Roadside Checkpoints - what is their purpose?

[yellowtail3]

I ran across one of those while I was in California, and then learned a bit out them. It was an educational experience, one I'll never forget.

[SHOOTALL]

none of the above , they are to train citizens to become subjects . Get then used to showing papers .

[yellowtail3]

Congratulations, Shootall - in honor of your observation, I'm going to change the poll choices!

[SHOOTALL]

talk about bitter sweet

[Buck-Ridge]

They have been ruled unconstitutional in many state supreme court challenges. They were in my state yet they continue to do it. Most people don't have the money to appeal it all the way to the top.

[SHOOTALL]

and the police know that

[Doublebass73]

none of the above , they are to train citizens to become subjects . Get then used to showing papers .

Well said, that was my vote!

[Pat/Rick]

Subjects. My vote as well. "They" are so used to operating outside Constitutional constraints, they might as well have a C convention deep sixing the document.    
 
The biggest reason "they" keep getting away with it is most people comply so they will not be detained even temporarily.  Defy tyranny, do not subject yourselves to oppression.

[Empty Quiver]

I voted revenue generation. I honestly believe it has something to do with " Look at us we are trying to do something about this drunk thing." Now would all you moms against .. pick a problem ... shut up and leave the chief alone.


It is apeasement of a loud minority who have leveredged themselves a lot more power than they deserve. What makes a better headline? Blood  splattered or the Mother who is relating the story of her loss. The answer is both, but mom can be interviewed again and again.


Please do not take my answer as a denigration of those killed by drunks. I drive for a living and honestly I don't want to be taken out any more than the next guy. Drunks need to be removed from the road and the showboat crap needs to go as well.

[yellowtail3]

I honestly believe it has something to do with " Look at us we are trying to do something about this drunk thing."

astute observation... polytics. That, and circumventing 4th Amendment

[billy_56081]

They are really good at catching angry drunks who are going through a divorce.

[yellowtail3]

They are really good at catching angry drunks who are going through a divorce.

It would be interesting to know your source for that tidbit. It's not true; checkpoints are far more likely to be impounding cars for non-DUI reasons, than for DUI arrests - married, divorced, or otherwise -

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x2022667317/Car-seizures-at-DUI-checkpoints-prove-profitable-for-cities-raise-legal-questions


A few excerpts:

Sobriety checkpoints in California are increasingly turning into profitable operations for local police departments that are far more likely to seize cars from unlicensed motorists than catch drunken drivers.
An investigation by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley with California Watch has found that impounds at checkpoints in 2009 generated an estimated $40 million in towing fees and police fines - revenue that cities divide with towing firms. Additionally, police officers received about $30 million in overtime pay for the DUI crackdowns, funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety.
* The seizures appear to defy a 2005 federal appellate court ruling that determined police cannot impound cars solely because the driver is unlicensed. In fact, police across the state have ratcheted up vehicle seizures. Last year, officers impounded more than 24,000 cars and trucks at checkpoints. That total is roughly seven times higher than the 3,200 drunken driving arrests at roadway operations. The percentage of vehicle seizures has increased 53 percent compared to 2007.
* Departments frequently overstaff checkpoints with officers, all earning overtime. The Moreno Valley Police Department in Riverside County averaged 38 officers at each operation last year, six times more than federal guidelines say is required. Nearly 50 other local police and sheriff's departments averaged 20 or more officers per checkpoint - operations that averaged three DUI arrests a night.
Additionally, the 2005 appellate court ruling includes exceptions, allowing police to seize a vehicle driven by an unlicensed motorist when abandoning it might put the public at risk. Examples include vehicles parked on a narrow shoulder or obstructing fire lanes.
But reporters attending checkpoints in Sacramento, Hayward and Los Angeles observed officers impounding cars that appeared to pose no danger.With support from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, California more than doubled its use of sobriety checkpoints the past three years.
To recover an impounded vehicle, owners have to pay between $1,000 and $4,000 in tow and storage charges and fines assessed by local governments, municipal finance records show.Owners abandon their cars at tow lots roughly 70 percent of the time, said Perry Shusta, owner of Arrowhead Towing in Antioch and vice president of the California Tow Truck Association. Many of the unrecovered cars are sold by the tow firms, which keep the proceeds.CITIES SHOW BIG DISPARITY IN DUI ARRESTS AND VEHICLE SEIZURESThe city of Montebello's DUI checkpoints rank among California's least effective at getting drunks off the road, the Investigative Reporting Program found.Last year, officers there failed to conduct a single field sobriety test at three of the city's five roadway operations, state records show.Montebello collected upward of $95,000 during the last fiscal year from checkpoints, including grant money for police overtime.FUNDING FOR DUI CRACKDOWNS PLAYS MAJOR ROLEThe federal government provides the California Office of Traffic Safety about $100 million each year to promote responsible driving that reduces roadway deaths. Of that, $30 million goes into programs that fund drunken driving crackdowns, particularly checkpoints.

Police overtime accounts for more than 90 percent of the expense of sobriety checkpoints. Law enforcement agencies tend to use more officers than a checkpoint requires, according to guidelines established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

[Old Syko]

Although revenue generation is one of the end results, it is merely a means of supporting an ever-growing show of force.  It is a way to destroy liberty and freedom from the inside.  Not even the innocent will resist because they don't want to take the time to be bothered.  As stated, over 90% of the generated funds go to support more useless cops who are more than willing to take away yet more of our freedom.  We are in essence supporting our own destruction by allowing these things to take place.

[Empty Quiver]

Billy, that sounds like the voice of experience talking.

[billy_56081]

Nope my brother has never had a DWI checkpoint in the county.
 

[scotsman]

I ran into one of these a few months ago near my home and started a thread about it then. I think it is all three, all about the money generated, a fishing expedition, and a get used to showing your papers. And one other not mentioned, a pure power demontration. After establishing I was not drinking, had insurance, and was not wanted for anything I was asked for permission to search my truck. When I said no to a search I was pulled around to the side and detained while several officers shone lights over every inch of my truck looking for anything they might find. They were visibly upset that I had refused,when nothing was found they let me go. I have little respect left for any police agencies after that episode.

[guzzijohn]

I haven't seen or heard of one in a while here in Kansas, but they were running bogus "drug checkpoints" on the interstates. I ran into one and it did not exist on the interstate, but if a car took one of the previous exits they would be stopped, grilled and boiled.
GuzziJohn

[mcwoodduck]

I am actually suprised you ran into one in California.  Most places have stopped running them as they were catching mostly illegals.  The City of Santa Rosa had to stop the check points as they are a sanctuary city and were arresting nothing but illegals either drunk about 50 a month as well as impounding cars for no registration or insurance about 150 a month.  Upholding the law is only good when they can make money and will use every thing to do so.  I will bet if you and simply rolled down your window and said "noo, no no" in a spanish accent with marachi music in the back ground, they would have just waived you through, so as not to deal with the hastle. 
I often wonder if I argued in court that I can ignore laws if I would get away with it?  Clearly congress and state legislatures make laws that we have to follow, but allow non citizens to break those laws.  Not talking about diplomats, but people that their first act to enter the country is knowingly breaking 3 to 5 state and federal laws.  If a non citizen is allowed to pick 3to 5 state and federal laws to  break why, under the 14th amendment, am I not allowed to ignore 3 to 5 laws I deem irrelevant?

[yellowtail3]

If a non citizen is allowed to pick 3to 5 state and federal laws to  break why, under the 14th amendment, am I not allowed to ignore 3 to 5 laws I deem irrelevant?

because you're not a cop, so... laws apply to you.

[billy_56081]

Safe and sober tonight in the county, no checkpoints, just an extra deputy on duty. They have several already.

[weber]

Here in Southern California they are all over the highways.
 
Come September 1st I will be leaving San Diego and driving to Yuma to go Dove hunting.Before I even get out of San Diego County I will go thru my first manned checkpoint run by the border patrol. I will be questioned about my intentions then have a dog run around my car . If they dont like my answers, the way I look ,or just beause will dictate what follows.Normally you just get the wave thru,but not always.In the event you get put into secondary the real fun begins . Your intentions are questioned and basically treated like some suspect.You get a free pat down.And next the dog gets to rummage around your car as the agents rummage thru all your gear whic they treat like the government bought it.Then tell you that they are just doing thier job.
When you get down the highway another 50 miles or so you will run into the next BP checkpoint where this entire process will play out again . Just as you hit the CA/AZ border you might have to go thru another checkpoint . When you return you get the added joy of an agricultural/fish and game checkpoint.These checkpoints are never an issue beacuse they will ask you a few questions and youre on your way.
On your way to go thru at least two more manned checkpoints to get home .This time it will be into the 100 degree range and the line will be backed up for miles . Literally miles!
The joy of Homeland security.What a joke .Last time I looked around San Diego there appeared to be more illegals living with impunity and the freedom to move about,more so than ever . The flow of drugs thru these places will never stop and it is just a plain waste of money.I have no kidding, 7 legal marijuana storefronts within 3 miles of my house.
The government fortifying its ranks while infringing on you rights
 

[Dee]

I didn't agree with check points 30+ years ago, and I don't agree with them now. I would vote, but I would have to check off all the above, and there isn't a slot for that. While I am pro law and order, and I don't agree with most here on their opinion of ALL police, check points are just basically everything listed, and more.
I have worked them on man hunts, and it was a scary proposition stopping everything that came thru, but at the time there was an immediate need to do so. Check points for the sake of checking everyday traffic, in my opinion is unlawfully detaining citizens going about their everyday activity.
On the other hand, should research of a given area show high activity of for instance illegal aliens driving unregistered, and uninsured vehicles I would say that such an activity, would benefit the legal residents of that area. Especially if their the ones getting run into by uninsured motorists.
There are many deal killers to paint this with such a broad brush, but generally I have stated my opinion.

[Matt]

Avoid the searches by being polite and saying " I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES" refusal of a search does not give probable cause.
Then when detained simply ask " AM I UNDER ARREST OR AM I FREE TO GO"   they have to charge you or let you go it is the law. 


If you don't know how to talk to them and let them know that you KNOW YOUR RIGHTS they will keep you there as long as it takes for you to slip up or them to get tired of playing with you.


Here in Alabama we have them every where to include one every Friday and Saturday night just up the road. I have been through it about 40 or 50 times now and the above has worked every time.


Matt

[Matt]

Here is how the average conversation goes for me in most of the "Check Points" I go through.


Me : Good / Morning / Afternoon /Evening Officer
Officer : License and Insurance please
Me : Sure thing officer, is there a problem?
Officer : No we are just trying to keep the roads safe.
Me : Hey its got to be a tough job glad to see your top of it.
Officer : Yeah well we are also trying to make sure there are no drugs or weapons being transported through here. You don't have any thing like that do you?
Me : No sir.
Officer : I didn't think so, but you wouldn't mind if I take a look then right.
Me : Sir I understand you have a job to do and I respect that completely but " I DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES"
Officer : Are you a Criminal Justice major at JSU or something?
Me : Or something sir.
Officer : Would you mind pulling over to the side for me?
Me : Am I being detained?
Officer : No
Me : Then if I am not under arrest am I free to go?
Officer : Sure and drive safely.
Me : Thank You Sir, And you fellows stay safe out here.




Now mind you there have been times that it pissed the officer off that I knew my rights and he would ask me to get out of the truck and step to the back of it and I did. I let him go on and on about how if I am hiding/lying and such then I ask " AM I UNDER ARREST OR AM I FREE TO GO" and every time they have told me to have a nice day/night and to drive safe.


I am not saying that it is right or I agree with it but it is a fact of life around here and if you do not know how to handle the situation it can be bad for you.  NEVER EVER act irritated or pissed... This will get you delayed only longer.
In most states you must get out of the vehicle when ordered and you must show ID if driving when requested to do so.
We just lost a young officer a few days ago when he was shot in the head by a thug during a traffic stop. The police are on edge around here right now and the tensions between the Blacks and Whites is at the highest level I have seen it in my life. The Mexicans are leaving the state ( Thank God ) scratch that Thanks to our Governor and everything is at a flash point around here with the different races.
I don't know how it will all end but I do know that for the first time in my life I am uncomfortable in areas of the county because of it.


Matt

[yellowtail3]

Officer : I didn't think so, but you wouldn't mind if I take a look then right.
Me : Sir I understand you have a job to do and I respect that completely but " I DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES"
Officer : Are you a Criminal Justice major at JSU or something?
Me : Or something sir.
Now mind you there have been times that it pissed the officer off that I knew my rights and he would ask me to get out of the truck and step to the back of it and I did. I let him go on and on about how if I am hiding/lying and such then I ask " AM I UNDER ARREST OR AM I FREE TO GO" and every time they have told me to have a nice day/night and to drive safe.

LEO is unaccustomed to citizens knowing their rights; they'd prefer you pliable & intimidated.

[DDZ]

They have no right to search you or your car, but the law here says that if they have suspicion of illegal activity, or if they say they feel endangered they have a right to search. Of coarse if you are arrested for something like a dui they can do a search. Or if you are parked illegally and your car is towed they can search it. 
Do they have to show a cause for suspecting illegal activity, or can they just say they suspected illegal activity and do a search? They way the law is here, it appears that if they are intent on searching your car they are going to do it, just by saying they felt endangered or suspected something illegal.

Not that I do any driving around 1 or 2 am, but I've heard that if a check point is set up at those hours a bar is not far away. Setting up to bust people leaving a bar is illegal, but how would someone prove that they were doing that? Which I'm sure their intent all along is to get people at the check point that just left the bar.   

[Cabin4]

If I had to peg it:
 
Primary reason is for the PDs to justify their existence, 2^nd is Public Relations, 3rd is revenue, 4th is public safety and 5th is just blind incremental conditioning of the public.

 

[tcencore3006]

Interesting post.  I had never really given it much thought.  I see them all the time here is WNY.

[Micahn]

Around here they give notice weeks in advance in the papers and even on TV where and when they will have them. It would take one dumb person to get caught by one of them for anything I would say.

[OldSchoolRanger]

I ran into one of these a few months ago near my home and started a thread about it then. I think it is all three, all about the money generated, a fishing expedition, and a get used to showing your papers. And one other not mentioned, a pure power demontration. After establishing I was not drinking, had insurance, and was not wanted for anything I was asked for permission to search my truck. When I said no to a search I was pulled around to the side and detained while several officers shone lights over every inch of my truck looking for anything they might find. They were visibly upset that I had refused,when nothing was found they let me go. I have little respect left for any police agencies after that episode.

scotsman - Bravo! You did the right thing.  This comment is coming from a retired LEO.  The check point had a right to determine that you weren't drunk, had insurance, and a license.   While they  did have a right to ask you to search your truck, you also had the right to refuse them.  BTW, not all LEO's are idiots.