This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • itneverchanges Dec 12, 8:36 a.m.

    What a great use of resources. The overtime , thin man hour coverage and the taxpayers on the hook for the bill. 3 1/2 hours for 6, count em, 6 people. Now man up and go into the tough neighborhoods and get the people slinging drugs and the gang violence. Oh wait that would be too hard for these guys!!

  • renaissancemon Dec 10, 7:59 p.m.

    > Well if you don’t smell like alcohol and are not slurring your words you won’t get searched

    Excuse me? You have to search me first (my breath and speech) before you can know that stuff.

  • cuffusion Dec 10, 4:33 p.m.

    The sad part is that the average person in this Country has absolutely no idea about the real world around them.. the events and incidents that occur in their own towns and neighborhoods.. and they are blissful in their ignorance..

    For those like Road-wearier who seem to find this an intrusion beyond reason... great.. would you prefer suspension of all police services in your neighborhood?. I dont think that anyone would argue with an "opt out" program.. I am a absolute believer in personal rights.. but only to the point where they do not infringe upon the rights of others or endanger society as a whole..

    Its funny though.. those that complain about the Police the most call them for help in orders of magnitude higher than those who accept and appreciate the level of personal security this community offers them..

  • WooHoo2You Dec 10, 2:46 p.m.

    "If you think the the cops are an inconvienance at a DUI checkpoint you'll love what the accident does for you."

    Cool! Then you'll be fine with random searches of your home for kiddie porn, pot plants, and that huge stash of heroin you're planning to sell? What's that? You've none of that stuff? Funny - I don't drink and drive either, but you're happy to let me get randomly searched. Think about it.-Road-wearier

    Well if you don’t smell like alcohol and are not slurring your words you won’t get searched….

  • The Carolina Sweetheart Dec 10, 2:21 p.m.

    @ Kermit60... Very well said... I couldn't agree more!!!!

  • Road-wearier Dec 10, 2:19 p.m.

    "If you think the the cops are an inconvienance at a DUI checkpoint you'll love what the accident does for you."

    Cool! Then you'll be fine with random searches of your home for kiddie porn, pot plants, and that huge stash of heroin you're planning to sell? What's that? You've none of that stuff? Funny - I don't drink and drive either, but you're happy to let me get randomly searched. Think about it.

  • WooHoo2You Dec 10, 2:02 p.m.

    I find it strange that the same people who typically favor race based traffic stops or ID checks based on color / perceived ethnic group seem to think showing *their* driver license is a violation of their rights. What do they also say…”if you ain’t got nothing to hide, what’s the problem?!?”

  • 1UNC Dec 10, 1:56 p.m.

    Lone of these people get hit by a drunk driver with no license and no insurance. Then they will be mad because the police are not doing enough to get the drunks off the road.

  • baldchip Dec 10, 1:40 p.m.

    Is that all? How many got away??

  • Minarchist Dec 10, 1:39 p.m.

    "Just think how much more revenue, er, riff-raff could be taken care of if there was a 3 hour random search of homes instead of drivers." - renaissancemon

    Good idea! And when the Courts are jammed up w/Fourth Amendment lawsuits, what then???
    twoods7

    Nothing. I think the poster was being ssarcastic.

  • Minarchist Dec 10, 1:39 p.m.

    What I find interesting here is that those who clammer (sp) for LEOs to DO SOMETHING about drunk drivers yet when they do it's all of a sudden against our rights....can't have it both ways.

    They also catch a lot of other law breakers as well
    Scubagirl
    December 10, 2012 12:44 p.m.
    Report abuse

    So you must be for random house checks.

  • kermit60 Dec 10, 1:16 p.m.

    Many here seem to think peoples rights are being violated. Maybe so, but wait till your the one hit by the drunk driver with no liscense or insurance. If you think the the cops are an inconvienance at a DUI checkpoint you'll love what the accident does for you.

  • twoods7 Dec 10, 1:05 p.m.

    "Just think how much more revenue, er, riff-raff could be taken care of if there was a 3 hour random search of homes instead of drivers." - renaissancemon

    Good idea! And when the Courts are jammed up w/Fourth Amendment lawsuits, what then???

  • cuffusion Dec 10, 12:44 p.m.

    el conquistador

    I respect your opinion.. however it has no legal basis.. The stop does not equate to a search.. nor does it raise to the level of arrest (as an extended detention has been determined by the court). Verification of valid driving capability, and where required insurance, has been identified as in the public interest.

    What is important to remember is driving is not a right.. so the stipulation of the condition under which you may perform this act is subject to the rules and restrictions determined by the legislative body YOU elected.. not the Police. The intoxilizer test you refer to.. is not illegally seized evidence... first the arrest can not be based upon its results (need subjective evidence first and you can not be required to take it until you are already arrested.. unless you request a pre-arrest screening) and all drivers agree to take this test if requested as a provision of their being licensed..

  • Scubagirl Dec 10, 12:44 p.m.

    What I find interesting here is that those who clammer (sp) for LEOs to DO SOMETHING about drunk drivers yet when they do it's all of a sudden against our rights....can't have it both ways.

    They also catch a lot of other law breakers as well

  • renaissancemon Dec 10, 12:27 p.m.

    Just think how much more revenue, er, riff-raff could be taken care of if there was a 3 hour random search of homes instead of drivers.

  • pstroud2 Dec 10, 12:25 p.m.

    However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

  • renaissancemon Dec 10, 12:21 p.m.

    > it can be every car.. every 3rd car etc.. but not random.

    Searching based on WHIM instead of EVIDENCE, is random!

  • dcatz Dec 10, 12:12 p.m.

    "First.. the roadway is a public domain.. and therefore there is no reasonable expectation of privacy"

    The fact that the roads are public domain is one of the big problems with society; competing private road networks would serve the public better.

    The car, however, is not public domain. What is and isn't permitted by the state's law is irrelevant (in the same way that people don't recognize the Mafia's "law", they should not recognize the state's "law" either); all that matters is that the use of force is inherently immoral and contrary to natural law unless it is in proportional response to someone else initiating force.

    Arresting people for DUI doesn't stop DUI. Taking their licenses doesn't stop them from driving. It would be far more productive to simply have a suspected DUIer call a friend to pick them up. Alcoholism is a medical problem and requires a medical solution, not brutalization at the hands of the state.

  • SmokeWagon Dec 10, 12:03 p.m.

    ..."the holiday Booze It & Lose It campaign..." ..."officers also issued 24 driving while license revoked citations..."

    LOL...sooooooo taking those license for drunk driving is REALLY workin' out for ya...right..??????

  • renaissancemon Dec 10, 12:02 p.m.

    "General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted." -- Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, Section 20

  • Just another bad guy Dec 10, 11:52 a.m.

    6 DUI arrests is nice, but I want to hear more about the stolen car story.

  • el conquistador Dec 10, 11:30 a.m.

    Fourth ammendment rights out the window statewide with these roadblocks. That's what the are ...roadblocks.They (law enforcement)are standing there armed on the center line of the roadway telling you to roll down your window and produce ID and or paperwork.That's an unreasonable search in my opinion.Also once they make you submit to a breath test they have illegally seized evidence from a person presumed to be innocent.

    It's going to eventually cause someone to run and multiple innocent people are going to killed when the wrong person comes along driving up on one of these roadblocks. They may be perfectly sober, but wanted by the law for some reason or other and it's going to the start of another chase like we see on television almost daily. That's when innocent people are going to get hurt.In all probability the person who freaks out and runs may be just a bad check writer.

    What I see happening on the interstates constantly along I-85 in Granville and Vance County has to be illegal

  • cuffusion Dec 10, 11:20 a.m.

    lilyorg,

    Based upon the forth amendment.. the answer is no.. a Sobriety checkpoint does violate the provisions thereof..

    First.. the roadway is a public domain.. and therefore there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.. the checkpoint does not include a search of the vehicles interior which would be covered by this provision..

    Second... Generally the stop includes the requirement to provide drivers license documentation which is permitted by law and requires that the cars checked follow a pre-defined plan and are not singled out.. so.. it can be every car.. every 3rd car etc.. but not random.

    The determination of sobriety is based upon a subjective assessment of the individual while interfacing with the LEO.. there still must be the same level of appreciable impairment to progress to a detention and further investigation.

  • Gork Dec 10, 11:12 a.m.

    But you folks HATE the ACLU, don't you?

  • Rebelyell55 Dec 10, 10:40 a.m.

    Fifteen years old, driving a stolen vehicle, and thought they could get through a check point?

  • Knock Dec 10, 10:24 a.m.

    Of course it does, they all do.

    They are also required to post notice to the public in advance of check points but that never happens either. I have called the county and city and asked where I could l find posted notification of upcoming checkpoints even if only on a billboard at the courthouse or something, to no avail. They convenient ignore this one.

  • wildpig777 Dec 10, 10:05 a.m.

    dwi checkpoints are constitutionally illegal and are merely tools by police to oppress the citizens....

  • liliyorg Dec 10, 9:47 a.m.

    Amendment IV:
    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 to be seized.

    Does that checkpoint violate the 4th Amendment?

Oldest First