Is it a legal process for police to have license,DUI, or seat belt checks according to our 4TH amendment?

Question

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Answer 1

This is an interesting subject.

The supreme court has ruled on this matter a number of times.

They recognize that this is a 4th amendment issue. They clearly have indicated that the checks are contrary to the 4th amendment as such. However, they have decided as a group that the rights under the fourth amendment are rightfully weakened by roadside/random public stops of motorists if they promote the larger issue of public safety. The drunk driver, if they give the police probable cause during the stop, is rightfully removed from the roads as the danger they present to the public is greater than, and offsets, the 4th amendment rights of others stopped in the random checkpoint. In fact though, his fourth amendment rights are also protected as such because he must presetn probable casue to be searched and chaecked. Slurring of words, alcohol smell, open container visible in car, all represent probable cause that allows the police to move forward with their investigation and eventual arrest if warranted.

On the other hand, the supreme court rejected the conduct of the saint Louis Police as unconstitutional when they walked drug sniffing dogs around cars during roadside checks. They felt that this tactic was going too far and was not allowed forcing the police to fall back on more traditional standards of probable cause.

Most people do not understand their rights or probable cause. They do not need to answer intrusive questions such as where have you been or where are your going, all of which is truly none of the business of the Police. They also can refuse a search of person or vehicle. A policeman needs probable cause to conduct the search. The request is clearly a hint that the Police have no such probable cause. If they do not have probable cause and search your person or vehicle without your consent a lawyer can likely have that evidence set aside, with exceptions of course.

Nope, sorry but random checks of individuals by the Police in roadside stops have been ruled accceptable by the Supremes with a clear recognition that the fourth amendment has protections and limits.

Answer 2

Probable Cause is the magic word .. besides if you think about it your car is not really yours ..neither is your house , if it were you could do as you please with it , don't believe me ..try not paying your taxes on them .then you will see who owns what ... As far as the motoring public I think there should be more checkpoints , and more random searches , there are so many stupid drivers out there , I see it everyday , people running up on the curbs , backing in to things , running off the shoulder of the road while , eating , applying make up , opn the phone or computer ... S T U P I D >>>> there is no such thing as a vehicle accident , that is just a political correct term , if it was an accident no one would be charged , most collisions are caused by stupidity , so I am all for more checkpoints because there are a lot of dumb people out in public , plus once you take your so called private property out on to state or county roads you are actually on their property and they have the right to enforce the rules while you are on their property . Besides there is no such thing as private property , if so why is everything you own such as land , homes , and cars all public information .....all the 4th means is they can not just approach you go through your things ,and take what they want , unless they have probable cause , then anything siezed has to be held as evidence to procecute , they can't just take things because they want it ... You can request a warrant prior to a search , But I do not recommend it , because then you will be detained until they retrieve the warrant ( this takes hours ) and they are not as careful with personal items you may have ... and it is very much legal for them to do so .....

Answer 3

Get a No Cost Background Check Scan at https://bitly.im/aNKYl

Its a sensible way to start. The site allows you to do a no cost scan simply to find out if any sort of data is in existence. A smaller analysis is done without cost. To get a detailed report its a modest payment.

You may not realize how many good reasons there are to try and find out more about the people around you. After all, whether you're talking about new friends, employees, doctors, caretakers for elderly family members, or even significant others, you, as a citizen, have a right to know whether the people you surround yourself with are who they say they are. This goes double in any situation that involves your children, which not only includes teachers and babysitters, but also scout masters, little league coaches and others. Bottom line, if you want to find out more about someone, you should perform a background check.

Answer 4

DUI checks are completely reasonable as probable cause can always be established based upon how you were driving as well as in the interest of public safety.

Similarly for the other checks.

Answer 5

The simple fact is that checkpoints are largely wastes of police resources and taxpayer money — not to mention unjustified invasions of privacy. In fact, in the United States Supreme Court decision (Michigan v. Sitz) upholding their constitutionality, a dissenting justice pointed out the “the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative“. (Emphasis added)

This is confirmed by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies, which conclude that “the number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWI arrests made by the checkpoint programs”.

Then why do we have DUI roadblocks? Consider a local news story from last week:


PENNDOT GRANTS TOTALLING $1 MILLION FUND SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS STATEWIDE

Chester County officials said recent recommendations from the national headquarters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been implemented by area police departments for years. Among the recommendations are an increased focus on prevention tactics such as sobriety checkpoints.

“We work with MADD and will continue to work with them to reduce the incidents of drunken driving in Pennsylvania,” (DOT spokesperson Jenny) Robinson said….

“I’ve read that police are less than enthusiastic about DUI checkpoints because they don’t make as many arrests,” (MADD official Bryce) Templeton said….

Richard Harkness, superintendent of the Tredyffrin Police Department, said checkpoints keep drivers aware that police are on the lookout for drunken drivers. He said there usually aren’t many DUI arrests at checkpoints, but they help educate the public.

“There should be as many DUI roadblocks as economically feasible,” Harkness said.


So…Roadblocks are invasive, don’t reduce fatalities and don’t produce more arrests — but we should have lots more of them. Why? To educate us.

Incidentally, my favorite example of distorting statistics for self-serving purposes is MADD’s own oft-repeated claim:

Since MADD’s founding in 1980, alcohol-related fatalities have decreased 44 percent (from 30,429 to 17,013) and MADD has helped save almost 300,000 lives.

300,000? Do the math….

Answer 6

The short answer is yes, roadside checks are legal. Roadside checks are safety checks on roadways, your driving on the road is a privilege not a right.

Answer 7

Yes. The answer is simple...you do not have the RIGHT to drive. Driving is granted to you by the government, which gives them the ability to regulate it.

Answer 8

I wouldn't qualify any of those searches as "unreasonable."

Answer 9

the answer is public safety......you can try and use it to get out of a ticket but i bet it won't work.

Answer 10

I could be wrong, but I don't believe there were cars back then, when it was written.