Particularly ones like DUI Checkpoints where they demand I.D., My understanding is that it is against the 4th Amendment for them to stop you and check without reasonable suspicion of a law being broken.
2007-12-04 16:42:22 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Here in Arkansas they believe that anyone on the road after dark this time of year could reasonably be driving impaired. Isn't that special. One of the county deputies followed my 85 year old dad right on his rear bumper with his headlights on high in his rear view mirror for about three miles. When my dad finally touched the center and fog lines a couple of times the deputy pulled him over and asked if there was a problem. My dad replied that "yes, the problem is a tailgating high beam bastard that had been following me for the last five minutes". Mr. Piggy told him to have a good night and be safe. I hate cops in Arkansas except State Troopers. They are professionals. The rest are for the most part wannabes. Yes, those Nazi style roadblocks that they like to refer to as safety checkpoints are totally unconstitutional, but what's not nowadays. What the hell is the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights anymore? Just a worthless piece of paper in this state!
vols8080, something I have never once heard or seen of them doing in the county that I live in. They set up roadblocks regularly on my highway at an intersection 1/4 mile from my house and further down by the river about a mile away. The good thing is that I announce it all night long as it is going on, on my "citizens" band radio. I also use the phone and call all my friends that work the night shift and commute that way to work.
2007-12-04 16:54:11 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-10 23:51:13 · answer #2 · answered by Grant 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
particular the courts have ruled that the police can habit drivers license and DWI checkpoints. The courts judgements are based on the could desire to sell secure practices on the roads. The courts have faith that the secure practices components outweigh the minor inconvenience to the universal public. examine: Delaware v. Prouse Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz State v. Tarlton (NC) and different proceedings. This one has been ruled on time and time back. Checkpoints have actual no longer something to do with "favourite site visitors stops." Like I pronounced examine Delaware v. Prouse. The courtroom somewhat says that the police can no longer randomly pull you over to income your license, whether, below particular instruction manual lines a checkpoint could be carried out. you're arguing a non-subject.
2016-10-19 05:37:31 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Richard is right, although a police checkpoint for drug searches in a black neighborhood was not constitutional.
Overall though, the Supreme Court thinks the 4th amendement is garbage and employ twisted incoherent reasoning toward trashing our rights. The term "strict constructionists" means screw everyone but big business
2007-12-04 16:52:48 · answer #4 · answered by Stewie Griffin 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but DUI checkpoints have been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.
The link below is to the landmark US Supreme Court case of Michigan v. Sitz, which pretty much settled the question.
Richard
2007-12-04 16:47:01 · answer #5 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Police checkpoints are constitutional. The only provision is that they have to annouce to the public that there will be checkpoints.
2007-12-04 18:41:07 · answer #6 · answered by vols8080 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋