I totally agree with JDBroomall. PA uses these "Safe Holliday" ruses to bring revenue to the state and counties.

JDBroomall
The constitutional-ness of these checkpoints address only the actions of law enforcement, meaning their ability to devise procedures that remove arbitrariness from the activity to hurdle the 'reasonable cause standard'. The checkpoints still hinge upon the traveling motorists CONSENT to subject him/herself to such intrusion. There is no legal duty upon the motorist to answer any questions presented by law enforcement. If a motorist was coerced into answering such questioning during these investigatory stops then the checkpoint would not be constitutional. Compelled testimony for the purposes of incriminating one's self is a clear violation. The police know this but use their show of force to intimidate most into answering what is believed to be an innocuous question.
"Have you had anything to drink tonight?"

JDBroomall
The request for your DL is also voluntary during such checkpoints.
The proper response to such an inquiry is;
"Is that a request or a demand, officer?"
A request means it is voluntary on your part, but a demand requires the officer have some advanced knowledge to believe that you in particular have violated some part of the Vehicle Code or even committed a crime in his presence. This would rarely occur under this scenario.
Checkpoints are designed to cunningly coerce your voluntary cooperation.

Hi Timber:

I'm well versed and well aware of all the above. But thank you for posting for others and restoring my faith that SOMEONE else is informed other than me. Take Care

How 'bout this, proud patriots. Why don't you, as a protest against this remarkable, anti-American infringement against the rights of all Americans, go driving around, soberly, of course, and refuse to answer any questions proposed to you by law enforcement? I would love to hear how this comes out...

I Love Delco:
We aren't looking to give anyone a hard time, we just ask for proper application of the law. For instance, I was "pulled over" at a red light recently and threatened with a seat belt ticket. 1. The officer had no authority to detain me and 2. the officer had no authority to give me a ticket. So he was either poorly trained on law or he just wanted to lie to me and make threats that were unfounded. Don't appreciate that and it certainly doesn't help build a strong relationships between police and the community

JD, sorry that you were inconvenienced, (no sarcasm). But why were you pulled over? and why were you "threatened"? Did you run the red light?

So, in essence, you were breaking the law (although a secondary one) by driving without wearing a seatbelt. Had you been in compliance with the law none of this would have happened. And, finally, you were not cited. Am I wrong about this?

So you approve officers making threats to citizens that are false? You support officers lying to us? You support being pulled over and detained without any legal justification? Interesting....

You were detained? Really? Did not catch any of that in your story. Were the conditions of your detainment deplorable? Did anyone call Amnesty International on your behalf?
You broke the law and got called out on it. Deal with it. #firstworldproblems

lol. Trust me... I don't lose sleep over it, but I did lose some respect for Marple police.
Enjoy your day I Love Delco ; )

You too! Thanks for the tete - a - tete...

Crying for the freedom to drive drunk? What a slob.....

Kevin: Where did anyone advocate driving impaired? No where... that's right.
They are ineffective and a waste. You can legally just turn off or make a U-Turn to avoid them anyways. You can't be pulled over for avoiding them

Driving is a privilege, not a right. And you do not have the right to break the law. You will only get a fine if you are breaking the law in some way.

One either respects freedom or one does not. If it is to be respected then harassing innocent citizens is tantamount to an act of war.

However, if you subscribe to the philosophy that only an elite is capable of dictating the lives of the unwashed, then you hold a point of view at odds with Anglo-American tradition.

Check points are something armies emplace to control "civilians".

Perhaps, when police adopt military tactics and military vocabulary to describe and control their fellow citizens, they announce that we are somehow less free than formerly, perhaps even occupied by their forces.

Snarly responses do not contribute to the cause of freedom but rather strike me as latent authoritarianism of the kind I never thought I'd live to see here in the USA.

Sheep to the slaughter, indeed.

If you want to stop drunk driving, prohibit the sale of alcohol. Or put paramilitary checkpoints outside the bar and arrest everyone that sticks a key in the ignition.

But as a T-totaling American my resentment of unwarranted interference by the authorities is legitimate and this trend is cause for grave concern.

It is all the more remarkable given the terrible suffering endured by our own Pennsylvania ancestors that fought and died in the War for Independence over much less government meddling and control than this.

"Remember Paoli!"

Joe, stop making sense.

Yes Joe, despite bHo's recent re-election, this is still America. I'm with you.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Life is self explanatory, Liberty is precious, but let's discuss pursuit of Happiness. My pursuit of happiness includes knowing that my kid, with my grand kid in the back seat, can drive down the road an not have a drunk cross the yellow line and snuff them out.

The number of souls pulled over at a DUI checkpoint in any given year is de minimus. The threat of being pulled over likely stops many from drinking, driving, and taking the chance.

I will protect your liberty with my life. Please be pragmatic enough to protect my pursuit of happiness by allowing local government to protect innocents on the roads.

Remember, not everyone is as disciplined and clear thinking as you. Wish they were.

Joe Ames -

A little reality check is in order. Simply being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in no way restricts an honest person's freedom. The belief that freedoms are absolute or can be exercised without any thought to personal responsibility is the real threat to what America stands for. We have the right to freedom of speech, yet if we shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is cause for arrest. We have freedom of the press but not the right to libel. You speak so lovingly of freedom, but don't I and everyone else have the right to expect that we can drive the streets without fear of losing our lives (and all the freedoms included) because of a drunk driver? The function of the police is to protect the citizenry and one of the ways to do that is to reduce drunk driving, and I for one will never complain about a minor inconvenience like a sobriety checkpoint if it means making the streets safer. Comparing this activity with the actions of "armies emplace to control "civilians"" is nonsense. The world isn't black and white and not all checkpoints are created equally. A checkpoint used by a corrupt government for nefarious purposes is a far cry from a checkpoint used to make us safer. To not understand the difference is sad and an ugly insult against the men and women of police forces all over this country who risk their lives protecting your freedoms and mine. It's a shame you can't acknowledge or respect the job they do.

Area man, I respect what you're saying. I don't want my kids injured or killed by a drunk driver either. In fact, it happened to a high school friend whose daughter was killed three days before graduation in a one-car crash involving alcohol. Heartbreaking to me; I do not even want to imagine what he and his wife suffer every day.

But there are other ways to accomplish that goal, my personal favorite is targeting drunk drivers directly, at the bars when they place the key in the ignition switch.

My right to be secure in my person and property against unreasonable search and seizure must never be trumped by the right of others to tie one one with reckless abandon.

So join with me and help push back accountability for drunk driving to the drunkards themselves. Their particular vice is simply not worth it.

Bob, Your talking points are unpersuasive. I am not afraid of my fellow citizens. I am afraid of the police power of the State run amok. Is that not the lesson of the 20th C.?

I'm afraid those people that justify any and everything in the name of security, safety, "The Children!" and such have a ready, non-contradictable, all-purpose excuse for anything and it is never not invoked when it is an offensive grab of power by those that supposedly serve us.

Man up. Life is risk. Outsourcing your primary functions as a man and as a citizen to the State is a recipe for disaster. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" as they say.

Your name calling is extreme, unwarranted, and unbecoming someone who would inflict the power of the State on his neighbors. Of all people, you should exercise the most restraint and that is precisely what bothers me about paramilitary checkpoints and those that defend them reflexively.

Joe Ames

P.S.:
The function of police is not "to make us safer". The same Supreme Court invoked to justify this offense against the peace ruled that police forces bear no burden to protect any individual, citizen or not (see Warren v. District of Columbia).

Even Wikipedia tells us the police function to enforce law, protect property and maintain civil order. Safety, service and protection are mere marketing mottos without force of law themselves. The very word "police" has connotations of "cleaning up afterward" as in "the recruits were ordered to police the parade grounds before breakfast."

If you are going to participate in civil society, then you have got to stop making emotional decisions and base them on something more rational. Emotionalism is what got us into our present mess. Unfortunately, the U.S. population is highly skilled at emoting and disinterested in contemplative thought, especially regarding the philosophy of citizenship.

I agree-- random checks violates our rights

Danielle, only fools don't wear seatbelts and now a days any car made in the past 10+ years will make some sort of annoying noise until you buckle the belt anyway. The police really have no business fining people for this however. Not to mention they can just say you didn't have your belt on and write the ticket. How could you "prove" otherwise?

While I agree that "drunk" driving is a horrible and selfish crime, my issue is that the law is set up to punish people who aren't drunk simply to make money (the average DUI cost about $5,000). Either pass a law stating you can't have ANY alcohol in your system while driving or make the limit reasonable. Lowering Pennsylvania's legal limit of alcohol from .10 to .08 did nothing to keep the public any safer and instead just screwed up the lives of a lot of decent people who had two beers while watching the game and got caught in some DUI trap. I have never been in this situation but know a few people who have. Again, I would rather see the law at zero tolerence so it was clear what was and wasn't "legal" but the alcohol industry and their lobby would never let that happen. I guess they figure it is a win/win. They can still sell lots of booze and the state can make more revenue in teh name of "public safety" by giving DUIs to people who weren't a danger to anyone.

yeah but the car has gotta get home somehow

Wow, that was insightful......sigh.

Impairment is impairment. If you are impaired, you should not drive.

Better idea Jim. Don't drink and drive. That way you don't need to worry about where the checkpoints will be.

Checkpoint locations have to be published to the public ahead of time by law. I'm with Jim, I look to see where they are as well. I don't drive drunk but I also don't enjoy warrant-less stops during my travel and the inconvenience of waiting in a traffic line for 20 mins when I'm trying to get home.

You imply that breathalyzer devices are infallible. And your view is that all are presumed guilty until they 'prove' their innocence before exercising their Liberty to travel.
In sum, lack of critical thinking on your part and a disgusting view of a foundational American principle.

Geez Youngman, what is it going to be next? Perhaps we could install a device to check your blood in case you are over the limit on your allergy medicine also. :)

Good idea as way it is now, most folks I know are afraid to have a drink dining out and prefer to stay home with no worry. Not good for bar/restaurant business .

Kevin, Prohibition kept drunks off the road. Kept them from beating their wives and kids, too. Kept people from developing cirrhosis of the liver and delirium tremens and drinking away the rent money or worse.

Yet is seems those were unimportant compared to the "right" to get drunk.

So don't preach about "inconvenience" and "rights" unless you're also prepared to demonstrate the limits of your version of both.

Also, my family was here in 1776. In fact we were here in 1620. Some of us were not Patriots but Loyalists and many paid the price for their belief in Liberty with their lives over many generations.

I value their sacrifice and do not question it because it cramps my style. How about you, Kevin. What is your family's skin in the American game? Please be serious if you reply as this is a serious subject.

joe
Again, you don't need to bring up the cherished memories of dead Americans for the last 400 years in a debate about simple sobriety stops. It's ridiculously off topic. I'm embarrassed to even respond to your comment as you are obviously borderline illiterate- "demonstrate the limit of my version of inconvenience and rights"? I don't even know what that means, especially considering my point was how minor the inconvenience is in the first place. If this is what it's like to talk to an actual tea partier, I'd rather watch you wallow in your ignorance from afar. Conversation over.

Joe Ames,

A little history lesson for you. Prohibition did nothing that you credit it with doing. All Prohibition did was create an underground culture of drinking exhibited in the form of Speakeasy's and helped to fuel the rise of organized criminals who brazenly distributed their alcoholic beverages - much of the time with the complicity of the local authorities, many of whom were taking bribes. This is such a well known fact that your ignornance of it (whether deliberate or otherwise) invalidates your arguments.

Huh. No kidding, Bob? I did not know that. Seriously, thanks for telling me about Prohibition. Wow!

Now, to everyone else reading this little discussion, it would appear to the Huddled Masses of the U.S., getting drunk is more important that "quality of life", life itself, or one's personal Liberty as purchased by the blood of our ancestors.

There are just too many dense people out there, operating at the level of barely functional literacy, which is probably why the government likes to dictate life in fine detail. Nuance is lost, subtlety uncomprehended let alone appreciated. For them, a carefully guided life is probably best. And who knows? Maybe a Lotto ticket and six pack after work is enough to keep them slavering for the Boss Man, lol.

@ Bob
Joe Ames is a troll. If you read his posts, its nothing but liberty this, patriotism that, ancestors blah blah blah. His arguements are all over the place; you can tell he doesnt even know what he's saying and he's just trying to be inflammatory. Ignore the troll and the troll will go away.

What a good meter to gauge the state of the country... When someone speaks of "liberty" and "patriotism" and discussions on the framers of our republic, they are a troll.

Help us all

Kevin answer my questions:

1. When did your people come here?

2. What did they want to get from the Americans?

3. What is your price for obedience to your masters?

4. Do you think getting drunk is more important than Liberty? Actually, you already answered that.

I am not sorry that this discussion is over your head, but that's the way it goes in a free society. Even those without suitable basis are allowed to spout opinions, emotional though they be.

As for me being a troll, I sign my true name to my comments and am fully answerable for them. You are anonymous, sniping from the bushes as it were, specializing in name calling, emotional outbursts, mean-spiritedness and other qualities associated with the lower classes.

Frankly, the last few years have been very educational in that regard. As money tightens and stress increases, more and more people shed their disguises to reveal their true personalities. In your case, you are a submissive with a mean streak. You have a lot of company among the so-called "law and order" crowd which really resembles a tribal affinity more than any volunteer application of civil society.

So Kevin, you and Bob have your point of view and as United States citizens you are entitled to it. As an American -- a blood descendant of the people that invented the U.S.A.-- I think you could not be more wrong if you tried.

So you can bow and scrape all you want. Its a free country, even for you.

Kevin, I had to read your post and the reply several times and yet I still believe that you are not kidding. I then thought that your position was simply inflamitory, intended to get a rise, but no, you say that someone who takes the position that the proper role of government should cast a smaller shadow is a "troll"? To save The Constitution for arguments more serious? Liberty this and patriotism that? That you lack "an understanding of the limits" is no surprise. You said "if you ignore the troll, he will go away". Kevin, if you ignore The Constitution, it will go away, in fact it's almost gone now thanks to those of your ilk. Your thoughts, which I believe are genuine, awards you the "poster child" for what is wrong in amerika today. Please reply with a recent photo enabling that poster to accurately reflect the author of such unthinking blather. Seventy years ago you would have made a great Brownshirt, your parents must be so proud.
P.S. There is still time to delete your nonsense, think before you type.

Good one.

Agree

That's just wrong. DUI checkpoints do not run driver's for warrants. I've been through plenty. They engage in a short conversation with you and if they suspect more then you are moved aside for field sobriety tests. Running every driver through the system would take entire too long.

@ Citizen:

I can't agree with you. DUI checkpoints are used a fishing trips for all types of arrests.

Here is a link to one in Maryland from Thanksgiving of this year.

http://www.somdnews.com/article/20121128/NEWS/711289699/1057/drunk-driving-arrests-made-over-thanksgiving-holiday&template=southernMaryland

The Police detained 8900 motorists. Only a few more than 1% were cited for DUI. Twice as many were arrested for drug and criminal charges. It would seem the checkpoint accomlished something other than its stated purpose.