How are road checkpoints legal?

[aquaknight]

Not like border crossings, but the other week they announced they were having checkpoints all across Mobile, and we happened to come to one. Luckily we were behind a FedEx truck and they waved our line through. But I definitely forgot my wallet, and with me still being licensed in Florida, not planning on changing over to Bama, I'm sure that would have gone swimmingly.

(I wasn't driving, but they sometimes ask everyone in the car for ID).
Anyways, I'm really beginning to wonder how random police checkpoints are legal. They require you to produce license/reg/license, without having probable cause. I've read some stuff online, points to the 4th Amendment, and a 'special needs exceptions' cause. Also something along the lines of they can do regulatory, license etc, but not criminal, have a drug dog stiff your car.
Something like that? %%
BTW, these are middle of the day checkpoints, not like sobriety, downtown checkpoints. We were coming back from scoping out a tubing spot.

 

[jackri]

It's legal because they announce them ahead of time (somewhere). They don't bother me as long as they only do a quick driver sobriety check. There's no reason to go through rutting around looking for charges wasting my time.
Other than that I'm not sure where you draw that line.

 

[jackri]

Just noticed the Emerald Coast in your location. I've had friends get pulled over in by the check points when I lived in the Destin area. One of my good friends got off by someone running through one as he was doing the tests and yes drunk. Oh to be young and extremely stupid.

 

[miaheatlvr]

Good Morning, Just walking in the door!

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3119370
Not like border crossings, but the other week they announced they were having checkpoints all across Mobile, and we happened to come to one. Luckily we were behind a FedEx truck and they waved our line through. But I definitely forgot my wallet, and with me still being licensed in Florida, not planning on changing over to Bama, I'm sure that would have gone swimmingly.

(I wasn't driving, but they sometimes ask everyone in the car for ID).
Anyways, I'm really beginning to wonder how random police checkpoints are legal. They require you to produce license/reg/license, without having probable cause. I've read some stuff online, points to the 4th Amendment, and a 'special needs exceptions' cause. Also something along the lines of they can do regulatory, license etc, but not criminal, have a drug dog stiff your car.
Something like that?

BTW, these are middle of the day checkpoints, not like sobriety, downtown checkpoints. We were coming back from scoping out a tubing spot.
there not legal constitutionally but we allow them to do it.

 

[reefraff]

Driving isn't a right it is a privilege. When you sign your license you agree to a whole lot of stuff. You can be stone cold sober and if you refuse to take a BAT you lose your license. It's legal because it's the law that refusal to submit to the test is grounds for revoking your driving privilege.
As long as the cops aren't discriminating against certain people it is perfectly legal.

 

[uneverno]

It also depends on what state you live in.
Some places it's legal, some it's not. I don't think they even have to be announced here in CA.
As Reef pointed out, as long as they're not discriminating, it doesn't violate the Federal Constitution, so falls under State's rights.

 

[salty blues]

In Louisiana this issue is at odds with itself. On the one hand, Louisiana state law recognizes one's automobile as an extension of one's domicile(which allows law abiding residents to carry firearms in their vehicle), yet that same domicile extension is allowed to be stopped and presumably searched without probable cause, (something which is not allowed at one's residence).

 

[cranberry]

"What do you mean my Texas Driver's License doesn't count in California after 5 years? What do you mean my Texas license expired 2 years ago!"

 

[aquaknight]

I've spent a good bit reading through answers from google, think I'm ready to answer myself.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3119437
It also depends on what state you live in.
Some places it's legal, some it's not. I don't think they even have to be announced here in CA.
As Reef pointed out, as long as they're not discriminating, it doesn't violate the Federal Constitution, so falls under State's rights.
The thing is that it does.
Amendment 4; "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 problem is that there is a special clause, special needs exemption. As well as the many other clauses, i.e. a cop can chase a criminal onto your property, and he can kept pursuit without having to ask your permission.
But for the 'special needs exemption" so far the courts have determine that as long as the purpose is regulatory, not criminal, its allowed. Since driver licenses, insurance/reg, etc are required, they can ask for those in a checkpoint. Of course, once they see you fumbling around or wreak of alcohol, there's your probable cause for arrest.
The was a case up in Indianapolis were at checkpoints they were using dog sniffing dogs on cars at a checkpoint, without probable cause, and the courts found they were in a violation of the Constitution.
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/3119908
"What do you mean my Texas Driver's License doesn't count in California after 5 years? What do you mean my Texas license expired 2 years ago!"
You should have gave him a 20 minute speech about the Commerce Clause, and how it's B.S. driver licenses don't fall under it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

 

[reefraff]

Probable cause seems to be a vague target.
In Montana there was a case the fruit loop Mt Supreme Court threw out for unreasonable search. The cop spotted the pick up of a known drug dealer parked in front of a hotel. They sent in a sniffer hound and when it hit they used that to get a warrant. The court said they didn't have probable cause to bring in the drug sniffing dog. Mind you they didn't touch the car and it was sitting in a public area.
I'd call that good police work

 

[pontius]

you did indeed answer yourself. a checkpoint is not the same as a search/seizure and does not require probable cause. if you have committed no crime, they can ASK you to search your car, but they have no legal right. however, like you said, if you'd been drinking or didn't have license/insurance, etc, that would be the cause to allow them to search as it would then be a search as an extension of an arrest. even then though, I think there are certain parts of the vehicle that cannot be searched.
as for the drug dog, I think the supreme court has ruled that a car/driver can be detained for a reasonable amount of time for the k9 unit to get on scene and search or whatever. but "reasonable amount of time" is not defined as far as I know and if I've done nothing wrong and they have no reason to be running a k9 through my car, I'd be threatening a lawsuit.
but in general, I have no problem whatsoever with checkpoints. there are too many people driving around with no licenses/insurance, or drunk and I have no problem with them getting pulled.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3120027
Probable cause seems to be a vague target.
Especially when you try to apply the Constitution to something that didn't even come about till 200 years after it was written (automobiles)
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3120027
Probable cause seems to be a vague target.
In Montana there was a case the fruit loop Mt Supreme Court threw out for unreasonable search. The cop spotted the pick up of a known drug dealer parked in front of a hotel. They sent in a sniffer hound and when it hit they used that to get a warrant. The court said they didn't have probable cause to bring in the drug sniffing dog. Mind you they didn't touch the car and it was sitting in a public area.
I'd call that good police work %%
The thing is even though he's a 'known' drug dealer, he is still innocent until proven gulity. "Just because" wouldn't have been enough to warrant the cops to use the dog and search the car. His car, even in a public area would likely fall under the 'effects' part of Amendment 4.
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/3120069
you did indeed answer yourself. a checkpoint is not the same as a search/seizure and does not require probable cause. if you have committed no crime, they can ASK you to search your car, but they have no legal right. however, like you said, if you'd been drinking or didn't have license/insurance, etc, that would be the cause to allow them to search as it would then be a search as an extension of an arrest. even then though, I think there are certain parts of the vehicle that cannot be searched.
as for the drug dog, I think the supreme court has ruled that a car/driver can be detained for a reasonable amount of time for the k9 unit to get on scene and search or whatever. but "reasonable amount of time" is not defined as far as I know and if I've done nothing wrong and they have no reason to be running a k9 through my car, I'd be threatening a lawsuit.
Here's the excerpt from the place I read about the drug dogs in Indy
In a later case, Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court held that "narcotics checkpoints" were an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment. While these checkpoints were identical to DUI checkpoints, except that police would also lead a drug dog around the motorists vehicle. The court refused to extend the special needs exception where the "primary purpose" is "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing."

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/3120069
but in general, I have no problem whatsoever with checkpoints. there are too many people driving around with no licenses/insurance, or drunk and I have no problem with them getting pulled.
I generally wouldn't, but the thing is I easily could see them getting out of hand. In my case, we sat there for at least 5 minutes, before getting waved through because of the FedEx truck (or at least my theory goes). They only managed to get about half way done with the cars in the opposite direction. The cars in the back of the line were there when we pulled up, and were still there when we left, so some of there were there for 10 minutes at least. If I was cutting it close to work, and got stuck in a 15 minute checkpoint, I'd be pretty furious.
However in my research, the vast majority of the cases involving checkpoints, seemed to be those that tried to go around the checkpoint, and got pulled over and busted. If I'm unsure about checkpoints in general, I'm really unsure about this one.

 

[aquaknight]

Find this too

 

[bionicarm]

So what do you think would happen in this scenario?
You're driving down the road and the traffic comes to a halt. You look ahead, and you see it's a road checkpoint. You're running late for an appointment, and know there's another road a few blocks back that you can take to get around the checkpoint without stopping. Do you do a U-Turn and take that road, or do you stay put fearing that if you leave the line, a cop at the roadblock may see you and assume you're fleeing the area because you're trying to hide something? Does the cop even have the right to come after you and pull you over for doing this?

 

[caspervtx]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3120074
Especially when you try to apply the Constitution to something that didn't even come about till 200 years after it was written (automobiles)
I tend to try to avoid politics unless I know someone but ....

Your statement above is true on its face. However, if you simply consider the automobile as an extension of personal transportation - then it was around 200 years ago. It was called a horse, a horse and buggy, a wagon. ALL of these were personal transportation and thus "Effects" for purposes of the 4th Amendment.
Also, on the issue of discrimination. Consider that checkpoints are used for a variety of purposes - some quasi legal and some for safety (sobriety check points). However, consider checkpoints set up to "catch" bikers. Two cases come to mind that happen time and time again and underscore the slippery slope of statements such as "I don't have a problem with them" and cite no license/insurance and/or drunk driving (and to the poster (sorry don't remember who) who made this statement I am not poking at you - its is a very common statement).
In New York statement there is a pending threat of lawsuit because the NY State Police routinely set up "safety checkpoints" on the interstates in Northern NY with the express intent to solely stop motorcycles for safety checks (Helmets, loud pipes, insurance, etc). However, these checkpoints are ONLY set up on dates around large motorcycle rallys in the region. Are these reasonable or an attempt to make attendance at the rallys untenable and thus an attempt to shut down the rallys?
In California there are motorcycle clubs that are pulled over or stopped at checkpoints en masse for no other reason than riding as a club. And yet motorcyclists without club affiliation are permitted to ride by unhindered. Are these "checkpoitns" or harassment. In one particular case a large number (>50) were pulled over and less than 10% were issues tickets (mostly for the non DOT helmet law BS - another issue).
At some point the populace has to stand up and say that ANY intrusion into the 4th Amendment is unacceptable and MUST stop. Unfortunately once the genie is out of the bag it is VERY difficult to put it back and control it.
Good police work? NO I think its LAZY police work and targets individuals. Regardless of how it is applied.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by CasperVTX
http:///forum/post/3120140
I tend to try to avoid politics unless I know someone but ....

Your statement above is true on its face. However, if you simply consider the automobile as an extension of personal transportation - then it was around 200 years ago. It was called a horse, a horse and buggy, a wagon. ALL of these were personal transportation and thus "Effects" for purposes of the 4th Amendment.
Also, on the issue of discrimination. Consider that checkpoints are used for a variety of purposes - some quasi legal and some for safety (sobriety check points). However, consider checkpoints set up to "catch" bikers. Two cases come to mind that happen time and time again and underscore the slippery slope of statements such as "I don't have a problem with them" and cite no license/insurance and/or drunk driving (and to the poster (sorry don't remember who) who made this statement I am not poking at you - its is a very common statement).
In New York statement there is a pending threat of lawsuit because the NY State Police routinely set up "safety checkpoints" on the interstates in Northern NY with the express intent to solely stop motorcycles for safety checks (Helmets, loud pipes, insurance, etc). However, these checkpoints are ONLY set up on dates around large motorcycle rallys in the region. Are these reasonable or an attempt to make attendance at the rallys untenable and thus an attempt to shut down the rallys?
In California there are motorcycle clubs that are pulled over or stopped at checkpoints en masse for no other reason than riding as a club. And yet motorcyclists without club affiliation are permitted to ride by unhindered. Are these "checkpoitns" or harassment. In one particular case a large number (>50) were pulled over and less than 10% were issues tickets (mostly for the non DOT helmet law BS - another issue).
At some point the populace has to stand up and say that ANY intrusion into the 4th Amendment is unacceptable and MUST stop. Unfortunately once the genie is out of the bag it is VERY difficult to put it back and control it.
Good police work? NO I think its LAZY police work and targets individuals. Regardless of how it is applied.
Check points, cool. Pulling over a group of riders? I would suspect a lawsuit unless they were breaking a traffic law at the time they were pulled over, ie; Speeding, riding two abreast etc.
I really have no problem with the cops doing check points to catch people who are breaking the law.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3120139
So what do you think would happen in this scenario?
You're driving down the road and the traffic comes to a halt. You look ahead, and you see it's a road checkpoint. You're running late for an appointment, and know there's another road a few blocks back that you can take to get around the checkpoint without stopping. Do you do a U-Turn and take that road, or do you stay put fearing that if you leave the line, a cop at the roadblock may see you and assume you're fleeing the area because you're trying to hide something? Does the cop even have the right to come after you and pull you over for doing this?
That raises the ever cloudy "Probable Cause" issue again. If a cop pulls in behind you in traffic and you make a sudden turn are you avoiding them? Deliberate avoidance of a cop has been used as probable cause. Not sure I agree with that, just sayin

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3120074
Especially when you try to apply the Constitution to something that didn't even come about till 200 years after it was written (automobiles)
The thing is even though he's a 'known' drug dealer, he is still innocent until proven gulity. "Just because" wouldn't have been enough to warrant the cops to use the dog and search the car. His car, even in a public area would likely fall under the 'effects' part of Amendment 4.
Thing is they didn't touch the truck. If a cop is walking past your car and sees a gun on the seat or a bag of weed that is their probably cause. If they see a vehicle backed up to a store at 2 in the morning that is probable cause.
If your car is in a public area I think it would be reasonable to assume your right to privacy doesn't extend beyond the windows of your car. If the cops know someone is an active criminal I think it is perfectly acceptable for them to use what methods are available to them to stop them. I mean lets take the case of the dealer. They are known to use hotels to apply their trade. The vehicle was known to the cops and they saw it in front of the hotel. You don't think it was reasonable to scrutinize the vehicle? Had the guy not had illegal substance inside the cops never would have gotten the warrant that allowed them to open up the car and find them.

 

[nigerbang]

A good friend of mine left his house to go to a job interview and 2 miles from home there was a roadblock with hella line waiting.. He turned around in a nearby driveway to go the other way( would take a few minutes longer taking back roads instead of the highway but couldnt risk being late) 2 of the patrol cars left the roadblock and pulled him over because he turned around before a road block.. He explained why he did such, They asked if they could search his car.. He told them he didnt see any reason why they would need to.. BAM in GA if they ask you if they can search your car and you tell them no that is deemed probable cause.. So no matter what you dont have a choice.. If they want to, they are going to. They didnt find anything and let him go.. He didnt get the job because he was detained for almost 2 hours for all that crap..