DWI Roadblock case to Supreme Court

[KBCraig]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_DWI_ROADBLOCKS_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jan 6, 11:54 AM EST

Portsmouth DWI roadblocks go to Supreme Court

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) -- The debate over whether drunken driving roadblocks in Portsmouth are constitutional is headed to the state Supreme Court, even as police apply for grant money for more.

The high court will hear arguments Feb. 14 on the state's appeal of a Portsmouth District court ruling that dismissed five DWI charges prompted by roadblocks in July 2005.

District Court Judge Sharon DeVries tossed the cases, saying the roadblocks unconstitutional because there was no advance publicity.

The police department's press release announcing the sobriety checks was published on July 8, the day of the first roadblock, which was too late for advanced newspaper publication.

Meanwhile, the police have applied for N.H. Highway Safety money to run extra patrols and more DWI checkpoints.

[Atlas]

I'm definitely interested in seeing how this turns out.

[KurtDaBear]

You mean if they notify you in advance that they're going to violate your constitutional rights, then it's okay?

Every time I've told the police in advance what I'm going to do they come and break down my door and haul me away in cuffs and charge me with making threats and conspiracy to commit crimes.

[Tyler Stearns]

I still dont understand how roadblocks like this are even remotely constitutional.  I find it hard to believe they can assert probably cause for every single passing motorist.  What is this world coming to.

[aries]

simple - they claim it's not a search

or that since you're on their property, they don't need probable cause

[KurtDaBear]

As I understand it, the courts have held that driving is a privilege, not a right, as evidenced by the fact that you must pass competency tests and be licensed to do it.  Therefore if they're checking to make sure people are driving soberly and with licenses, it is merely a condition of the privilege they have extended to all licensed drivers and not a violation of any right, since you have no inate right to drive.
Now that shows you just how twisted our government, at all its various levels, really is.

[error]

That's a completely circular argument.

Next you'll have to pass competency tests and be licensed to drive a horse.

[KurtDaBear]

That's a completely circular argument.

Next you'll have to pass competency tests and be licensed to drive a horse.

As to comment #1, how else would you expect government lawyers to try to justify something so blatantly unconstitutional?
As for comment #2, there has been a case involving a horse-drawn vehicle containing a drunk, but as I recall the guy got off on grounds that he was passed out, so was not responsible for the vehicle being in motion. (Honest.)

[error]

I usually expect government bureaucrats to use this sort of circular argument:



And indeed, that's what they all seem to boil down to.

[Spencer]

Rehnquist -- drug addict and mental patient -- delivered the opinion of the Court in Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990):

Here's the gist of why your rights as an individual don't matter under the U.S. Constitution:

No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the Nation's roads are legion. The anecdotal is confirmed by the statistical. "Drunk drivers cause an annual death toll of over 25,000[] and in the same time span cause nearly one million personal injuries and more than five billion dollars in property damage." 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment ? 10.8(d), p. 71 (2d ed. 1987). For decades, this Court has "repeatedly lamented the tragedy." South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 558 (1983); see Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 439 (1957) ("The increasing slaughter on our highways . . . now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield").

Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale ? the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints ? is slight. We reached a similar conclusion as to the intrusion on motorists subjected to a brief stop at a highway checkpoint for detecting illegal aliens. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 558. We see virtually no difference between the levels of intrusion on law-abiding motorists [p*452] from the brief stops necessary to the effectuation of these two types of checkpoints, which to the average motorist would seem identical save for the nature of the questions the checkpoint officers might ask. The trial court and the Court of Appeals, thus, accurately gauged the "objective" intrusion, measured by the duration of the seizure and the intensity of the investigation, as minimal. See 170 Mich.App. at 444, 429 N.W.2d at 184.

The State where I currently practice law (Oregon) has interpreted its state constitution to prohibit these types of checkpoints as violative of an individual's right to privacy and freedom from warrantless seizure and search.

[Dreepa]

As I understand it, the courts have held that driving is a privilege, not a right,

totally off topic but... I often hear that sentence and then hear... voting is a right.... but if you are a felon then you can't vote so how is that a 'right'?

[mvpel]

but if you are a felon then you can't vote so how is that a 'right'?

You lose your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness by due process of law ( ) when you're convicted of a felony and sent to prison, along with your right to keep and bear arms and your right to vote in many states.

It's all part of the punishment.

[Tyler Stearns]

Rehnquist -- drug addict and mental patient -- delivered the opinion of the Court in Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990):

Here's the gist of why your rights as an individual don't matter under the U.S. Constitution:

No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the Nation's roads are legion. The anecdotal is confirmed by the statistical. "Drunk drivers cause an annual death toll of over 25,000[] and in the same time span cause nearly one million personal injuries and more than five billion dollars in property damage." 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment ? 10.8(d), p. 71 (2d ed. 1987). For decades, this Court has "repeatedly lamented the tragedy." South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 558 (1983); see Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 439 (1957) ("The increasing slaughter on our highways . . . now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield").

Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale ? the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints ? is slight. We reached a similar conclusion as to the intrusion on motorists subjected to a brief stop at a highway checkpoint for detecting illegal aliens. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 558. We see virtually no difference between the levels of intrusion on law-abiding motorists [p*452] from the brief stops necessary to the effectuation of these two types of checkpoints, which to the average motorist would seem identical save for the nature of the questions the checkpoint officers might ask. The trial court and the Court of Appeals, thus, accurately gauged the "objective" intrusion, measured by the duration of the seizure and the intensity of the investigation, as minimal. See 170 Mich.App. at 444, 429 N.W.2d at 184.

If the government starts using statistical information to condone this kind of neglect of our rights then the government can use almost any statistic to do anything to us.  They can "prove" that guns cause lots of deaths, and therefore it is a compelling state interest to check anyone they see for weapons.  It is a total disregard for our rights, but it's in the name of "safety".

[aries]

Maybe you should need a license to walk because some people are clumsy

[mraaron]

Next you'll have to pass competency tests and be licensed to drive a horse.

    I watched two guys wearing Carhartts ride through the town square last night,
guess they don't have to worry about emissions testing.