Re: Woman Arrested For Warning Drivers Of Speed Trap With Makeshift Sign
Max, a lot of people question whether sobriety checkpoints violate the Constitution. And I’m not about to question their right to do so. However, the United States Supreme Court--the ONLY legal opinion that ultimately counts--has already ruled on the matter.
Originally Posted by max1
In Michigan Department of State Police vs Stiz (1990), the Court ruled (6-3) that the checkpoints were constitutional. The Court acknowledged that they infringed on a constitutional right, but that it was a minor infringement compared to the State’s interest in the prevention of drunk driving.
Provided that the police essentially shut down a roadway and stop EVERY vehicle coming through, checkpoints are perfectly constitutional. I’ve been stopped three times to date.
As for any possible revenue incentives, I’ve talked with too many of these officers; and revenue doesn’t cross their minds. They’re focused entirely on getting drunks off the streets; they’re proud to do it. And, the frequent nabbing of a few stray “wants and warrants” is icing on the cake.
Even for the local administrations that authorize the use of checkpoints, they’re not about to refuse the revenue, but I don’t think it’s THEIR primary motivation, either.
Drinking under a different name is not the same thing as joining Alcoholics Anonymous.