Supreme Court OKs Roadblocks for Police Information

[Purveyor]

Tue January 13, 2004 12:57 PM ET

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police acted reasonably and constitutionally when they put up a roadblock to ask motorists for information about a fatal hit-and-run accident.

The justices reversed an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that such checkpoints, designed to gather information, represented an unconstitutional search and seizure of evidence in the case of a man arrested for drunken driving.

The ruling was a victory for Illinois, other states and the U.S. Justice Department, which argued officers should be allowed to set up checkpoints and briefly stop motorists when the purpose is to investigate a crime.

<snip>

By a separate 6-3 vote, the court ruled the checkpoint stop at issue was reasonable.

"The relevant public concern was grave. Police were investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death. No one denies the police's need to obtain more information at that time," Breyer wrote.

The dissenters -- Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- said they would have sent the case back to the Illinois Supreme Court to determine whether the search had been reasonable.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4119834">Entire Reuters Article Here

[el_gato]

1. and the noose tightens around the neck of america

bow down to the corporate police state

of course the facists will yell "but what about the children!"

[NashVegas]

4. You'd Rather They'd Let The Drunk Driver Back Out on the Road?

Just curious.

[el_gato]

7. No, You'd rather give up all your rights for any excuse

freedom and liberty come at a cost and that
cost is the fact that sometimes we don't live in
a totally safe world.

[CaptainClark23]

9. Point taken

If we could trust this enhanced ability for law enforcement to be used judiciously and in the spirit for which it was intended, then I would agree whole-heartedly.

But for my money, I've seen enough to indicate that this right will probably be abused.

[NashVegas]

19. That's Not Outside the Realm of Possibility

But there's a reason why these things get looked at on a case-by-case basis.

In this particular reason, the police had a cause. They returned to the scene of a crime (can't help but wonder if the victim's family had some kind of major pull), to try to find or get info about a hit and run driver.

If they were asking drivers questions, they would have been in a position to know if someone they were talking to reeked of alcohol or appeared impaired. This wasn't a case where they pulled some random guy and said 'mind if we look in your trunk? You look funny.'

[worldgonekrazy]

22. Well spoken CaptainClark

What if they catch somebody with drugs (say, marijuana for example) during one of these checkpoints? Is it permissible to use that against them? In other checkpoint cases (like drunken driving checkpoints) it usually is as far as I know. That would not be cool if it was in this case.

I understand the guy's point that this might help bring justice in this particular instance, but it is a slippery slope from there, IMO.

Edited for grammar

[HereSince1628]

11. Oops! I think your argument doesn't follow...

We needn't be divided into for and against drunk drivers on the basis of concern about the ability of police to curb freedom of movement.

Do you really thing its ok for police to interrupt traffic, impede commerce and freedom of movement without specific cause in order to seek information? Taken to an extreme could lead to police state tactics of sweeping up people off the streets not because they did something but because, even unknown to the people detained, they might have witnessed something.

I am not endorsing killing or drunk driving by saying that it is an open question about how much power police should have along this dimension. It was appropriate for the courts to hear.

[NashVegas]

20. No?

Although I find it mildly extraordinary the police went to the measure they did, they were attempting to do their job and find the perp of vehicular manslaughter in a hit-and-run case. The roadblockw was at the spot where the accident happened. I would not call that unspecific.

[LiberalFighter]

34. Not timely for checkpoint a week later

Where would the hit-and-run be by that time? Where would any witnesses be by that time?

The incompetent law officers in this case would be better off diverting traffic to obtain any evidence that would identify the offender.

Contact the media to provide information for public disclosure. Any witnesses that observed the accident or have cause to believe that someone was responsible for the death could then report any facts they have.

Talk to neighbors in the area.

Investigate any local bars if it is a likely starting point.

Contact any repair shops for possible leads.

I could see having police monitor the spot during the same time frame that the crime occur and observing motorists passing thru for anything out of the ordinary. But why wait a week? Did they perform other police methods?

[joeunderdog]

2. There will be alot more crimes investigated by roadblock now.

Probably outside bars.

[CaptainClark23]

5. and on routes

to and from political rallys and demonstrations.

[NashVegas]

6. And Another DUer for Drunk Driving

The club's growing larger by the moment.

[el_gato]

8. lame little meme there crisco

"you must be for drunk driving!"

what a fucking crock

IT's just that some of us feel there is a need to limit
the governments invasion of our lives.

[Venomous_Rhetoric]

39. Here,

The Police started blocking roads, "check-stop" they called it.
"just to look for drunk drivers" they said. Now, it's "show me ze papers" If they smell pot, they search you and your car, bust you for auto insurance, no drivers licence, warrants, etc.
They seldom catch drunk drivers. Drunk drivers don't drive down main roads usually, unless they really have to.
Here, they set up outside of bars and do those stings as well. But those ones fail to catch drunk drivers as well, because a patron will warn the others in the bar.

They use unmarked cars for bar stings, one hiding in the parking lot, radioing info to others parked down surrounding streets.

[Dhalgren]

12. This has nothing to do with deterring crime

and everything to do with tightening control

[tabasco]

24. Zee papers. Show me your papers !!

Damn straight. Total police state. This was NOT good police work. They received zero information as a result of these roadblocks. They should have tried wiser methods, instaed of wasting time and intruding on innocent people.

[amber dog democrat]

31. Ja! Papers, bitte ?

Its going to be fun living in a police state.

[HereSince1628]

13. I assume you have a reason for your strong feeling

against drunk driving. But assigning people to for and against drunk driving on the basis of their concern about police power to set up roadblocks is flawed.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Unbrilliant!

Syllogistic thinking worth of a Republican.
The Professor

[worldgonekrazy]

25. That is a BIG false dichotomy there

Also known as False Dilemma, Bogus Dilemma, Bifurcation, Black-and-White Fallacy, Either-Or Fallacy

A dichotomy is evaluated on a premise that only two alternatives are possible.  This is false when other alternatives are in fact possible, which usually is the case. The notion that a binary choice exists usually is implied rather than being stated explicitly.


Predicate 1:
Propositions A and B are mutually exclusive


Predicate 2:
A is {true / false}

Therefore:
B is inverse of A

http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/fallacies/false_dichotomy.html



In case it needs explanation, you are not either for or against Drunk Driving based upon your agreement/disagreement with this case. You can disagree with the ruling here yet still believe drunk driving ought to be combatted other ways (that don't infringe so heavily on our Fourth Amendment rights).

[NashVegas]

28. What Would You Have Done In That Cop's Shoes?

You are participating in a roadblock seeking information. This activity requires you to interact with motorists. One of the motorists you come in contact with appears to be drunk.

Do you wave him away?

[Unforgiven]

29. No

We detain and arrest everyone that goes through the intersection, that way we know we will eventually catch someone who fits the BOLO.



Jeeeeze!

Warning: Edited for extreme sarcasm alert.

[shamanstar]

37. maybe in this case

they decided this was the right thing to do. but when the supreme court rules on something, laws are made based on that ruling. now, every police force in the country can go ahead and set up a road block whenever they want to help "solve crimes". this is why people are concerned about this- not so much because they think that what the police did in this instance was wrong.

[shamanstar]

36. your reasoning is flawed and similar to repubs

"you are against fingerprinting at the airport? you must be for terrorism"

[Zhade]

38. That's an asinine comment.

Being against possible increased police power in an environment like today's is NOT being in support of drunk drivers.

Learn the term "straw man", and then stop using it. You're embarrassing yourself.

[tom_paine]

3. Soviet Union here we come!

I'd say I was astonished, but quite frankly I couldn't be less surprised.

The Amerikan Empire isn't about Freedom or the Pursuit of Happiness. It's about Special Priovilege and serving the Imperial Family and shutting up.

This, of course and quite predicatbly, legitimizes all sorts of Totalitarian Sweeps that we thought could never happen in the Old American Republic.

But of course it can happen here.

It is happening here.

[worldgonekrazy]

26. But HOW could you POSSIBLY think Drunk Driving is GOOD?!

Because I think YOU KNOW that you are either FOR OR AGAINST IT, as our Great Leader loves to say!

;)

[loudnclear]

10. Another reason why it's important to get the neocons out of office and out

of the courts.

"If it is to be, it's up to me." VOTE PEOPLE!!!

[jayfish]

14. Too Late,...

the SCOTUS will not revisit this issue for years or even decades. Thats just the way they work. We are fucked.

Revolution Calling
Revolution Calling
Revolution Calling You

Jay

[el_gato]

15. bad brains reference?

[jayfish]

17. Actually Queensryche. But BB Is Great As Well.

Jay

[Mr.Green93]

18. this is not good

not good at all

[happyslug]

21. Here is the opinion of the court

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1060.pdf

[happyslug]

23. The Court is just treating Motorist like Pedestrians.

A quick read of the Opinion (and the dissent) does point out one fact, the Court wants to treat Motorists just like Pedestrians. i.e. any officer can walk up to any Pedestrian and ask him questions. In the case of Motorist that requires the Officer to stop the Motorist car, but the neither the Majority nor the Dissent objected the main premise that the Police had the right to ask people questions about a crime. That has always been the law and thus this is NOT a change. The police were NOT stopping the Motorists to look for crime, the Police were Stopping Motorists and asking them for information on the crime. The Stop was only for a few minutes and the Police left the motorist go on.

In the case of Plaintiff, it was just like an officer walking around a crime scene asking the neighbors questions and a drunk walks around the corner. The Officer is NOT looking for that crime, but is there for other reasons. The fact that the Officer SAW a crime (Drunk Driving) while investigating another crime (Death of a bicyclist) does not prevent the officer from arresting the drunk for driving. This has been the law for the decades we in the US have had Police Officers. Police Officers do not have to study one crime at a time and ignore all others until the first crime is solved

[worldgonekrazy]

27. This is interesting in that motorists are usually given LESS protection

Because of the very nature of their being mobile (and thus more easily able to escape, or more dangerous as in the case of driving under the influence). The legal questions here are certainly legitimate, but I feel that the court made the wrong decision simply because the act was unreasonable on its face.

[happyslug]

35. Not My interpretation

I see the Court ruling that anything an officer can do to a pedestrians, they can do to a motorist. While a person in a car has less right to prevent a search than a person afoot (based on Supreme Court Decisions), this decision said that if an Officer can do something to a Pedestrian he can do the same act to a Motorist even if that means the Motorist has to stop his car (Even through a Pedestrian could NOT be stopped by the Officer for the same thing, for all the Officer has to do in that circumstance is to walk with the Pedestrian and asked the same questions).

Thus you can have the situation where an officer can stop cars and asked each driver some questions, but if a Pedestrian walks by the officer could not stop the Pedestrian but instead has to walk with the Pedestrian. The big question is what does the Motorist have to do if he is told to stop by the Officer and before the officer asks him a question, a pedestrian walks by. The Officer can not tell the Pedestrian to wait does the Motorist have to wait tell the Officer is finish walking and talking with the Pedestrian? I would say no, but I would advise someone in that situation to wait tell the Officer returns.

[amber dog democrat]

30. Little by little

we are becoming an Orwellian society. This is the kind of thing you'd expect to read about in one of Wiliam L Shirer's books. When will it end? Where is it going?

[ConcernedCanuk]

32. hmm - Chicago had 599 homicides in 2003 - that's alot of roadblocks!

on edit, fix link
.
.
. Source

NYC had 596

LA - 505

Detroit - 361

and so on -

and these are "homicides" - not "accidents"

Feckadee - that's alot of "roadblocks" ??

It's a bad precedent if'n you ask me

But then again, it sorta fit's in with the "Patriot" Acts n' all - -

I'm ok tho,

you'd hafta drag me across that border now,

(sigh - I'll miss da Beaches in SanDee, and ya, the "view" too)

[happyslug]

33. Killing a person with a car can be Homicide.

When you are operating a Vehicle the law presumes you are in control of that Vehicle. When a person hit a pedestrian or cyclist that is often manslaughter (Sometime called Homicide by Vehicle). Now it can be MURDER if it can be shown the death was due to gross negligence or recklessness of the Car operator. Most Juries are made up of Drivers so it is rare for them to find Gross negligence or Recklessness unless it si something like going 65mph through a children’s playground.

As to “regular” negligence, that is basically the absence of due care, for example eating a Chocolate bar (a Case I heard of out of California) talking on a Cell Phone, eating a hamburger would all be acts of “Negligence” that would make the Accident Manslaughter. i.e. the Driver was distracted so the Driver was NOT concentrating on where the Vehicle was going (by the Chocolate Bar, Cell Phone, Hamburger etc) and that was why the Car hit the cyclist. Other examples of negligence, exceeding the Speed limit, crossing the white line, failing to yield to another Vehicle (i.e. the Bike), not giving enough room to pass the bike (if you can not pass the bike, do to oncoming traffic and location of the bike on the road, the Driver has to stay behind the Bike until the traffic clears or the cyclist pulls over). All of the above is “negligence”.

Also, if you are involved in an “accident” you have to stay and offer assistance. Thus not only may the driver be guilty of Manslaughter he may be guilty of leaving the scene of an accident.

Now, the cyclist may be at fault, i.e. no lights (if it was after dark) dodging in front of cars, but some how I do not see a 70 year old man doing any reckless or negligent act while biking. It is possible, but unlikely.

Thus while Chicago has a lot of Homicides, that does not exclude this from being a Homicide. Given what the Police were doing I suspect they found the 70 year old man in a ditch along the side of the road with his bike crushed along aside him (i.e. run over from the rear, a very rare biking accident, happens only when the Car Driver is negligent, rarely is this type of accident the fault of the cyclist or a true “accident”).

Now the most common biking “accidents” (i.e. where there is little or no negligence by a car driver) involving bikes tend to be ones where the bike either does not have light (and operating at night) or when the cyclist cut in front of a driver (This occurs at intersection and driveways and other entrance and exits points onto the road). Basically , if the victim was found during daylight, on the side of the road where their was no crossings or driveways (or parking), it was the negligence of the car driver that caused the accident and that would be MANSLAUGHTER not a no fault accident or an accident caused by the negligence of the cyclist.