http://www.duiblog.com/2008/12/16/here-come-the-feds-contd-marines-at-dui-roadblocks/ Yes, the U.S. Marine Corps will be participating in DUI checkpoints in San Bernadino County. How in the world is this legal? This floors me.
From that link, they're acting as observers. Don't know if that makes a difference or not. Also, bear in mind that San Bernadino County is huge -- more than twice the size of New Jersery, or a bit smaller than West Virginia. And in all that vastness there are some huge military bases and a lot of federal lands. So it's actually possible in some places the military actually does have some jurisdiction. I'm more concerned about the immigration checkpoints that are apparently popping up hundreds of miles from any national border.
What would they need to observe? Do the USMC plan on starting DUI checkpoints in Iraq? Since the press release didn't specify that, I tend to think that won't be where the checkpoints will be. If they were, then why would you need civilian police? That is scary. Have you (or anyone else) seen any personally?
Add to the list, "fake marine." Semper high? I think you mean "Fi" as in "Fidelis" Or maybe you meant Hi-Fi. Or maybe I am not giving you enough credit and you intended to say, "always baked."
If they are not there in a law enforcement capacity? Something was said about "observing." Perhaps they are there to make note of the behavior of military personnel who are stopped? Or perhaps the Corps' blood alchohol limit is lower than the states'?
Thats exactly what it is for. Its possible they may have it set up where the civilian police don't even charge the guy and just turn him over to the MPs who would then turn him over to his command who will bust him down a rank, 60 days restriction, and take away his license. I had a couple friends who were given a slap on the wrist by the Jacksonville Court simply because they knew the Marine Corps slammed them with their own punishments.
More than likely that`s the case. Saves the municipal taxpayers money in deal with any wayward Marines.
Drunk Driving checkpoints are a ********ing joke, with or without a bunch of brainless jarheads to watch. They've done studies here and they might, if they are lucky, nab one poor guy out of 500 cars on a night. It's all about stopping cars to look for reasonable suspicion and to remind you who's in charge. Free Safety Tip: This is also a good time to remind people, especially the ladies - that you do not have to stop for unmarked police cars. Go the speed limit, wave to the so-called officer behind you to show you see him/her/it and call 911 to demand a marked car be sent. Head toward a very lighted, occupied area. Have a safe Holiday Season
The "brainless jarhead" comment is unneccesary but otherwise I agree. Not to mention the fact that it's completely legal to turn off the street and avoid a checkpoint if you see one ahead.
I would check the specific laws/cases in your state because your comment is not always true. Some state courts have ruled that if one takes evasive action (even legal action, i.e., just turning as opposed to an illegal U-turn, etc.) to avoid a dui checkpoint, the police have cause to stop you.
I'm all for reducing drunk driving, but I will never understand how these checkpoints do not violate the 4th amendment. They are essentially making every person who drives on that particular road prove their innocence with absolutely no probably cause to make a stop. I understand that there can be a compelling state interest in doing similar searches -- i.e. airport security. But, I will never be convinced that there are not alternative means of achieving the state's goals. Cops have already gotten much, much better at identifying the target rich environments to patrol for drunk driving. They could also significantly strengthen penalties. My guess is that if we adopted Swedish penalties for drunk driving, there would be a massive reduction.
You're preaching to the choir, brother.... I agree with you and think that Michigan v. Sitz is a poorly reasoned decision.
Man, I was just talking general concepts. You had to get me the cite to an actual case and get me even more pissed off. This is unreal: The state interest is obviously large; drunk driving is a huge problem. The effectiveness of the checkpoints is not for the Court to gauge. The law enforcement officials make decisions about how to best fight crime and (as long as their practices are constitutional) we should trust them because they are experts. So it is basically an admission that the practice violates the 4th amendment right. So the question turns on the compelling state interest. So far, I'm cool with that. Now the court doesn't feel the need to examine evidence in the record as to the effectiveness of the practice that it concedes is a violation of individual rights? Are you ********ing kidding me? And they don't examine other means of achieving the state interest without violating the right? I will buy the need to check passengers at the airport. What other means do they have to fulfill the state's interest in providing safe flights AND I am sure there is evidence that airport security is effective in what it does (although far less effective than it probably should be). But that is a system of screening everyone that has access to an airplane. These are random locations at random times that require people to prove their innocence AND they aren't even going to look at the issue of effectiveness. I just don't get it. Kudos to Brennan, Marshall and Stevens. Boo to the rest.
Stop bitching. Conservative judges don't legislate from the bench. Only the liberal abortion loving ones do.
Yup. Plenty of stories of people getting past checkpoints by just lying and saying they have drank absolutely nothing all night. The only time anyone I know has ever actually been slapped with a DUI from a checkpoint, it's because he had too many people in his car. That's when they forced everyone out of the car and gave him the twice over. Ironically, he's an ex-Marine.
Thanks for being the Voice of Reason in this "The Sky is Falling!" thread! I would have said that the Marines were there collecting Toys for Tots (seasonal humor) or getting some on-the-job training for those DWI checkpoints in Afghanistan (teetotaller joke). No cite, counselor? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz As yossarian, esq. noted, YMMV. NJ does not permit avoidance. I'm sure every state has case law discussing this issue. Many lawyers have websites devoted to DWI issues. http://www.njcriminaldefenselawblog...constitutionality-of-roadblocks-in-dwi-cases/ http://www.njcriminaldefenselawblog.com/2008/12/articles/red-bank-dwi-checkpoint-this-evening/ Well, the basic concept is "all searches are illegal, except ... " and there are myriad exceptions. OTOH, if DWI checkpoints were not catching & deterring drunk drivers, they would have been abandoned by now as a waste of resources.
Surely you know better than that. The whole War on Drugs is a waste of resources, yet that continues unabated. There are plenty of other examples too. DUI checkpoints give the police reason to harass and search motorists just because of where the motorist happens to drive that night. That's power for them. Why would they give that up?