Violation of Constitutional Rights?

[whoops1995]

I've talked about this issue in history class, I've talked about it with my dad who's a defense attorney, and now I want to discuss it here.

So here's the situation: The police have set up a road block to check for drunk driving. They're stopping every car that passes through and asking for license and registration and then doing a quick search of each car with a flashlight. Now they stop you. You have not drunk a single beverage and are just trying to get home and furthermore, you show no signs of intoxication. However the officer still requests to see your license and registration. According to the fourth amendment, the officer is not allowed to search you or request identification without a warrant, probable cause, or, if I'm not mistaken, the intrusion is minimal and justified by law enforcement purposes. So is requesting your license and registration and then proceeding to do a quick search of your car without your permission a violation of your rights?

Personally I would say yes, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

This might not apply to people not from the U.S., but feel free to leave your opinion regardless as long as it isn't inflammatory or ignorant.

Also, feel free to correct me if I got any of my facts wrong.

 

[Berethond]

Yes, it is violating constitutional rights.
I know that in California they can't do anything more than a brief check for signs of drunkenness, which is shining a flashlight in your eyes at most, and most likely just smelling for alcohol. However, if you see a DUI checkpoint and then turn around to avoid it that counts as probable cause.

 

[kaieth]

Too true, it's unconstitutional.

Also unconstitutional is the Ohio law stating that for traffic violations, the mere word of the officer is counted as evidence in court, meaning that if an officer says that you were speeding, the burden of proof is on you (showing why the statement is erroneous) rather than on the policeman.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

I vaguely recall something about states rights differ from the Constitution. So i guess not but i also guess so!

 

[LetalisK]

I've talked about this issue in history class, I've talked about it with my dad who's a defense attorney, and now I want to discuss it here.

So here's the situation: The police have set up a road block to check for drunk driving. They're stopping every car that passes through and asking for license and registration and then doing a quick search of each car with a flashlight. Now they stop you. You have not drunk a single beverage and are just trying to get home and furthermore, you show no signs of intoxication. However the officer still requests to see your license and registration. According to the fourth amendment, the officer is not allowed to search you or request identification without a warrant, probable cause, or, if I'm not mistaken, the intrusion is minimal and justified by law enforcement purposes. So is requesting your license and registration and then proceeding to do a quick search of your car without your permission a violation of your rights?

Personally I would say yes, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

This might not apply to people not from the U.S., but feel free to leave your opinion regardless as long as it isn't inflammatory or ignorant.

Also, feel free to correct me if I got any of my facts wrong.

Double barrel questions ftl. I'll break it down further.

Is requesting your license and registration a violation of your rights? No.

Is doing a quick search of your car without your permission a violation of your rights? Maybe. If the search consists of just looking around from the outside with their flashlight, that's fine. Plain view. If they're having you step out and they're searching without probable cause or a warrant, that is a violation of your rights.

Also, I may be confusing something, but I think it's unconstitutional for police officers to stop every single car that goes through a checkpoint whereas they can stop every 5th car, for example. I remember reading a case about this kind of thing once, but it was awhile ago, so I could be wrong.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

I wish it was unconstitutional to be hit by a drunk driver.

 

[imperialreign]

I've talked about this issue in history class, I've talked about it with my dad who's a defense attorney, and now I want to discuss it here.

So here's the situation: The police have set up a road block to check for drunk driving. They're stopping every car that passes through and asking for license and registration and then doing a quick search of each car with a flashlight. Now they stop you. You have not drunk a single beverage and are just trying to get home and furthermore, you show no signs of intoxication. However the officer still requests to see your license and registration. According to the fourth amendment, the officer is not allowed to search you or request identification without a warrant, probable cause, or, if I'm not mistaken, the intrusion is minimal and justified by law enforcement purposes. So is requesting your license and registration and then proceeding to do a quick search of your car without your permission a violation of your rights?

Personally I would say yes, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions.

This might not apply to people not from the U.S., but feel free to leave your opinion regardless as long as it isn't inflammatory or ignorant.

Also, feel free to correct me if I got any of my facts wrong.

Regarding the license and registration - there's nothing wrong there. If you don't have a license (or if it's suspended, revoked, limited, etc.) you're not supposed to be on the road driving in the first place. It's possible you might be driving a vehicle that you're not licensed to operate (i.e. driving a church or school bus without a commercial license). Any driver on the road is supposed to have a license to operate the vehicle they're driving. Same goes for registration - any vehicle on the road is required to be registered within the state the vehicle is licensed in (your vehicle must also be licensed to be operated). In some states, there's still a further step in that the vehicle must have a valid annual inspection that certifies the vehicle is *relatively* safe enough to be operated. There should be no questions about any of this, it's the responsibility of the driver to be legally driving on the road and be legally operating the vehicle.

As to the search, well, technically, if you have items laying in plain sight within your vehicle (on the seats, floorboards, etc.), they're not actually breaking any laws by "glancing" inside your car. The items are plainly visible "to the public." It's only if you have questionable items inside the glovebox, trunk, center console, etc. and an officer can only search these areas if they have probable cause to initiate a search. Even still, they're required to ask your permission before initiating a search. Although you can refuse, they can "arrest" you on probable cause, and in which case your rights to refuse a search no longer apply as the officer has probable cause to search your vehicle.

Thing is - there's too much power in the hands of the officers with the assumption that they will not abuse that power.

 

[TheBYOBGig]

One officer pulling over every car that travels down a specific road is profiling, which is illegal. However, a Checkpoint is several officers out for the good of the community in a planned and legal demonstration. Requesting your ID is legal, no matter the cause or lack there of. A quick scan from the outside of the vehicle is also legal. As far as field sobriety test, they have to suspect you're drunk, and honestly, it's a waste of everyones time if they don't. But to fully search your vehicle, your plates have to come up (They won't check at a checkpoint, too many cars and too little time.) cause needs to be present, (Ergo; they see blood in your backseat) Or you have be on America's Most Wanted. Your rights aren't being violated. Your father should have explained that pretty well, why are you asking people online?

 

[dabronc7]

The extent to which they "search" the car is what makes it legal/illegal. A police officer may at any point, anywhere under any circumstance, ask you to identify yourself and produc proof of that identification. So asking for liscence is legal. Registration goes towards you legally being able to drive the car, which must be insured and by driving to the checkpoint you have provided probable cause for an officer to check if the car is insured.

The officer can proceed to search your car FROM THE OUTSIDE and cannot open any doors/trunk without permission from you. He can also visually check your impairment level to look for probable cause to get you to step out. You can refuse at any time which will cause the officer to do 1 of 2 things: let you go if no probable cause presents itself OR make you wait at the spot untill a dog or other aid can be brought to check the car and establish probable cause.

Since checkpoints are trully constructed to see who turns off the road or turns around BEFORE the checkpoint, you shouldn't have any problems.

 

[Hader]

Is doing a quick search of your car without your permission a violation of your rights? Maybe. If the search consists of just looking around from the outside with their flashlight, that's fine. Plain view. If they're having you step out and they're searching without probable cause or a warrant, that is a violation of your rights.

Whatever they might see just from standing outside your window is fine. Your fault for leaving anything in such plain view anyways.

But the one exception here is permission; if the driver gives consent to a search, then they can go all out with it. Few people realize that if an officer casually asks a few questions or to search your vehicle without probable cause, then you can say no.

 

[whoops1995]

Here's a story of an event similar to the situation i mentioned and it might better describe the situation I'm talking about. Maybe not, either way it's an interesting story.
http://blog.datavortex.net/2008/11/everyday-violation-of-constitutional.html

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Those who are loudest about being honest often are not.

As it stands I have no reason to be dissuaded from the practice.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

<link=http://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf>This flyer from the ACLU should answer your questions. The specific question you asked is answered on the sixth page, which says:

Spoiler: space saving spoiler

The police cannot search your car unless you give them
your consent, which you do not have to give, or unless they
have "probable cause" to believe (i.e., knowledge of facts sufficient
to support a reasonable belief) that criminal activity is
likely taking place, that you have been involved in a crime, or
that you have evidence of a crime in your car. If you do not
want your car searched, clearly state that you do not consent.
The officer cannot use your refusal to give consent as a basis
for doing a search.

Edit: Something that isn't mentioned in the text above, if you refuse a search and they do it anyway, assuming the search was carried out without probable cause or a warrant, any evidence they may find can't be used in court.