Sobriety Checkpoints

Any thoughts on the use of check points to check immigration/nationality status? I know the sheriff dept is doing it in Phoenix.

I'm all for immigration checkpoints. All I care about is if they are paying taxes or not. I have no problem with immigration, as long as they are working and paying uncle sam.

Any thoughts on the use of check points to check immigration/nationality status? I know the sheriff dept is doing it in Phoenix.

Generally, no search warrant is required for border searches, and neither citizens nor aliens have a 4th Amendment right at the border (probaby due to the large flow of people back and forth across the border)...the use of roving patrols inside the US border to stop vehicles suspected of transporting illegals has been upheld (if the officer has a reasonable suspicion)....in addition, border officials may stop vehicles at fixed checkpoints inside the US border for questioning (and even disassemble the vehicle) without reasonable suspicion.

Any thoughts on the use of check points to check immigration/nationality status? I know the sheriff dept is doing it in Phoenix.

Generally, no search warrant is required for border searches, and neither citizens nor aliens have a 4th Amendment right at the border (probaby due to the large flow of people back and forth across the border)...the use of roving patrols inside the US border to stop vehicles suspected of transporting illegals has been upheld (if the officer has a reasonable suspicion)....in addition, border officials may stop vehicles at fixed checkpoints inside the US border for questioning (and even disassemble the vehicle) without reasonable suspicion.

I can understand the search at the border, but having sheriff run road blocks in the middle of a major US city to check for citizenship seems over the line to me. It may have been upheld by the courts but it still seems wrong. Even though the Supreme court allowed an exemption to the 4th amendment concerning the legality of roadblocks,it was a split decision with some justices sighting it was not constitutional. We have to live with the decisions that come out of the court but it does not mean that they are right and should be scrutinized. Let me remind you that while the court did rule that Japanese interment camps were constitutional,that didnt make it right.
So if we accept sobriety checkpoints and applaud roadblocks checking citizenship, it seems like the public(or at least Justin) might accept roadblocks to check for people who are behind on child support or owe back taxes,truancy and over due library fines.

Good thing Steve was his charming self huh?

...Hmmmmmmm. I think that might have been a compliment. Then again.

Well of course it was!

Any thoughts on the use of check points to check immigration/nationality status? I know the sheriff dept is doing it in Phoenix.

Generally, no search warrant is required for border searches, and neither citizens nor aliens have a 4th Amendment right at the border (probaby due to the large flow of people back and forth across the border)...the use of roving patrols inside the US border to stop vehicles suspected of transporting illegals has been upheld (if the officer has a reasonable suspicion)....in addition, border officials may stop vehicles at fixed checkpoints inside the US border for questioning (and even disassemble the vehicle) without reasonable suspicion.

I can understand the search at the border, but having sheriff run road blocks in the middle of a major US city to check for citizenship seems over the line to me. It may have been upheld by the courts but it still seems wrong. Even though the Supreme court allowed an exemption to the 4th amendment concerning the legality of roadblocks,it was a split decision with some justices sighting it was not constitutional. We have to live with the decisions that come out of the court but it does not mean that they are right and should be scrutinized. Let me remind you that while the court did rule that Japanese interment camps were constitutional,that didnt make it right.
So if we accept sobriety checkpoints and applaud roadblocks checking citizenship, it seems like the public(or at least Justin) might accept roadblocks to check for people who are behind on child support or owe back taxes,truancy and over due library fines.

The "exemption to the 4th amendment" idea seems problematic to me. I see the Supreme Court's job as ruling on the constitutionality of laws that have been passed. It would seem, then, to be up to the legislative (local, state, federal) to construct a law that is clear on purpose, scope, application, etc. For the Supreme Court to come in and say - "well, there's a balance of rights at work here" - seems to speak more to 1) a poorly written law or 2) the Supreme Court enacting law as opposed to responding to law.

There's so much that goes into Supreme Court decisions including issues of state's rights and strict/loose interpretation of our Constitution. What doesn't seem flexible to me is a bending of basic, fundamental rights afforded to all Americans. One of those rights is a fundamental and absolute right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. On that basis alone I am opposed to most all forms of roadblocks. They seem to operate on the "well if you have not done anything wrong, you won't have a problem with them" mentality. A mentality that is surely against the basic rights on which this country (should) operate.

I'm against citizenship roadblocks for the same reason. We should not, as a nation, operate on a lowest-common denominator principle. While the recording and catching of illegal immigrants may be of practical concern, to do so as to violate the rights of American citizens is the wrong way to go about it.

Don't even get me started on "entrapment" drug cases....

So if we accept sobriety checkpoints and applaud roadblocks checking citizenship, it seems like the public(or at least Justin) might accept roadblocks to check for people who are behind on child support or owe back taxes,truancy and over due library fines.

I'm cool with having to give up my "right" to drive around without being ask questions by the cops, if it keeps deadbeats, criminals, and illegals where they belong. To me search and seizure is a different issue all together. Getting ask a question or two and having my car searched and impounded are two different animals.

When you cross the border, get on an airplane, enter a gov. building, and enter major tourist attractions you are subjected to an unconsitutional search. A true search, not just a few questions. I can't imagine airline safety if they only ask questions during the security process.

I'm cool with having to give up my "right" to drive around without being ask questions by the cops, if it keeps deadbeats, criminals, and illegals where they belong. .

Well judging by the amount of deadbeats and people doing criminal acts, its obvious it does not.
Im not ready to get into the last part of your sentence"and illegals where they belong". Thats another argument altogether.

Im not ready to get into the last part of your sentence"and illegals where they belong". Thats another argument altogether.

if it keeps deadbeats, criminals, and illegals where they belong. .

Illegals belong in their country. If they follow the proper procedures and pay their taxes bring them over by the boat, and truck loads.

Well judging by the amount of deadbeats and people doing criminal acts, its obvious it does not.Still have not found anything as to the effectiveness of this style of enforcement. What I have found shows it has little to no effect on drunk driving at all,but I haven't found anything with reliable data to back it up.

The effect is that every drunk driver caught in a checkpoint is no longer on the road. I don't have any stats on how many DUI'S were handed out due to checkpoints, but I just can't argue that it is good to take drunk drivers off the streets. If I have to take 2 minutes out of my day to not slur the words, "I've not been drinking", to make the roads safer, that's cool with me.

This political shit is stressing me out. I need a beer.

I edited my last statement to remove the question about effectiveness. There does seems to be some evidence it may reduce DD by up to 20 percent,according to a 2002 study by the CDC. I have read some other studies that vary the numbers a bit.

Illegals belong in their country. If they follow the proper procedures and pay their taxes bring them over by the boat, and truck loads.

Didn't mean to get ya'll stirred up...I was just trying to find out where they setup these checkpoints so that whenever I've had an extra cocktail I know what parts of town to avoid.

Any thoughts on the use of check points to check immigration/nationality status? I know the sheriff dept is doing it in Phoenix.

Yeah, the guy up in Phoenix is a loon. He also makes his inmates wear pink underwear. Really.

I'm opposed to stops to check your "papers." That isn't a safety issue. That is coming waaaaay to close to being a police state for me. I think that is an unreasonable "search."

(At the same time, I have been pulled over in Chicago by CPD - I wasn't driving - because there were two white guys and two black guys in the same car. Total racial profiling. They thought it might be a drug deal or something. They pulled us all out and had us lay down on the sidewalk, hands behind our backs, stomach down. In reality, my buddy larry was just test driving a car he was about to buy.......... Yeah, you should need some kind of justification to mess with people......) They went through the car thoroughly, found nothing, and let us go. Unreasonable search!

I'm cool with having to give up my "right" to drive around without being ask questions by the cops, if it keeps deadbeats, criminals, and illegals where they belong.

I'm not "cool" with anybody giving up my rights. If you give up your rights, you're giving up mine.

I'm for maximum penalties for drunk driving, but not fishing expeditions. In case you were wondering, I'm also not cool with warrantless wiretapping.

Any thoughts on the use of check points to check immigration/nationality status? I know the sheriff dept is doing it in Phoenix.

Generally, no search warrant is required for border searches, and neither citizens nor aliens have a 4th Amendment right at the border (probaby due to the large flow of people back and forth across the border)...the use of roving patrols inside the US border to stop vehicles suspected of transporting illegals has been upheld (if the officer has a reasonable suspicion)....in addition, border officials may stop vehicles at fixed checkpoints inside the US border for questioning (and even disassemble the vehicle) without reasonable suspicion.

I can understand the search at the border, but having sheriff run road blocks in the middle of a major US city to check for citizenship seems over the line to me. It may have been upheld by the courts but it still seems wrong. Even though the Supreme court allowed an exemption to the 4th amendment concerning the legality of roadblocks,it was a split decision with some justices sighting it was not constitutional. We have to live with the decisions that come out of the court but it does not mean that they are right and should be scrutinized. Let me remind you that while the court did rule that Japanese interment camps were constitutional,that didnt make it right.
So if we accept sobriety checkpoints and applaud roadblocks checking citizenship, it seems like the public(or at least Justin) might accept roadblocks to check for people who are behind on child support or owe back taxes,truancy and over due library fines.

I think it was you who said slippery slope, and yes, that is true. They will check if you're behind on child support. If you're far enough behind, you get a warrant for your arrest, and next time the police run your name, you're going straight to jail. The police don't have a choice. Same for not appearing in court for a traffic violation. Next time they run your name, you're popped.

It is a question of enforcement. How far does society want to go to enforce the laws that we have enacted? Really a very very tough question, with an awful lot of grey zone.

But I think the safety of other motorists on the road is different than if you're behind on your taxes. One is a life and death issue, the other is some legal BS.

The "exemption to the 4th amendment" idea seems problematic to me. I see the Supreme Court's job as ruling on the constitutionality of laws that have been passed. It would seem, then, to be up to the legislative (local, state, federal) to construct a law that is clear on purpose, scope, application, etc. For the Supreme Court to come in and say - "well, there's a balance of rights at work here" - seems to speak more to 1) a poorly written law or 2) the Supreme Court enacting law as opposed to responding to law.

There's so much that goes into Supreme Court decisions including issues of state's rights and strict/loose interpretation of our Constitution. What doesn't seem flexible to me is a bending of basic, fundamental rights afforded to all Americans. One of those rights is a fundamental and absolute right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. On that basis alone I am opposed to most all forms of roadblocks. They seem to operate on the "well if you have not done anything wrong, you won't have a problem with them" mentality. A mentality that is surely against the basic rights on which this country (should) operate.

I'm against citizenship roadblocks for the same reason. We should not, as a nation, operate on a lowest-common denominator principle. While the recording and catching of illegal immigrants may be of practical concern, to do so as to violate the rights of American citizens is the wrong way to go about it.

Don't even get me started on "entrapment" drug cases....

Matthew, I agree with you on almost every issue, but I don't agree fully here. I simply don't consider a stop to ask if you've been drinking an illegal search. People like to consider their cars an extension of their "home." But when they drive a car, which weighs about 5K pounds, they put other people's live at serious risk. This is almost a regulation issue. Should we regulate the stock market? Check to see if companies are fudging the numbers or scamming? In the driving market, should we check to see if the drivers are complying with the standards? Yes, I think we should. Sorry if you don't want to be checked. But you have no right to drive drunk and kill me or my kids or my friends or my loved ones!

As I stated early on in this thread, I support a limited checkpoint, tightly controlled (no searching the car). Just ask "have you been drinking Sir/Mam?" and the officer being close enough to smell alcohol. If they've been drinking, throw the book at them!

I just don't see how that is an illegal search or seizure! It is simply protecting the rights of others to continue to live.