Do I have privacy expectations on my body walking down the street? Or if they say on the radio "hey, we're going to forcing you on the ground in order to see if you're carrying explosives" then everything is cool?

 

Actually, they can. It's called a Terry stop and the can stop you and frisk the outside of your clothes if you give probable cause, like loitering around a place known for drugs and gun violence, or if you appear to be casing a store through the course of the day. I highly doubt that you would fit the description of a person whose actions give way to reasonable cause.

 

Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I need a legal mind like yours to explain to a mind like mine as to why they are legal as compared to any other situation where probable cause would be required.

 

Why can they stop me in my car at a checkpoint but not stop me walking down the sidewalk and make me prove I don't have an illegal weapon or bomb on my body.

 

This is just asking a question out loud, I don't know the answer: Does the fact that you are required to have a license, registration and proof of insurance while driving (and be able to produce them on request)--but you are not required to have any special documentation while walking down the street enter into it?

This is just asking a question out loud, I don't know the answer: Does the fact that you are required to have a license, registration and proof of insurance while driving (and be able to produce them on request)--but you are not required to have any special documentation while walking down the street enter into it?

 

Also driving is a privilege not a right

Actually, they can. It's called a Terry stop and the can stop you and frisk the outside of your clothes if you give probable cause, like loitering around a place known for drugs and gun violence, or if you appear to be casing a store through the course of the day. I highly doubt that you would fit the description of a person whose actions give way to reasonable cause.

 

Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I think you are going to confuse everyone here. If you have probable cause you can stop a car or stop a pedestrian. What Clyde is saying, and I agree to an extent, is how come the police can stop a car without probable cause at a checkpoint.

 

Again, my answer is MADD.

I think you are going to confuse everyone here. If you have probable cause you can stop a car or stop a pedestrian. What Clyde is saying, and I agree to an extent, is how come the police can stop a car without probable cause at a checkpoint.

 

Again, my answer is MADD.

 

He asked about walking down the street, also in Post 71.

As for the check points, it all goes to expectation of privacy. You have little in your car. Random checkpoints that are announced are ok. You also have the alternative of taking another route home.

I think you are going to confuse everyone here. If you have probable cause you can stop a car or stop a pedestrian. What Clyde is saying, and I agree to an extent, is how come the police can stop a car without probable cause at a checkpoint.

 

Again, my answer is MADD.

 

The "legal answer" is that DUI checkpoints are legal because they subject everyone to the same guidelines in an effort to support public policy (the prevention of drunk driving).

 

Each state has its own different techniques for DUI checkpoints, but the Supreme Court of the United States established some minimum guidelines that each state must meet. From what I recall, the minimum guidelines include the following:

 

1. The length of detention / inconvenience / invasion of privacy should be minimized.

2. There should be very little discretion on who to stop (i.e. stop everyone or every 3rd car as opposed to every male driver in his 20's).

3. Primary focus must be safety (for officers & general public)

 

That's not a comprehensive list, but it highlights the main points.

 

It's an interesting legal issue but I think the Court conceded that the public interest in preventing drunk driving outweighs the relatively minimal invasion of privacy. As theguru has alluded to, MADD probably had a lot to do with the Court's willingness to rule that way.

 

I believe studies have found that DUI checkpoints are somewhat effective, for what it's worth.

He asked about walking down the street, also in Post 71.

As for the check points, it all goes to expectation of privacy. You have little in your car. Random checkpoints that are announced are ok. You also have the alternative of taking another route home.

 

mex!!! What is wrong with you today! LOL Let me restate what I said in the last post with a little more info:

 

I think you are going to confuse everyone here. If you have probable cause you can stop a car or stop a pedestrian. What Clyde is saying, and I agree to an extent, is how come the police can stop a car without probable cause at a checkpoint but the the police can not stop a pedestrian without probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

===============================

 

To go further, I agree 100% with what ColonelCrazy said and it is the point I am trying to make, CC said quote:

 

It's an interesting legal issue

In other words, the rules are different for walking down the street and driving down the street. When driving you can be stopped for NO REASON at a checkpoint, the same is not true when you are walking down the street.

Probably just another case of improper training...

 

I'm sure it was profiling, racist cops who, like all cops were bullied growing up. None of them really like helping people. All cops are alike, not a good egg in the bunch.

I'm sure it was profiling, racist cops who, like all cops were bullied growing up. None of them really like helping people. All cops are alike, not a good egg in the bunch.

 

Nobody said anything of the like, in any thread. :lol2:

Too bad technology doesn't exist where a the police can scan a car with a Radar type device to determine if a driver is impaired, without having to stop it.

 

Or, Is it illegal for the police to sit behind a bush or in the median and randomly check the speed of passing cars too?

 

In no way do I think police have to be visible to run radar.

Actually, they can. It's called a Terry stop and the can stop you and frisk the outside of your clothes if you give probable cause,[/url]

 

I'm talking about NO PROBABLE CAUSE just like the checkpoint.

This is just asking a question out loud, I don't know the answer: Does the fact that you are required to have a license, registration and proof of insurance while driving (and be able to produce them on request)--but you are not required to have any special documentation while walking down the street enter into it?

 

Unless you're in Arizona.

In no way do I think police have to be visible to run radar.

 

The visibility thing remains fuzzy for me. While I thought they could be hidden, I have also heard that they must have a light on (inside or outside) so people know they are there. Who knows though. :idunno:

The visibility thing remains fuzzy for me. While I thought they could be hidden, I have also heard that they must have a light on (inside or outside) so people know they are there. Who knows though. :idunno:

That might be an urban legend, kinda like an undercover policeman has to tell you if he's a cop if you ask him.

I'm talking about NO PROBABLE CAUSE just like the checkpoint.

 

Clyde, keep in mind that there is a difference between probable cause & reasonable suspicion.

 

A police officer only needs "reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over (whether it's a vehicle or a pedestrian). "Reasonable suspicion" is enough to justify a pat down of the outer clothing to check for weapons. It's enough to pull over a motor vehicle. It is NOT enough to obtain a warrant or arrest someone, though.

 

If your goal is to apply a legal theory to DUI checkpoints, perhaps it is clearer to think of the officers as having "reasonable suspicion" that a motor vehicle operator is intoxicated between the hours of 11 p.m. & 2 a.m. The "reasonable suspicion" allows a brief detention of the motor vehicle which minimally invades one's privacy for the greater good (i.e. getting drunk drivers off the road).

 

I don't think a court would ever adopt the concept that police have reasonable suspicion to assume that all motor vehicle operators are under the influence from 11 pm to 2 a.m, which is why it's a difficult issue to understand.

 

The truth of the matter is that DUI checkpoints get drunk drivers off the road (which is a popular concept) and it increases revenue (another popular concept) while momentarily affecting the rights of a very small portion of the population.