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

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.
 
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.
 
SMH, driving is a privilege in every state and stopping you to produce documents stating you can drive is not a constitutional wrong.
 
Last edited:
SMH, driving is not a privilege in any state and stopping you to produce documents stating you can drive is not a constitutional wrong.
Driving is a privilege, not a right as it is a legally regulated activity requiring a license, adherence to traffic laws, and passing tests. It is granted by the state and can be suspended, revoked, or restricted if you violate safety regulations. Unlike constitutional rights, it is not guaranteed.
 
ya see my left rear window, it’s taped to keep it in up position, parts on order.
( regulator ) stupid plastic gear melts down after 80,000 miles, as it is a very common problem…
6 months earlier, the passenger front went and 6 months before that ( 1 year ago ) drivers side failed…
drivers side was a bitch, 2 men 4 hours… first time attempts…

this go round should be easier…

i may just 2 part epoxy the 4th door… cell…
.

View attachment 111922View attachment 111923View attachment 111924View attachment 111925
Planned obsolescence, or cheaper materials of components with no easy access for replacement, a true plague of modern life...
 
Driving is a privilege, not a right as it is a legally regulated activity requiring a license, adherence to traffic laws, and passing tests. It is granted by the state and can be suspended, revoked, or restricted if you violate safety regulations. Unlike constitutional rights, it is not guaranteed.
I fixed that just for you.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4773.webp
    IMG_4773.webp
    70.6 KB · Views: 2
I fixed that just for you.
Well while you are at it correct the other part of your incorrect statement that police can pull you over to check to see if you have a drivers license. They cannot ordinarily do that they need probable cause.

Police generally cannot pull you over solely to check for a driver’s license without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a violation has occurred
. While they cannot make random "license check" stops, officers can stop you if they suspect your license is suspended, expired, or if they have identified you as an unlicensed driver.
Key Details on Traffic Stops for Licenses:
  • Reasonable Suspicion Needed: A lawful stop requires suspicion of illegal activity, such as driving with a suspended or revoked license.
  • Technology Usage: Police often use license plate readers and databases to verify if the registered owner of a vehicle has a valid license before initiating a stop.
  • Running Your Name: An officer can run your license plate or name through their system to check your status, which is not considered an unreasonable search.
  • Exceptions: Law enforcement can stop a vehicle if they recognize the driver and know they have a suspended license.
  • Requirement to Carry: In many jurisdictions, such as Florida, you must carry a valid, legible driver's license at all times while operating a motor vehicle.
If you are pulled over for a lawful reason (like a broken taillight or speeding), the officer is legally permitted to ask for your license, registration, and proof of insurance.
 
There’s a reason why I wear DILLIGAF on my collar. Care to recite some more?
Except for when Quint alludes to the college educated part your response reminds me of a scene for Jaws…….

“Well it proves one thing, Mr. Hooper. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong."
 
But they can hold a roadside checkpoint for no reason.

difference is they can legally hold a roadside checkpoint f

But they can hold a roadside checkpoint for no reason.
The courts have established that roadside checkpoints can be preformed. However, they still cannot only pull YOU over. The law requires it be preformed in a non discriminatory manner. An example, in a roadside DWI check the cars pulled over cannot be randomly selected. However, if they pull over every 3rd car., than that is legal.
 
The courts have established that roadside checkpoints can be preformed. However, they still cannot only pull YOU over. The law requires it be preformed in a non discriminatory manner. An example, in a roadside DWI check the cars pulled over cannot be randomly selected. However, if they pull over every 3rd car., than that is legal.

I can see why you're a leftist. You seem to be okay with things that suit your opinion but have trouble making the logical connection that the rules need to apply regardless of how you feel about the subject.

Stopping people without probable cause is a fourth amendment violation no matter what. It's not acceptable under certain circumstances, if it's random, if it's Tuesday, if they're looking for drunks, if they're looking for illegals, then it's okay? Nope.

And before you trot out the AI attorney again, I don't give a $#it what the courts said. Courts have been wrong before, they're wrong now. Civil asset forfeiture is wrong, Roe v Wade was wrong, Dred Scott was wrong. It doesn't depend on feelings and opinions, it depends on the Constitution. Random roadside checkpoints are wrong. Period. Not just if their inconvenient or not random.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Latest articles

Latest posts

Back
Top