Purple Haize wrote:
I have no problem with DUI checkpoints. That is because a drunk driver is a danger to others, Seatbelt check points, random stops etc? I see no need.
I can't see any correlation between a DUI check point and entering my home without a warrant.
Haize, the supreme court does compare the home and the car in regards to the 4th amendment.
4th amendment:
“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 or things to be seized.”
The Supreme Court admitted that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, however Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement...
The Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan
Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
When looking back at Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz and Wikipedia, I just learned that ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.
- By Tothehoopyall1
- By Sly Fox