DUI checkpoints

Two things. I get that it's a hassle, but I usually get press releases saying "hey, we're going to have a checkpoint from this time to this time and it's funded by big money grant." So you know ahead of time that there's going to be one. If you're out driving late, you know to avoid certain roads that typically get targeted by the checkpoints.
Secondly, whenever I can't avoid the checkpoint, it's an easy task. Have ID and insurance cards at the ready. Answer "no, sir" when he asks have you been drinking and I'm on my way. The process takes 30 seconds.
Also, (at least in California) you can't get your license unless you sign something that says "I agree to undergo a field sobriety test if an officer asks me to do it."
It may be a pain, but if you have nothing to hide, it's actually a very simple and fast process.

 

Civil Liberties went out the window thanks to George Bush

 

For the record, the checkpoint I drove through was at 9:45 p.m., not after midnight, although it was Friday before St. Patrick's Day.

The previous checkpoint I was delayed by was 8 p.m. on a Friday on a highway with no bar within 10 miles of where they were set up.

 

We've all been pissing away our civil liberties for several decades. I know Boom's ribbing me, but GWB is no more accountable for this than anyone who agreed with him that their safety was more important than the Constitution.

 

At the airport, I am voluntarily agreeing to a security check. I made the decision to "surrender my civil liberties" of my own volition.

At a police roadblock, stone-cold sober, where drivers are stopped without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, I do not have that option. I must stop. The police, and by extension the state, decided to "surrender my civil liberties" for me. Big difference.

As I said, I'm glad I live in a state where such roadblocks are unconstitutional. And I guess you don't really "Live Free or Die" in New Hampshire aftxer all.

 

In certain cases, as Spartan Squad points out, your state drivers' license is itself an agreement to field sobriety tests when called upon to give one. Thus also voluntary.

 

So then, you would agree to random road blocks or house inspections to search for unregistered weapons, even though you have given the police no probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion that you may have an unregistered over/under or 38 magnum? Using the DUII roadblock justification (you are driving after midnight. There's a good chance you are impaired), it would not be unreasonable for the police to assume that since you have the weapon illegally, you might be inclined to use it illegally to harm someone.

However, such submission is almost universally after you have given the police probable cause to pull you over; if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion you are impaired (totally bogus, and easily subject to police misconduct), or, when they pull you over on some lame pretext like a broken license plate light or some other nonsense. None of these situations apply in a random road block situation.

With that, I;ll bow out, as my feelings on this subject are pretty clear. And I'm glad I live in a state that protects my state constitutional rights.

 

If I'm driving drunk, or appearing to drive drunk, pull me over and give me all the tests you want.

If I'm simply driving home from work, I don't need to be stopped as three officers talk to drivers and 10 others stand to the side, racking up overtime pay.

 

Your answer assumed that there wasn't, though.

If this is the most efficient use of manpower to keep the public safe, then by all means, do it.

 

This ...

And please apply this logic to airport security.

 

In the real world, you are right. Mine - the author's actually - was a pretty academic point.