4 ms·
1) DUI checkpoints are actually law-breaker checkpoints. Illegal immigrants, non-insured, unlicensed, whatever. They don't just catch and prosecute DUIs. 2) Th
by serf 8y ago
1) DUI checkpoints are actually law-breaker checkpoints. Illegal immigrants, non-insured, unlicensed, whatever. They don't just catch and prosecute DUIs.
2) They wreck traffic.
3) In nearly all cases they are easily routed around. Most (if not all) are advertised in a local media -- affording habitual day-drinkers the opportunity to avoid them easily. (this wrecks the REST of the traffic near the area, usually with panicked drunk drivers avoiding the stop)
4) They cost law enforcement time, for very little proven efficacy at anything more than accruing state revenue for expired tags and other small misdemeanors.
- buildingsramen 8y agoI find these arguments much more convincing than "muh freedom". If these points are supported by evidence (especially #4) then that's good enough for me.
- Gorbzel 8y agoThank god one's civil liberties aren't dependent on whether or not you are convinced by them.
- buildingsramen 8y agoCan you tell me which of your civil liberties is being violated by DUI checkpoints?
- ceejayoz 8y agoTraffic stops require reasonable suspicion to pull over your car under the Fourth Amendment. I find it hard to explain how a DUI checkpoint is not a similar action to a traffic stop.
- buildingsramen 8y agoSee the Supreme Court ruling on this matter, elsewhere in this thread.
- ceejayoz 8y agoThe Supreme Court has made bad rulings - we're certainly lucky Dred Scott v. Sandford doesn't still apply - and a 6-3 split indicates some significant disagreement even among the foremost legal minds in the country. From a common-sense standpoint, I don't see how a DUI checkpoint isn't fundamentally similar to a traffic stop, regardless of the SCOTUS decision that permits them.
- speedplane 8y agoThe harm DUI stops try to reduce are far more imminent than regular traffic stops. Drunk driving is far more dangerous than a broken tail light. That difference matters.
- ceejayoz 8y agoMurder's more dangerous, too, but that doesn't mean they can set up a "let's see if you have a dead body in your trunk" checkpoint. The Fourth Amendment doesn't come with "unless it's super crime-y" exceptions.
- speedplane 8y agoYou're conflating danger with imminent danger. The immediacy of the danger is highly related to what the state should be allowed to do.
- function_seven 8y agoCheck these stats: https://www.westmifflinpolice.com/west-mifflin-dui-checkpoint-2018-the-statistics/ https://www.westmifflinpolice.com/west-mifflin-dui-checkpoin... 86% of the citations they issued at that “DUI” checkpoint were not for DUIs. The name is misleading. It’s not a DUI Checkpoint. It’s just a checkpoint. The definition of a police state.
- mindcrime 8y agoI find these arguments much more convincing than "muh freedom". Then you're doing it wrong.
- a1a 8y ago1) Is that really a bad thing? Isn't it generally a good thing that law enforcement finds law-breakers? 2) So do drunk drivers that crash. 3) You're arguing against yourself. Yes, it's bad that bad guys get notified so they can avoid checkpoints. 4) Shouldn't law enforcement spend their time enforcing the law? It's well spent time IMO. As you say in (1), they also solve other more serious crimes (e.g. finding wanted criminals)