Sbatio t1_j1ed2p8 wrote
I did not know that this was legal in Massachusetts!
We need to organize and change this law right fucking now! I’ve seen these in PA and it is just a way to harass everyone (sometimes minorities specifically), to pad cops overtime, and to intimidate the public.
Fuck this shit, call your elected officials
Personal-Walrus3076 t1_j1eksoo wrote
it's completely legal sadly. Don't waste your time opposing this. Your elected officials all fully support DUI checkpoints. No elected official is interested in being painted is pro drunk driver which is exactly what would happen to them if they stood up to this.
Sbatio t1_j1ey8xc wrote
I’ve been told in another thread that it went to the Supreme Court in the 90’s and was upheld as a legal activity
sir_mrej t1_j1eo4wd wrote
I'm pretty sure they're not legal in PA. I saw one once, but that's it.
Sbatio t1_j1eyxf7 wrote
They do them in rural areas to catch undocumented workers. I’ve driven through a few with my friend there who is a lawyer.
Basically he explained in PA as long as the police post that the check point is ahead and people can turn off to avoid it then its legal.
Ive also heard that if you are within 100 miles of an international border(which includes international airports so it covers most of the country) our rights are limited too.
Then in another thread it was pointed out that checkpoints were challenged in the Supreme Court and upheld as lawful activity for the police.
So I think we are pretty stuck with them from a legal perspective. But there can still be pressure on elected officials to limit them I guess
sir_mrej t1_j1fe6k5 wrote
I have heard the 100 miles thing and I REALLY want someone to challenge it. Because that's like 90% of the US population (or something). Yeesh.
Did some googling.....dang. You're 100% right. I totally thought they weren't legal, as they were a warrant less search in my opinion. Sigh :(
majoroutage t1_j1fywnl wrote
>Ive also heard that if you are within 100 miles of an international border
The 100 miles things gives federal law enforcement authority they would not normally have unless authorized by the state.
PakkyT t1_j1fi8sd wrote
>They do them in rural areas to catch undocumented workers. I’ve driven through a few with my friend there who is a lawyer.
No they don't. Local cops don't care about undocumented workers because being in the country undocumented is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense, so just ike when you have a dispute with your neighbor and the police have no interest in your civil affairs dispute, they have no interest in undocumented workers if they are not actually committing a criminal act.
Sbatio t1_j1fwx0w wrote
OK. I have driven through them in PA but you must remember better than I do. /s
MechanicalBirbs t1_j1eymz9 wrote
…do you not want cops to catch drunk drivers?
Sbatio t1_j1f06ds wrote
No. Not with checkpoints that screen all people regardless of any evidence of a crime.
I get that it is legal for the cops to do it but it is in direct conflict with people being secure in their person and effects.
The police should only be allowed to stop you or anyone if they witness you doing something illegal or that would reasonably cause a person to suspect you of a crime.
In the case of DUI, the driver can’t maintain speed or position inside their lane, or they repeatedly break hard, or improper use of lights and signals, failure to fully stop 🛑, etc.
So many things are sufficient to trigger a stop, it is unreasonable to check everyone proactively.
majoroutage t1_j1fym7w wrote
This guy gets it. DUI checkpoints are a presumption of guilt.
Crayonbreaking t1_j1fmnvd wrote
No I don’t. Not with terrorism. This is terrorism. This is everything the USA was founded to protect against.
ratbas t1_j1hoqsb wrote
What's the difference between this and them going door-to-door going through everybody's house? Do you not want them to catch serial killers?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments