Unconstitutional Sobriety Checkpoints

Unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints at Redhill and El Camino Real in Tustin, CA on Dec. 19th 2008.

The police were pulling over every 5th vehicle with no probable cause for search and seizure and checking for driver's licenses and whether or not the drive is under the influence.

PAPERS PLEASE!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that these are constitution even though the 4th Amendment reads:
"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."

The police nagged me and asked me the usual loaded questions.
One of the younger officers must have been really bored because he came over and debated with me for quite some time.

Through out the entire ordeal I noted that many cars that we're in violation of local laws, window tint, no front license plate, etc. were just being scooted through because they were not "#5".
I asked the officers why they didn't ask these people to pull over as well.
They said that I was missing the point and that's not why they are here.
Missing the point?
I thought the point was to uphold the law in it's entirety.
I guess not.
Thought if someone just across the street fired of a gun I'm sure they would respond, even though that's not why they are there.

I suggested that they were wasting tax payers dollars and of course they replied that it is not funded by tax payers dollars.
They said it's funded by grants.
Yeah, yeah, I'm familiar with the police feeling the need to spend the grant money and make look like it's working so they keep getting more.
So I suggested to the officer that he was saying the police are now run by private orginizations.
He quickly disagreed.
So I told him that money talks and that money is what points them in the direction of doing these things.
He said "Well, you know it's all politics."
Yes I do, and that's the problem!

Anyway, I could go on and on forever about this but there are many websites dedicated to this very topic so Google away.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• unconstitutional
• sobriety
• checkpoints
• dui
• police
• constitution
• tustin

[elunicowickedwest]

POLICE DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO BECAUSE US CITIZEN ALLOW IT.......

[liljgoneman]

if these pigs are so concerned with "public safety" then why aren't they testing people in the bar parking lot BEFORE they have a chance to become a danger? answer.... theres no money in that approach.

[boxer4u2nv]

you are stupid. they are checking RANDOMLY, they don't assume when they pull them over.

[dtm01]

@dgillary Did you realize that from a distance your screen name looks like the word "dildo" ? Just sayin

[Pafoofnik1]

@dgillary: Why should I be penalized...

because someone else may be violating the law?

[Pafoofnik1]

@dgillary: Thanks for the history lesson. It was a waste of your time though.

You see...

I never said these checkpoints weren't constitutional.

[dgillary]

@dtm01 its comrade retard.  And a CHECKPOINT is not random. HENCE THE POINT PART. And you are calling people stupid. What a joke.

[dgillary]

@Pafoofnik1 and it is unbelievable to me that you people make this big of a deal out of 5 minutes of your time to stop a real problem. AND IT IS A REAL PROBLEM. And it says directly in the CONSTITUTION which was AMENDED to give you those BILL OF RIGHTS that you people keep quoting that the SUPREME COURT DECIDES the law of the land.

[dgillary]

@Pafoofnik1 See we live in a representative democracy, and the massive epidemic of drunk driving related deaths and accidents of the 70s and 80s led people to demand something be done about it. Those representatives we elected came up with the DUI checkpoint system. It was challenged as unconstitutional, it went to the supreme court and was deemed NOT unconstitutional. How can you use one supreme court case to further your point and dismiss another that completely destroys it?

[Pafoofnik1]

@seaspirit27: I never said they can;t stop... Nevertheless.

The Supreme Court, in the cases known as "Terry" and "Hiibel", has recognized that officers almost always need the be investigating criminal activity before they can stop and question someone (Terry), or require that he identify himself (Hiibel).

Please read these two cases for a better understanding of our right to go about our days without having to prove that we are not violating the law on demand.

[dtm01]

@seaspirit27 Good Lord you are an idiot. They stop THOSE drivers because they have commited a traffic infraction dumb ass !!! These people are just driving down the road and are randomly stopped. If you cant see the problem with that KOMRADE then you a waste of air ....asshole .