Drunk Driving Checkpoints In 1990 the United States Supreme Court found that correctly ran sobriety checkpoints were constitutional, even though they do violate “the peoples” rights. A few states have made it illegal for said checkpoints to be ran, saying that it violated their own constitution. While the argument for drunk driving checkpoints is that, it only takes a short period of time to determine that a person is intoxicated or impaired, it still is infringing on citizens’ rights. A person who argues for that side would also be quick to point out it is “for the greater good”, which I totally agree with but still believe it is infringing on the rights set forth in the constitution. To begin my argument as to why we should NOT have drunk …show more content…
While this information was found on a slightly biased website (leaning towards the removal of checkpoints), it is raw data from a sheriff’s office. Out of 36,798 stops there was only 219 DUI charges. That is a 0.59% DUI arrest rate (Roadblock Revelations). Additionally, per checkpoint there was 12.8 deputies present, on average. The purpose of these checkpoints is to catch drunk drivers, and it accomplished that 0.59% of the time. The other 99.41% of the time it did not achieve its purpose. Do the people operating these checkpoints ever stop and wonder what the real goal here is if they do something over 99 times and nothing has come of it other than unreasonably violating peoples constitutional right to be protected against unreasonable searches or seizures? William Brennan of the United States Supreme Court said this in his dissenting opinion of DUI Checkpoints, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.” (Cornell) This is a fundamentally flawed idea in the end, as ten states have said that the sobriety checkpoints violate their constitution (at the state level), in case you were wondering they are Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Rhode …show more content…
In Chief Justice Rehnquist’s response he said “In sum, the balance of the State 's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” (Justia Law) I believe that the level of “intrusion” is downplayed in his response, because if you’ve ever been through a DUI checkpoint (I have not, I have only seen instructional videos and reaction videos) they appear to have several police officers around your vehicle looking through your windows looking for just one thing out of place to give them the most important two words ever said, “probable
A decision that is still very influential to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is Schmerber v. California. After Schmerber and a friend drank at a bowling alley, Schmerber got behind the wheel of his car, and crashed his car into a tree. Because of their injuries, Schmerber and his friend were both taken to a hospital for treatment. Once at the hospital, a police officer requested that Schmerber submit to a chemical test of his breath so that officers could test for the presence of alcohol in his body. Schmerber again refused to comply with the test. After being directed to do so by a police officer, a physician took a blood sample from Schmerber – over Schmerber’s continued objections. The analysis of his blood showed that Schmerber was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. Schmerber was charged with driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, and the subsequent report from the blood analysis was entered into evidence at a trial. Schmerber objected to the introduction of this evidence at trial, specifically arguing that the report
Sometimes in life people are not given their rights, the rights that are supposed to be given fairly to them under all circumstances. Although the rights of the people are extremely important in some cases, people tend to change them. The Ford v. Wainwright case is a great example of this it shows even the government can sometimes break rules just to get their point across. This case shows many different ways of how things can be broken down into something it is not, this case shows the importance of how things really get handled behind closed doors of the government. “Ford’s” case was not properly handled because the court system decided to go against the eighth amendment, which made this case unfair.
Some issues with stop and frisk in some parts of New York they have to have practice of stop and frisk and there are some people have issues about it because they are ignoring the people's right of the
The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
City of New York: The difficulty of proving fourteenth amendment violation” by David Clark, he writes about how the stop and frisk violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment by providing statistics. In this reading he mentions, “Although, these Fourth Amendment holdings are important, the most controversial holdings relate to the discriminatory intent behind the policy and the Fourteenth Amendment violation by the New York Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) in the way they carried out their stop and frisk program.” (Clark 342) which is true, because according to the fourth amendment no person should be searched or seized without warrant, unless it’s an reasonable suspicions and under the fourteenth amendment which protects individuals life, property and liberty which should not be violated by any governmental officials. However during stop and frisk police officers not just violating a person fourth amendment, but they also discriminating and abusing the humans rights. No person should receive a physical and verbal abuse, first and foremost it’s not just a discrimination, but also emotional and mental breakdown of the individual who is stopped and frisk even if the person is innocent. Clark also mentions “police departments can and should be better incentivized to follow protections offered by the Constitution with a Fourteenth Amendment exclusionary rule for unlawful, racially selective stops.” (Clark 343) meaning that
First, studies have to show how the officers apply the procedure of stop-and-frisk second, it should describe how the Fourth Amendment ties with how the police officer performs it. As further research has passed, the authors have seen some articles of steps on how stop-and-frisk being done. “Officers should conduct stops only when they are justified.” By this standard, officers should be required to file a report explaining the reason and context surrounding the stop, along with the ultimate outcome (arrest, weapons or drug confiscation, etc.). Police leaders, commanders, and managers should communicate a clear, uniform message about the purpose of the practice and lay out the expectations for police conduct. Officers should be trained to conduct stops legally and respectfully. In essence, they need to “sell the stop” to citizens by explaining the purpose behind it, how it links to the agency’s crime control efforts, and why it benefits the
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The newly proposed impaired driving laws would allow police to demand a breath sample up to two hours after you get home if you are suspected of drunk driving. These laws violate individual rights as police no longer need to have reasonable suspicion and can simply demand that you provide a breath or saliva sample that proves there is no alcohol in their system even if you have already arrived home. Though these laws appear to violate constitutional rights, they are very liberal. The main reason drunk driving laws are in effect is to protect other people on the road. The drive is making their own decision and must deal with the consequences that come along with it, however the people around them could be severely impacted by their choices. That is where the
In the case, Utah v. Strieff, The Salt lake police got an anonymous tip of a house with drug activity. They sent an officer to monitor the house and the officer became suspicious due to the fact that many people were going in and out of the house. Edward Strieff was saw leaving the house and the officer stopped him at a convenience store. The officer asked him for his I.D., and arrested Streff because he had a “small trafficking warrant.” When the officer arrested him, they searched Strieff and found drugs in his pocket. The state of Utah agreed that this stop was illegal because it was based on only the officer's suspicion. The state also argued that the discovery of the valid warrant got around the fourth amendment. “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong”, said Justice Sonia
Even though we have rules that states that people are not allowed to be search if they do not want too, like the fourth amendment, but this rule have been violated, in so many ways. The fourth amendment states, “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” (Legal Information Institute). The social justice system allow policeman, and other authorities to violate this law. The stop and frisk rule to search individuals, just because they look suspicious of carrying drugs. Even if a driver pass a red light by accident, they will stop that person and search for drugs, when they were only suppose to stop the person because he violated the rule. It is very critical and scary to be stop by a policeman, they are suppose to be the one protecting us, but they are putting us at risk at the same time. The fact that some people do not realize that, hurts. It is not normal, for people to be stop just because of the way
In other states, laws for drunk driving do help their roads to be safer. Montana should follow suit with the laws in
The United States Supreme Court assists law enforcement by ignoring the fourteenth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police thinks a person
There are multiple reasons why the stop and frisk law essentially needs to be amended or abolished. It has created a negative tension in areas of minority and low income between police officers and the very people they are trying to protect. The law has actually enhanced the tensions. The idea behind this originally began with the thought that if the law enforcement could prevent a crime from happening, all tactics would be worth it. The privileges of police power, arrests, and the use of their ‘on the street’ stopping and frisking is hard to condense, particularly ...
Drunk driving is extremely impactful on the lives of you and others. While drinking and driving, you are not just endangering yourself, you are also endangering the lives of others. The driver of the car does not just control the car with their hands and feet. They need their brain to function properly so that you are able to react to objects on the road quicker and control the car. If you drink then drive/ drink while driving. Alcohol affects your brain in many ways that inhibit your ability to drive. Alcohol will affect your reaction time, it slows your reflexes which decrease your ability to react to objects on the road. It affects your vision, in can impair your color perception, and night vision. It slows down the movement in the muscles in your eye causing your visual perception to change. Alcohol affects your ability to track. You will not be able to judge the position of cars ahead of you, you won’t be able to judge the