Do you agree with police checkpoints where they check your license and insurance etc., why or why not?

That's exactly right, why should we have to keep up with this stuff and they don't? Thanks:)

• Report

by Lillian on September 7th, 2009

Here is where it gets funny (or sometimes not).
John, have you ever stopped a driver from NH with no insurance? Some police officers will raise a BIG stink about that even though NH does not usually require insurance.
Now, does that mean that many NH drivers are illegal to drive out-of-state, or just that some officers need to be a little more familiar with the laws of other jurisdictions?

• Report

by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 7th, 2009

Metro officers have a list of states not required to have auto insurance. these drivers are not cited in Tennessee for lack of auto insurance. everything else goes.

• Report

by john pennington on September 8th, 2009

Some MA officers (right next door!) seem unaware of that, or that other NH laws regarding vehicles are a bit different.
Driving like a jackass is illegal in both states, though if you ever drive within 50 miles of Boston you would never know it.

• Report

by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 8th, 2009

thats weird, but i believe you. remind me to stay in the south where at least we honor out of state drivers and their problems.

• Report

by john pennington on September 9th, 2009

MA is the only problem area. The VT and NH officers are quite nice and knowledgeable. The CT and RI cops at least know their regulations. MA though....
In order to work for the MA government in any capacity, you have to lose your common sense, empathy, and sense of humor. All of the bad sterotypes about DMV clerks, uncaring social workers, or nitpicky cops who will pull you over and keep you there until they find something to ticket you for are true in MA. If I didn't have family there, I would avoid driving in that state myself.
If you come up North, detour through NY and then cut East through VT; it's a lot less hassle.
 
Then again, you should bear in mind that MA is chronically suffering budgetary shortfalls so they need all the revenue they can get, and you don't have to dig too far to find a law against practically *ANYTHING* in MA.

• Report

by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 9th, 2009

Usually they're the only people that get pulled over, since it's partly a money making scheme they have a ton of them where I live now, but every one I have been through they've just waived me right on, they seem to only pull over sketchy people.

• Report

by Lillian on September 8th, 2009

Hehe, I'd best watch me step ;)

• Report

by TheJoker on September 9th, 2009

^_^

• Report

by Lillian on September 9th, 2009

Hooray! At least one other person sees this as a 'slippery slope'

• Report

by Old School on September 7th, 2009

The uninsured are one the reasons insurance is so high, it's also just a money making scheme, they don't care about busting in your house they just want to find someone they can give a ticket to.

• Report

by Lillian on September 8th, 2009

I disagree. checkpoints have a definite purpose. its not just to make the citizens mad at the police, there is usually a reason. if your daughter had been kidnapped, would you not want the police to setup checkpoints to look for her?

• Report

by john pennington on September 9th, 2009

@jp - Under circumstances where an actual crime has been committed (such as your kidnapping scenario), I can be OK with police checkpoints. Particularly if they have specific instructions as to whom to stop (e.g. all dark blue late-model domestic sedans).
.
But the 'sobriety checkpoints' are nothing like that. Those checkpoints are the police randomly stopping people going about their business to see if they might be committing a crime.
.
That constitutes an 'unreasonable search', because the police cannot show cause as to why person A gets interrogated and person B gets waved through.

• Report

by Old School on September 9th, 2009

Yeah, great. And when an actual crime has been committed, police should be allowed to search your home without a warrant too.

• Report

by bolwerk on September 9th, 2009

True, thanks for answering.

• Report

by Lillian on September 7th, 2009

Good point, but it definitely is necessary. Thanks.

• Report

by Lillian on September 7th, 2009

Thanks.

• Report

by Lillian on September 7th, 2009

Exactly, if you've got nothing to hide then why have a problem with them? Thanks:)

• Report

by Lillian on September 7th, 2009

Oh jeez, Lillian! You didn't just write that, did you?
.
How about we have the police come by your house at random times and look through the place?
.
If you've got 'nothing to hide', why should this be a problem?...:-P..
.
I am *amazed* at how easily some people will give up their basic civil liberties....:-P..

• Report

by Old School on September 7th, 2009

It keeps people from driving around drunk, with expired licenses, and with no insurance.
They are the reason insurance is so expensive, so yeah when it comes to that I really don't care what they do, all I know is I have all my stuff in order so nothing can happen to me. Just because they do this does NOT mean the next step is going to be busting down our front doors whenever they feel like it.

• Report

by Lillian on September 8th, 2009

@Lillian - The only 'probably cause' for random police checkpoints is "you're driving a car".
.
There is no logical distinction between that and saying that any person walking down the street is potentially violating the law, or that any person sitting in his/her home is potentially violating the law.
.
I recall that a court already had to smack down some officers who decided "Well, since we have the cars stopped, let's check them over with the drug-sniffing dogs to see if anyone is carrying..."
.
Just because it has not happened YET, doesn't mean it can't or won't.

• Report

by Old School on September 8th, 2009

Exactly, thanks for answering:)

• Report

by Lillian on September 8th, 2009

Yes, thank you for that.

• Report

by Lillian on September 8th, 2009

what about if the person in the car behind you is intoxicated and he is arrested by the police. this saves your life from a killer auto accident. would this change your mind? money is not everything if you are not alive to enjoy it.

• Report

by john pennington on September 22nd, 2009

Well, checking the licenses and insurances are not necessary to identify intoxicated person. If the check is just a few secs then that is fine with me as long as it does not waste my time as officer goes through my documents.

• Report

by Henderson on September 22nd, 2009

And also, don't you think the chance of damage by hitting intoxicated person is higher when my car is stopped for license checks than when it is driving on the road, since when it is stopped driver coming behind crashes much more speed than when it is driving.

• Report

by Henderson on September 22nd, 2009