DUI checkpoint discussion

[bilateralrope]

Wouldn't a roadside test where the driver stays in his car be safer for the driver than one where the driver has to get out ?

[Mr Bean]

They aren't detaining you at will.

If they pull me over and stop my freedom of travel it's a detention. If I am going about my business exercising my freedom of movement as guaranteed by the constitution and I'm pulled over by a cop the best have a damn good reason. The fact you can't grasp why is my point.

And don't act like your police and government are somehow better at oppressing brown people than us. This is STRAYA we're talking about.

That's adorable, per capita we have four times the crime you do. When you break it down state by state some of our states like Tennessee have nine times the crime rate you do. When you break it out by hate crimes states like Maryland have fourteen times the amount of hate crimes per capita than you do even if our general rate is only seven times yours.

[Thanas]

Bean's argument is I think the only one that is worthy of a response here because he can actually point to cases where random stops may be used to justify police abuse which I think is a valid concern, e.g. in the south.

However, I think that is more of a problem of corrupt execution than with the method itself. Do you agree with that, Bean?

[Mr Bean]

However, I think that is more of a problem of corrupt execution than with the method itself. Do you agree with that, Bean?

See New York's City's stop and frisk resulting in minorities being stopped 90% of the time. The thing is the nature of American law enforcement with private prisons elected judges and prosecutors. When the American experience is literally about migrating here working hard making something of yourself despite the racist attitudes of those who came before you... only for your kids to acquire them about the next boat load of immigrants to come to these shores to try and do the same things you did....

Thanas understand this, the founding fathers feared a police state. They feared it deeply which is why there's so many protections built into our laws to this day in an attempt to kneecap the police from abusing their power and yet there are still vast sections of America where the cops are not seen as friends or fellow Americans out to help you. In fact since I started typing this post this popped into my feed. I could go on about the history of police power abuse in America but that's not the real point we are discussing here, we've wandered far afield from the gun control discussion as it is.

The point is in America many of the things the founders feared have come to be accepted but that bar that a policeman can not stop you without probable cause... as much as it has been bent and twisted over our history still exists. And it's viewed as one of the last things preventing abuse by the cops from becoming widely systematic. There are areas with corrupt departments, America is big and we have room for Sheriff Andy Tayler and Lieutenant Terrence McDonagh. But the reason why American cops can't simply stop you without the very low (these days) bar of probable cause is hopefully ensure police abuse can be in some way limit.

Police harassment is still frightfully common in America. Not just of citizens but fellow officers. We may have twenty thousand murders this year but we will likely have two thousands to upwards of five thousand cases of improper police conduct in 2013 just based on rates from the last ten years when it's fallen dramatically.

I'd have German numbers but if I had to take a guess, German police corruption incidents are most likely a fraction... a very small fraction of American rates

[weemadando]

Would you attribute any of it to the fractured nature of the US police - each city or County having its own force, as well as Sheriff's, highway patrol and state police existing as separate entities? To say nothing of Federal agencies.

And also in many of those forces where the leader is elected by popular vote, rather than appointed by peers and/or government? I can only assume this would be terrible for maintaining any kind of professional force.

[SCRawl]

Bean, you haven't addressed Thanas' point: the problem is not with the method, the problem is with those corrupt members of the police service who carry out the method. If 100% of police officers did their jobs strictly within the bounds of their authority, then would your objections still carry any weight? I recognize that this doesn't represent reality, but we can't always institute policy on the assumption that the police officer attending to every situation is corrupt.

[Mr Bean]

Would you attribute any of it to the fractured nature of the US police - each city or County having its own force, as well as Sheriff's, highway patrol and state police existing as separate entities? To say nothing of Federal agencies.

In a large part yes, police forces are broken up along city lines, county lines and department lines. The Chain of command is the chain you beat people with to get them to do what you want them to... not the well outline leadership line so you know who can take over for whom. Because of these divisions however it also becomes possible to simply drag and drop police departments. So when you do have corruption it is quite possible to have a nearby area take over while you get cleaning the department.

And also in many of those forces where the leader is elected by popular vote, rather than appointed by peers and/or government? I can only assume this would be terrible for maintaining any kind of professional force.

Actually the reverse, having the leader elected tends to result in well run discipline forces because almost no one ever challenges the Sheriff for election. And when they do challenge the Sheriff it's because he's hideously racist who puts the boot in jack booted thugs

Bean, you haven't addressed Thanas' point: the problem is not with the method, the problem is with those corrupt members of the police service who carry out the method. If 100% of police officers did their jobs strictly within the bounds of their authority, then would your objections still carry any weight? I recognize that this doesn't represent reality, but we can't always institute policy on the assumption that the police officer attending to every situation is corrupt.

I have, With the line at "the cop can only stop you if he suspects you of some identifiable crime" then it's possible to draw a very easy to understand set of guidelines and what where why and went. Without that things become very nebulous because your saying "any policeman can stop any citizen and subject them to a finishing expedition to try and find a crime to arrest them for" Because that's what that is, if a policeman can stop you without probable cause, he's in essence stopping you trying to find a crime to charge you with. He's not stopping you to check on your prostate, he's stopping you in specific because he wants to arrest you.

Because SCRawl if you want to talk in ideal worlds (rather than the real one) why would you need a policemen to implement this policy? After all in ideal world there is no crime so there is no need for the police. If you want to talk hypothetical about police in a perfect world you have to be able to take that one step further, in a land of no police corruption is also the same land as the land of no crime

[SCRawl]

Because SCRawl if you want to talk in ideal worlds (rather than the real one) why would you need a policemen to implement this policy? After all in ideal world there is no crime so there is no need for the police. If you want to talk hypothetical about police in a perfect world you have to be able to take that one step further, in a land of no police corruption is also the same land as the land of no crime

That's a dodge, and you know it. I didn't suggest that I wanted your opinion about an ideal world, just one that didn't feature any corrupt police officers. You don't have to get all rose-coloured on me to imagine that.

Let me try another avenue. Do you find the work of the IRS to be wholly objectionable? After all, their only purpose is to inspect your personal financial data, looking for ways in which you (and your few hundred million countrymen) have lied about your income to evade taxes, and then hold you to account for those transgressions. Why should they get to look at your income tax return with a critical eye? Nothing you have ever done has given them any reason to suspect you of being a tax cheat. With this knowledge in hand, we can save the US government a few billion bucks and dissolve the IRS, since this is a wasteful expense.

Except that isn't the IRS' purpose, not really. If they didn't exist, then I would wager dollars to donuts that 80% of taxpayers would declare something like zero income and avoid any tax responsibility, and to hell with the consequences. If there was no chance of repercussions from cheating on your taxes, would you be completely honest? Maybe you would, but I bet you wouldn't say the same for everyone you know, or even most of them. No, the IRS is there to create a disincentive to cheat, because the consequences of getting caught are severe enough that cheating is usually not worth the risk. This is also the most important reason we employ police officers; without the disincentive that police provide, civilization is impossible.

So the real question with respect to police intrusion into our lives is not whether not they can do so -- they have to, if we want to live together as a society -- but how far they should be allowed to intrude. Do we want to wait until drunks are weaving all over the road, or do we want to put the seed of doubt into the mind of the guy about to order his third beer in a bar, and make him consider whether or not he should "chance" not running into a checkpoint on his way home? I know which road I'd rather drive on.

[Mr Bean]

That's a dodge, and you know it. I didn't suggest that I wanted your opinion about an ideal world, just one that didn't feature any corrupt police officers. You don't have to get all rose-coloured on me to imagine that.

I don't want to hear your opinion about an ideal world, I want your opinion on a world were all of our wearing teddy bear costumes and give out hugs and not tickets. You accuse me of dodge when your hypothetical is a world without police corruption? Are you serious?

Let me try another avenue. Do you find the work of the IRS to be wholly objectionable? After all, their only purpose is to inspect your personal financial data, looking for ways in which you (and your few hundred million countrymen) have lied about your income to evade taxes, and then hold you to account for those transgressions. Why should they get to look at your income tax return with a critical eye? Nothing you have ever done has given them any reason to suspect you of being a tax cheat. With this knowledge in hand, we can save the US government a few billion bucks and dissolve the IRS, since this is a wasteful expense.

Except the IRS does not just exist to find those who lied but also those who made mistakes, as well they act as the collection agency for those of who do have to pay large sums of taxes and have massive and complicated holdings. In fact it's a large part of the IRS's job to help clarify what exactly you owe. Their job is not just auditing and even then they start with the premise that you made a mistake not committed a crime. When you are audited by the IRS it's because you got picked at random as part of the random sample size in each bracket to be looked over by a human being rather than just a computer or because the computer said that field 41B is incorrect. The part of the IRS who actively goes after suspected tax cheats is a tiny part of the entire IRS. Which is a shame because for every hour spent they generate almost 10,000$ in additional revenue because of improperly filed taxes, mistakes, oversights or criminal activity.

Again the bar is set to probable cause, even when your one of those randomly chosen to be audited it generally means an informal audit when an IRS employee just takes your numbers adds them up and determines if yes 2+3+5 does equal ten. The only time you are a citizen might be bothered is for an explanation on some figure and how you calculated it.

So the real question with respect to police intrusion into our lives is not whether not they can do so -- they have to, if we want to live together as a society -- but how far they should be allowed to intrude. Do we want to wait until drunks are weaving all over the road, or do we want to put the seed of doubt into the mind of the guy about to order his third beer in a bar, and make him consider whether or not he should "chance" not running into a checkpoint on his way home? I know which road I'd rather drive on.

Here's point you failed to consider, everyone who gets three drinks in a bar is not driving home. The very act of going to a bar does not automatically mean your driving. In fact what you are saying is that because of future crime X, we must do thing Y to everyone

Following that logic, you won't mind turning over your download logs citizen, you might have some child porn on there after all. And I know which server I'd rather log on to (To continue to torture this comparison) .

We covered this before when discussing roadblocks on when and when you can't set them up.
Repeat after me, probable cause... probable cause... probable cause.

[Edi]

This thread is fucking hilarious. Americans are one of the most vocal nation when it comes to vociferously claiming that people need to step up and take personal responsibility to address whatever the problem du jour happens to be, but as soon as the application of that personal responsibility has even a remote chance of causing an average of 1 minute delay spread over two years, the chorus goes "Waaaaahhh! I'm being oppressed!"

By the logic seen in this thread from some members, fucking traffic lights are an unconstitutional infringement on your goddamn freedom of movement.

[weemadando]

That's a dodge, and you know it. I didn't suggest that I wanted your opinion about an ideal world, just one that didn't feature any corrupt police officers. You don't have to get all rose-coloured on me to imagine that.

I don't want to hear your opinion about an ideal world, I want your opinion on a world were all of our wearing teddy bear costumes and give out hugs and not tickets. You accuse me of dodge when your hypothetical is a world without police corruption? Are you serious?

Meanwhile your example is where every police officer is personally out to fuck you over and beat you down and put you in gaol for no reason?

[Stark]

I hate to say this but it's possible to make rights arguments without slippery slopes.

Can anyone do it?

[Mr Bean]

I hate to say this but it's possible to make rights arguments without slippery slopes.

Can anyone do it?

Probable cause, Probable cause, Probable cause

Meanwhile your example is where every police officer is personally out to fuck you over and beat you down and put you in gaol for no reason?

Why does it have to be every single cop? How about one in two hundred? If every one in two hundred times a cop stopped someone it was with ill intent by the cop would you trade a theoretical safety increase in exchange for a sliding scale of abuse from verbal to having false charges placed against you for a felony crime?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Makes sense. Every American is influenced by the FREEDOMFREEDOMFREEDOM mentality, simply because it is so prevalent in the country they were born and raised in. For example, I can't for the life of me understand why it is so abhorrent for someone to come and check whether you handle your murder-death-kill contraption properly (be it your gun or car, to preempt the persistent argumentators). The Duchess of Zeon, on the other hand, couldn't understand why should anybody do this or anything similar.

Duchess is working under the presumption that she is trustworthy until proven otherwise. That unless someone has cause to believe that she's specifically screwing up, there's no reason she should have to spend time and energy dealing with complications in the form of regular inspections and checkups.

My own past experiences with this mindset- as I see it, it comes out of an extension of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." If I'm not guilty of something, the argument goes, I shouldn't be punished- and having to sacrifice time and money is seen as a punishment.

If someone takes the opposite mindset- I am not trusted until proven reliable- it's a whole different story. And the two attitudes are very hard to merge or reconcile, because they differ on that deep level.

And my own past experiences with this mindset tell me that those who think people are innately trustworthy usually don't apply this mindset to anyone they meet but themselves, so I'm wary of your average person's immaculate symmetrical perfection with a rainbow on top. This doesn't mean I view everybody as a fuckup, but simply that I want to know someone so I can determine whether he can actually do something I ask of him.

On another note, this thread is full of hilarity. Some people apparently think that anything you have to shove into your mouth translates to oral rape.

Edit: Bean, out of curiosity, are you black? No offense meant, just read your post above.

[weemadando]

I hate to say this but it's possible to make rights arguments without slippery slopes.

Can anyone do it?

Probable cause, Probable cause, Probable cause

Meanwhile your example is where every police officer is personally out to fuck you over and beat you down and put you in gaol for no reason?

Why does it have to be every single cop? How about one in two hundred? If every one in two hundred times a cop stopped someone it was with ill intent by the cop would you trade a theoretical safety increase in exchange for a sliding scale of abuse from verbal to having false charges placed against you for a felony crime?

But why would an arsehole cop bother with probable cause and respecting that if they're just going to do you over once you are pulled over? If someone is willing to abuse their authority, NONE OF YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS/CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THEM. Until of course you report their behaviour - after all, one in two hundred means there's still a helluva lot of honest people there wanting to protect you and the reputation of their department.

And if we want to tie it back into the gun debate, you could always shoot them to , but we'll see how well that works out for you long-term Cop Killer.

[Terralthra]

Of course, this also completely ignores that a corrupt cop can abuse the power to pull over, but NOT a DUI checkpoint, since the whole point of a DUI checkpoint is that everyone stops and everyone gets checked.

[Stark]

A checkpoint basically requires a dozen Evil Police to be there at once. I mean I know American police hate civilians, but are we really arguing something is bad on the off chance every one involved wants to randomly charge someone with something?

I mean in America you might be disappeared for no reason and held for years without trial, so ... ?

[PeZook]

Is there a reason American dirty cops can't just INVENT a probable cause for a stop anyways? How are you going to prove you were NOT, in fact, driving erratically?

Then he can tell you to get out of the car because he "smells alcohol" and have you do a ridiculous song and dance by the side of the road etc.

Then after he's had his power trip he apologizes for the "mistake" and drives off. And somehow this makes Americans not feel violated?

[Ralin]

Is there a reason American dirty cops can't just INVENT a probable cause for a stop anyways? How are you going to prove you were NOT, in fact, driving erratically?

They can, but then they have to lie about it afterwards, likely under oath, and maybe against the evidence of a dashboard cam. Which I know doesn't seem like much, but it's one more law they have to break and that they can be held accountable for later. Or at least that's the theory.

[RogueIce]

Is there a reason American dirty cops can't just INVENT a probable cause for a stop anyways? How are you going to prove you were NOT, in fact, driving erratically?

The officer's own dashboard camera, provided his agency equips them. Which they should, IMO. But money seems to be the main problem here; officers don't seem to object to their use - well, at least insofar as this Baltimore area based article says.

[Hillary]

Well yes, but that's all rather besides the point of my post. I was referring to the attitude that it is unacceptable to stop people to check they aren't drunk-driving, which was the point Alyeska made. In other words, how dare the police/government check that I am not breaking the law - exactly the situation you describe.

A search of an individual should be based on probable cause.

I am not breaking the law and a search is a violation of my privacy. But if I am acting in a manner to indicate I am breaking the law, a search becomes reasonable.

Why not mandate all cars have breathalyzers? Why not mandate that all internet traffic be actively monitored to ensure there is no criminal activity? Why not mandate concealed cameras in every home?

If you aren't breaking the law, surely you won't mind a complete invasion of your privacy. Only the GUILTY would want privacy.

Ah, a nice slippery slope fallacy.

Your point appears to be that companies should not be allowed to self-regulate, but individuals must be allowed to. You have not given any convincing reasons why this should be the case, other than your "Any intrusion on a private individual equals Police State" strawman.

[PeZook]

They can, but then they have to lie about it afterwards, likely under oath, and maybe against the evidence of a dashboard cam. Which I know doesn't seem like much, but it's one more law they have to break and that they can be held accountable for later. Or at least that's the theory.

Yes, and that theory works here, too, except you also have SCIENCE! on your side to show in court: if the breathalyzer shows 0.0, well, what is he going to do? I suppose he could still try to catch you on something, like a broken light or whatever, but the practical implications are exactly the same, and he can't make you do a song and dance besides the road at all, whatever the reason for the stop.

I know your mileage may vary, but I'd find it far more humilitating to be forced to play Simon Says instead of just blowing on the damn breathalyzer. I get it that Americans may think otherwise, but requiring probable cause doesn't ACTUALLY stop your cops from harassing minorities, now does it? The problem lies elsewhere, methinks.

[Thanas]

This thread is fucking hilarious. Americans are one of the most vocal nation when it comes to vociferously claiming that people need to step up and take personal responsibility to address whatever the problem du jour happens to be, but as soon as the application of that personal responsibility has even a remote chance of causing an average of 1 minute delay spread over two years, the chorus goes "Waaaaahhh! I'm being oppressed!"

By the logic seen in this thread from some members, fucking traffic lights are an unconstitutional infringement on your goddamn freedom of movement.

Personal responsibility are just a codeword to "I want to do whatever I want whenever I want and don't force me to spend something on anybody else." Behavior of a spoiled brat.

[Lusankya]

This thread is fucking hilarious. Americans are one of the most vocal nation when it comes to vociferously claiming that people need to step up and take personal responsibility to address whatever the problem du jour happens to be, but as soon as the application of that personal responsibility has even a remote chance of causing an average of 1 minute delay spread over two years, the chorus goes "Waaaaahhh! I'm being oppressed!"

By the logic seen in this thread from some members, fucking traffic lights are an unconstitutional infringement on your goddamn freedom of movement.

Personal responsibility are just a codeword to "I want to do whatever I want whenever I want and don't force me to spend something on anybody else." Behavior of a spoiled brat.

Whenever I hear the phrase "I believe in personal responsibility," my mind automatically parses it to "I don't believe in social responsibility." I always wonder if the people who say that know that that's the message they're sending across.

[Simon_Jester]

What's happening here is that a general rule: "It is bad to allow police to stop people 'on general principles' instead of for a specific reason" is running into a very borderline example of the rule. Strictly speaking, DUI checkpoints are a case where police stop you on general principles. There's lots of mitigating factors (it's random, it's quick...). There are lots of good reasons to do it.

And yet it's still the police stopping you on general principles, without cause to suspect you of a crime. If you believe that's a violation of a fundamental right, you're not going to react well to it.

I'm pretty indifferent about this issue, and I don't want to draw false moral equivalence, but I just had a thought. Remember the conversations we've seen that go:


Person A: "You can't let government officials draw up a kill-list with their own citizens on it and kill those citizens without judicial review."

Person B: "So what if al-Awlaki was an American citizen and blown up without trial? We all know perfectly well that he was the al Qaeda equivalent of Axis Sally, if not actively involved in operations, and he was tooling around a war zone!"


It occurs to me that this "but obviously the violation of an abstract 'right' is justified by circumstances" thing is how Person B must feel all the time.

Is there moral equivalency? No, because nobody gets blown up at DUI checkpoints. But for me it's an interesting insight into where people get off on "these legal technicalities are stupid, let's just do what makes sense!" in the context of civil and human rights.