Interesting fact about evading DUI checkpoints. Is it wrong to know this? Not a pro-DUI thread.

I've been feeling for years now that we're getting a little insane with the DUI laws - and I really think a lot of it has to do with the fact that a LOT of people make a lot of money from it (police, courts, urine testing businesses, jails, rehabs, etc). I don't want someone with a .25 BAC out driving, but I really don't care if someone has a few beers before driving. I've been seeing articles recently where some people want the legal limit to be ZERO. Fact is, someone with even up to a 0.1 BAC is most likely just fine to drive.

Easy call for me - know your rights / know your responsibilities / know the limits of police authority. BUT, when police are exceeding their authority and violating your rights, arguing with them about it (i.e. resisting) is likely to end badly for you.

The tactic described in this thread is effective based on the type of detention being imposed and the very strict guidelines police are operating within to stay on the legal side of the SCOTUS ruling legalizing checkpoints. Great info-graphic that describes this at following link:
http://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/legal-rights/

I see a lot of talk here about ones rights, but what about the rights of the victim when that drunk kills or cripples them. How about your right to drive down a road free of impaired drivers.

After reading all these post, I would like to give you my 2 cents worth. This is something that I know very well. After being discharged from the Marine Corps back in 1970, I was appointed to the New Hampshire State Police in August of 1971. I was with the State Police until my retirement in 1991. During my tenure with the State, I, like every other new Trooper, started at the bottom and patrolled the roads and highways in NH. I can tell you that I have stopped and arrested thousands of drivers for Driving While under the Influence (DWI) of Alcohol or Drugs and in every instance, I did have Probable Cause to make that stop and arrest. They didn't have cell phones then and there were none of the distractions that made a driver swerve or loose control of their vehicle. Most of these stops were either drugs or alcohol related. I can not tell you how many accidents, including fatal accidents, that I investigated because alcohol or drugs were involved. One of these fatal accidents that I investigated, an entire family, mother, father, grand-mother and their two children, died because of a drunk driver. To those of you that posted that they lost a love one or friend because of an impaired driver, please accept my deepest condolences. The bottom line here is that if you have been drinking, please consider having a designated driver. I know of several incidences where an impaired driver called AAA to have their vehicle towed home instead of driving. You don't have to drive while impaired. You do have choices and the best choice, is just don't drive if you are impaired. The fact is that once you have had that first drink or drug, your judgment does start to get impaired. The more you drink, the worse your judgment gets. It is all common sense.
Like many of you have said, if you drink, just don't drive. As for these so called "Check Points," in NH the Police have to Post where the "Check Points" are going to be. They usually do this by using the media, newspapers and radio announcements. We use to call these "Check Point" Safety Checks. We would stop every vehicle that came through and check to make sure that the driver had his License and Registration and also check the vehicle to make sure that it was properly Inspected and that it was safe, tires and all of the lights. Did we find driver's that were impaired, yes we did and they were arrested for DWI. We also found drivers with suspended licenses, unregistered vehicles, under aged drivers in possession of alcohol, fugitives from justice, wanted people and a host of other violations. And one other tip, if your duty station is on leased property from the State, the State Police do have the authority to patrol on that base. We had Pease AFB in Portsmouth and that base was on State property. Back in the 70's and 80's, I did, with the authority of the Air Police, patrol their roads and I have made several DWI arrest while on Base. Did we infringe on anyone's Constitutional Rights? Well I guess if you were one of the unfortunate ones to be arrested, then you would more than like say "yes" we did. But in all reality, we did not. Our job was to protect and serve every citizen who was driving in our State. One last thing, your Driver's License does not belong to you. It is State property and having a License to Drive is a privilege and just like every other privilege that everyone has, don't abuse it! If you have nothing to hide and you are doing nothing wrong, then what is the big deal of going through a "Check Point?"

I have been in Law Enforcement for my entire life. My dad was an MP and now is a CPT in Ft. Wayne. I am in Law Enforcement and love case law. I could start listing several cases that would argue each side of the arguement. The simple fact in all this is that drving under the the influence of alcohol or drugs is illegal. It doesnt matter how you feel about the subject whether you agree or not. The Supreme Court has not ruled DUI checkpoints unconstitutional. I have read several comments on this and agree with some and strongly disagree with alot. The simple scientific fact is that once you have one drink of alcohol your ability to react has been decreased. Therefore you are a simpley danger to yourself and worse others. Also, one more simple fact MOST DUI checkpoints are initiated in high concentrated areas of past DUI offenses. Making things safer for the public isnt a bad thing.

Apparently I have offended a few on here with comments that I have posted. If that is the case then I do apologize.

I'm so against anyone being DUI that I rank it up to a crime that should end with those who do it are fed to lions in a zoo same with other crimes.

Plus driving isn't a right, its a privilege. Shoot then I vote the government can make cars that you have to "blow" into or they wont turn on which will cost the consumer more money. If you drive and it detects your drunk it shuts off and locks you in until you are sober.... Either way, I hate those that DUI.

My question would be, what is to stop the LEO from confiscating your registration and drivers license to prevent you from driving any further than the checkpoint? LTC (Join to see) I mean if it is in a bag outside the vehicle then it is easy to remove.

As PO3 (Join to see) stated this type of behavior will just frustrate officers and make them pursue the issue even further. I believe eventually they will get their way.

Not to mention LTC (Join to see) Louisiana is a very unusual state to live in for the laws. When I was stationed at Fort Polk I had a minor encounter with the LEO's there where they definitely used some unorthodox tactics to try and frighten me. It did not work as my Mother worked in Warrants in Florida.

It's a hassle and a pain with either approach. I just remind myself that most cops aren't the bad guys, and try cooperate since I know I'm not drunk.

I have gone through checkpoints but not on a night I have been drinking. They police have a duty to protect and serve and therefore have a right if they smell alcohol to investigate its probably cause. I have been stopped for DUI and at least in most states I live in the police need a mitigating traffic infraction to arrest you for DUI/DWI. As Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS stated SCOTUS upheld checkpoints. Also if you follow these advice of this attorney you are drawing more attention to yourself.