are roadside, random sobreity checks unconstitutional?

[© tweed]

this actually went to the Supreme Court in which the court affirmed the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints.  the case involved the 4th amendment; the plaintiffs argued that random roadside sobriety checks violated the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

it seems unconstitutional to me for police to randomly pull over drivers to check sobriety, given no probable cause.  at the bare minimum the drivers should be granted complete immunity for ANYTHING else found on the person or in the car.

[Flying Dog]

I agree. Police searches without probable cause is unconstitutional.

[Verily]

It's an interesting case: If you're driving on public road but in a private vehicle, are you in public? That's really what it would hinge on for a court case. I'm not sure which I agree with, to be honest, although random sobriety tests mostly just sound wasteful to me (pull over the obviously bad drivers, not random ones).

[Torie]

I suspect it saves a considerable number of lives.

[© tweed]

I suspect it saves a considerable number of lives.

irrelevant to the discussion

[MasterJedi]

Unless the person is swerving or driving badly (meaning if there is no cause to it, just completely random) then yes.

[tik 🪀✨]

Unless the person is swerving or driving badly (meaning if there is no cause to it, just completely random) then yes.

Agreed

[NDN]

Unless the person is swerving or driving badly (meaning if there is no cause to it, just completely random) then yes.

Agreed

[opebo]

Unconstitutional. 

[Iosif is a COTHO]

See, it's things like this where having a constitution becomes more trouble then it's worth.

[SPC]

Unless the person is swerving or driving badly (meaning if there is no cause to it, just completely random) then yes.

Agreed

[King]

Do we have roadside random sobriety checks in this country?  All I ever see are checkpoints and they let you pass as long as there is no probable cause.

[??????????]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

[Franzl]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

[Јas]

It's an interesting case: If you're driving on public road but in a private vehicle, are you in public? That's really what it would hinge on for a court case.

If one were to accept that this is valid simply for occupying public space, then can such cases be differentiated from random police searches on people walking down the street or in public parks, etc.?

I'm not a scholar of the American constitution, but I do find the practice of random breath tests (which were recently introduced in Ireland) to be a potentially very disturbing development.

[??????????]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

Potentially you could be signing that right away by paying for and possessing a drivers license.

[© tweed]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

Potentially you could be signing that right away by paying for and possessing a drivers license.

the question revolves around the legality of forcing someone to do that for driving.  if it is ok for driving, then how about needing a license for and being subject to searches for walking in public?  purchasing food?  buying clothes?  it's best never to give any rights away willingly, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, as the state will use your concession as justification for taking more and more.

[Bacon King]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

Potentially you could be signing that right away by paying for and possessing a drivers license.

on the flip side of this, could a person driving without a license get away without having to take a sobriety test?

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

Potentially you could be signing that right away by paying for and possessing a drivers license.

on the flip side of this, could a person driving without a license get away without having to take a sobriety test?

I don't think so, since they're already violating the law.

[© tweed]

I don't think so, since they're already violating the law.

you missed the point

[bullmoose88]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

Potentially you could be signing that right away by paying for and possessing a drivers license.

the question revolves around the legality of forcing someone to do that for driving.  if it is ok for driving, then how about needing a license for and being subject to searches for walking in public?  purchasing food?  buying clothes?  it's best never to give any rights away willingly, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, as the state will use your concession as justification for taking more and more.

You have the right to move...ie walk...as far as I know, the right to operate motor vehicle does not exist...you have a privelege, nothing more.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I had a cop pull up next to my car when I dropped my friend off at around 11 PM on Saturday to check if I had too many people in the car.  That is just dumb and why I had provisional licenses.  Thankfully I picked the right order to drop people off as I had too many about 5 seconds before

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

Potentially you could be signing that right away by paying for and possessing a drivers license.

the question revolves around the legality of forcing someone to do that for driving.  if it is ok for driving, then how about needing a license for and being subject to searches for walking in public?  purchasing food?  buying clothes?  it's best never to give any rights away willingly, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, as the state will use your concession as justification for taking more and more.

You have the right to move...ie walk...as far as I know, the right to operate motor vehicle does not exist...you have a privelege, nothing more.

     Agreed. Anyway, I spoke to my mother about this & she agreed that roadside sobriety checks are perfectly constitutional.

[bullmoose88]

I'm not sure about anywhere else but on the Florida license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Seems to me that if you apply for a drivers license you are signing a contract with the state and that's a condition clearly stated on your license.

But isn't the whole argument about whether the law is constitutional?

Potentially you could be signing that right away by paying for and possessing a drivers license.

the question revolves around the legality of forcing someone to do that for driving.  if it is ok for driving, then how about needing a license for and being subject to searches for walking in public?  purchasing food?  buying clothes?  it's best never to give any rights away willingly, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, as the state will use your concession as justification for taking more and more.

You have the right to move...ie walk...as far as I know, the right to operate motor vehicle does not exist...you have a privelege, nothing more.

     Agreed. Anyway, I spoke to my mother about this & she agreed that roadside sobriety checks are perfectly constitutional.

well, from what little I remember from crim pro, some restrictions may be in play...like if you're putting the checks consistently in certain neighborhoods etc...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd say yes but I have yet to ever see or hear of such a thing. Cops are often dumb, but they appear to be smart enough to know it makes a hell of a lot more sense to target people who are driving badly in a manner that seems drunk instead of simply doing random checks that usually will just waste time while obviously drunk drivers get away.