You pose a good question. But, those aren't random stops. They are clearly marked and truckers are provided with this information when they take the job. IMO, that is just part of the job. It is also a law just like speed limits and signaling before switching lanes, there is nothing random about it. Every trucker knows about these before taking the job. Every job has it's perks and every job has the annoying things that you have to do. As a dentist, I am sure you are aware of that.
Free people just driving down the road, in cars that have already been approved fit for the highway, should not be stopped unless they are breaking a law. You brought up earlier that the roads were public and therefore police should be able to stop anyone for any reason. Ask yourself this, who paid for those public roads? Of course the answer is taxpayers (you and me). If the roads were privately owned then I would not have a problem with it. But my tax dollars helped build the roads and I should be able to drive on them without harassment as long as I follow the laws that have already been implemented.
That is why I don't have a problem with security before boarding a plane. I didn't help pay for the plane, it was done with private sector money. The problem I have is the government involvement in it. If Delta doesn't want to search anyone and wants to allow smoking, that's fine with me. If I want to fly on a plane that does full body cavity searches before I get on and doesn't even allow farting, that's my choice too.
Legal technicalities aside, what's the harm in a DUI stop? I've been through a lot of checkstops and most of the time it's a minor inconvenience (2 minutes to show your licence and say "hi") in exchange for getting drunk drivers off the road. I don't know about you, but I want people who drive while under the influence to get caught as often as possible.
I appreciate the personal freedom vs. public safety issues (like the Patriot Act?), but sometimes you have to give up a little of one to gain the other. As arm-spin points out, this may be one of those situations. Not all government intrusion is a bad thing.
These stops have been around for years, someone must have challenged the constitutionality by now, right? Since there are still DUI checkpoints it would seem that the courts ruled these are constitutional. What about these rulings do you disagree with Quinn?
I agree that driving is a privilege and not a right. That is exactly why you have to have a license and follow the laws. So, if I am doing both, why am I getting stopped? As we all know, the government never stops anything it started and never condenses it. So, an "I don't care" attitude for this WILL lead to more freedoms taken away.
Do either of you think that all "mexican looking" people should be stopped on the street and made to provide proof of citizenship? Or, should they be stopped at the border as the law says? Personally, I think they should be stopped at the border (just like stopping a speeder breaking the law). But, if they are here and just walking down the street not breaking any laws, why harass them? It's the same with driving. If I am following the rules, leave me alone.
As for Armspin's comment on catching DUI drivers as much as possible, I agree. But let me ask this. Would a cop be better off catching a DUI driver while on normal patrol and seeing them swerving or standing in one spot checking everyone? They waste 99% of their time checking sober people. And since they have to have extra cops on duty to do the checkpoints, that means they are paying cops overtime for a job with less than a 1% success rate. That's our tax dollars being wasted.
I am willing to bet (and I will try to find a stat) that more tickets are given at DUI stops for things not related to drinking and driving. I am a horrible googler, but I will try to find that because I know I read it once. More people are ticketed for no insurance or headlights out or something else. Actual DUI arrests at these stops are minimal.
As an aside-Florida's governor just cancelled Mandatory Drug tests for Welfare Recipients as a Supreme Court Judge weighed in saying the law would/could be declared unconstitutional . she argues that ALL urine tests should be confidential as opposed to the information and results being shipped to LEO and government agencies .(which is the norm ) . She further stated the policy of Testing for jobs may be declared unconstitutional as well . The pendulum has begun to swing back to more individual rights and away from intrusion . Problem is-the damage has been done for generations as once you get on a 'list' you are on there for life .