Re: Vid Of Guy Not Consenting to DUI Checkpoint
While I agree citizens should not be subject to random government intrusion, the Supreme Court has held such stops and 'seizures' are consonant with the Fourth Amendment. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>
Unless state law otherwise held, a brief investigatory seizure of the driver was not outside the bounds of the Constitution.
This guy was just looking for trouble. I'm glad the officer did the right thing and did not take this guy's bait.
While I agree citizens should not be subject to random government intrusion, the Supreme Court has held such stops and 'seizures' are consonant with the Fourth Amendment. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>
Unless state law otherwise held, a brief investigatory seizure of the driver was not outside the bounds of the Constitution.
This guy was just looking for trouble. I'm glad the officer did the right thing and did not take this guy's bait.