Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=checkstops+drunk+driving&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1"]Winnipeg Checkstop Blitz[/url] [quote]Winnipeg police wrapped up their annual holiday Checkstop program Wednesday, having laid a total of 66 charges related to drunk driving. The names of all those charged under the Checkstop program will be posted on the force's website. Police hoped the threat of publicity would provide further deterrence to potential drunk drivers.[/quote] [url="http://blogs.usask.ca/studentnews/archive/2006/03/checkstops_on_c.html"]Checkstops at UofS Campus[/url] [quote]Drunk driving has dropped significantly on campus in the past couple of years, and Campus Safety plans to try to reduce it even more. The officer in charge of the initiative, Special Constable Matt Lambe, says the numbers of alcohol-related charges against drivers on U of S roadways that lead to licence suspensions, vehicle impoundments and impaired driving charges are going down. He attributes this to a change in attitude on the part of students, staff, faculty and visitors to campus, thanks in part to a multi-pronged effort in recent years to educate students and reward those using designated drivers.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 obviously legal and illegal in Canada and the US are very different. The founding fathers of the US were very wary of any government searches or seizures. They protected us from those with the fourth amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1788776' date='Feb 22 2009, 08:22 PM']obviously legal and illegal in Canada and the US are very different. The founding fathers of the US were very wary of any government searches or seizures. They protected us from those with the fourth amendment.[/quote] That's the truth. Probably because of how American independence from Britain was quite different from our own. In some ways I'm sure it's a negative thing, but I don't think checkstops are one of them. [quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against [b]unreasonable[/b] 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.[/quote] Emphasis my own. So do you who are against checkstops see it as an *unreasonable* search? I'm not being argumentative or anything, I'm honestly asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1789005' date='Feb 22 2009, 11:21 PM']That's the truth. Probably because of how American independence from Britain was quite different from our own. In some ways I'm sure it's a negative thing, but I don't think checkstops are one of them. Emphasis my own. So do you who are against checkstops see it as an *unreasonable* search? I'm not being argumentative or anything, I'm honestly asking.[/quote] I think it is unreasonable to assume that every driver that passes through a stretch of highway is drunk and must prove him/herself innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1789005' date='Feb 22 2009, 11:21 PM']Emphasis my own. So do you who are against checkstops see it as an *unreasonable* search? I'm not being argumentative or anything, I'm honestly asking.[/quote] When the 4th was passed any search without a warrant was unreasonable and typically this is still the rule today. The unreasonable requirement is really talking about the reasonability of warrants - the warrant needs to be reasonable. There are some exceptions to this rule; plain view, open field, exigent circumstances, a Terry frisk, consent... thats all I can think ok... But generally any search of seizure must be done with a warrant. A check point doesn't apply to any of these exceptions. The idea is that you should be free if you're not breaking the law to drive and go wherever you want without being hassled by the police. Edited February 23, 2009 by rkwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Is it much different from passing through airport security checks? Everyone is searched for the safety of all the passengers on your flight and every other flight in the air, etc, etc, just as in checkstops everybody is checked for the safety of every pedestrian and driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone _ Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1789242' date='Feb 23 2009, 07:48 AM']Is it much different from passing through airport security checks? Everyone is searched for the safety of all the passengers on your flight and every other flight in the air, etc, etc, just as in checkstops everybody is checked for the safety of every pedestrian and driver.[/quote] Yes it is. 1) Not everyone is searched before flying. Only those passengers boarding public carriers. If you're on a military flight, or flying on a private plane, there is no search. 2) In your airport scenario, you can turn back and refuse the search. Sobriety checkpoints don't allow that. If you refuse, you can't just turn your car around and drive the other way. 3) It is reasonable to expect to be able to travel through ordinary means without being accused of being a criminal without any merit. 4) You are forewarned that you will be searched at an airport. Sobriety check points are akin to the cops knocking on your door and barging in to do an announced search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) I remember getting pulled over once. First thing the cop said, "Have you been drinking?" When he got a negative, he said "Ah, go on your way then... Just trying to catch drunks." Reason for pulling over: Erratic driving? No. Speeding? No. Was the day of a football game? Yes. If he demanded a breath test, I'd probably have had refused. Had no reason to pull me over. Edited February 23, 2009 by CatholicCid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='T-Bone _' post='1789467' date='Feb 23 2009, 04:02 PM']Yes it is. 1) Not everyone is searched before flying. Only those passengers boarding public carriers. If you're on a military flight, or flying on a private plane, there is no search. 2) In your airport scenario, you can turn back and refuse the search. Sobriety checkpoints don't allow that. If you refuse, you can't just turn your car around and drive the other way. 3) It is reasonable to expect to be able to travel through ordinary means without being accused of being a criminal without any merit. 4) You are forewarned that you will be searched at an airport. Sobriety check points are akin to the cops knocking on your door and barging in to do an announced search.[/quote] Also the types of searches at checkpoints are much more evasive. "Terry Frisks" without warrants have been oked by the Supreme Court - basically a frisk for weapons. They're done for the safety of everyone around. Airport checkpoints are very similar to this - they're just 'frisking' you for weapons. Drawing blood is much more than a pat down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1789503' date='Feb 23 2009, 02:25 PM']Airport checkpoints are very similar to this - they're just 'frisking' you for weapons.[/quote] so then, what are all the elbow length gloves for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1789543' date='Feb 23 2009, 05:03 PM']so then, what are all the elbow length gloves for? [/quote] We did study strip searches last week... Basically the officers need clear indication that evidence will be found before doing the strip search, plus need some exigent circumstances to justify a warrant-less search. This applies to blood testing also. This is the problem with checking blood at random checkpoints - theres not clear indication that evidence will be found before doing the blood test - nor is it apparent there are any exigent circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1788776' date='Feb 22 2009, 10:22 PM']obviously legal and illegal in Canada and the US are very different. The founding fathers of the US were very wary of any government searches or seizures. They protected us from those with the fourth amendment.[/quote] I think it's prudent to be leery of unlawful searches but imo this isn't unlawful, the blood test is only administered after failure to comply with a really simple, quick check. It's not all that dissimilar to registration checkpoints. And I think that DWIs/DUIs are so completely inexcusable that I'm OK with going a little above and beyond the normal procedures to take a stronger stance against them. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1789557' date='Feb 23 2009, 06:18 PM']We did study strip searches last week... Basically the officers need clear indication that evidence will be found before doing the strip search, plus need some exigent circumstances to justify a warrant-less search. This applies to blood testing also. This is the problem with checking blood at random checkpoints - theres not clear indication that evidence will be found before doing the blood test - nor is it apparent there are any exigent circumstances.[/quote] I think the difference is that the blood test would only be administered if someone refused a breathalizer. I wouldn't have a problem doing a breathalizer; they do seat belt, registration, etc checks. They are usually done, in my understanding, in areas where there is a high incidence of DWIs or potential for them. This, to me, isn't unlike metal detectors in a courtroom or airport (like NihilObstat mentioned). I can see where it would be an inconvenience but I'd much rather have some people be inconvenienced for two minutes if it will save even one life. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone _ Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1789813' date='Feb 23 2009, 08:05 PM']I think it's prudent to be leery of unlawful searches but imo this isn't unlawful, the blood test is only administered after failure to comply with a really simple, quick check. It's not all that dissimilar to registration checkpoints. A[b]nd I think that DWIs/DUIs are so completely inexcusable that I'm OK with going a little above and beyond the normal procedures to take a stronger stance against them.[/b] -Katie[/quote] Why stop at DUIs? Why not have checks for any illegal activity? [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1789817' date='Feb 23 2009, 08:09 PM']I think the difference is that the blood test would only be administered if someone refused a breathalizer. I wouldn't have a problem doing a breathalizer; they do seat belt, registration, etc checks. They are usually done, in my understanding, in areas where there is a high incidence of DWIs or potential for them. This, to me, isn't unlike metal detectors in a courtroom or airport (like NihilObstat mentioned). [b]I can see where it would be an inconvenience but I'd much rather have some people be inconvenienced for two minutes if it will save even one life.[/b] -Katie[/quote] Those who would give up a little liberty for a bit of temporary security deserve and will receive neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='T-Bone _' post='1788673' date='Feb 22 2009, 08:11 PM']There's a difference between stopping drivers that are driving erratically, and stopping every driver on a stretch of road.[/quote] These checkpoints are normally done at times where high instances of drunk driving have occurred in past (normally). Keep in mind that driving is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege and cops are obligated to keep the roads safe, which is a priority before personal privacy. The laws that apply to your home and you in your home do not apply to your car and to you while driving. Also, stopping every car (or, say, every third car, as a rule) would eliminate the possibility of people who were singled out for erratic driving from crying foul on having been singled out, claiming it was for a reason other than their notably errant driving. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now