sheriff believes roadblocks ineffective & unconstitutional but sets them up for $$$$$

[kevin_stevens]

Originally Posted by Fred S

If those are requirements of operating a motor vehicle in your state how can you bitch about needing to show them to officers? I'm not a fan of being pulled over just so they can search for any BS infraction, but I wouldn't mind if people driving without a license and/or insurance were caught.

Seriously, if the roadblock gets one drunk driver off the road shouldn't it be considered a success? The DD checkpoints are announced here in SoCal as well but they always end up catching more then one dumbass DDing anyway.

The main issue isn't showing your state-issued documents (that's a secondary issue); the main issue is being stopped in the first place. Law enforcement is *supposed* to have probable cause to detain/question/harass/interfere with you as an American citizen. Roadblocks/traffic checks violate that principle and further accustom the population AND LE to unconstitutional search techniques. They invert the assumption of innocence and require each person to provide evidence (paper examination, officer assessment) that they are not guilty.

And no, using man-days of officers to hold up thousands of cars for cumulative hundreds of hours to remove one drunk driver off the road is not a "success".

KeS

BTW - if the goal is to get drunk drivers off the road, why not just stake out club parking lots/garages, observe the inebriated drivers get in, and arrest them as they pull out? THAT's probable cause, stops the driving hazard at its source, and is more efficient as well. I can only assume that the club owners complain and get the chamber of commerce to pressure the local PD.

[rg-one]

Originally Posted by jetblack

No offense, but that's bullshit, unless you are referring to a violently dangerous criminal that is known to be in the area. That is the ONLY time a roadblock is justified. You don't infringe on the rights of many innocent people, just in the hope you'll catch the random person. This is serious stuff, but hardly anyone seems to realize it. They've all been drinking the kool-aid since they were little kids.

Setting up roadblocks just to catch random DUIs and other minor stuff is heading towards a military state.

+1000

Seriously, I understand the notion of "if you have nothing to lose what are you afraid of" but on the other hand, it's a slippery slope. At some point, you have to say "don't tread on me!". Once their foot is in the door they just keep chipping away at personal freedoms and one day you wake up and there is a camera in your bedroom with a sticker saying it's a felony to disable it.

[mikem317]

OMFG! I hats da polize!



$1

[JINXR]

Lot's of really good points made in this thread. Makes me feel better that I'm not even close to the only one that thinks this way.

[bumblebee]

I am against breath/blood/urine testing for DUI, or drug screening. If the authorities can't beat a confession out of you (self incrimination), why should they be allowed to forcibly remove (court order) something from your body and be able to use it against you?

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by OFFICER737

I am not a huge fan of roadblocks myself but sometimes they are a necessary evil.

Well, I suppose consistency could be considered a virtue.

PhilB

[Wakey]

Has this been before the SC? It seems like it has..

[OFFICER737]

Originally Posted by Gilitar

IMO the ONLY time they are necessary is when law enforcement knows there is a murderer, bank robber, rapist, etc... in the immediate area.

Roadblocks are unconstitutional when used to randomly search people and ask for ID, insurance.

Law Enforcement has been given too much power in the country. We are quickly losing our rights and freedom.

Hey look..... yet another reason to vote Ron Paul.

I prefer to use them only when necessary but I do say they should be used around holiday times to catch drunk drivers but minor shit I am not worried about when doing the roadblocks.

[OFFICER737]

Originally Posted by 636blurr

Why does someone without a liscense drive worse than someone with one?
You could argue that well yes, becouse they lost there liscense. And if that is the case, it could have been lost for a variety of reasons, and I would agree on that point.
However with that said having a drivers liscense hardly makes anyone a qualified driver. Even say to take a CDL test is better than nothing but really does not apply, there are still plenty of shit truckers on the road.
Licensing is nothing more than a easier way to Identify/Monitor people.

I arrested a woman one night for her 13th DUI and 5th offense of driving on a revoked license.

[OFFICER737]

Originally Posted by jetblack

No offense, but that's bullshit, unless you are referring to a violently dangerous criminal that is known to be in the area. That is the ONLY time a roadblock is justified. You don't infringe on the rights of many innocent people, just in the hope you'll catch the random person. This is serious stuff, but hardly anyone seems to realize it. They've all been drinking the kool-aid since they were little kids.

Setting up roadblocks just to catch random DUIs and other minor stuff is heading towards a military state.

The use of roadblocks to catch someone that has committed something serious, I endorse or for DUIs during prime times for them, other than I could care less about the minor stuff. When doing DUI stops I check to see how the driver is, check their license and everything is good...send them on their way......less than 30secs per stop. Any minor violations I tell them to get it corrected and send them on their way.

[OFFICER737]

Originally Posted by kevin_stevens

The main issue isn't showing your state-issued documents (that's a secondary issue); the main issue is being stopped in the first place. Law enforcement is *supposed* to have probable cause to detain/question/harass/interfere with you as an American citizen. Roadblocks/traffic checks violate that principle and further accustom the population AND LE to unconstitutional search techniques. They invert the assumption of innocence and require each person to provide evidence (paper examination, officer assessment) that they are not guilty.

And no, using man-days of officers to hold up thousands of cars for cumulative hundreds of hours to remove one drunk driver off the road is not a "success".

KeS

BTW - if the goal is to get drunk drivers off the road, why not just stake out club parking lots/garages, observe the inebriated drivers get in, and arrest them as they pull out? THAT's probable cause, stops the driving hazard at its source, and is more efficient as well. I can only assume that the club owners complain and get the chamber of commerce to pressure the local PD.

Some places have exceptions to "probable cause". In Tenn. a State Trooper can stop you for nothing more than a driver's license inspection where a regular officer cannot.

[Wakey]

Originally Posted by OFFICER737

Some places have exceptions to "probable cause". In Tenn. a State Trooper can stop you for nothing more than a driver's license inspection where a regular officer cannot.

This seems to be the case on public lakes as well, they call it safety inspection.

Had this happen in La, GA, AL, & NC.

I guess roadblocks are announced to get around civil rights issues but they never announce the ones leading from boat ramps. "Ossicerfer, we already spoke to your colleagues while on the lake."