DUI checkpoint

Papers Please!

Why don't they just go and search everyones houses for contraband. I get what they are trying to do, but I think it is totally out of line.

it will make people think twice about drinking and driving so its a good thing right?

"Come on, dog. Are you actually comparing this to Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union? You're smarter than that."

Of course not. But at the same time, I think it's wrong to stop people without cause.

This issue is way above my pay grade.

Ya got that right kcmc...people take that for granted..I know I have....

well the reason for them doing it is because of the increase in drunk driving so its not like they just felt like doing it just to
"hassle" people.

so much for Live Free or Die.

It's not about the "hassle". It's about police stopping people with cause to do so. Last I checked, driving my car in Nashua was perfectly legal and unless a police officer observes me doing something I should be doing, they have no reason to stop me.

Instead in the name of alleged "public safety" they do precisely that. They stop drivers who have no broken any laws or committed any crimes "just in case" they "may" be driving under the influence.

They can't come into my home "just in case" I may have committed a crime and they have no business stopping me at a checkpoint for the same reason.

And no, I don't drink -at all- and I'm not planning on being out tonight, in Nashua or anywhere else.

again there is a cause to do it in nashua, because of the increase in drunk driving.

ah to be old and too set in their ways.

I'm kind of surprised Casey, you actually served your country in and by doing so swore to defend the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Bill of RIGHTS.

The Charters of Freedom

Why would I do that? I have unalienable rights here, plus I like the weather.

go to a third world country for a week then come back. see if you complain about a road block that you probably wont even encounter.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Your confusing the fact the I too want to get drunk drivers off the road.

Yeah, read the Fourth Amendment Casey.

i dont think its unreasonable
im not saying your supporting drunk driving. if you get stopped you get stopped if you dont you dont carry on. i consider this sweating the small stuff

I'm sorry Casey this is we're we are going to have to agree to disagree because the Bill of Rights is NOT small stuff.

"Funny... he doesn't LOOK drewish..."

I hear that.

Peace..I'm outta here and remember....only Milhouse can prevent forest fires.

Good question; it's my interpretation that the Fourth Amendment doesn't distinguish between rights and privldges. Read this language:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

I'd like to think that the bar here is higher than in a third-world country, so just because we don't have militias breaking into houses and hacking people with machetes doesn't mean we shouldn't argue against state and federal attempts to circumvent the constitution because it's the easiest way to solve some perceived problem.

And all of us who play in bars all the time know that it would be fairly easy to just park a cruiser outside any bar at 2AM on a Friday or Saturday night and wait for folks to start peeling out, driving on the wrong side of the road, too fast, erratically, etc. (all of which would be probable cause for the police stopping them). Heck, they could have all the drunken drivers they wanted if they did it that way, but of course the tax-paying bar owners would then be mighty upset at what that might do to their business.

Love to hear from Toolfist right about now, I think this is the kind of topic he's been Jonzen for.

I have my moments!! =)

And I would think any smart lawyer could argue that driving is a right, until you start breaking the law.

I doubt this "driving is a privilege" stand would hold up to constitutional scrutiny. Maybe it has, I have no idea, but I suspect that if they tried to remove that privilege for reasons other than say, repeatedly breaking the law, those folks could have a case.

Oh, I know what you're saying kcmc. I'm just pointing out that it sounds a little like the "love it or leave it" positions, and I respectfully disagree with many of those.

Our nation was built quite literally on a list of freedoms, and when the police or the state or the feds or the NSC or whoever try to take the easy way out or try to make us "safer" by infringing on our rights, someone should be paying close attention.

Do you have to have a drivers licese to own a car?? I can't even imagine the problems that 3rd world countrys have to face on a daily basis and it is my hope that I will never know personally...again I can see both sides of this debate

The whole issue between rights and privileges is limited by whatever the courts decide is legal and what can be enforced reasonably efficiently.

You have the right to a fair and speedy trial, but how many times do you read about someone sitting in jail for months on end waiting for one. The Supreme Court finally ruled on the 2nd Amendment, stating that you have the right to purchase a gun. However, a Massachusetts citizen has to jump through a whole lot more hoops than a New Hampshire one, so does that make it a privilege in one state and a right in another?

I'm with Melvern on this one, in that giving the police the right to arbitrarily stop and search people is a dangerous thing. They'll be pulling over every long-haired kid looking for dope, and I know that's true because it happened to me and my friends numerous times when I was younger and less set in my ways. ;-)

Good point Ronin...When you take your car on the road there are laws that you must obey as an operator of that car....good stuff people

Wow...very good points and facts for that matter....thank you for the stimulation....=)

Besides, the Chevy commercials say that it's my right as an American to drive a big-@$$ Tahoe down the open road toward the buttes in Colorado or Utah or some such desolate place, and the Nashua PD ain't a'gonna stop me.

And on a side note I don't know if Megsta has ever really been stimulated!!

With his witty potty humor for those wondering

I'm sure the roadblock will be set up pretty late at night so it's only going to inconvenience the "bar crowd" for the majority of people stopped. Which means they'll probably have a high rate of success. So if they stop say 100 cars and catch 40 people driving over the limit and I know that's a high number won't you feel slightly safer next weekend?

I'm with stunt, mc kracken and kcmc.


the consitiution is not a suicide pact.

you are in public, on public roads, its a privledge. they can stop you on a toll road and collect 3 bucks. they can certainly stop you and ask you a couple of questions for free.

Seeing into a car, what is in plain view is not considered unresonable search. it's not singling out 'long hairs' or racial profiling. its more like airport security.

why do we have x-ray scanners, and airport security? because someing could kill a lot of people and that the saftey of using that mode of transportation and all that can be affected by its missappropriation deem it necessary.


the only difference is a 767 loaded with fuel is capable of taking out more people in one incident than a 82' buick with a drunk behind the wheel.


The problem is, drunks take out more people than airline security issues and less is done to screen that.

So the bottom line is don't drink and drive and you have nothing to worry about. They're not going to bust you for having long hair and a guitar in the back seat.

Come on Wayne, Victoria Snelgrove's death was a horrible and tragic accident that occured during attempts to control thousands of college students going nuts and climbing the outside of the green monster on Landsdown Street. There was no malicious intent and I'm certain no one was smug about the 5 million dollar settlement involved.

seriously wayne, cops put thier lifes on the line EVERY DAY. multiple times a day.

what if every mailbox you sold MIGHT just have a handgun and be hopped up on blow and MIGHT want to blow your head off?

a buddy of mine who's neigbor is a cop reminds me, when we have a bad day at work, a customer gets pissed off for a while.

when he has a bad day, a perp hits him up side the head with a brick.

you listed 5 cases, that might make the news.

now list the 1000s of cases where cops take a beating from 'citizens'. or non-citizens, that dont make the paper.

I know weed makes me paranoid and hungry, but that's over the top.

you gotta share man, we'll hide from the SS and order up some crispy shrimp.

I'm not trying to imply that all cops are bad. I've personally known several who were truly public servants and who I was very proud to say that I knew - our own Suaman among them. And Bob Westaway. A real hero.

We need police to protect us from the really bad guys who would kill their grandmother for $5 worth of crack. I just think that police, teachers, clergy, and other people in a position of "trust" should be held accountable for their actions and not allowed to judge and protect their own.

And they should be paid appropriately. If you offer crap wages, you get crap workers. Why are sports figures paid so much and teachers and police paid so poorly? When was the last time a missed throw caused someone to die?

Please don't get me wrong. I just don't like authority without accountability.

And it scares me how much the Constitution of The United States is under attack these days. The people who created it had ALL of "WE THE PEOPLE" in mind, not just the wealthy or powerful.

I'm sorry, but I've never liked being pushed around, especially by ignorant bullies who feel that the rules don't apply to them.

I'm sorry if my rant against authority made it seem like I'm in favor of people driving drunk -- NOT AT ALL!

NO ONE has the right to endanger others by getting behind the wheel when they are too impaired to do so safely. A couple of drinks is one thing, but if you have to close one eye to not see double... it's inexcusable. And basically attempted murder by negligence.

Having done many things that I regret when I was younger, I'm proud to say that I NEVER drive drunk anymore. It's just too big a risk to take, for many reasons.

Marc, didn't I just say exactly that? I'm certainly not defending drunk drivers - far from it. I just think that it's very important that we don't give the so-called "authorities" carte blanche to deprive any and all of their rights against illegal search and seizure, as defined in the constitution.

I guess I don't express myself very well in writing. Other people say pretty much the same thing, but I'm the one who always gets flamed. Maybe because I have a problem with authority figures that some people here disagree with.

If I'd been born in a dictatorship country I'd never have seen 21...

"If I have to be incovenienced for 2 minutes to catch some of these drunks, I've got no problem with that at all. "

This year, it's DUI checkpoints, 2 years from now it's something else in the name of "public safety". And they don't just look for DUI drivers. They also issue tickets for -any- alleged infraction, no matter how minor.

And let's not kid ourselves. It's not too far from DUI checkpoints to no cause stop and frisk policies in police departments. After all we need to make sure people aren't breaking any laws "just in case".

Hey..I was there....almost.
I've been thru a road block in Manchester about a year ago ....They asked if I had any drinks ..i said no,,,showed my license ...stated why I was in Manch-Vegas, and they let me move on. They were polite.
I still think it violate my rights. I also believe it's about catching drunk drivers for the public opinion but more-so it's about money $$.....The odds are in their favor that they will nab some driver who are under the influence and that equates to mucho revenue....Don't kid yourselves it's not just about making the roads safe from Drunk drivers. It's a great way to make quota. In fact today I saw at least 4 pull over outside clubs in Nashua
and that was on my way to my gig at 6pm. It was a quota busting day in business terms.
I must say though ...they made it easy for drivers to avoid the block from rt 3 north ...The road block was at exit 6 (Haluwa exit ) many flares and cruisers. I was about to get off my exit and decided to take rt 101 exit
although I felt confident I wouldn't be hassled through the block I didn't want to risk any thing (having 3 drinks this evening in a 5 hour time frame) my 4rth being diet coke (sans Bacardi). I made a decision to avoid the block ...someone who may have been impaired might have been confused and took the exit.
I'm sure they made their quota tonight
Senor

Roger, Marc, and Loyd.... It's easy for you guys to say it's no big deal; You guys look like the f*cking Jonas Brothers! Try coming out for a ride with me sometime and see if cops don't profile....lol

It seems that the advocates for the roadblocks in this thread are assuming that we who don't hold them same view are somehow inferring that by virtue of our position we are somehow pro drunk driving and nothing could be further from the truth but Dog was right...today is roadblocks, tomorrow...who knows? Home searches? Remember when the seat belt law was only going to be a secondary offense??? God I miss Pat Whitley.

Let me trot out this old chestnut "Those who would trade freedoms for safety deserve neither".

...and now I patiently await "the Constitution is not a death pact" retort.

If it really had anything to do with quotas, there would have been no announcement. It's a good thing. If it bothers you, don't drive (drunk) and obey the traffic laws.

Gee, no one has any problem bringing their car in for inspection now and then. But what if the car runs fine but the driver is defective.

I never said that I think anyone who disagrees with the checkpoint is for drunk driving. I just want cops to do more to make roads safer. I also want them to sit at all the major off ramps of the highway interchanges such as Rt. 93 and 95 etc.. and pull over all the bastards that cause traffic by racing up to the exit in the second lane and trying to squeeze in to the exit. The ripple effect from those assholes causes the majority of traffic because they feel they shouldn't have to wait in a line to get off the exit. I know I'm off course a bit but that just bothers me... ok, back to the topic at hand. I always say if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide. Let the cops do whatever they have to do to make the world a safer place. If there were a death penalty for murder or even for petty crimes less people would be commiting crimes because they would actually have to fear the consequences. I know people don't want to live in fear but again, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Crack down on the people that ARE doing things that are illegal.

ATTICA!
ATTICA!

I don't see anyone making that argument, or anything close to that argument.

And, technically, "License and Registration please" is exactly the same as "papers please" and when it's followed by, "Where have you been tonight and where are you going...?"

And those of you who are quite gung-ho and supportive of these roadblocks are making the exact same arguments that those who supported "papers please" policies of the past. (just an ironic observation, not an accusation of Nazi-ism)

For myself, I have very little fear of DUI roadblocks as I never drink and drive, but to make the old suggestion that the innocent have nothing to fear from random spot checks by the authorities, seems Polly-Annish to me.

You're right. I'm sure in a year or so they'll be random checkpoints to make sure we're not texting or eating unhealthy food while driving.

Am I the only idiot who's willing to compromise and trade some freedom for some peace of mind?

Marc, I appreciate your advocacy and I respect it. But it absolutely is an abrogation of your rights. Cops can't stop you without cause for any other reason, so why is it ok for them to do it for this reason.

Either they can or they can't stop. There's no gray here.

Okay then, where does it stop?

If you're willing to do anything to stop drunk driving, how about a law that says anyone who goes to a bar, can NOT drive home?

Why not mandatory testing the minute you leave a bar/restaurant/package store etc.?

Why not just regulate the car companies to install those breathalizer devices on every ignition, or every car? Why not?

No one is suggesting driving drunk is a good thing. We're mainly suggesting that although a road block is not a huge inconvenience, it's this kind of issue that makes the activists among us (usually and understandably the ones who have been severely affected by drunk driving) to go overboard and begin infringing upon peoples freedom. That's all anyone is saying here.

Personally, I'd have a one strike policy toward drunk driving. I think THAT would go far in doing away with drunk driving.

And Barb, do those road blocks really give you peace of mind?!?!?
It took place in my town last night, but I didn't feel any safer. If anything, the real drunk driving "pros" diverted through the neighborhoods etc.!!!

well, it's natural that these types of conversations can polarize people because most of us will carry our brains a little further down the road (mentally) and potentially glorify or vilify something based on an "extreme".

Two extremes I've witnessed so far: on one side, the idea that these checkpoints lead towards Nazi-ism and a controlled state - and on the other side, those that feel it's okay to trade-off our civil rights to feel/be safer.

I am absolutely in the middle, leaning towards these road blocks not bothering me... I THINK that for me, I don't mind because I *NEVER* drink & drive... I don't drink a drop of alcohol at gigs (rare occasions, I'll have a R&C before loading in and setting up).

So I just view these stops (and I've never encountered one) as something that isn't really relevant to me.

IF I were to be stopped and asked to perform a sobriety test with no cause for doing so, I might be irritated... IF they were to ever search my car without probable cause, I would be all-over that like flies on sh*t... (obviously AFTER leaving - no need to argue and get arrested on-site).

why no uproar over airport checkpoints?

is that reasonable search?

please explain if it is.

And I completely disagree with the level of stupidity that is the TSA and airport security policy.

The question is ...Can anyone drink a couple and be responsible? Why not ban drinking alcohol? I believe some people can have a drink or two in the course of 4-6 hours and not be impaired.
And Chris ..I disagree...It is not just about pleasing the public majority by nabbing drunk drivers. it has a lot to do with money...I'm sorry but DUI is huge $$ for the state. but getting drunk drivers is a great vehicle for a great cause...because we all (the public majority) agree.
And BTW I am in favor of huge penalties for drunk drivers.
The road blocks do not bother me personally...as I said previously I've been thru them with no problems. And they give you plenty of notice to avoid them if you choose....Drinking and driving is not illegal...being intoxicated and /or impaired and driving is illegal. There are many people who can have a drink or two in a certain period of time who are not impaired and would never violate any traffic laws and would not get pulled over for any such violation. Also in the past few years I have been pulled over after gigs...and on a few occassions been asked to take the field sobriety test...I 've always passed and been on my way. I've Never gotten a DUI in my life. And I've also respected the officers' duty and polite manor of conducting themselves in the process.It's the nature of the late night musician I guess. it's always been a hassle but I respect
police if they they pulled me over for their stated reason.
A road block is a numbers game and penalizes the responsible people. It's a numbers game and a quota game ...like it or not ...I have been in sales most of my life. If you look at it with a sales angle ...the more numbers the more sales ...the more stopped vehicles the more opportunities for drunk drivers or may I say arrests....
And again I'll state...I am in favor of getting Alcoholics who drive drunk off the road forever. I also understand the road block game is a great way to nab the irresponsible drunk driver. i'm sure they make more numbers in one night than 1 or 2 months. And Chris...
advertising the road block is a plus...(regardless of quota)
It separates the responsible drinkers from the people who can't control and will over drink and drive regardless.
I am in favor of punishing drunk drivers but I still think
road blocks violate our rights (road checks without probable cause) Obviously the police department also has to get the approval by the courts to do this...and it takes quite some time until they find a judge that will approve it. What does this tell you?
Sorry for the lengthy post. I'm home and getting impaired again LOL
Senor

"Sounds to me like a few of you might push the limit and are concerned about getting popped after a gig."

Lloyd we usually agree on things but that is the one of the lamest statements I've heard you make.

You can't wish a change into practice, you don't like the way things are then vote to change them; like Tom said there is no grey area in the law.

Until someone gives me a better solution, I am all for checkpoints.

If it were about quotas, they'd do them more often and unannounced. Then they'd bag a LOT more people. The fact they have to get permission from a court should show that the "Constitution" is being followed, just like when the police have to get a search warrant, they need a judge's signature.

Personally, I wouldn't mind there being a police car outside every nightclub and they can observe someone staggering to their car. Bag them then. You would have JUST CAUSE because you observed them in a drunken state, they get into a car, turn it on and the second it moves GOTCHA. Take em outta the car, call em a cab.

I, for one, like what Whippersnappers was doing. They actually hired a car and driver to take people home if they were too drunk to drive. You couldn't force anyone to use it (although I would if I knew someone was impaired).

I also would be all for taking someone's keys when they go into a club. When you leave, do a breathalyzer. It ins't about being a police state, it's protecting my liquor license and the liability insurance and court cases when I get sued when a driver klills someone.

Seriously, if someone you knew had been killed by a drunk driver, you would certainly WISH that there had been a checkpoint somewhere along that route that night.

Geez ..That was a long post LOL
I gotta get to bed earlier after gigs..LOL

Senor

According to constitutional law, some stops are not considered seizures of a person. This is the case with a so called "stop and frisk" in which an officer detains a person for a very brief period of time and quickly checks their outer clothing for contraband. Sometimes, if a person is detained for less than 48 hours, it is not considered a seizure. However, this is not true for DUI roadblocks. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that stopping someone at such a roadblock does constitute a seizure of that person under the Fourth Amendment.

Counterpoint:
The Supreme Court has consistently held that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. However, law enforcement officers in a sobriety checkpoint cannot stop motorist indiscriminately. In other words, a police officer may pull over every single car, or even every fifth car, but an officer cannot arbitrarily choose who to pull over based on the make or model of a car, the ethnicity of the driver, or a simply hunch (unless, of course, the officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver is intoxicated.)

i think if the guy has a gig bag in his car, a wireless mike in the front seat, is followed by a pack of angery bees and has long hair they should be sent to gitmo for a waterboarding sobriety test.

if guilty, they should have to challenge chippa in a tazer fight.

when i was in the military the always said if you have one drink and hour you will be fine. as long as you dont reach .08
people that get DUIs arent all acloholics. its the law and if you get to a check point and you only had one drink but you reach .08 oh well you knew better

for some reason my ears were burning and i felt compelled to weigh in on this....strange...anyhoo....some if this is probably redundant, in support of Senor Bicardi...

I'm old enough to remember how the Dukakis administration went on a crusade to clean up drunk driving along the Rout 1N strip from Peabody to Salisbury. It effectively put an end to what used to be one of the best nightclub scenes I've ever seen. So, being a musician, I have a particular bias on this topic.
BUT...
I see 2 fundamental problems with the checkpoints: #1 is that it opens up the possibility of someone who has consumed maybe 1 or 2 drinks, perhaps with a meal, or over the course of a few hours, being arrested for simply having a trace of liquor on their breath. Liquor on your breath is not necessarily a positive indicator of one's ability to drive safely, and safety is what we are talking about here, right? For that matter, there are plenty of people who I'd rather ride with after they've had a couple of pops compared to some teenagers, adults, senior citizens, etc. who are stone cold sober. Some people are just plain dangerous on the road, which brings me to point #2:
The notion of pulling over drivers who have been drinking is a very safe and politically correct thing to do, and probably poses the least amount of political resistance. This, to me, is inconsistent, especially if what we are trying to do is make the roads "safer" and lessen the number of driving fatalities. Some statistical analysis would be in order here so that everyone knows the root causes of all driving fatalities historically. Certainly drunk driving is a front and center concern. But if we are going to isolate one group of drivers (drinking drivers) to attack, then it seems inconsistent to me that we not treat inexperienced drivers (primarily teenagers), the elderly, those with vision & depth perception problems, habitual speeders, the chronically un-coordinated, and those with room temperature IQs with the same amount of vigilance that we go after drinking drivers. Right now, the punitive aspect of driving an automobile comes in the form of Auto Insurance for most people, and people gladly pay almost any price to keep their cars on the road, regardless if they are dangerous to society or not. Habitual drunk drivers who've had their licenses revoked still manage to find a car to drive illegally. So clearly something is lacking in enforcement.

In my perfect TOOLfist world, the libertarian in me believes that people should be given enough rope to hang themselves, meaning this: if you want to play Russian roulette and drink and drive, or speed excessively, or engage in any number of questionable behaviors, that is your decision. IF that decision results in a tragedy that your neighbor or society at large needs to mop up, that's when your ass is grass...ONE strike and you're out (permanent loss of license, etc.). To me, this is how you allow people to modify their own behavior and do their own risk/reward calculation. If the above example were implemented broadly, my guess is that it would only take a few high profile cases of negligence for things to shape up on their own, and it is also an extremely cost-effective way of managing the problem. It also should be with great difficulty that violators are given a second chance at redemption, and let the seriousness of the violation be the determining factor.

Unfortunately, there is not so much of a payoff in this scenario for the politicians, corrupt public employees, lawyers, insurance companies et al. As with many many issues in our society, if we are going to take drunk driving seriously, we need to REALLY take it seriously. As a society, we should be able to identify such problems on a local level and implement an appropriate and legal solution. If the remedy is strict and harsh, then so be it. If the ACLU smelled money and press, they would be all over challenging the legal aspects of roadblocks...so...that ain't gonna happen.

Otherwise, I have no opinion.

they are impoudning cars and arresting violators with unpaid parking tickets, and harrasing morganic.

its what they do.