it sucks. But living in a society there is a certain obligation to public safety. Were the checkpoint absolutely random rather then based on times when people were more likely to be on the road drunk I would object more.

Who cares?
Even if the guys were all actors, the questions raised by the video are still valid!

hmmmm.
I'll ponder.

There are only a few options

1. outlaw alcohol
2. install breathalysers in all cars, required for ignition
3. make mandatory a breathalyser check before leaving a bar and stepping into a car
4. check people on the road


Other than those I see not equitable solution.

AJA- Thanks you for your courteous response to my frustrated one.
A further point: you are not inconvenienced by checkpoints and don't consider them to be A BAD Thing. I see them, whether I am stopped or not, as A Bad Thing.
How, in a free society, do we resolve such a difference?
As a minarchist [on my most congenial days], I know that some activities are going to be administrated by what I've started to call "the Public Administrators". Many people will pay for their services. Do the people like me still have to pay? That's unquestionably wrong.
This is the sort of dilemma which is at the heart of every Libertarian/Objectivist/
anarchist/minarchist/etc. debate on how societies should be run.
What's your take on the solution?
regards.

We will have to agree to disagree. I'm not missing the points presented by everyone. I simply do not see this temporary interruption in my travel on specific days to weed out those who drank without restraint before getting behind a wheel as huge invasion of my rights, more of an inconvenience..

I SUPPORT these checkpoint to find illegal aliens who routinely drive north up I10 and onto I17. Yes, there are that many illegals and in a very real way they are more of a continual threat than drunk drivers.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE INTOXICATED OR NOT.
THERE IS A PRINCIPLE HERE.
and discussion of it cannot - honestly and clearly - be based on your particular propensities. If 1 person is interrupted, it's wrong.
Are you really going to say that it's ok for the Feds to round up the [place group name here] because you don't belong to that group and besides, you don't like them???
aaaaarrrrrrrgggggggg

1) I never drive intoxicated. In fact, I don't remember the last time I was intoxicated or even drank alcohol.

That said, my right to travel would be inconvenienced not interrupted or endangered.

It's esp bad IMHO if it's up to individual people (or animals') discretion. Then it can be used by corrupt officials to stay in power. A city can then legally harass people on the way to political events they disagree with. This is very rare in the US but we shouldn't be complacent.

what zenphamy said.

AJA - Your right to travel isn't endangered if the police make you stop? Oh, please.

It was not staged. He had the camera there to protect his rights if the case went to trial. All the police have to say is "He opened his door and smashed my shins" and he's deep in it. If he has a tape of exactly what he did, and what they did, we know exactly what happened.

scojohnson - Search you tube for videos on police stops - I hope you'll be surprised.
and it just thrills the heck out of me that someone who makes nasty snap judgements without knowing anything except the 6 1/2 minutes of video is eligible for jury duty.
*shivers*

I just love the way the system sticks all my posts together, rather than inserting them where I pushed "reply." That'll teach me to be 8 hours late for the event!

He was probably scared silly, knowing he had to keep it together, and determined to insist that his rights were upheld. Just WHY is it that he should have rolled down his window just because some guy in a uniform told him to? It's his car, his window.
And that fine print about DUI searches still requires probable cause. They can't just search you; their probable cause has to hold up in court. That is why the driver was video-taping the encounter - so that if the police said he was slurring his words so they searched his car, he can prove them wrong. Did you see how everything changed when they found the camera?

My CRV has a lot of windows...anyone can see inside without my rolling down my window to communicate.

I hope the kid, even though I suspect this is some type of training video in retrospect, sues the department for a new paint job or at least a buff and wax.

and you would knowingly take these actions why?

Once we say safety is of paramount importance, we're on a path to living in a jail. It would be _safer_ to have no rights and have every house and car constantly searched for crime before it begins, but we don't want to live that way. We should say aloud we're willing to suffer tragedy and pain for freedom. Freedom isn't free.

Take one of the many courses on civil disobedience; usually taught by a lawyer, they tell you exactly what the police in your state can and cannot do, and urge that you start asking, right from the beginning of the stop, "Am I being detained, or may I leave?" That question will get you out of the mundane questions - and into a scarier place, but one in which you have some control.

"The cop kind of did society a favor, the kid learned that being a punk doesn't immediately get you "oh Sir, you are right, just go along your way""
The Founding Fathers learned that too, if they didn't already know before they decided to be "punks" in the eyes of the people in charge.

Just because DUI checkpoints have been found constitutional does not MAKE them constitutional.
Consider this: If the police write a ticket, or impound a vehicle, that's revenue. What pocket does the court system get paid out of? That's right, the same pocket that revenue went into.
There is an interest far beyond keeping people safe on the roads that has a part in driving both checkpoints and speed traps.
Get that camel out of our tent!

huz-ZAH!!!!
Beautifully put - thank you.

AJA - I see a slippery slope here. If we don't consider rolling down the window "invasive", what IS? Is it intrusive to stop your car at a DUI checkpoint when you haven't ever had a sip of alcohol? It is their choice to stop you, and the idea that they can stop you, run you around, make you answer questions and find pieces of paper, and let their dog scratch up your car - when you are to be presumed innocent - is indeed intrusive.

Considering the officer wasn't respecting this guy's rights, I'm surprised the officer didn't take the camera in as evidence or something, so he wouldn't end up on YouTube. I also found it interesting that he said the guy's perfectly innocent but he knows his rights. That's inconsistent with someone not respecting his rights. I'd expect him to say, he misunderstand his rights or something. It doesn't ring true. I've never seen a police checkpoint like this. I hope it's not true.

"kid learned that being a punk doesn't immediately get you "oh Sir, you are right"
That will probably make him less likely to contact the police if he sees someone committing a crime, like trying to break into your house.