So, the fact that nobody was driving drunk constitutes a FAIL? Good thinking there, Submitter. Let me know when are where you'll be driving next, so I can get loaded and be sure to cross your path.

Sprinkle some crack on them.

It's a fail because they didn't get to rake in any revenue off the drunks. The state's got to feed the monkey.

They also fail at following the Constitution for setting it up in the first place.

Mugato: It's a fail because they didn't get to rake in any revenue off the drunks. The state's got to feed the monkey.

They also fail at following the Constitution for setting it up in the first place.

IF youre on a public road, you have no right to refuse.

Obviously they have to tighten the standards for drunk driving, or maybe pull over all those sober drunks.

Tacoby Bellisbury: IF youre on a public road, you have no right to refuse.

That's all well and good, but that argument won't allow a police officer to search your car at random during a traffic stop. So I somehow doubt this applies to checkpoints.

/Fourth amendment

Newhall is 98.2% white. White people dont break the law, dont they know that?

Tacoby Bellisbury:
They also fail at following the Constitution for setting it up in the first place.

IF youre on a public road, you have no right to refuse.

Are we talking about the same Constitution here? The one with the 4th Amendment stapled to it?

Mugato: It's a fail because they didn't get to rake in any revenue off the drunks. The state's got to feed the monkey.

They also fail at following the Constitution for setting it up in the first place.

Mugato: It's a fail because they didn't get to rake in any revenue off the drunks. The state's got to feed the monkey.

They also fail at following the Constitution for setting it up in the first place.

It's totally Constitutional. When you get your drivers license, you are submitting to a sobriety check, any time, anywhere. It says so right there on the application where you sign. The USSC has ruled that public safety trumps the 4th in this instance.

Once they arrest you for being plastered, the cops can then search your car legally incident to arrest, or for inventory purposes.

ricodued: That's all well and good, but that argument won't allow a police officer to search your car at random during a traffic stop. So I somehow doubt this applies to checkpoints.

/Fourth amendment

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz

Submitter calls that fail? Maybe it means the checkpoints are doing their job?

Or you could just fark the po-lice and get some free SMS notifications of checkpoints @ nocheckpoints.com

Sure, you have no right to refuse . . . but they have no right to search everyone regardless of probable cause (weaving, erratic driving, etc.) and then arrest people on unrelated charges. As odd as it sounds, they should take a look at the guy without a license, say "You're not drunk . . . have a good day" and send him the fark on his way.

Think about how far they could take it if they didn't. Breaking into your home to search for underage drinking? Why not? Dragging you to a hospital to get drug tested? Drugs are illegal, right . . . sounds fine! Hey, they're looking for things that are illegal, that makes it okay!

If you stop getting pissed off about relatively small stuff, the schmuckos who get away with it will push their bounds until it becomes big stuff. Fark cops.

I'm glad my state has a statute that specifically bars cops from setting up random checkpoints due to an infringement on our rights of unlawful search and siezure of our persons or documents.

/Washington State and our constitution FTW
//suck it constitution haters

minuslars: Submitter calls that fail? Maybe it means the checkpoints are doing their job?

And my anit-tiger rock is keeping the tigers at bay. I mean, I have this rock and I don't see any tigers, so it must be working.

if it is a "sobriety" checkpoint then they should only be looking for drunks. just like when i go through TSA i always get to bring my weed with me. because weed is not on the list of items TSA is looking for. if there is a narcotics checkpoint at the airport then no, i dont get to take my weed with me. if you are breaking the law you should pay the consequences, but if law enforcement is going go fishing with dynamite...well... thats just dangerous. fun and profitable. but dangerous.

CTaylor80: but they have no right to search everyone regardless of probable cause (weaving, erratic driving, etc.) and then arrest people on unrelated charges. As odd as it sounds, they should take a look at the guy without a license, say "You're not drunk . . . have a good day" and send him the fark on his way.

Minor fix.

/papers, please.

Reading this story to my girlfriend, she asked, "Those three who were taken for testing but not arrested, you think with this having taken place in California, they were celebrities who were over the limit but given that free pass anyways?"

I told her I had that same thought...

Don't you just love it when the cops break the law and Judges orders, by looking for other crimes at a drink driving roadblock.

What most people on here fail to realize is that the checkpoint was set up at 7pm.


Thus, if you saw it on your way out to the bars or wherever? Would you drive trough it whilst drunk?

Or conversely would it make you think twice knowing that the checkpoint is there?

Drunk driving checkpoints aren't about drunk driving.

Gyrfalcon is, unfortunately, right. Constitutionally, cops are allowed to set up sobriety checkpoints. I would think that disagreements with the court's reasoning, while valid, are pretty unhelpful in trying to get your license back.

My question is: if the checkpoint is set up to stop drunk driving, and fails to find a single drunk driver, is it really a sobriety checkpoint? Or can you set up a checkpoint anywhere you want so long as you use the "drunk-driving" talisman to make it legal?

LordPistachio: So, the fact that nobody was driving drunk constitutes a FAIL? Good thinking there, Submitter. Let me know when are where you'll be driving next, so I can get loaded and be sure to cross your path.

LOLWUT

Tacoby Bellisbury: ricodued: That's all well and good, but that argument won't allow a police officer to search your car at random during a traffic stop. So I somehow doubt this applies to checkpoints.

/Fourth amendment

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz

Which is ironic, because they are not allowed in Michigan.

Gyrfalcon: It's totally Constitutional.

Depends on the state, actually. I understand the point that by getting a driver's license, you're signing away some of your rights and it's voluntary but that's a helluva barrel to be able to put someone over.

drharmful: Newhall is 98.2% white. White people dont break the law, dont they know that?
Uhh...no?

Try again gringo. Newhall es muy grande huevos.

/ok so my spanish is a little rusty.
//Ahhh SCV, split into 4 sections. Saugus-white middle class, Valenica-white upper-middle class, Newhall hispanic/white lower class, and finally Canyon Country-gangs.

People! If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with causeless searches.

There is only one time in my life that I have seen any form of DUI check point. It was a couple of years ago, and it was disguised as an Insurance Check point. It was clearly a DUI check point because of all places to put it, it was down the street from several bars.

Personally, I think DUI Check points are completely worthless because they hamper traffic checking each car and if they catch four drivers, they're having a good night. If you want the cops to catch drunk drivers then put them on the roads and look for cars that are swerving, or driving at the speed limit or under the speed limit (you know, people who are clearly trying not to get catch the cops attention). Don't treat everyone like a potential criminal just to catch a hand full of people.

Here's a tip: I've been stopped at least five times at sobriety checkpoints. Since I've never been drunk, I've handed my license to the officer, he's glanced at it, asked where I was coming from (since it was very late--anywhere from 12:30-3:00 a.m.), I replied returning from work, he handed my license back, told me to drive safely, and waved me through. Total elapsed time: 45 seconds.

If you're not driving drunk, you don't get stopped at sobriety checkpoints. Hence, anything else illegal in your car also doesn't get stopped. I'm not advocating it, but it's a fact.

Nothing mean Anything anymore: People! If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with causeless searches.

This very line of reasoning was presented to me by an officer the other day. I laughed and asked if I could come over to his house and rummage through his shiat.

AuralArgument: What most people on here fail to realize is that the checkpoint was set up at 7pm.


Thus, if you saw it on your way out to the bars or wherever? Would you drive trough it whilst drunk?

Or conversely would it make you think twice knowing that the checkpoint is there?

I'm dunno about Cali, but here (KS) they ADVERTISE, for several
days, where checkpoints are going to be set up and when. I've
never had the pleasure of going thru one because I go WAAYYY
around them.

/doesn't even drink anymore, just don't like traffic stops.

Lazakesau: Uhh...no?

Try again gringo. Newhall es muy grande huevos.

/ok so my spanish is a little rusty.

A little rusty? I think you said Newhall has very large eggs.

Sorry, I lived in Saugus.

Observer8053:
My question is: if the checkpoint is set up to stop drunk driving, and fails to find a single drunk driver, is it really a sobriety checkpoint? Or can you set up a checkpoint anywhere you want so long as you use the "drunk-driving" talisman to make it legal?

Of course, we're working under the assumption that they were checking licenses on all of those drivers, but I'm willing to bet that when the police officer asked them how they were doing, they probably acted rather abnormally, knowing that they did not have a license to drive with.

Do I have a problem with cops doing to sobriety thing and searching cars? Yes. Do I have a problem with cops pulling unlicensed drivers off the streets, or running licenses for active warrants? No.

NakedApe: Drunk driving checkpoints aren't about drunk driving.

Truth. They're about $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Think about it. If you need a checkpoint to catch these reckless drunk drivers instead of, say, seeing them swerving on the road or something, they're obviously not causing any harm to anybody, hence the necessity of random stops.

But again, the sacred $$$$$$$$$$ trumps everything.

Great Janitor: Reading this story to my girlfriend, she asked, "Those three who were taken for testing but not arrested, you think with this having taken place in California, they were celebrities who were over the limit but given that free pass anyways?"

I told her I had that same thought...

Actors? Heck no. They couldn't arrest them fast enough. They love the publicity from arresting famous people.

I suspect they were DA's, Judges or other cops.

ultraholland: minuslars: Submitter calls that fail? Maybe it means the checkpoints are doing their job?

And my anit-tiger rock is keeping the tigers at bay. I mean, I have this rock and I don't see any tigers, so it must be working.

The guys down on Galveston could have used that rock a couple weeks ago.

Gyrfalcon: Here's a tip: I've been stopped at least five times at sobriety checkpoints. Since I've never been drunk, I've handed my license to the officer, he's glanced at it, asked where I was coming from (since it was very late--anywhere from 12:30-3:00 a.m.), I replied returning from work, he handed my license back, told me to drive safely, and waved me through. Total elapsed time: 45 seconds.

If you're not driving drunk, you don't get stopped at sobriety checkpoints. Hence, anything else illegal in your car also doesn't get stopped. I'm not advocating it, but it's a fact.

It's none of his business where you are going or coming from.

A few years ago, I was stopped at a checkpoint.

I wasn't doing anything illegal, not drunk, etc. but the officer asked if he could search my car (I imagine this was because my car at the time had tinted windows, which cops tend to hate). I said "No, but I'm willing to wait here while you obtain a warrant." He grimaced, but waved me through.

We've got to keep these people in check at all times.

One thing they do is ask you questions to get you to reveal guilt. For instance, they'll ask, "Do you know what you did wrong?" If you answer, "Yeah, I was speeding," you've admitted guilt, and you have no real recourse but to submit to their authority.

The best policy is do what they say, don't answer any questions, and don't let them overstep your rights.

Great Janitor Reading this story to my girlfriend, she asked, "Those three who were taken for testing but not arrested, you think with this having taken place in California, they were celebrities who were over the limit but given that free pass anyways?"

Nah. No celebrity who could get a free pass would be caught dead in Newhall.

Ahh here's the link: http://nocheckpoints.com

ultraholland: This very line of reasoning was presented to me by an officer the other day. I laughed and asked if I could come over to his house and rummage through his shiat.

Did you get a free trip downtown for being a smartass? You have to remember, officers deserve respeck!

FTA: Lest the whole set-up be a wash, the deputies got to impound all four of the drivers' vehicles and issue citations."

Hooray Cops! They GOT to impound four cars and earn revenue from the impound fees and citations. Much like a bake sale where you have to figure the cost of ingredients against what you expect to bring in from sales.

/Proper business sense

If they don't catch anybody, that's bad news.

The system has to get money somehow. If so many people follow the law that the system can no longer make enough money to survive, it will create new laws that are even harder to follow in the hopes of generating more revenue.

If checkpoints nationally are failing to produce the yields to which the legal industry has grown accustomed, look for tougher rules, a 0.06% BAC or 0.04% BAC law, or some other such nonsense, to keep the money flowing.

Gyrfalcon: Here's a tip: I've been stopped at least five times at sobriety checkpoints. Since I've never been drunk, I've handed my license to the officer, he's glanced at it, asked where I was coming from (since it was very late--anywhere from 12:30-3:00 a.m.), I replied returning from work, he handed my license back, told me to drive safely, and waved me through. Total elapsed time: 45 seconds.

If you're not driving drunk, you don't get stopped at sobriety checkpoints. Hence, anything else illegal in your car also doesn't get stopped. I'm not advocating it, but it's a fact.

Me confused!

Unfortunately, it is still legal in California to both drive (and vote) under the influence of Kool-aid.

CTaylor80: Sure, you have no right to refuse . . . but they have no right to search everyone regardless of probable cause (weaving, erratic driving, etc.) and then arrest people on unrelated charges. As odd as it sounds, they should take a look at the guy without a license, say "You're not drunk . . . have a good day" and send him the fark on his way.

Think about how far they could take it if they didn't. Breaking into your home to search for underage drinking? Why not? Dragging you to a hospital to get drug tested? Drugs are illegal, right . . . sounds fine! Hey, they're looking for things that are illegal, that makes it okay!

If you stop getting pissed off about relatively small stuff, the schmuckos who get away with it will push their bounds until it becomes big stuff. Fark cops.

Maybe too little too late? They aren't too far away from being able to do just that. Fark the Powers that be.

I guess they'll have to generate their revenue another way now.

If they called it a "drivers license validity checkpoint" instead of "sobriety checkpoint," would it still be legal?