On an side note, I worked for the state in Austin last summer. You had to have the registration receipt (which, as jonesing said, you don't need to keep due to the sticker) to get your state parking sticker. I wonder how many new hires they get a year who throw that stuff out and then have issues getting the parking permit? Government at work. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately we have the "papers please" checkpoints from time to time here in Virginia as well. I was stopped at one last May in Madison County (a notorious speed trap between Charlottesville and DC). The cops simply checked my license, plates, and inspection sticker, presumably checked to see that there was no alcohol on my breath, and let me go. Cars going the other direction all flashed their lights well before the checkpoint to warn me and other drivers. :)

Here, in MN, the supreme court ruled the checkpoints illegal. They said it violated the state constitution. Red Light cameras are on their way out as well, due to similar issues.

Awesome.

Red light cameras and checkpoints should be banned nation-wide.

Makes me proud of the fact that lived in Minnesota during my college days - UofM-Twin Cities, Class of 1982.

I think the issue here is 'driving' vs. just walking around or being a passenger.

Since driving is a privilege not a right - and a privilege that can be taken away by the state - they have the right to verify you have the correct permission (license, registration, insurance) to exercise that privilege.

That being said, I am against the government using its authority to stop and detain people at random without evidence of wrongdoing.

This is a case of balance - does the need to verify someone is licensed and insured (a public safety issue) outweigh the right of citizens to go about their business without being impeded by the police?

Another issue is scope. The courts have already ruled that checkpoints are legal for catching drunk drivers - but what about things like vehicle condition, wearing seatbelts or finding 'contraband' in place view? What about the police asking the driver to conduct a search of the car? What if the driver refuses? The courts have so far supported these scope extensions and this is a major problem.

I hate drunk drivers. I would love to see them off the road. However, I hate losing my 4th Amendment rights even more. Sobriety checkpoints can be set up in the parking lots of bars - the most likely place to catch drunk drivers.

These searches, when taken beyond the scope of sobriety and verifying a permit to operate the vehicle, are intrusive and violate the intent of the 4th Amendment.

I saw something like this Memorial Day weekend....the local p.d. stopping cars and making certain ones, maybe every 3rd car, pull into a parking lot and I wondered whether that was legal. Fortunately, I did not get pulled over because I would have demanded to know why and I kept reciting in my head Bruce's mantra: Am I under arrest? Then I am free to go.

That's private property, mister. ;)

True, but perhaps the property owners would be willing to allow the checkpoints on their property in exchange for a waiver of liability should their drunken customers get in a wreck...a liability they currently have. Better the issue be targeted at its source than spread out into a major dragnet that affects everyone.

I don't drink, therefore I don't drink and drive - why should my rights be infringed by a checkpoint that is not targeted at me?

As with air travel, you are guilty until proven innocent. :p

I'm sure bars that set up sobriety checkpoints would start rolling in the cash. ;)

No one's rights should be infringed. Checkpoints should be illegal and the police should have to have clear, probable cause before pulling someone over.

I've never heard anyone discuss the drivers license checkpoints as a revenue enhancer--if that was the case they'd be running it more than once or twice a month (and, as I stated earlier, it's funded under a grant program, not city funds). We do take a lot of people with warrants off the street at those, along with taking vehicles for 30 days, and the suspended drivers behind the wheel of those are either cited or booked. The tow companies are the ones that really make out here, if anyone does, because they can charge a towing fee and a daily storage fee for each vehicle towed.

I believe that depends on what state you are talking about. Regardless, no bar is going to go for this. It would kill business.

I'd agree with you if there was some other mechanism to make sure drivers are properly licensed. I worked in a city where we chronically stopped people that were unlicensed, or suspended for a variety of reasons (including lack of insurance after being involved in an accident). These are people that shouldn't be behind the wheel to begin with. They're not going to show up at DMV, like you or me would, to renew their drivers license, and if they are suspended their insurance has likely been revoked.

Well, many people do that. But, they also let you pay for it on monthly installments. I have done that before and the still give you a card good for six months.