Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Do you believe sobriety check points are constitutional? Do they work?

Sobriety checks are not legal in TX but they are trying to make it legal in TX. Facts of the situation are that you do not have any choice but to stop your car and be questioned by an officer without any indication you have done anything wrong. Thats a violation of the 4th amendment and I don't think they really accompish much in the long run.

 
itsmesteph11

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 8:54 AM on Jul. 12, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (41)
  • Yes, I believe they are unconstitutional. It is a violation of the 4th amendment. The cops should never have the right to randomly stop every single person for no reason. It violates our rights. As to weather it works, I don't know. Being in the bar business as long as I have, I know a LOT of people with DWIs and I do not know one single person who got one at a check point.

    Years ago I worked at a bar at the Mall of America, and they used to do checkpoints after bar close leaving the mall. It was extremely irritating to be getting off of work and waiting in traffic at 2:00am while police checked people, especially on the days I had a 9:00am class the next morning. The police were always polite and respectful, but I really felt like it was wrong that I had to show ID and registration just to drive home after work, especially since I didn't do anything wrong.
    stacymomof2

    Answer by stacymomof2 at 10:28 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • I'd rather have a sobriety test then a car accident caused by a drunk driver. Especially one that actually hurts or kills some one.
    kuriequinn

    Answer by kuriequinn at 8:57 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • It is unconstitutional, just like stopping people because they "LOOK" like they could be here illegally..


    IE Standing in a place where "illegals" are known to be...

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 9:03 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • I think they are necessary to save lives. Do you realize that so many drunk drivers are undetected and kill people , kill whole families out on the roads? Protection from drunk drivers is extremely important and I believe every state should implement check points. I fail to see what the Constitution has to do with getting drunk drivers off the road. And they don't even have to be drunk---if they have just "had a few" they are a danger .
    gertie41

    Answer by gertie41 at 8:59 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • Here in my area of PA, they do random sobriety AND motor vehicle checks. I've never been stopped for either, but have gone through them. Either way, I never have anything to hide, so if the cops want to waste their time, so be it.
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 9:00 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • why would you care unless you are driving drunk or hiding something? Its a way to weave out the people who shouldnt be on the road.
    shay1130

    Answer by shay1130 at 9:11 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • What about the rights of the people who have died due to drunk drivers? What about the rights of the families that were affected by said drunk drivers? Rights are supposed to protect the majority of people that are NOT breaking the law. Driving drunk is against the law and for a reason. Its not safe for the driver or anyone else on the road. When there are no more drunk drivers on the road, then we can talk about getting rid of sobriety checks.
    kuriequinn

    Answer by kuriequinn at 9:24 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • So....it is unconstitutional to stop and detect drunk drivers?



    Sobriety check points stop a whole bunch of people that show no sigh of drunk driving

    Answer by sweet-a-kins 2 minutes ago
    Credits: 2702 Level
    ***********************************
    SO? If you haven't been drinking, then what is the problem??? I would have no problem with them stopping ME. ANd they SHOULD. Holy cow.....
    gertie41

    Answer by gertie41 at 9:31 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • yes, delilah, because I read it. A police officer needs to be lawfully engaged (read: have another reason to be engaging the individual) Don't believe the hype that it gives officers the right to stop people simply for being Latino. Also, the same federal law is already in existance, the AZ law simply defines how the state will deal with illegals once they are in custody. It's much ado about nothing.

    I learned something back when they are were talking about Dr Emmanuel(something about the shock in that mans eyes when he was accused of wanting to kill off seniors) and death panels. You can't believe anything anyone tells you. You have to follow things back, yourself, until you can't go any furthur.
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 12:17 PM on Jul. 12, 2010

  • def a violation of the 4th amendment.
    geminishadow79

    Answer by geminishadow79 at 9:05 AM on Jul. 12, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN