As I always ask... how is this not a blatant violation of our fourth amendment rights?

It is, in fact, a blatant violation.

“Safety will be assured. Unlike all those other times. And honestly probably not this time.”

Phone scrolling and driving is as common, If not more common than drinking and driving. Perhaps focus on that too. I drive a truck and can see down into the cars of the people cruising right through busy intersections while not even looking up.

Or we could just turn all the roads into sidewalks and make it a walking city like some of the people in here want.

I concur 100% with you two. What’s even worse are the government surveillance drones I constantly see in my town and am followed by constantly. I know it sounds crazy but apparently I’m under some kinda “investigation” for something….one example of the drones for all u downvoters

I think because we live within 100 miles of a border (two-thirds of the United State’s population does) we forfeit our fourth amendment rights.

I’m not exactly sure on the particulars although I do know about it, maybe someone that knows more about it can chime in.

Technically the checkpoints are unconstitutional as they fall into the category of unreasonable search and seizure w/o probable cause, but apparently the Supreme Court decided to leave it up to the states for whatever reason.

http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

No. The constitution prohibits arbitrary and unreasonable searchers. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided that public benefits of checking if you are in compliance while executing your privilege to drive a car overweights your inconvenience to be stopped. They cannot stop you if you are walking or riding a horse, because it's not a privilege.

While it's technically lawful I personally think it's bullshit and just executing a loophole in the Constitution.

"...selection of vehicles will not be arbitrary..."

Does that mean because it's all vehicles? I've been through a couple of these and it sure seems as arbitrary as it gets...

It typically means that they'll check every fourth car, or check only cars with registrations that expire in July (any plate ending in a 7), or some other system that specifically isn't "grab that guy, and then grab that guy, annnnnnnd that guy looks like he's worth talking to".

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the courts have often inferred driving to imply consent to various kinds of searches that would be unconstitutional if you were just walking around. No person has to drive, so when you make the choice to do so, you consent to submitting to certain procedures designed to ensure the safety of the public. Don't want your property or person searched in this manner? No problem - take the bus or walk instead of driving.

EDIT: obviously I know that's not realistic for everybody, but it's the logic the courts have used to justify this kind of search.

LOL. Yup. And no more parking spaces. Those can be utilized to plant a tree or make it a green space.

Justice for every fourth car or cars with registrations that expire in July!

Talk to a Psychiatrist please

Driving isn't considered a right because it takes place on government-provided streets.

I googled that answer here: https://constitutionstudy.com/2019/07/05/is-driving-a-right-or-a-privilege/comment-page-1/

Look on the bright side: the drones are quieter than those black helicopters were. So that's a win.

I mean, this is Worcester county not city of Worcester. So could be up in Westminster or down in Paxton. None of those communities could feasibly be converted to walking only.

Historically I think they did stuff on rt 20 on the line to Shrewsbury last time they did one of these. I believe they also did 140 in sterling.

it’s our God given right as Americans to Booze n’ Cruise on these beautiful asphalt highways. Like this comment to show your support for the Booze n’ Cruise fandom, yeeehaw.

here’s one video of them you want a million more?

another

another

fReEdOm amiright?

Quite frankly, I need my safety 40oz when i’m behind the wheel of my big beautiful Ford F-450 SD or else i get nervous driving at night

murica

Guilty until proven innocent.

Good. DUI’s kill.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the checkpoints, but this seems like an oversimplification of the issue. If we say it is constitutional then theoretically we’re also approving other warrantless searches such as the random stop and frisks enacted in NYC under Rudy Guliani. Both are examples of search without probable cause. It’s one thing to argue that the value of increased safety is worth the price, and any court can arbitrarily approve one and not the other, but you have to admit that it’s an end justifies the means policy. In that light I at least understand why people are apprehensive about it.

I've only ever seen one of these on the bridge between Worcester and Shrewsbury, do they ever set them up elsewhere or in multiple locations on the same night?

If we had better public transit to get to areas where nightlife is happening, people wouldn't have to drive drunk and these kinds of checkpoints wouldn't be needed