways and most highways."

Serious question. Have any LEO ever been crazy enough to try to set up a sobriety checkpoint on a California interstate? No I doubt that.

I have never seen it or heard of it. All of the sobriety check points I have seen were on city streets.

 

[ConHog]

This just in from the California Driver's Handbook:

"U-turns are strictly forbidden on freeways and most highways."

Serious question. Have any LEO ever been crazy enough to try to set up a sobriety checkpoint on a California interstate? No I doubt that.

I have never seen it or heard of it. All of the sobriety check points I have seen were on city streets.

Right , which means that U turns beign illegal on hwy or fwy is irrelevant to this discussion. Now next question, are they in general illegal on city streets in CA. I know they aren't here, although in some areas they are depending on location ,etc

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But yes, the real reason for the checkpoints is to get a look inside your car.

You know, I could have said that in the OP and left the rest out. That's the essence of it.

Well played.

George, you are blowing me away with your dishonesty lately. Fucking pathetic. You know damned well that LEO are required to announce the time and location of sobriety checkpoints a minimum of 72 hours in advance of actually beginning said checkpoints. Therefor , your argument that they are designed to get a look in your car is shot to hell, because only the STUPIDEST person would drive into a sobriety checkpoint with something criminal in site.

I've lost faith in you George, you're a typical partisan hack.

Bull

In California they routinely move checkpoints after a few hours specifically so that the word will not get around, and people avoid them.

Talk about being dishonest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

Why do the local police specifically stop anyone who tries to avoid checkpoints, and move them after a period of time so word does not get around via twitter and text messages? Could it be that the decisions you are relying on for your interpretation are outdated?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I still can't figure out what you are arguing though. Is it the checkpoints themselves? Because I dont' see how those are a violation of the 4th. Checkpoints like that are generally set up when police know there is a high degree of probability that motorists will be driving drunk.

Or is it that such a checkpont allows them to look into your car? If that is the case you dont have much of an argument either because it is simply your opinion that police use them to get a look in your car. An opinon that doesn't make much logical sense. They want to look in your car, so they use sobriety checkpoints to do it? Your argument would have to be that they care less about people driving drunk than the off chance of find some weed or something else illegal.

What I think I'm picking up from George, and he will correct me if I picking up the wrong stuff here , is that he is arguing that the laws are written in order to give the police license to have a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

And he has made a pretty good argument for that.

I think I'm leaning more to your point of view here, however, that it is a stretch to assume that the law was written for the purpose of having a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

On the theory that any law can be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated or misinterpreted by the ignorant or corrupt, that in itself is not sufficient to assume intentional or organized malfeasance or overstepping one's intended authority.

I prefer to think that the intent of cell phone laws, drunk driving laws, requirements for driver's licenses, insurance, registration, etc. are all appropriate to promote the common welfare, and check points are a reasonable means of enforcement.

I don't think we can automatically assume that the check points are intended for the purpose of anything else. I can see how they also could be used for the purpose of having an excuse to look into people's cars, though around here if they're looking for somebody specific, they don't usually conceal the fact that this is why they set up the checkpoints.

IF checkpoints are being set up in your area for ANY reason other than sobriety checkpoints they are a blatant violation of the 4th and hence illegal. Hence, it isn't happening, PERIOD.

And again , as to sobriety checkpoints. they MUST provide minimal intrusion to motorists, meaning LEO can't detain you for 10 minutes while he scopes your car out. The SCOTUS ruling is very clear and very definitive in what LEO may an may not do. Rifling through your car would clearly be a violation, unless of course they have probable cause. Pretty common around here for a K9 unit to be involved in sobriety checkpoints because we have a serious meth problem. Dog barks probable cause.

Funny, I know Texas sets up rolling checkpoints that randomly stop drivers to check for license and registration, in addition to having sobriety checkpoints. They can get away with these because they only stop some of the vehicles traveling through, and let most of them pass. Perfectly legal, and another erosion of the rights you are not worried about.

 

[ConHog]

You know, I could have said that in the OP and left the rest out. That's the essence of it.

Well played.

George, you are blowing me away with your dishonesty lately. Fucking pathetic. You know damned well that LEO are required to announce the time and location of sobriety checkpoints a minimum of 72 hours in advance of actually beginning said checkpoints. Therefor , your argument that they are designed to get a look in your car is shot to hell, because only the STUPIDEST person would drive into a sobriety checkpoint with something criminal in site.

I've lost faith in you George, you're a typical partisan hack.

Bull

In California they routinely move checkpoints after a few hours specifically so that the word will not get around, and people avoid them.

Talk about being dishonest.

Flat lie QW, they can not just randomly set up road blocks. They must be planned and advertised and what's more it must be done at a management level. the local guys on the beat can't just say "oh no drunks here, let's try over there"

 

[George Costanza]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

Why do the local police specifically stop anyone who tries to avoid checkpoints, and move them after a period of time so word does not get around via twitter and text messages? Could it be that the decisions you are relying on for your interpretation are outdated?

No. Ingersoll v. Palmer is very much good law today in California. It sets forth about 8 things that the police must do prior to running a DUI checkpoint. One of those things is announcing the location of the checkpoint in advance. Police are also prohibited from stopping people who turn away in order to avoid the checkpoint.

That is simply the way it is, in California, anyway.

 

[George Costanza]

Serious question. Have any LEO ever been crazy enough to try to set up a sobriety checkpoint on a California interstate? No I doubt that.

I have never seen it or heard of it. All of the sobriety check points I have seen were on city streets.

Right , which means that U turns beign illegal on hwy or fwy is irrelevant to this discussion. Now next question, are they in general illegal on city streets in CA. I know they aren't here, although in some areas they are depending on location ,etc

I think you can make a U-turn on a city street under certain circumstances. I know you cannot do it in a business district. I think you can do it on a residential street. Much depends on the type of center line you will cross over to do it. Can't do it over a double-double.

 

[ConHog]

I have never seen it or heard of it. All of the sobriety check points I have seen were on city streets.

Right , which means that U turns beign illegal on hwy or fwy is irrelevant to this discussion. Now next question, are they in general illegal on city streets in CA. I know they aren't here, although in some areas they are depending on location ,etc

I think you can make a U-turn on a city street under certain circumstances. I know you cannot do it in a business district. I think you can do it on a residential street. Much depends on the type of center line you will cross over to do it. Can't do it over a double-double.

Like I said I really don't know, I just know that if you read Ingersoll , or Sitz they do not specify that there must be a road to turn off to avoid the checkpoint. It's a small detail, but the devil is in the details.

 

[ConHog]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

Why do the local police specifically stop anyone who tries to avoid checkpoints, and move them after a period of time so word does not get around via twitter and text messages? Could it be that the decisions you are relying on for your interpretation are outdated?

No. Ingersoll v. Palmer is very much good law today in California. It sets forth about 8 things that the police must do prior to running a DUI checkpoint. One of those things is announcing the location of the checkpoint in advance. Police are also prohibited from stopping people who turn away in order to avoid the checkpoint.

That is simply the way it is, in California, anyway.

Not just CA, Arkansas is the same, so is MO I know. Honestly Ingersoll is a copy of Sitz I would say all states conform to pretty much the same standard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

George, you are blowing me away with your dishonesty lately. Fucking pathetic. You know damned well that LEO are required to announce the time and location of sobriety checkpoints a minimum of 72 hours in advance of actually beginning said checkpoints. Therefor , your argument that they are designed to get a look in your car is shot to hell, because only the STUPIDEST person would drive into a sobriety checkpoint with something criminal in site.

I've lost faith in you George, you're a typical partisan hack.

Bull

In California they routinely move checkpoints after a few hours specifically so that the word will not get around, and people avoid them.

Talk about being dishonest.

Flat lie QW, they can not just randomly set up road blocks. They must be planned and advertised and what's more it must be done at a management level. the local guys on the beat can't just say "oh no drunks here, let's try over there"

Nevertheless, they will move a checkpoint after it has been there for a period of time. It seems they are only required to announce an intention to hold a checkpoint during a specific time period and location. ie. "We will be having checkpoints this weekend at these locations..." They are not obligated to have a checkpoint the entire time they announce it for, as long as it is announced. You problem is you do not think like a lawyer, despite having one in the family.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

Why do the local police specifically stop anyone who tries to avoid checkpoints, and move them after a period of time so word does not get around via twitter and text messages? Could it be that the decisions you are relying on for your interpretation are outdated?

No. Ingersoll v. Palmer is very much good law today in California. It sets forth about 8 things that the police must do prior to running a DUI checkpoint. One of those things is announcing the location of the checkpoint in advance. Police are also prohibited from stopping people who turn away in order to avoid the checkpoint.

That is simply the way it is, in California, anyway.

Yet local police move checkpoints around and random times, and specifically have people on watch to chase down people who attempt to avoid the checkpoints, probably because they violate other traffic laws, but that is there purpose.

 

[ConHog]

Bull

In California they routinely move checkpoints after a few hours specifically so that the word will not get around, and people avoid them.

Talk about being dishonest.

Flat lie QW, they can not just randomly set up road blocks. They must be planned and advertised and what's more it must be done at a management level. the local guys on the beat can't just say "oh no drunks here, let's try over there"

Nevertheless, they will move a checkpoint after it has been there for a period of time. It seems they are only required to announce an intention to hold a checkpoint during a specific time period and location. ie. "We will be having checkpoints this weekend at these locations..." They are not obligated to have a checkpoint the entire time they announce it for, as long as it is announced. You problem is you do not think like a lawyer, despite having one in the family.

No, the problem is you are being dishonest QW, if a checkpoint is up it was announced as to the times and the locations have been announced and they don't vary from that schedule.

Why do the local police specifically stop anyone who tries to avoid checkpoints, and move them after a period of time so word does not get around via twitter and text messages? Could it be that the decisions you are relying on for your interpretation are outdated?

No. Ingersoll v. Palmer is very much good law today in California. It sets forth about 8 things that the police must do prior to running a DUI checkpoint. One of those things is announcing the location of the checkpoint in advance. Police are also prohibited from stopping people who turn away in order to avoid the checkpoint.

That is simply the way it is, in California, anyway.

Yet local police move checkpoints around and random times, and specifically have people on watch to chase down people who attempt to avoid the checkpoints, probably because they violate other traffic laws, but that is there purpose.

Of course it is their purpose and that is perfectly legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Flat lie QW, they can not just randomly set up road blocks. They must be planned and advertised and what's more it must be done at a management level. the local guys on the beat can't just say "oh no drunks here, let's try over there"

Nevertheless, they will move a checkpoint after it has been there for a period of time. It seems they are only required to announce an intention to hold a checkpoint during a specific time period and location. ie. "We will be having checkpoints this weekend at these locations..." They are not obligated to have a checkpoint the entire time they announce it for, as long as it is announced. You problem is you do not think like a lawyer, despite having one in the family.

No, the problem is you are being dishonest QW, if a checkpoint is up it was announced as to the times and the locations have been announced and they don't vary from that schedule.

Explain this then.

Police plan sobriety checkpoint in city | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri

 

[ConHog]

Nevertheless, they will move a checkpoint after it has been there for a period of time. It seems they are only required to announce an intention to hold a checkpoint during a specific time period and location. ie. "We will be having checkpoints this weekend at these locations..." They are not obligated to have a checkpoint the entire time they announce it for, as long as it is announced. You problem is you do not think like a lawyer, despite having one in the family.

No, the problem is you are being dishonest QW, if a checkpoint is up it was announced as to the times and the locations have been announced and they don't vary from that schedule.

Explain this then.

Police plan sobriety checkpoint in city | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri

Well, isn't that strange, a little digging dug THIS up.

Sobriety checkpoint planned for this weekend - Columbia Missourian

Seems the checkpoints were announced for EVERY night from 10 pm to 3 am, not some random night.