re: Can someone explain to be how sobriety check points are legal?

quote:

---

I'm always amazed at the brain dead "Muh, If you ain't doin nuttin wrong den why does youz care?"

---

If you had a loved one killed by drunk driver with no insurance you might change your opinion or not. Imagine getting a call on Christmas Eve that 3 of your loved ones was involved in a head on collision and 2 of them are dead.

quote:

---

Drivers do have the right to refuse a field sobriety test or to answer incriminating questions beyond providing identification, but under Louisiana's implied consent law, refusal to submit to a chemical test (like a breath or blood test) after an arrest can result in automatic driver's license suspension.

If these established procedures are not followed correctly by law enforcement, any resulting DUI/DWI charges can be challenged and potentially dismissed in court.

---

How else is that supposed to read other than the moment that a cop stops you at a checkpoint that you are determined guilty?

Because that's what it is. If you go through a checkpoint, you are guilty of driving under the influence. They can search your vehicle with no warrant, sieze your assets, jail you, forcibly remove your blood, and send you before a judge even if you have committed no crime.

If you go through a DUI checkpoint and the police decide that they are going to test you, you are automatically guilty. That is a fact.

Driving has been determined to be a privilege which court have ruled can be regulated. They have also ruled that stops can be used to check for compliance.
I disagree with each of these points, but they are the law.

quote:

---

Implied consent. If you drive on a public highway there are rules.

---

Then why can't police pull you over whenever they want without reasonable suspicion?

quote:

---

know a lot of people won't agree but personally I think it's a good deterrent and public safety measure.

---

It is, and easy to pass. Don't drink and drive. At all. Ever.

quote:

---

Then why can't police pull you over whenever they want without reasonable suspicion?

---

Because the penalty for bald tires doesn't develop the income for the state that a dwi does.

Here’s what Grok
Had to say about this subject;
Sobriety checkpoints (also called DUI or roadblock checkpoints) do not fully bypass the Fourth Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld them as constitutional under a carefully limited set of conditions. The key case is Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990).
How the Court Justified It
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Normally, police need individualized reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop a vehicle. Checkpoints involve stopping cars with no individualized suspicion, which would ordinarily violate the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court used a three-part balancing test from earlier cases (especially Brown v. Texas, 1979) and ruled that checkpoints can be reasonable—and thus constitutional—if they meet these criteria:
1. The government interest is substantial?Drunk driving kills thousands of people annually and imposes massive societal costs. The Court found this interest “grave and legitimate.”
2. The checkpoint must effectively advance that interest?In Sitz, the checkpoint caught about 1.5% of drivers drunk—modest, but the Court said it was enough to contribute meaningfully to deterrence and apprehension.
3. The intrusion on individuals must be slight?This is the big limiting factor. The Court said the stop must be:
• Brief (in Sitz, average delay was 25 seconds)
• Conducted under pre-set, neutral guidelines (not left to officers’ unfettered discretion
• Clearly marked with lights, signs, and uniformed officers (so it doesn’t feel like a random police shakedown)
• Limited in scope (officers can only look for signs of intoxication; they can’t search trunks or ask unrelated questions without new cause)
Because the checkpoint in Sitz met these requirements, the Court ruled 6–3 that the minimal intrusion was outweighed by the public interest.
Important Limits and Variations by State
• About 38 states currently allow sobriety checkpoints, but 12 states ban them because their own state constitutions or courts interpret privacy rights more strictly than the U.S. Constitution requires (e.g., Michigan initially banned them, then allowed them after Sitz; states like Texas, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho still prohibit them).
• Even in states that allow checkpoints, police must follow strict guidelines (neutral plan in writing, supervisory approval, advance publicity, minimal delay under a couple of minutes, etc.). If they deviate, courts routinely throw out evidence.
• Random roving DUI stops (an officer just pulling over cars that “look suspicious”) are still unconstitutional under Delaware v. Prouse (1979).
In short
Sobriety checkpoints don’t “get around” the Fourth Amendment; the Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception by saying that under tightly controlled circumstances, the public interest in keeping drunk drivers off the road outweighs the brief, non-arbitrary seizure of motorists. If the checkpoint is too intrusive, too random, or poorly run, it’s unconstitutional—even under the federal standard.

Whos this alter?

quote:

---

Whos this alter?

---

Do you think it should be legal for cops to randomly pull people over, without reasonable suspicion, so they can perform a sobriety check ?
You know, just to make sure you aren't drunk.

Because it isn't legal now.

quote:

---

If it is nothing more than a license check

---

I’ll piggyback on this point in an unrelated fashion: why is it acceptable to pull someone over while driving (privilege) to check their license, but checking an ID when voting (right) isn’t? Thousands of people across the country dying each year from drunk drivers is apparently more egregious than millions of unverified people electing our representatives to govern over us. Make it make sense.