Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=14765744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So let me get this straight. If I'm totally sober and riding through Garden City on my way back from the beach with my family (I'm originally from the area) and I go through this checkpoint. I have violated no laws and have just driven through this random checkpoint. You immediately, without cause, request me to take a breathalyser. I've shown no effects of alcohol use and there is none present on my breath, etc. I rightfully exercise my constitutional right to refuse. Then, a judge automatically signs a search warrant -- without any evidence supporting the idea that I've used alcohol. How is my simple refusal to willfully submit to an unmerited search defined as probable cause for another unmerited search and you to draw my blood?

How exactly is that not a direct violation of my 4th Amendment right against an unwarranted search?

Checkpoints are bullshit.

Grizalltheway wrote:Checkpoints are bullshit.

So's drunk driving...

Grizalltheway wrote:Checkpoints are bullshit.

Yea, I guess you're right. On the other hand, I've never really had a warm feeling for people who drink too much, then run into or over other people.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Checkpoints are bullshit.

So's drunk driving...

It's a first. I agree with AZGrizFAn.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Checkpoints are bullshit.

So's drunk driving...

And I don't do it.

Doesn't make stopping people without probable cause right.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=14765744

So let me get this straight. If I'm totally sober and riding through Garden City on my way back from the beach with my family (I'm originally from the area) and I go through this checkpoint. I have violated no laws and have just driven through this random checkpoint. You immediately, without cause, request me to take a breathalyser. I've shown no effects of alcohol use and there is none present on my breath, etc. I rightfully exercise my constitutional right to refuse. Then, a judge automatically signs a search warrant -- without any evidence supporting the idea that I've used alcohol. How is my simple refusal to willfully submit to an unmerited search defined as probable cause for another unmerited search and you to draw my blood?

How exactly is that not a direct violation of my 4th Amendment right against an unwarranted search?

So, did you get a DUI?

Because 18 people DID that night.....you were out, on a Friday night....that's called profiling....and I have no problem with it.

green&gold75 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So's drunk driving...

It's a first. I agree with AZGrizFAn.

If we look long enough and hard enough we'll ALWAYS find some king of common ground...

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So's drunk driving...

And I don't do it.

Doesn't make stopping people without probable cause right.

Judging from the article I would guess that there was some sort of probable cause. I'm only speculating, but I would think that well over 18 people (the number arrested) passed through the checkpoint. Sixteen of those arrested submitted to the tests, and two didn't.

IMO this will not pass judicial scrutiny.

I don't like this.

You mean they can’t stop this with un-manned drones flying overhead?

AshevilleApp wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
And I don't do it.

Doesn't make stopping people without probable cause right.

Judging from the article I would guess that there was some sort of probable cause. I'm only speculating, but I would think that well over 18 people (the number arrested) passed through the checkpoint. Sixteen of those arrested submitted to the tests, and two didn't.

I really don't buy that driving somewhere on a Friday night is enough to justify stopping someone and giving them a breath test.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So's drunk driving...

And I don't do it.

Doesn't make stopping people without probable cause right.

Agree.

However, I could more easily stomach a DWI checkpoint if they also ran checkpoints to catch other lawbreakers....like an illegal alien checkpoint with running INS bus on site. What I hate about the DWI checkpoints is it's selective enforcement of certain laws with unsympathetic offenders to generate revenue...not necessarily wrong as long as you choose to use similar means to enforce other laws.

Appaholic wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
And I don't do it.

Doesn't make stopping people without probable cause right.

Agree.

However, I could more easily stomach a DWI checkpoint if they also ran checkpoints to catch other lawbreakers....like an illegal alien checkpoint with running INS bus on site. What I hate about the DWI checkpoints is it's selective enforcement of certain laws with unsympathetic offenders to generate revenue...not necessarily wrong as long as you choose to use similar means to enforce other laws.

Well stated and I agree.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:

Judging from the article I would guess that there was some sort of probable cause. I'm only speculating, but I would think that well over 18 people (the number arrested) passed through the checkpoint. Sixteen of those arrested submitted to the tests, and two didn't.

I really don't buy that driving somewhere on a Friday night is enough to justify stopping someone and giving them a breath test.

Not what I was getting at. I'd imagine that hundreds (or at least twenties) of people passed through that checkpoint without being asked to blow. But if they smelled alcohol on the breath of the two people who refused, and their eyes were glassy or speech was slurred, that would be probable cause. My guess is that one or more of these was apparent. Maybe not, the article really doesn't say.

I would prefer they just arrest them and take their chances in court as they have done in the past, or do away with checkpoints altogether. But I don't see that happening.

Where's IT when you need him? Counselor, what so you think?

AshevilleApp wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: I really don't buy that driving somewhere on a Friday night is enough to justify stopping someone and giving them a breath test.

Not what I was getting at. I'd imagine that hundreds (or at least twenties) of people passed through that checkpoint without being asked to blow. But if they smelled alcohol on the breath of the two people who refused, and their eyes were glassy or speech was slurred, that would be probable cause. My guess is that one or more of these was apparent. Maybe not, the article really doesn't say.

I would prefer they just arrest them and take their chances in court as they have done in the past, or do away with checkpoints altogether. But I don't see that happening.

Where's IT when you need him? Counselor, what so you think?

Thing is, cops are supposed to have a legit reason to initiate a traffic stop in the first place (busted tail light, cracked windshield, found out from dispatch that there was a warrant out for them, etc). Just stopping every car that happens to be driving that stretch of road is BS, IMO. If they stop them for some other reason, and they have slurred speech, alcohol on their breath, whatever, that's fine.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:
Not what I was getting at. I'd imagine that hundreds (or at least twenties) of people passed through that checkpoint without being asked to blow. But if they smelled alcohol on the breath of the two people who refused, and their eyes were glassy or speech was slurred, that would be probable cause. My guess is that one or more of these was apparent. Maybe not, the article really doesn't say.

I would prefer they just arrest them and take their chances in court as they have done in the past, or do away with checkpoints altogether. But I don't see that happening.

Where's IT when you need him? Counselor, what so you think?

Thing is, cops are supposed to have a legit reason to initiate a traffic stop in the first place (busted tail light, cracked windshield, found out from dispatch that there was a warrant out for them, etc). Just stopping every car that happens to be driving that stretch of road is BS, IMO. If they stop them for some other reason, and they have slurred speech, alcohol on their breath, whatever, that's fine.

So your against the concept of the checkpoint altogether? I could live with that. I don't see it happening, but I'd be fine with it.

AshevilleApp wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Thing is, cops are supposed to have a legit reason to initiate a traffic stop in the first place (busted tail light, cracked windshield, found out from dispatch that there was a warrant out for them, etc). Just stopping every car that happens to be driving that stretch of road is BS, IMO. If they stop them for some other reason, and they have slurred speech, alcohol on their breath, whatever, that's fine.

So your against the concept of the checkpoint altogether? I could live with that. I don't see it happening, but I'd be fine with it.

Yep, that's what I was trying to get at. I think they completely fly in the face of the idea that citizens are free to move about the country without unwarranted harassment.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:
So your against the concept of the checkpoint altogether? I could live with that. I don't see it happening, but I'd be fine with it.

Yep, that's what I was trying to get at. I think they completely fly in the face of the idea that citizens are free to move about the country without unwarranted harassment.

Nailed it!

Checkpoints are bullsh*t.

Its a revenue thing and has nothing to do with safety. This just gives cops another reason to be even bigger incredible douchebags.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:
So your against the concept of the checkpoint altogether? I could live with that. I don't see it happening, but I'd be fine with it.

Yep, that's what I was trying to get at. I think they completely fly in the face of the idea that citizens are free to move about the country without unwarranted harassment.

Which is great until you realize one out of every three drivers coming at you is impaired.

Sure thing, Z. Good to know conks are allowed to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they support.

Bullshit.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Yep, that's what I was trying to get at. I think they completely fly in the face of the idea that citizens are free to move about the country without unwarranted harassment.

Which is great until you realize one out of every three drivers coming at you is impaired.

It's confirmed, AZ is a complete moron. Shithead hates government but wants em blocking streets and harassing people.