2) They wreck traffic.
3) In nearly all cases they are easily routed around. Most (if not all) are advertised in a local media -- affording habitual day-drinkers the opportunity to avoid them easily. (this wrecks the REST of the traffic near the area, usually with panicked drunk drivers avoiding the stop)
4) They cost law enforcement time, for very little proven efficacy at anything more than accruing state revenue for expired tags and other small misdemeanors.
2) So do drunk drivers that crash.
3) You're arguing against yourself. Yes, it's bad that bad guys get notified so they can avoid checkpoints.
4) Shouldn't law enforcement spend their time enforcing the law? It's well spent time IMO. As you say in (1), they also solve other more serious crimes (e.g. finding wanted criminals)
From a common-sense standpoint, I don't see how a DUI checkpoint isn't fundamentally similar to a traffic stop, regardless of the SCOTUS decision that permits them.
>Thank god one's civil liberties aren't dependent on whether or not you are convinced by them.
Apparently they are dependent on whether SCOTUS is convinced.
A DUI checkpoint is fundamentally different because police are unable to discriminate who they stop. They stop everyone who passes through the checkpoint.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't come with "unless it's super crime-y" exceptions.
https://www.westmifflinpolice.com/west-mifflin-dui-checkpoin...
86% of the citations they issued at that “DUI” checkpoint were not for DUIs.
The name is misleading. It’s not a DUI Checkpoint. It’s just a checkpoint. The definition of a police state.
It seems pretty obvious that inconveniencing 100 sober drivers for 5 minutes to prevent a drunk driving death would be worth it, even if 2 others get cited for unrelated offences. Simply citing unrelated citations doesn't really present a full picture.
Then you're doing it wrong.
Freedom of movement without harassment is important to me. More important than catching every drunk driver.
This is NYC we're talking about. Stop-and-Frisk was a fun game the cops played for years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_C...
Edit: Case in point.
DUI checkpoints are not that. They’re generalized fishing expeditions. If you’re sober, but have contraband, they can arrest you for that. Or for having and expired license. Maybe you’re late on your registration.
And I’m not pushing absolutes here. I’m just prioritizing freedom over the moral panic of the day. (Yes, drunk driving is bad. But checkpoints are still an overreaction and there’s little political will to go against MADD. It’s the same dynamic of “won’t somebody think of the children!”)
Feel free to build a road in your private land, get drunk and speed all the way you want, nobody's going to impinge on your freedom.
You are, though. The police can stop you if they've got reasonable suspicion you're committing a crime. They can search and arrest you if they've got probable cause. Outside of that, though, we are entitled to use public spaces.
Westboro Baptist gets to protest outside of funerals. Nazis get to have parades. Street preachers get to shout at passers-by.
Thanks to the love of Jesus, the US of A was founded before the invention of automobiles, and there's no equivalent of Second Amendment that grants, I mean, "recognizes" its citizens' inalienable right to drive motor vehicles. Driving is a privilege.
And it relies on people following the social contract around it, including not drinking and driving, and some way to actually enforce it before some drunkard runs over my kids.
If the specific strategies and actions by police are bad-faithed or ineffectual, by all means, argue about these specific points, but I'm tired of these armchair guardians of freedom who think paved roads grow on trees.
Of course we see it as a threat to public safety. But so are lots of other things, including unchecked expansion of government power.