Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to answer any questions at checkpoints

Where is this checkpoint being set up?

“ I don’t want to discuss my day, officer”

They typically don't tell you where exactly, just the county its being conducted in.

Gross. I have to drive all over bristol county for christmas this year, and will be on a super fucking tight schedule. If it's on a major higheway/throughway it's going to be a pain in my ass.

I've had to drive route 24 for work lately and it seems like there are more drunk drivers (or at least, very erratic drivers) than normal. I'm sure the checkpoints will be a clusterfuck that doesn't help anything but it does seem to be a legit problem

State police announce we will all be collecting overtime while on this detail and we wont even have to lie about it

[deleted]

🚓👮🏻‍♂️Papers please! 🚔

we had these in Maine forever, it can encourage some very creative evasive driving methodologies

edit: i am not encouraging such things- - that gap between the shrubbery and the guard rail... is NOT always wide enough for your Outback

best option: don't drive shitfaced

>Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to answer any questions at checkpoints

Certainly true but also a great way to make sure you get pulled over to the side of the road and subjected to a field sobriety test.

[deleted]

Spotted the Sobriety Checkpoint RV on Rt 6 in Dartmouth yesterday. So, there is a good chance that's where it will be

Sound like a violation of constitutional rights ngl

As someone who has never had a drop of alcohol in my life for very personal reasons I’d be absolutely infuriated to have to sit in traffic and then get interrogated by a fucking cop

Police checkpoints should be banned completely.

You have no legal requirement to perform FSTs either

Because it is. Choosing to not engage in a conversation is not probable cause to then demand someone perform FSTs or a breath test

Refusing a FST can result in a 6 month license suspension.

No. You mean breath test

That is not true. Commonwealth v. Shields. MA has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutionally legal. If you enter one, you are obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. If you refuse, you may be subjected to a field sobriety test. If you refuse that, you will lose your license automatically.

EDIT: Lol, go ahead and try it. I hope you enjoy spending all your time wrapped in court, meeting with lawyers, taking time off work, etc.

I've had 3 in my life, and had to do both every time. They are pretty much one in the same. And unless you have a 10k dollar attorney on retainer, it's gonna be treated the same.

Mostly, cops can and will do whatever the fuck they want on the side of the road. As we see daily in videos posted on reddit.

That's pure bullshit, aside from checkpoints being deemed constitutionally legal.

You have no responsibility of helping officers investigate their stop. You provide id/registration and your legal obligations as a motorist are complete.

You can never be forced to engage in FSTs, despite what cops may tell you. In fact, refusing the test is inadmissible in court as evidence against you.

Refusing a breath test is an auto 6 month suspension, if charged.

You don't have a constitutional right to drive. You can walk through and just wave.

You didn't "have to" perform FSTs or a breath test. You chose to.

>Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to answer any questions at checkpoints
>
>Certainly true but also a great way to make sure you get pulled over to the side of the road and subjected to a field sobriety test.

Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to perform a field sobriety test (i.e. the 'dance like a monkey', 'recite the alphabet backwards', 'stand on one leg while singing My Country 'Tis of Thee' tests), and should never do so. You are required to take a breathalyzer or give a blood sample and can temporarily lose your license for refusing, but that does not apply to the sit and spin tests.

>That is not true. Commonwealth v. Shields. MA has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutionally legal.

Yes. Here's the case for anyone interested.

But:

>If you enter one, you are obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. If you refuse, you may be subjected to a field sobriety test. If you refuse that, you will lose your license automatically.

No, no, no, no, 100% no. You are never obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. You are never obligated to perform a field sobriety test (the stand on one leg, recite the alphabet, poke your finger in your eye, etc.). You can be subjected to a breathalyzer or blood test, and refusing those will result in loss of license, but that does not apply to not answering questions or refusing to dance like a monkey for some cop's amusement.

"Obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions"? Sheesh. This is why cops need more than 6 weeks of training. What are the first 7 words of a Miranda warning?

Again, when you refuse a breathalyzer. You are liable to lose your license for 6 months.

Yeah I drive 24 pretty much everyday. Around the holidays it is super noticable. It doesn't help that state troopers never seem to be there when you need them

Right. Which I've already said in multiple other comments. You still have the choice to take a breath test or not.

Unconstitutional bullshit. ACAB

Yeah. I guess..... I don't really see losing your license for 6 months as much of an option.

This shit should be fucking illegal.

This is a real fuck-everyone-involved situation. On the one hand, ACAB. On the other hand, fuck drunk drivers.

Refusing the field tests isn't itself a crime. But if you refuse to do it, you'll almost certainly be asked to do a chemical test. Refusing that is a crime that carries a mandatory license suspension.

If you don't answer, they'll pull you out of the car, make you do an FST, fail you, and arrest you. Cops have no accountability, and they know that even a false DUI arrest will likely result in the person losing their job and being forced to spend thousands of dollars to avoid conviction.

If you refuse a breathalyzer. There is a suspension that follows.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/alcohol-and-drug-suspensions-for-over-21-years-of-age

And that suspension is 180 days.

Too many people on here distracted with easy targets sitting right in the open and missing things like the Umass basketball coach on state payroll for over $1,000,000 dollars a year. That statie making 40k in OT is hardly the worst of the waste and corruption.

I think they’ve also been shown to have absolutely no impact on drunk driving. It’s just an exercise of police collecting overtime and getting to wag their dicks around.

I dont mind that they get OT, as long as they are actually doing the OT and just committing fraud

They didn’t say they had a constitutional right to drive.

Source?

Is there a scenario other than driving where you'd hit one of these checkpoints and get pulled over?

Than driving? No, but that doesn’t mean that person was saying anyone had a constitutional right to drive lmao

These are illegal under the constitution.

You don't need to have consumed any alcohol to be charged for DUI.

You're not obligated beyond saying you are taking the Fifth and you do not consent to any search of your person or car.

Never do these tests. They're there as supplemental evidence not to prove you're not drunk.

It can but then you can fight that to. When you get pulled over illegally then get told to do things you don't have to with zero probable cause they will often give you your license back because they want you to go to work. This may require a lawyer though which ain't cheap

What constitutional right would it violate, then?

[deleted]

You can re-read their comment and engage with them if you’re confused I’m just informing you that they didn’t say anyone had a constitutional right to drive

The 4th.

Sobriety checkpoints only get away with being constitutional if they stop every single vehicle. If cops use any discretion about which car to stop, then it's illegal.

1st time 180 days 2nd time 3 years 3rd time 5 years etc

Also wanted to clarify that refusing the breath test isn’t a crime per se. You won’t get a ticket or get charged with anything.

I did not know that this was legal in Massachusetts!

We need to organize and change this law right fucking now! I’ve seen these in PA and it is just a way to harass everyone (sometimes minorities specifically), to pad cops overtime, and to intimidate the public.

Fuck this shit, call your elected officials

A good basketball coach brings money into the program and fills seats at games which fund other things (remember the '95-96 UMASS basketball team?). This is a poor example if you're trying to point out waste. Ticket sales from games bring in more than this not counting TV revenue and merchandise.

I don't mind them paying this for good coaches, but I do mind the relatively poor results they've had since Calipari left (he makes over $8 million a year now, btw). This isn't high-school basketball. You're not going to get a coach that can compete for $80k a year, nor would you be able to recruit good players.

I'm guessing you neither care for sports or understand the revenue they bring in.

I guess at least this is a sign that they’re starting to explore methods of reducing OUIs without fucking over bars, clubs, restaurants, and anyone who wants to go to those places late at night- but we all know how MA staties are. They are going to abuse this.

>I've had 3 in my life, and had to do both every time. They are pretty much one in the same.

Except they are not. A FST is optional and there is zero penalty to refusing one. This is different than a breathalyzer test which you can also refuse but there is also a penalty associated with it. That is how they are different.

Refusing a breathalyzer is not a crime despite there being a penalty for refusing. Different things.

For the dick wagging?

This is going to become more common as time goes on. State-funded gang is all they are

Whats that old saying?

"You can beat the wrap but you can't beat the ride."

Yeah, Ill just have to comply if I want to get home.

Fuck them still though.

I have seen the bristol county one many times on 44 in seekonk, they usually right at the state line and have all their cruiser and cans in the dollar general lot

Generally speaking, school sports coaches actually contribute to their school and community. Seems perfectly acceptable to me that they get paid more than cops.

Correct. But they will cut your license up on the side of the road and or bring you into the drunk tank for the night. It's weird I'm getting downvotes for stating that refusing a breathalyzer and sobriety test will result in a suspension. I guess because the guys point is that it's still a choice? Yeah I guess, but it still has consequences.

Yeah my neighbor is going through this exact thing right now. 12 grand it's cost him and he's been without a license for 5 months.

"You have the right to remain silent".

Remember that one?

A couple things in this state are, but somehow we still have state laws supporting them.

Yes, at that point they've already decided to arrest you. You're roadside performance will be used against you in court

it's completely legal sadly. Don't waste your time opposing this. Your elected officials all fully support DUI checkpoints. No elected official is interested in being painted is pro drunk driver which is exactly what would happen to them if they stood up to this.

That, and three dollars, will get you a large at Dunkin' Donuts

Maybe Waze will add a button to report them?

That's all true but unless you submit completely you risk spending your holiday in a cage regardless.

Go ahead and do that. You'll be pulled out of your car and summarily arrested. After they've held you for the maximum, they will release you with no charges. Now you can Uber to the impound lot to get your car. Be sure to stop at the ATM cuz they don't take credit cards.

100% correct

Technically correct but unless you comply and answer their questions you're going to find out that you can beat the charges but you can never beat the ride

I'm pretty sure they're not legal in PA. I saw one once, but that's it.

Reducing oui oui?

'Tis the season for guilty until proven innocent.

Their body, their choice. Don't let the government tell you when you can and can't drive!! /S

Cops are perfectly capable of catching reckless drivers without interrogating every single one.

Though true, you may also be able to make $30k off such an egregious violation of your civil rights, like this woman who was arrested for remaining silent.

My man. And if Mass isn't there, it's RI cops by the park-and-ride.

Yep. Technically, random stops work too - every 4th car, or "we flip a coin", or something similar, as long as the cops aren't using their discretion.

This “article” reminded me of this John Oliver segment which addresses how news organizations “report” on the police. It was eye-opening for me, yet unsurprising.

The coach is overpaid, not corrupt. The police are corrupt. There is a difference.

That is literally the going rate of a coach for that level of play. Or for a college that wants to elevate their play. Many colleges pay outrageous coach salaries. You can blame the investments in college athletics for the ridiculous salaries. Consumers are driving that, not corruption.

I am much much much more concerned with corruption in the police than I am a basketball team. Since police actually matter and basketball does not. A cop getting cheating $50k is much more dis-concerning to me than someone who is overpaid. That is the difference here.

Yup, violate my constitutional rights? Sounds like an easy payday for me (I'm white and very privileged)

Like almost every police force in Massachusetts, the State Police are way short on manpower now. Last year they were taking people out of the detective units (homicide and drugs) and sending them back to the road. That has only gotten worse.

Friendly reminder that drunk driving causes a shitload of deaths every year and if you don't do it you don't have to worry about sobriety checkpoints.

The fuck does that have to do with my comment?

Also, you do understand sober drivers end up going through and being inconvenienced by these roadblocks as well, correct?

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

God forbid you be slightly inconvenienced. Happy motoring.

Well they cost thousands of dollars per day and have a 1% success rate for catching drunk drivers

Probably RT44, RT 6

It's a sobering realization that the troopers that are leaving are not the ones people are worried about. They're the ones that have the skills to leave and apply themselves to other careers.

Lack of substantial reform that gets results is going to drain police forces of capable people and leave us with the dregs that can't make it anywhere else. I suppose after further suffering, corruption, and overall loss of trust, we'll get there but it's the long way around.

They aren't really leaving, it's more that they aren't being replaced in sustainable numbers. It's also not a great agency to work for and a bunch of city departments pay more and have a better culture.

I’ve been told in another thread that it went to the Supreme Court in the 90’s and was upheld as a legal activity

[deleted]

…do you not want cops to catch drunk drivers?

Even MORE of a reason why they shouldn't have fired the ones who filed for religious exemption to the vaccine mandate!

They do them in rural areas to catch undocumented workers. I’ve driven through a few with my friend there who is a lawyer.

Basically he explained in PA as long as the police post that the check point is ahead and people can turn off to avoid it then its legal.

Ive also heard that if you are within 100 miles of an international border(which includes international airports so it covers most of the country) our rights are limited too.

Then in another thread it was pointed out that checkpoints were challenged in the Supreme Court and upheld as lawful activity for the police.

So I think we are pretty stuck with them from a legal perspective. But there can still be pressure on elected officials to limit them I guess

Did someone say dicks? Wagging?

WHERE??? Do tell.

Burp, excuuuuuuse me!

No. Not with checkpoints that screen all people regardless of any evidence of a crime.

I get that it is legal for the cops to do it but it is in direct conflict with people being secure in their person and effects.

The police should only be allowed to stop you or anyone if they witness you doing something illegal or that would reasonably cause a person to suspect you of a crime.

In the case of DUI, the driver can’t maintain speed or position inside their lane, or they repeatedly break hard, or improper use of lights and signals, failure to fully stop 🛑, etc.

So many things are sufficient to trigger a stop, it is unreasonable to check everyone proactively.

Clearly not because there still far far too many reckless drivers.

I said they were capable, I didn't say they were willing. God forbid, though, they should be expected to do their jobs properly.

So, yeah, fuck them and their "prove you're not really a criminal" checkpoints.

Just keep your window up

gotcha - yeah, i was thinking of RI where it still involves court and all that jazz.

​

Odds are, you're probably still being charged for a DUI if it happens in MA. You just might beat the rap for it.

[removed]

Is that not what they're doing?

Not sure if it was this but there was a ‘special something unit’ car on RT 6 in Seekonk near Cumberland farms earlier today.

I have heard the 100 miles thing and I REALLY want someone to challenge it. Because that's like 90% of the US population (or something). Yeesh.

Did some googling.....dang. You're 100% right. I totally thought they weren't legal, as they were a warrant less search in my opinion. Sigh :(

>They do them in rural areas to catch undocumented workers. I’ve driven through a few with my friend there who is a lawyer.

No they don't. Local cops don't care about undocumented workers because being in the country undocumented is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense, so just ike when you have a dispute with your neighbor and the police have no interest in your civil affairs dispute, they have no interest in undocumented workers if they are not actually committing a criminal act.

Here's a tip my man... you can have the biggest bootleather licking fetish in the world and you can live your whole life just... not telling anybody about it like you just did.

It's entirely possible to be against drunk driving and also be against shitty, unproductive methods that violate civil liberties, cause traffic jams, cost absurd amounts of money and have never been able to demonstrate any reduction in drunk driving or drunk driving crashes.

You are never, ever, absolutely ever, obligated to tell a police officer anything other than your name (even that is iffy) and that you are asserting your 5th amendment rights to silence and an attorney.

You have to physically comply with breath tests but you absolutely do not have to do a field sobriety test or answer any questions.

Needs to be made illegal. It’s treason.

It’s terrorism. It’s disgusting that it’s acceptable terrorism.

The faster you are in the cell the faster you can get the case dismissed and sue for illegal incarceration.

So government enforced terrorism is acceptable in your world because there is. 1% chance of catching someone driving drunk.

And then you win a lawsuit for a lot of money.

No I don’t. Not with terrorism. This is terrorism. This is everything the USA was founded to protect against.

Just like the nazi’s.

They don’t need to do this. Catching drunk drivers is easy. They can’t drive. But that would mean cops would actually have to patrol. I guess that is too hard for them.

I think that's a tiny bit of overstatement.

Meanwhile, I've been seeing people drive wrong ways all over the place. Completely unsafe lane changes right in front of police. But there's not as much money in those cases, so they seem to all get away with it.

I live near the Sullivan Square Boston rotary and I've seen at least two cars going the way in the last few months.

And after they saw those two problems, maybe they could do something about after-market muffler modifiers on Hondas that make them so loud. Shit violates several noise codes.

I think they’ll still probably try to charge you with a OUI too.

Im not a man. And I hate cops. Ill lick your boots anyday though

ew

you're scared arnt you honey?

Scared? No. Creeped the fuck out? Sure. You have a very rapey "I'm missing all my teeth and I have a body hidden back at the trailer park" vibes.

OK. I have driven through them in PA but you must remember better than I do. /s

The downvotes are because you’re not distinguishing between the breath test, which is mandatory and can result in a license suspension for refusal, and the field sobriety test, which is entirely optional, has no penalty for refusing, and should not be performed by anyone.

Yeah but I mean, when you are in the position, saying no to an officer isn't really the greatest idea.

Okay, Officer, I suppose people should just confess to murder or heroin possession or whatever false accusation you want too, just because “saying no to an officer isn’t the greatest idea”?

No. Sorry if that’s the first time you’ve heard that in a while. But the right to refuse FSTs and the right to refuse to answer questions are so clearly established that there would be no qualified immunity to civil suit if a cop were to arrest someone for refusing.

This guy gets it. DUI checkpoints are a presumption of guilt.

>Ive also heard that if you are within 100 miles of an international border

The 100 miles things gives federal law enforcement authority they would not normally have unless authorized by the state.

[deleted]

As a matter of fact, you have a constitutional right to do anything not prohibited by law.

You also continue to have a variety of other constitutional rights while driving and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures is one of them.

SCOTUS ruled that a DUI checkpoint and brief questioning was not an unreasonable search and seizure. If questioning produces probable cause, then out comes the breathalyzer.

Third door on the left.

And the Commies.

6 and 44 are both US Routes and they definitely love to set up checkpoints on em.

This is the correct answer.

[deleted]

Innocent until proven otherwise, motherfucker. Don't stop me unless you actually have some kind of evidence I have broken the law.

Technically you're driving up to them. You seem angry. Everything okay?

Crazy to me that this is legal to do. Random searches of law abiding citizens should be illegal.

Technically they are obstructing traffic and unlawfully detaining drivers while interrogating them. Merely driving down a road is not probable cause to effect a traffic stop.

And, yes, people who don't care about the rights of lawful citizens do annoy me.

Amazingly, also, other countries with less enumerated rights can somehow even pull this off more efficiently than our cops can.

Technically they're doing neither because this has been litigated and ruled completely permissible under Mass law. You may disagree with it, but your opinion has no impact on the facts.

I care very much about the rights of both lawful citizens and anyone else residing here, all of whom have equal protection under our laws.

I don't know which countries you're referring to but I think the most reasonable countries to compare us to as far as legal systems would be the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

For instance, in the UK the police don't need any reason to pull you over at all, unlike here in Massachusetts.

https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights#:~:text=The%20police%20can%20stop%20a,if%20you%20do%20not%20stop.

In Australia, the police can ask anyone who is driving, is about to drive or has recently driven a car to take a breath test, and it's a criminal offense to refuse. The Australian BAC limit is also .05, lower than our .08.

https://breathalysers-australia.com.au/breath-test/#:~:text=Australian%20Police%20have%20used%20random,seat%20of%20a%20stationary%20vehicle.

>In Australia, the police can ask anyone who is driving, is about to drive or has recently driven a car to take a breath test, and it's a criminal offense to refuse.

And it takes them far less time to do so. The cops have handheld breathalyzers. How are you today, may I see your license, please breathe into the tube. None of this bullshit trying to talk you into providing subjective evidence against yourself with field sobriety tests and whatnot.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you saying you'd have less of an objection to an automatic mandatory breathalyzer for every driver coming through the checkpoint than you do with our system where the officer has to be able to articulate why they think you're impaired before they can ask you to step out and perform field sobriety tests and/or submit to a breathalyzer? In other words, going straight to a chemical documentation of how much alcohol you've ingested without first seeing signs that you're physically impaired? That seems a little unfair to me.

I don't mean to insult you but that position seems to be inconsistent with what you said above and I suspect you're just being argumentative because your previous comment about how other countries do it turned out to be inaccurate because the legal protections in other Anglosphere countries are actually much more limited than the US of A.

DUI checkpoints are already a presumption of guilt by stopping you, despite us having rights to the contrary. I was just pointing out the irony that countries with less rights have no problem handling the situation more efficiently than we do.

Dont they have better things to do…🙄🙄

What's the difference between this and them going door-to-door going through everybody's house? Do you not want them to catch serial killers?

They just force the drunks to take backroads and slam into poles and other cars

I encountered the sobriety checkpoint at the southern end of 140 in New Bedford once. I recall it went like: “Have you been drinking?” “No” “Your eyes look bloodshot.” “It’s 11:00. I’m tired and going home to bed. Am I free to leave?”

That was the end of it. I don’t like the fact that roadblocks exist but the courts have ruled them legal as long as they stop everyone. It would be a good ballot initiative to amend the state constitution.

You aren’t being arrested so you don’t get Mirandized.

Then go do it. I mean all these people saying how simple it is yet I don’t see any news stories of a heroic Redditor actually DOING it.

It’s all bullshit Reddit fake-law degree talk.

Sane people intend to avoid checkpoints at all costs. There are tons of lawsuits won for wrongful arrest to the point there is a cottage industry around it.

But if it’s such an easy-win payday… why wouldn’t you do it? If someone said I could make $50k for a day’s work, I’d do it.

Maybe because it’s a gigantic pain in the ass and much more time & money than a day’s work. And you know it.

Then what do they do when you refuse to speak with authorities or answer questions, like you said you are "obligated to"? Do they say "oh, gosh, you got us," and walk away? Or do they arrest you? At which point, aren't the first seven words they say "you have the right to remain silent"?

Do you think that we don't have the right to remain silent until we're arrested? Like, the Constitution says "the government can compel your speech as long as you haven't actually been arrested yet"?