RMNP DUI checkpoint

Are you offering to help me accurately calibrate my liver?

can you get a bivy permit online for rmnp

Scott Bower wrote:Plus they violate the 4th amendment. Too bad the gov doesn't take that constitution thing seriously.

Agreed. These checkpoints are galling. Has anyone refused to comply or heard of any acts of defiance that ended well?

Scott Bower wrote: That Rehnquist joker sold us all out (whether you drink or not).

You said it brother. One of my favorite quotes...

"I love this country. I love the freedoms we used to have." George Carlin.

Stich wrote: Agreed. These checkpoints are galling. Has anyone refused to comply or heard of any acts of defiance that ended well?

Any act of defiance will not end well. For whatever reason, the Supreme Court has decided that checkpoints are exempt from the usual probable cause standard for searches and seizures.

The general standard is that an officer has probable cause to search a vehicle if he has a reasonable belief that further evidence of the crime committed may be found. For example, if your car smells like marijuana, the police have probable cause to search for further evidence of the crime such as the substance itself, paraphernalia, empty Doritos bags, etc.

In regards to checkpoints, all the police need to search a vehicle is (1) a nuetral and universally applicable standard by which to search, i.e. every 3rd car, every silver car, every car containing 2 or more passengers and (2) enforcement of a community problem such as drunk driving, drug trafficking, etc.

So, if you were to try to assert your rights against warrantless search and seizures at a police checkpoint, I wouldn't recommend it. Odds are you're going to get beaten down, arrested for disorderly conduct or disobeying a police order, and your car is going to get searched regardless.

FWIW, I believe the DUI checkpoints in Utah need to be published ahead of time for them to be considered legal and not an unreasonable search and seizure. I guess they figure if the checkpoint is public knowledge, then boo on you for not taking heed. Does Colorado have the same law? If not, I believe publishing a checkpoint location to warn others is actually against the law? I could be wrong.

And from the point of view of someone who's scraped body parts into plastic bags on the Interstate after DUI caused accidents, please don't drink and drive.

If I correctly recall my lawyer's advice, in Colorado the DUI checkpoint needs to be signed in advance of the actual checkpoint. Basically a driver needs to be given enough warning that they have the option of turning onto another street and not be forced to go through the checkpoint.

That really blows. These checkpoints are set for people like me, who like to have a cold beer after an awesome day of climbing and then drive home. FUCK THE BACON. I hope with the government shutdown coming our way, all the pigs will go to the sluter house, where they belong in the first place. Then I can drink my beer and go to wendy's and get my jr. bacon cheeseburger for 75 cents.

beavs wrote:"The biggest reason that people guilty of DUI's are a threat to society is all of the money they have to give the government.

Tell that to my sister who almost lost her life to a drunk driver and had to spend 3 months in ICU and untold hours in therapy and till this day still has issues. Or tell that to the kids that just lost their mother or father to some ass that was drunk. That's a bullshit point.

According to the Supreme Court checkpoints are not illegal if they follow a set criteria that are clearly defined. Such as stopping every 4th car or every car for that matter. Many people that have warrants major or minor are also caught at checkpoints. A minor inconvenience. Over 35,000 people per year are killed by drunk drivers why the hell so pissed off about a checkpoint?

The 2 beer thing subjective. If it's piss beer like coors that's a 3/2 beer you'd probably piss that out pretty quick. But if you drink a good beer that's over 6% you better wait.

HBL wrote: Tell that to my sister who almost lost her life to a drunk driver and had to spend 3 months in ICU and untold hours in therapy and till this day still has issues. Or tell that to the kids that just lost their mother or father to some ass that was drunk. That's a bullshit point. According to the Supreme Court checkpoints are not illegal if they follow a set criteria that are clearly defined. Such as stopping every 4th car or every car for that matter. Many people that have warrants major or minor are also caught at checkpoints. A minor inconvenience. Over 35,000 people per year are killed by drunk drivers why the hell so pissed off about a checkpoint? The 2 beer thing subjective. If it's piss beer like coors that's a 3/2 beer you'd probably piss that out pretty quick. But if you drink a good beer that's over 6% you better wait.

The fact that people have suffered greatly from drunk drivers is not a good argument for arbitrarily checking drivers without any prior cause.

The same argument could be applied to anything. Guns kill people, lets just search random people walking down the streets for guns. How about for drugs? Should the police be able to enter your property to make sure you aren't leaving unattended children by a pool?

There is a loss of freedom from these infringements. While you can argue that it isn't that much of an inconvenience and it might save a life, I think it is a very slippery slope.

Sure, have a campaign against drunk driving. If a driver is driving erratically, pull them over and check if they are drunk. But don't just check people without any prior reason.

I remember spending time in my youth in a country where the police could ask you for papers at any time without any reason. Sure, people can live with it if they have no choice, but it is not the type of society in which you would want to live.

beavs wrote:That blood alcohol thing is rubbish, I've personally witnessed a 150lb person get a DUI after 2 beers with dinner. It's sold to us as a safety issue but the laws exist as they do because of money, just like most other laws.

The laws also exist as they do because it could be political death to vote against any bill that deals with punishing drinking and driving, no matter how unreasonable.

I'm totally against DUI checkpoints, and the comically low BAC required to be a criminal. It takes a serious issue, DRUNK driving (not buzzed driving), and infantilizes it to the point where the law cannot be seen as reasonable by reasonable people, which encourages a general distain for all legal processes, which erodes the trust in authority necessary to govern effectively, which brings us to our current state of affairs.
Besides, the people who habitually get too drunk to effectively guide a motor vehicle (a pretty simple mechanism) down a roadway aren't going to NOT do that no matter what the penalty. For them there is no prevention, only punishment. These DUI countermeasures only serve to raise revenue off the backs and driving records of folks who, prior to MADD's political ascendency, knew how much they could drink and sill safely operate a motor vehicle.
What MADD and their political sycophants have done is make millions of people's lives miserable (and poor) by throwing them unnecessarily into the system in a vain attempt to avoid the suffering of tens of thousands truly and tragically impacted by horrific DUI deaths, maimings, etc, which we still have anyway.

Stich wrote: Agreed. These checkpoints are galling. Has anyone refused to comply or heard of any acts of defiance that ended well?

Yep. Learn these words. NO THANK YOU!

Simply put, they are making offers to you. Most every offer you don't need to accept. Most people think when a cop asks you to do something, you must comply. They are asking for a reason. The most common, "may I search your car". Most people to ignorant or too scared say yes regardless of what they have inside. Say "no thank you".

The only rights you have are the one's you know you have and the one's you are willing to defend.

Greg D wrote:Most people think when a cop asks you to do something, you must comply. They are asking for a reason. The most common, "may I search your car". Most people to ignorant or too scared say yes regardless of what they have inside. Say "no thank you".

Be careful with DUI checkpoints though - Colorado has an implied consent law, which requires you to submit to a breath test if the cop asks you, the penalty for refusing is losing your license.

In general though you are correct, if a cop asks to search your car, simply politely refuse. My favorite example is Utah, I've heard of them pulling over out-of-staters for some innocuous reason like a burnt out light or something, and they casually ask to search your car. Many out-of-staters think no problem, I have nothing to hide, the cop is being super friendly and he just helpfully pointed out that my tail light is out so what the heck, but then cop immediately searches the cooler for alcohol, as bringing alcohol in to Utah - even for personal use - is illegal, and most out-of-staters don't know it, they prey on your ignorance. So the rule is you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by allowing a search. Just don't do it!

M

HBL wrote: Tell that to my sister who almost lost her life to a drunk driver and had to spend 3 months in ICU and untold hours in therapy and till this day still has issues. Or tell that to the kids that just lost their mother or father to some ass that was drunk. That's a bullshit point.

This is not meant to sound glib or anything, but were either of those above cases victims of someone who had a .05 BAC?

Mike Dallin wrote: Be careful with DUI checkpoints though - Colorado has an implied consent law, which requires you to submit to a breath test if the cop asks you, the penalty for refusing is losing your license.

not exactly. You have the right to refuse any and all roadside tests including breath. Then the cop has to have probable cause to arrests you. Then take you to a test facility, if you refuse you may lose your license for a year. Some cops will lie to you and tell you if you refuse the roadside you will lose it. Again. The only rights you have are the ones you know you have and are willing to defend.

Greg D wrote: not exactly. You have the right to refuse any and all roadside tests including breath. Then the cop has to have probable cause to arrests you. Then take you to a test facility, if you refuse you may lose your license for a year. Some cops will lie to you and tell you if you refuse the roadside you will lose it. Again. The only rights you have are the ones you know you have and are willing to defend.

I'm fairly sure that you have to submit to an alcohol test if you're suspected of driving under the influence or else risk the suspension of you're license. However, you can choose whether to take a breathalyser or a blood test. If you need to stall or don't want to risk the inaccuracies previously mentioned stick with the blood.

Greg D wrote: not exactly. You have the right to refuse any and all roadside tests including breath. Then the cop has to have probable cause to arrests you. Then take you to a test facility, if you refuse you may lose your license for a year. Some cops will lie to you and tell you if you refuse the roadside you will lose it. Again. The only rights you have are the ones you know you have and are willing to defend.

Greg, do you have somewhere I can read more about this? I'd love to take your word from it, but... I'd rather find it in writing from a government source. Have any links?

state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir…

You can't win on this this one. What I'm more interested in unraveling are the hypocritical and unrealistic restrictions on Medical Cannabis in this state. Regulations just passed requiring someone to test absolutely negative for cannabis to drive. You can still test positive for weeks after smoking once. Has anyone run into a problem with this yet?

So, I'm no lawyer, but I think the idea that checkpoints fail constitutional muster doesn't hold a lot of water. If any lawyers could correct inaccuracies here, you have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in private life. I don't know the exact legalise here but it would seem that if you are using a public utility like a road, you at some level forfeit the right to absolute privacy, as long as there is a clear and consistent search search pattern.

But regardless of that, I find whining about weather or not something like checkpoints, which sits in a gray area, is unconstitutional kind of pointless.

If your really that pissed off about this perceived transgression, rally your local community against DUI checkpoints and pass legislation limiting your local or state law enforcement officials. Democracy is fun that way.