The never ending chat thread, chat about anything That your up too

[Avenger]

if I'm drunk and showing signs of being drunk & showing signs of inebriation in my driving (you know - probable cause?)- fine -...

That's not the same as DWI checkpoints. Try again.

 

[MakoMatt]

DUI/DWI checkpoints are
generally considered legal under federal law and constitutional standards, as they are not deemed to violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. They are, however, prohibited in some states and must follow strict guidelines—including being systematically conducted, authorized by supervisors, and well-signed—to remain lawful.
Legal Requirements and Limitations
For a checkpoint to be considered legal, it usually must meet specific criteria established by law, such as:

• Systematic Selection: Officers cannot arbitrarily pick cars; they must follow a neutral formula (e.g., stopping every third car).
• Safety and Notice: The checkpoint must be clearly marked with warning signs and have adequate, safe lighting.
• Supervisory Control: The operation must be approved and overseen by a supervisor.
• Reasonable Delay: The stop must be brief, designed to minimize intrusion on drivers.

Rights at a Checkpoint
While you must stop and provide documentation (license, registration, proof of insurance), drivers have certain rights:

• Right to Remain Silent: You are not required to answer questions about where you have been or if you have been drinking.
• Right to Refuse Searches: You can refuse a search of your vehicle unless the officer has probable cause.
• Field Sobriety Tests: You may refuse to perform field sobriety exercises, but this may lead to an arrest if the officer suspects impairment.

State-Specific Legality
While roughly 37+ states allow these, some states prohibit them entirely. Always check local state laws.

 

[Avenger]

Am I typing in Greek?

The ICE checkpoint is no different than a DWI checkpoint. @wader is claiming random ICE checkpoints are a crime. He's also claiming they're not law enforcement. So wrong on two counts.

Personally I think any checkpoint where they're randomly fishing for something like DWIs is unconstitutional and a slippery slope that allows government overreach. But activist judges seem okay with ignoring the Constitution as long as it's for some perceived "good." I wonder if they would have been so cool with it if the original case had been about ICE instead of DWIs. Good intentions and the pavement on a certain road.