millerboycott.com

The Constitution of the United States pretty clearly says that police can’t just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are “articulable facts” indicating possible criminal activity….So how can they do exactly that with DUI roadblocks?

Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz (496 U.S. 444), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court striking down drunk driving roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that roadblocks were constitutionally permissible.

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI roadblocks (aka “DUI sobriety checkpoints”) do, in fact, constitute a “seizure” within the language of the 4th Amendment. In other words, yes, it’s a blatant violation of the Constitution. However….

However, it’s only a "minor violation", and there’s all this “carnage” on the highways MADD tells us we’ve got to do something about. The “minimal intrusion on individual liberties”, Rehnquist wrote, must be “weighed” against the need for and effectiveness of roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the (illegal) means….aka, “The DUI Exception to the Constitution”.

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn’t make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote,

“That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving…is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion….The most disturbing aspect of the Court’s decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures”.

Rehnquist’s justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were “necessary” and “effective”.  Are they?  As Justice Stevens wrote in his own dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks:

“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”.

p.s. The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its previous decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, if now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution! The Court ruled again in favor of the defendant — in effect saying to Rehnquist, “If you won’t protect our citizens, we will”. 
 

DUI BLOG

Every American is entitled to the protections afforded by the United States Constitution and the constitution of the state they are in. These protections are especially important to people who are suspected of a crime.

The violation of a criminal suspect’s constitutional rights can seriously impair the state’s ability convict the suspect of a crime. Recently, a North Carolina judge threw out a DWI charge because the suspect was not allowed to have a DWI defense lawyer present when he took his breath test.

The suspect in the case was a captain in the Thomasville Police Department. In early December, he was pulled over at a DWI checkpoint on the Interstate 95 Business Loop in High Point.

There, the High Point police requested that the man submit to a Breathalyzer sobriety test. He requested that his attorney be present for the test. He then called his lawyer, who indicated that he would be willing to travel to the DWI checkpoint to observe the Breathalyzer.

The High Point Police denied the man’s request and refused to wait for the attorney to arrive. The man then submitted to the Breathalyzer and blew a 0.08. Under North Carolina law, a person is considered to be legally intoxicated – and thus in violation of the state’s DWI law – if his or her blood alcohol content is 0.08 or higher.

Although the Breathalyzer results showed that the man was probably guilty of driving while intoxicated, the test could not be used as evidence against him. According to the judge, the High Point Police violated the man’s constitutional rights when they refused to allow him to have his attorney present. Evidence collected using procedures that violate a criminal suspect’s constitutional rights is not admissible in court.

Since there was no other evidence that could convict the man, the judge had no choice but to dismiss his case.

Source: The Dispatch, “DWI Charge on TPC Captain Dismissed,” David Bodenheimer & Darrick Ignasiak, Jan. 27, 2012.

Greenville DUI Attorney Blog | North Carolina Underage Drinking Lawyer | Pitt County First DUI Law Firm

The Constitution of the United States pretty clearly says that police can’t just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are “articulable facts” indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with DUI roadblocks?

Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz (496 U.S. 444), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court striking down drunk driving roadblocks as unconstitutional.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that roadblocks were constitutionally permissible.

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI roadblocks (aka “sobriety checkpoints”) do, in fact, constitute a “seizure” within the language of the 4th Amendment. In other words, yes, it’s a blatant violation of the Constitution. However….

However, it’s only a "minor violation", and there’s all this “carnage” on the highways MADD tells us we’ve got to do something about. The “minimal intrusion on individual liberties”, Rehnquist wrote, must be “weighed” against the need for and effectiveness of roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the (illegal) means….aka, “the DUI exception to the Constitution”.

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn’t make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving…is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.” Brennan concluded by noting that “The most disturbing aspect of the Court’s decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures”.

Rehnquist’s justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were “necessary” and “effective”.  Are they?  As Justice Stevens wrote in his own dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks:

“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”.

p.s. The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its previous decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, if now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution!  TheCourt ruled again in favor of the defendant — in effect saying to Rehnquist, “If you won’t protect our citizens, we will”. 
 

DUI BLOG

Does the Constitution stand for people or business?
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today attempting to overturn the restrictions on Campaign Financing by Corporations and Unions as a Free Speech issue.

Absolutley not! Our founding Fathers would never have considered giving free speech rights to non humans. This should be stopped.

Political Campaign Advertising