>>>>>It is now (and has been for decades), in most states in America,
>>>>>completely legal for a law enforcement officer to randomly set up
>>>>>a road block for the sole purpose of arbitrarily stopping citizens to
>>>>>search both their car and parts of their bodies on the off chance that
>>>>>the driver is possibly drunk.
>>
>>I've heard the argument is that driving is not a right, it's a privilege.
>
>You've heard that from me. ;)
>
>That said, it's not about driving it's about checkpoints and illegal search & seizure. Protection from which IS a guaranteed, fundamental Constitutional right.

I agree with you on this one. (what are the odds of that? hahaha)

>>>>There are three types of law provisioned in our U.S. Constitution: Common, Equity and Admiralty. Common Law is common sense stuff (don't kill people). Equity is fairness law (what is most equitable). And Admiralty Law used to be the law of the sea, but it is business law, contract law, the things you voluntarily agree to.
>>>>
>>>>The reason why it is legal within the United States to stop people randomly is because they have agreed to it beforehand.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>The reason DUI checkpoints are allowed is because the Supreme Court decided in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz that the risk of drunk driving outweighs the 4th Amendment. The opinion perfectly demonstrates what the author is talking about when he says: We have spent the better part of the last century shredding our Constitution slowly, all under the guise of “public safety.”
>>>
>>>4th : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
>>>http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/amendment.html
>>>
>>>Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
>>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html
>>>From the Opinion:
>>>
>>>Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
>>>...
>>>No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it.
>>>...
>>>Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale -- the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints -- is slight.
>>>...
>>>In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
>>>
>>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZO.html
>>>
>>>From the Dissent:
>>>
>>>Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, dissenting.
>>>...
>>>The Court ignores the fact that, in this class of minimally intrusive searches, we have generally required the Government to prove that it had reasonable suspicion for a minimally intrusive seizure to be considered reasonable. Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action.
>>>...
>>>I would hazard a guess that today's opinion will be received favorably by a majority of our society, who would willingly suffer the minimal intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint stop in order to prevent drunken driving. But consensus that a particular law enforcement technique serves a laudable purpose has never been the touchstone of constitutional analysis.
>>>
>>>The Fourth Amendment was designed not merely to protect against official intrusions whose social utility was less as measured by some "balancing test" than its intrusion on individual privacy; it was designed in addition to grant the individual a zone of privacy whose protections could be breached only where the "reasonable" requirements of the probable cause standard were met. Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials -- perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens -- may be tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a true balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of "the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
>>>
>>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZD.html