Guru or any other legal eagle - can the police have a checkpoint that requires me to let them search my car?

 

Depends, but I'm leaning no as a general response. As to your other question about if the driver is sober can they arrest a passenger for a warrant, depends if the passenger gave up his information. If he refused to give it the police would need an RAS and SAF, basically they would then need to have to believe that person is wanted.

Then why do you think it's OK for a checkpoint ? They are not only pulling people over who show signs of being drunk? How could they even know? Some checkpoints have 20 or 30 cars in line? The police didn't see them driving up to the checkpoint. It's completely random ie without cause.

There are other indicators besides just swerving while driving that they look for when they speak to the driver. If drivers appears to be intoxicated they will normally investigate further.

 

As far as searching the car during a traffic check point they can only do that with your permission or with a warrant. They can only get a warrant with probable cause and a judge agreeing that they have probable cause. So EVERY car isn't getting checked, in fact very few get searched at traffic checkpoints.

 

I've never been through a traffic check point where the ID of anyone other than the driver was checked, not saying they don't do it but if they checked the ID of everyone in every car the line would be miles long.

There are other indicators besides just swerving while driving that they look for when they speak to the driver. If drivers appears to be intoxicated they will normally investigate further.

 

As far as searching the car during a traffic check point they can only do that with your permission or with a warrant. They can only get a warrant with probable cause and a judge agreeing that they have probable cause. So EVERY car isn't getting checked, in fact very few get searched at traffic checkpoints.

 

I've never been through a traffic check point where the ID of anyone other than the driver was checked, not saying they don't do it but if they checked the ID of everyone in every car the line would be miles long.

 

Or if something is in plain sight

Guru or any other legal eagle - can the police have a checkpoint that requires me to let them search my car?

 

No.

Checkpoints have to be advertised

There are other indicators besides just swerving while driving that they look for when they speak to the driver. If drivers appears to be intoxicated they will normally investigate further.

 

As far as searching the car during a traffic check point they can only do that with your permission or with a warrant. They can only get a warrant with probable cause and a judge agreeing that they have probable cause. So EVERY car isn't getting checked, in fact very few get searched at traffic checkpoints.

 

I've never been through a traffic check point where the ID of anyone other than the driver was checked, not saying they don't do it but if they checked the ID of everyone in every car the line would be miles long.

 

That's not completely accurate. Police don't need a warrant for a vehicle if they have probable cause. For example if they see a joint in your passenger seat or smell marijuana, they can search your car without a warrant and without your permission.

Checkpoints have to be advertised

 

That always has seemed strange to me.

Maybe not the best title but...

 

Is it a 3rd amendment violation?

 

The Bill of Rights is a series of restrictions on the Federal government and while over time several of them have been applied to the states, it's been done piecemeal and I don't think the Third has ever been applied to states. I doubt the courts would like to hear that case at all much less use it to declare that state or city police officers are "soldiers".

 

It's definitely a pretty significant Fourth Amendment violation.

I would say a car with 4 guys ranging in age from 20-28 is a lot more likely to be stopped than a young couple with 2 young kids in the back.

 

 

That's a problem and illegal. Just like if a police officer pulled up on 4 black guys and made them get on the ground so he could check them for drugs WITHOUT having any probable cause.

 

THAT's the point.

Checkpoints have to be advertised

 

Still illegal IMO.

That's not completely accurate. Police don't need a warrant for a vehicle if they have probable cause. For example if they see a joint in your passenger seat or smell marijuana, they can search your car without a warrant and without your permission.

 

True, that's what Luck said also...I was figuring Clyde wouldn't have his out in the open though

The Bill of Rights is a series of restrictions on the Federal government and while over time several of them have been applied to the states, it's been done piecemeal and I don't think the Third has ever been applied to states. I doubt the courts would like to hear that case at all much less use it to declare that state or city police officers are "soldiers".

 

It's definitely a pretty significant Fourth Amendment violation.

Still illegal IMO.

 

Supreme Court disagrees...

 

Legal guidelines for checkpoint procedures

 

In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

 

In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:

A checkpoint in the United States

 

• Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
  
• A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
  
• Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
  
• The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
  
• Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
  
• Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
  
• Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
  
• Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.
  

 

Effectiveness

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol-related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.

 

Public Health Law Research, an independent organization, reported in a 2009 evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of selective breath testing sobriety checkpoints as a public health intervention aimed at reducing the harms associated with alcohol impaired driving.

Each state can outlaw them if they want to...

 

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. One other state (Alaska) does not use checkpoints even though it has not made them illegal. Montana uses checkpoints frequently.

"Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple 'pepperball' rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain."

 

:ohbrother::idunno::no:

Probably just another case of improper training...