Filming traffic stops

[Patton]

BTW, while a 100 million times a year sounds like a lot, that's not even 1/500th of the traffic on our roads.

Without looking I would say you are correct. 100 million is slightly more than the amount of licensed drivers in the US, so it is about the equivalent of every driver driving drunk once a year.

[sigmtnman]

As long as it is for the sake of the children, I'm down with it.

[TMF]

Those 11 million most likely include granny backing into a shopping cart at Walgreens where the police did a report as a courtesy.
There are 36 million fatalities in America a year on average, but 30% or more are alcohol related.

Sobriety checkpoints: traffic stops where law enforcement officers assess drivers’ level of alcohol impairment. These checkpoints consistently reduce alcohol-related crashes, typically by 9%.(CDC, 2013)

36 million fatalities? As in dying from unnatural causes? Source?

[mikegideon]

36 million fatalities? As in dying from unnatural causes? Source?

 

That's 10% of the population. I've been sayin' we need to thin it out some :)

[Patton]

Typo fixed, I fixed it.

[TMF]

That's 10% of the population. I've been sayin' we need to thin it out some :)

That's what they're referring to when they say "decimated".

[mikegideon]

That's what they're referring to when they say "decimated".

 

... about 3 places to the right, I'm guessing. Haven't checked the edit.

[JayC]

Woah there Patton, those numbers are ALL wrong....

 

First only about 2.4 million people (2010) die each year in the US total, that includes all natural causes.  Alcohol isn't even in the top 10 list of those deaths...  Heart disease and cancer make up nearly 50% by themselves.

 

The 30% of fatalities are somehow LINKED to alcohol use...  the key is linked...  It's a creative way to inflate the number...  First NHTSA rule a crash 'alcohol' related if any person who was killed had alcohol in their system even if that amount is well under the legal limit, or the person in question was a passenger.  Second, in cases where the police didn't get a BAC on the drivers in a fatal accident, NHTSA assumes that 60% of those drivers had alcohol in their system.  And that creative math is how you come up with nearly 30% of all fatal car wrecks are 'caused' by alcohol.

 

The truth is the number is much closer to 20-21% of fatal wrecks are caused by a drunk driver, and only about 6-7% involve an innocent third party being killed...  That is a lot less than 36 MILLION people each year :)

 

And if you really want to have a fact based discussion on DUI checkpoints, then I'm all for it, because they are a complete waste of taxpayer dollars...  I can tell you how to get drunks off the street it's simple, and you don't have to hassle otherwise law abiding citizens.

 

BTW, if the DUI checkpoint is just to find drunks, why do you want to see my license, my registration, and my insurance card?  What exactly do those 3 bits of information have to do with whether I'm drunk or not?  Seems to me just starting up a friendly conversation at the checkpoint would be a lot more effective...  like asking me if I'm a sports fan...  or what do I think about the weather for tomorrow would give the officers a better chance to figure out if I'm drunk or not....

 

Also, why have drug dogs on station at the checkpoint?  If you're just looking for drunk drivers why do you have drug dogs there?

 

The reason is because DUI checkpoints are a fishing expedition...  They give you an excuse to do all sorts of things you couldn't otherwise due... a basic end run around the constitution.

 

Those 11 million most likely include granny backing into a shopping cart at Walgreens where the police did a report as a curtusy.
There are 36 million fatalities in America a year on average, but 30% or more are alcohol related.

Sobriety checkpoints: traffic stops where law enforcement officers assess drivers’ level of alcohol impairment. These checkpoints consistently reduce alcohol-related crashes, typically by 9%.(CDC, 2013)

Edited August 30, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

Again, wrong numbers, there are over 200 million licensed drivers in the US in 2010, probably need to add in another 10-15 million for illegal immigrants and unlicensed drivers.

 

You're talking about such a small fraction of 'trips' each year that it's well within the margin of error...  We're probably doing 350-400 million trips a day in the US, and you're saying that 100 million a year it some huge number?

 

Without looking I would say you are correct. 100 million is slightly more than the amount of licensed drivers in the US, so it is about the equivalent of every driver driving drunk once a year.

 

[Patton]

JayC, your probably correct in assuming that only 20% of fatalities are truly caused because of alcohol. As a traffic investigator I see a lot of crashes where speed and alcohol were the cause of the collision. I would say more than 6-7% innocent people killed crashes are killed by drunk drivers. I even seem to recall that 5% of children killed in motor vehicle crashes were because of drunk drivers, but I can't find the numbers.
I do want to point out that if someone is seriously injured .05% is the maximum allowable BAC, and lower if a minor. Also unless it is a very odd situation, every driver gets a mandatory blood draw during a fatality so we don't make up numbers assuming creative numbers. Some of these statistics include drug impairment and some do not. While drug impairment detection is low during DUI checkpoints and traffic stops they are a large percentage of traffic fatality investigations.

I have never done a DUI checkpoint with a K-9, I understand some departments do but I would imagine they aren't supposed to be utilized unless there is PC. I really thought that the Rutherford Co kid was on drugs btw.

As far as asking questions and asking for documents, it's probably just want they are comfortable asking for. I would have no problems only asking basic questions or telling them we are checking for impaired drivers. I have picked up on several odd behaviors drunks have when you stop them. Not rolling the window down but 6 inches, not illegal but strange. They also normally have food in the car, someone in the passenger seat asleep, and very anxious to hand you a DL, registration, and insurance all at one time. If you really want to confuse a drunk ask for their drivers license and insurance only, one at a time. They will also keep their hand out anticipating getting it back and leaving quickly.
I see that there is closer to 200 million licensed drivers, I was going off of memory. I wonder if they are including the large amount of licenses revoked or suspended and those that have a license issued that are deceased. There is only supposed to be 313.9 million people in he US. To think 2/3 rds have a license is a lot. Edited August 30, 2013 by Patton

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Numbers clarification:
Census Tables 1103 "Motor Vehicle Accidents" (about 11 million per year) and 1104 "Fatalities..." (US about 35-40 thousand).

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
 

CDC
 

 

 

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

 

I upped it to 33% ("1/3rd") in my first numbers post just so I wouldn't be called for under estimating.

 

Also, even though I imagine it was sarcasm I have to address the "for the children" thing. If you continue reading the CDC quotes they state that only 1210 accidents are fatal to children and of those only 211 involved DUIs. They only count to 14 years to be a child but still. So unless we are pulling an Obama/Biden then we aren't doing it for the children.

Anyway, when you look at these numbers for what they are the thing you have to admit is that of all traffic accidents DUI is the leading cause of fatalities. But if you take a step back and look at the numbers objectively, they really aren't that high in leading causes of deaths across all causes.

Feel like we jacked this post a bit, sorry.

[Patton]

In 2003, 21 percent of the children under 15 years old who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.(NHTSA, 2013). Around 1500 for that year. A hell of a lot more than killed by guns. Edited August 30, 2013 by Patton

[Guest Keal G Seo]

In 2003, 21 percent of the children under 15 years old who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.(NHTSA, 2013). Around 1500 for that year. A hell of a lot more than killed by guns.

Yeah I was comparing the TOTAL number of DUI related fatalities to the TOTAL number of gun related homicides (nearly the same). If we are talking just children, you are absolutely correct.

[JayC]

I'm not assuming, I'm use real number to say ~20% of fatalities involve one of the drivers being drunk, and that number is a little generous because in some % of cases the drunk drive isn't the one that caused the accident.  Those same NHTSA reports show that once you back out drunk drivers and passengers of the drunk drivers, the number of innocent third parties that are being killed is ~6.7% in the study I read (I believe it was based off of PA in 2009). 5% of children fatalities would seem to be correct, most alcohol related fatalities occur when most children are at home in bed.  You would expect the number to be lower for them.

 

Lets not even get into an argument about 'allowable' BAC's...  Lets just both agree to say the science of a BAC below .1% as it relates to driving accidents is questionable at best.

 

While you department does do mandatory blood draws on all fatalities, what happens if the person doesn't die for hours, days or weeks?  And many other departments don't have such a policy...  Either way, if no test is performed, NHTSA assumes that 60% of the accidents did involve alcohol, and pad their stats with those numbers.

 

I would guess the reason you do license checks is because you're looking for suspended licenses, which you otherwise would have no RAS/PC to perform the stop.  The same for the K-9 units, it's easy to fake (and yes I use that term intentionally) a false positive with them, and they're used to increase the number of 'PC' searches to help find other offenses.  And the M'boro stop video that you references basically prove my allegation where you have an officer on tape admitting the K9 search was 'questionable' at best.  

 

Here is a question for you, where are the stats on exigent circumstance searches that result in no arrest vs in arrest...  Or how about K9 hits vs hits with an arrest...  My guess is there is a reason those numbers aren't kept and it's because the false positive rates would be so high as to bring into question the validity of PC on all searches.

 

DUI checkpoints have very little to do with finding dangerous impaired drivers and a lot more to do with shooting fish in a barrel, it's a lot easier to stand around for 4 hours stopping every 4th car on a busy road and fish for violations than it is to do real police work.

 

I would contend that sitting outside establishments late at high or right after happy hour would net more drunk drivers per man hour...  General traffic enforcement already meets or exceeds the number of drunk driver stopped per man hour as these DUI checkpoints.  So not only do warrantless checkpoints violate our natural rights, but they are more expensive too.  Now that sounds like a government plan :)  More expensive, fewer results, but looks good in the paper!  

 

JayC, your probably correct in assuming that only 20% of fatalities are truly caused because of alcohol. As a traffic investigator I see a lot of crashes where speed and alcohol were the cause of the collision. I would say more than 6-7% innocent people killed crashes are killed by drunk drivers. I even seem to recall that 5% of children killed in motor vehicle crashes were because of drunk drivers, but I can't find the numbers.
I do want to point out that if someone is seriously injured .05% is the maximum allowable BAC, and lower if a minor. Also unless it is a very odd situation, every driver gets a mandatory blood draw during a fatality so we don't make up numbers assuming creative numbers. Some of these statistics include drug impairment and some do not. While drug impairment detection is low during DUI checkpoints and traffic stops they are a large percentage of traffic fatality investigations.

I have never done a DUI checkpoint with a K-9, I understand some departments do but I would imagine they aren't supposed to be utilized unless there is PC. I really thought that the Rutherford Co kid was on drugs btw.

As far as asking questions and asking for documents, it's probably just want they are comfortable asking for. I would have no problems only asking basic questions or telling them we are checking for impaired drivers. I have picked up on several odd behaviors drunks have when you stop them. Not rolling the window down but 6 inches, not illegal but strange. They also normally have food in the car, someone in the passenger seat asleep, and very anxious to hand you a DL, registration, and insurance all at one time. If you really want to confuse a drunk ask for their drivers license and insurance only, one at a time. They will also keep their hand out anticipating getting it back and leaving quickly.
I see that there is closer to 200 million licensed drivers, I was going off of memory. I wonder if they are including the large amount of licenses revoked or suspended and those that have a license issued that are deceased. There is only supposed to be 313.9 million people in he US. To think 2/3 rds have a license is a lot.

 

[JayC]

There you go using the NHTSA numbers again...  They are inflated...  alcohol related doesn't mean what you think it means...

 

To be "related" somebody involved has to have some detectable amount of alcohol in their system...  It could be a passenger with half a glass of wine in their system to be counted...  and if they don't do BAC tests on all involved the NHTSA assumes that 60% of crashes involve alcohol.

 

The number from the NHTSA are junk...  they picked a sampling method that makes the number look as bad as possible and hope people aren't smart enough to read the details of their sampling method.

 

The NHTSA has an agenda here and they're cooking the books to make the situation look worse than it really is so they keep getting funding for these studies.

 

Alcohol is a pox on the country, we all know that...  we just accept it as a cost of living in a free society...  we don't need the government cooking the numbers to make a real problem look a lot worse than it really is.  And when I catch my government cook the books, it causes me to trust them even less.

 

In 2003, 21 percent of the children under 15 years old who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.(NHTSA, 2013). Around 1500 for that year. A hell of a lot more than killed by guns.

Edited August 30, 2013 by JayC

[Patton]

I don't have time to address everything. Every department everywhere does mandatory blood draw on drivers in everything with a serious injury. If you are going to argue every study, observance, and life story I know then there is nothing I can say to you. DUI offenders are out there in abundance. I have known officers that have been on patrol and arrested 3 in one night. I have been screening a driver for DUI when one crashed into my parked car. I know a woman who has lost two children to DUI's years apart. I have been talking on the phone with my wife when she was rear ended by a drunk driver, no license because he had 10 DUI convictions.

These DUI checkpoints generally do not cost much, most of the officers working these are reservist. There are a hell of a lot cheaper than a fatality investigation.

Alcohol related means what it means; impairment on any level.

Something else is there are people demanding further alcohol detection practices to include automatic blood draws. I truthfully could careless about any practices changing, people are going to continue to drink. Most have been severely effected in their family life with DUI's. I have been in a trial when the judge asked the potential jurors (150ish people) how many have had a friend or family member effected by DUI's and almost everyone raised their hands. I have seen other days when no one hardly raises their hand.

Contrary to popular belief, most DUI's don't come from bars. Restaurants, private parties, people even get drink and go drive around. It takes many different practices to target DUI offenders.

[JayC]

First, how does a passenger in a vehicle having a BAC of 0.01 an alcohol related accident?  Because those are being counted in the NHTSA numbers.  How does having a driver having a BAC of 0.01 who is not at fault in the accident a alcohol related accident?  Again counted in the NHTSA studies.  

 

Alcohol is a serious risk in our society, I don't think anybody is going to argue that it's not, but it's a risk that we've agreed as a society to accept...  We've agreed to accept some level of alcohol in the bloodstream of drivers because the risk is determined to be an acceptable level.  To then count accidents and fatalities in a questionable way seems dishonest at best....  And I'm not some boozehound...  I've never driven with any alcohol (other than mouthwash I guess) in my system...  I don't drink, so I have little to worry about from DUI checkpoints, other than my natural rights being taken away in the name of 'safety' based off of questionable statistics.  

 

The simple fact is that in a free society good people die, it's sad, it's regrettable but it's going to happen...  the solution is to punish the offender when they harm somebody else... and move on.

 

The fact is from a statistical view, government is a much greater threat to our safety over a 100 year period than drunk drivers will ever be.  

 

I don't have time to address everything. Every department everywhere does mandatory blood draw on drivers in everything with a serious injury. If you are going to argue every study, observance, and life story I know then there is nothing I can say to you. DUI offenders are out there in abundance. I have known officers that have been on patrol and arrested 3 in one night. I have been screening a driver for DUI when one crashed into my parked car. I know a woman who has lost two children to DUI's years apart. I have been talking on the phone with my wife when she was rear ended by a drunk driver, no license because he had 10 DUI convictions.

These DUI checkpoints generally do not cost much, most of the officers working these are reservist. There are a hell of a lot cheaper than a fatality investigation.

Alcohol related means what it means; impairment on any level.

Something else is there are people demanding further alcohol detection practices to include automatic blood draws. I truthfully could careless about any practices changing, people are going to continue to drink. Most have been severely effected in their family life with DUI's. I have been in a trial when the judge asked the potential jurors (150ish people) how many have had a friend or family member effected by DUI's and almost everyone raised their hands. I have seen other days when no one hardly raises their hand.

Contrary to popular belief, most DUI's don't come from bars. Restaurants, private parties, people even get drink and go drive around. It takes many different practices to target DUI offenders.

Edited August 30, 2013 by JayC

[Pain103]

Too many numbers! I think my eyes are permanently crossed.

[DaveTN]

First, how does a passenger in a vehicle having a BAC of 0.01 an alcohol related accident?  Because those are being counted in the NHTSA numbers.  How does having a driver having a BAC of 0.01 who is not at fault in the accident a alcohol related accident?  Again counted in the NHTSA studies.  

 

Alcohol is a serious risk in our society, I don't think anybody is going to argue that it's not, but it's a risk that we've agreed as a society to accept...  We've agreed to accept some level of alcohol in the bloodstream of drivers because the risk is determined to be an acceptable level.  To then count accidents and fatalities in a questionable way seems dishonest at best....  And I'm not some boozehound...  I've never driven with any alcohol (other than mouthwash I guess) in my system...  I don't drink, so I have little to worry about from DUI checkpoints, other than my natural rights being taken away in the name of 'safety' based off of questionable statistics.  

 

The simple fact is that in a free society good people die, it's sad, it's regrettable but it's going to happen...  the solution is to punish the offender when they harm somebody else... and move on.

 

The fact is from a statistical view, government is a much greater threat to our safety over a 100 year period than drunk drivers will ever be.  

Nonsense. I realize you hate the government and any level of authority, but we haven’t agreed to a risk by DUI drivers. The BAC by any given state isn’t a “legal limit”; it’s a presumption to impairment.

 

Have you ever investigated an accident ort filled out an accident report? Sure there may be a box to check for alcohol for a passenger, but most cops don’t check it unless it applies (under age arrests or citations for example).

 

When two cars crash everything is a factor. You may be discounting that because the driver wasn’t over the “presumption” level; but it’s still a factor.  A sober person runs a red light and a drunk hits them and kills them. Is the drunk going to be charged? Of course they are. Being intoxicated contributed to the crash.

 

How many people do think are tested for DUI that blow .01? You could maybe find a story of it somewhere, but the numbers are so low they wouldn’t cause a blip on a graph chart; except those cases where drugs are involved.

 

As you can see on this (mostly conservative) forum; we haven’t accepted drunk driving. It is a crime. Not only that it is a premeditated crime.

 

Get drunk, go out and fire your 308 down the street and kill a citizen several blocks away and everyone will be okay with sending you to prison for a very long time. Get drunk, point your car down the street and kill an innocent family and some people don’t think it’s the same. It’s the same; it’s a reckless criminal act.

 

Who cares what the NHTSA publishes? We are intelligent people with common sense (most of us anyway) we don’t need stats to tell us drunk drivers kill our family members and friends and that is not a risk we accept.

 

Constitutional rights? You have got to be kidding me. The innocent people that are slaughtered everyday on the roads by drunk drivers have the right to live and be safe. The drunk didn’t care about their rights when he climbed behind the wheel of the car.

 

Go to a meeting of people that have had friends and family killed by drunk drivers and make a speech about how the NHTSA is skewing the numbers or that the cops are violating people rights in DUI enforcement or that their government is more dangerous.

[TMF]

 

Constitutional rights? You have got to be kidding me. The innocent people that are slaughtered everyday on the roads by drunk drivers have the right to live and be safe. The drunk didn’t care about their rights when he climbed behind the wheel of the car.

 

Go to a meeting of people that have had friends and family killed by drunk drivers and make a speech about how the NHTSA is skewing the numbers or that the cops are violating people rights in DUI enforcement or that their government is more dangerous.

 

Of couse drunk driving is a premeditated crime.  I believe the punishments should be more severe for driving drunk, and I feel that drunk drivers who kill should be charged with first degree murder.

 

However, I'm willing to go so far as to apprehend these POSs.  I don't believe we should violate the Constitution over it.  Yes, it's tragic and inexcusable, but we don't use that as justification for violating a person's rights.  All of it's okay or none of it is.  If we use the logic that suspension of certain constitutional protections shouldn't apply for the greater good, where do we end that?  Gun control is a perfect example.  How about the ability for cops to come into your home with no PC or warrant, just because they want to make sure everyone is safe.  Your person is still your property and so is your car.  I disagree that when you are on a public road you automatically forfeit certain parts of the Constitution. 

 

And of course if we go to a meeting with friends and family killed by drunks and make this argument it's going to be emotionally charged.  So would a meeting about gun control where friends and family of people killed by guns are in attendance.  I don't see the difference.... because people are emotional due to how they were affected by tragedy we should adjust our laws to appease them?  That's another slippery slope.  In fact, that's how we got every last piece of gun control legislation that we have.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

 

Constitutional rights? You have got to be kidding me. The innocent people that are slaughtered everyday on the roads by drunk drivers have the right to live and be safe. The drunk didn’t care about their rights when he climbed behind the wheel of the car.

You said it right there. The DRUNK didn't care, I do though. Why should my and the majority of every other law abiding citizen that passes through a DUI checkpoint be subject to molested travel and a search of our papers and possibly person/effects if we aren't in a great mood? In my case it was boiled down to an out of state driver's licence.

No doubt drunk drivers are a problem. But as the numbers I posted and even the advocacy group MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) agree on, they are comparable to gun related homicides (about 10k a year of each gun homicide and DUI fatalities). Sooooo, since you own guns should police be allowed to come by anytime they want and check up on you because you MIGHT be doing something illegal with them without probable cause? It could be "random" as well just drawing your name out of a hat. And when they say when they knocked then you acted nervous or rude and they say they needed to search you and your home, you will be ok with that right? Why not if it is ok to do this for cars and DUIs?

[GoneBallistic]

To me, 99% of my reaction is based on the cops attitude. If he is polite to me, I am polite back and much more likely to comply. I've been deployed and I know that sometimes it's hard to get the job done right if you stick to the book 100%. There's lots of differences in the two situations, the biggest probably being that I wasn't dealing with American citizens, but to me, the concept is the same. If the cop is being respectful, I'm MUCH more likely to TEMPORARILY give up a right or two VOLUNTARILY just to help the guy out.

[DaveTN]

Of couse drunk driving is a premeditated crime.  I believe the punishments should be more severe for driving drunk, and I feel that drunk drivers who kill should be charged with first degree murder.

 

However, I'm willing to go so far as to apprehend these POSs.  I don't believe we should violate the Constitution over it.  Yes, it's tragic and inexcusable, but we don't use that as justification for violating a person's rights.  All of it's okay or none of it is.  If we use the logic that suspension of certain constitutional protections shouldn't apply for the greater good, where do we end that?  Gun control is a perfect example.  How about the ability for cops to come into your home with no PC or warrant, just because they want to make sure everyone is safe.  Your person is still your property and so is your car.  I disagree that when you are on a public road you automatically forfeit certain parts of the Constitution. 

 

And of course if we go to a meeting with friends and family killed by drunks and make this argument it's going to be emotionally charged.  So would a meeting about gun control where friends and family of people killed by guns are in attendance.  I don't see the difference.... because people are emotional due to how they were affected by tragedy we should adjust our laws to appease them?  That's another slippery slope.  In fact, that's how we got every last piece of gun control legislation that we have.

I see the difference. A gun is a gun and a car is a car; nether are illegal. We don’t support those that kill their family members or friends with reckless or negligent conduct with a gun. The SCOTUS has ruled that you have a right to own guns, but the state will control when and where you carry them; that is not an individual right.

 

A DUI checkpoint is not a violation of any rights. You do not have a right to drive in any state. Our founding fathers put the word “Unreasonable” in the 4th amendment and they put a system in place to determine what that would be because they never pretended to know everything.

 

If a drunk gets waived into a DUI checkpoint; his luck just ran out. No rights have been violated, but an ongoing crime has been stopped and it may have saved lives.

[TMF]

 

A DUI checkpoint is not a violation of any rights. You do not have a right to drive in any state. Our founding fathers put the word “Unreasonable” in the 4th amendment and they put a system in place to determine what that would be because they never pretended to know everything.

 

You're right, but just because driving isn't a "right" endowed to us by our creator doesn't mean the rights that are go out the window as soon as we get on the highway.

 

"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."

 

The answer is right there in plain English.  No, I don't have a problem with a DUI checkpoint.  I do have a problem with that checkpoint being an automatic expectation of handing over my "papers" with no PC.  If cops are just hanging out at a checkpoint one must drive through and are only stopping cars that appear to be operated by a person who is impaired I don't see a violation.  Stopping everyone or even random stops are a different story.  I don't see how that is different than a cop just pulling over random people who have committed no offense and demanding their papers.  Please tell me how that is different.

[DaveTN]

You're right, but just because driving isn't a "right" endowed to us by our creator doesn't mean the rights that are go out the window as soon as we get on the highway.

 

"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."

 

The answer is right there in plain English.  No, I don't have a problem with a DUI checkpoint.  I do have a problem with that checkpoint being an automatic expectation of handing over my "papers" with no PC.  If cops are just hanging out at a checkpoint one must drive through and are only stopping cars that appear to be operated by a person who is impaired I don't see a violation.  Stopping everyone or even random stops are a different story.  I don't see how that is different than a cop just pulling over random people who have committed no offense and demanding their papers.  Please tell me how that is different.

The system that our founding fathers put in place to deal with situations in the future ruled that the DUI checkpoints were justified because they were effective and necessary and that there is a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving.