Dui stops

[Spider]

Quinn, as I said at the beginning on the other thread, I just felt like arguing and I knew that friend like you would take it in that spirit.

I see your point and I agree that the guy who is sh!+faced out of his mind probably thinks he's as capable of driving as I am, and the guy who hasn't touched a drop thinks that I am a serious danger to everyone in my path. Still, I do find myself cutting myself off a lot sooner, even though I know I can drive safely, because of the fear of a stop. I'm sure that others who are still under control but more at risk than when they are sober feel the same way.

[quinn14]

You are fun to debate, Spider! We don't agree on much, but I bet we'd have fun drinking beer together. Thanks for starting the thread, I needed a break from studying today.

[Spider]

You are fun to debate, Spider! We don't agree on much, but I bet we'd have fun drinking beer together. Thanks for starting the thread, I needed a break from studying today.

We may not be as far apart as you think. Are you going to St. Louis for NCAA's?

[quinn14]

We may not be as far apart as you think. Are you going to St. Louis for NCAA's?

It all depends on money. I've never been to them and I want to go, just got to figure out the funds. I figure if we eliminate the Ohio HS state tourney we may be able to swing it. How much are the book of tickets? My wife now drives a car that gets around 35-40 mpg on the highway, so that may not sting as bad. A hotel there is probably the same as in Columbus, I would guess.

[pm01]

I have no idea what the discussion was that prompted this thread so take this with a grain of salt.

I am basing my answers on California law and cite where applicable SCOTUS decisions. *While each state may differ they often are very similar. *

1. Reasonable suspicion is specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude a law is being broken, has been broken, or is about to be broken. *The courts have concluded a ' reasonable person' in this context is a person with similar training and experience of a police officer. *I hope this sheds better light as to reasonable suspicion. **

2. A police officer must have reasonable suspicion to detain, but must have probable cause to arrest. *

3. The California Supreme Court has recognized the gravity of DUIs by upholding blood alcohol level provisions of the California Vehicle Code and approving the use of "sobriety checkpoints" as long as certain safeguards are followed (Ingersoll (1987 43 Cal.3d) and Banks (1993) 6 Cal. 4th)). *Checkpoints have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court (Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444)

Certain safeguards used to require prior public notification, signs preceding the checkpoint, and an escape route for those who wish to avoid the checkpoint. These have since been in flux and under certain challenges.

4. FYI: Border Patrol agent may operate moving patrols anywhere but still must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain and probable cause to arrest. *If you want SCOTUS citations I can provide them later. *

I hope this provides some clarification.

Edit: I don't know why the asterisks appear but I'm too lazy to remove them.