Full Version: Illegal roadblocks
QUOTE
Court Slaps Limits On Police Roadblocks
SPRINGFIELD -- A divided Supreme Court threw out a man's drunken driving conviction Friday in a ruling that puts strict limits on when police may use roadblocks to stop drivers.
Robert Lidster was caught at a police checkpoint in Lombard set up to ask
drivers whether they had any information about a fatal hit-and-run that had taken place at the same spot a week earlier.
But the court ruled 4-3 that the roadblock amounted to an unconstitutional search of drivers.
Police cannot stop drivers at random every time they need tips about a crime, the court held.
"The troubling specter then arises that the streets of Cook County, or at
least the streets of Chicago, would be adorned with roadblocks," Justice
Charles Freeman wrote.
The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police filed a brief arguing in support of such informational roadblocks.
Lombard police set up the roadblock in 1997 at the same spot and time of
day that the hit-and-run had taken place. They hoped to find someone who often used the route and had seen the accident. Police stopped each car for just a few seconds -- long enough to mention the accident and hand out a flyer asking for help.
Police say that when Robert Lidster drove up to the checkpoint, he nearly
hit an officer. They investigated and ended up filing drunken driving
charges. Lidster was convicted.
He challenged the conviction, arguing that roadblocks are acceptable only
in emergencies or for special purposes such as checking for drunken
drivers.
Although Lidster prevailed, three justices -- Robert Thomas, Thomas Fitzgerald and Rita Garman -- felt police acted properly. The police were not randomly searching cars or questioning drivers, the justices said. They were passing out information and asking for help at a carefully chosen time and place.
I found this a bit interesting. Illinois has every now and then where they set up roadblocks to see if people are wearing thier seat belt or they set them up for drunking driving. I found it amazing this guy was tested for drunken driving was found to be drunk but the judge threw it out of court. That he argued roadblocks were set up only for drunken drivng.They were looking for help in a hit and run. So I guess I am asking what do you think? I have my feelings in this but whould like to see what your thought s first.
SPRINGFIELD -- A divided Supreme Court threw out a man's drunken driving conviction Friday in a ruling that puts strict limits on when police may use roadblocks to stop drivers.
Robert Lidster was caught at a police checkpoint in Lombard set up to ask
drivers whether they had any information about a fatal hit-and-run that had taken place at the same spot a week earlier.
But the court ruled 4-3 that the roadblock amounted to an unconstitutional search of drivers.
Police cannot stop drivers at random every time they need tips about a crime, the court held.
"The troubling specter then arises that the streets of Cook County, or at
least the streets of Chicago, would be adorned with roadblocks," Justice
Charles Freeman wrote.
The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police filed a brief arguing in support of such informational roadblocks.
Lombard police set up the roadblock in 1997 at the same spot and time of
day that the hit-and-run had taken place. They hoped to find someone who often used the route and had seen the accident. Police stopped each car for just a few seconds -- long enough to mention the accident and hand out a flyer asking for help.
Police say that when Robert Lidster drove up to the checkpoint, he nearly
hit an officer. They investigated and ended up filing drunken driving
charges. Lidster was convicted.
He challenged the conviction, arguing that roadblocks are acceptable only
in emergencies or for special purposes such as checking for drunken
drivers.
Although Lidster prevailed, three justices -- Robert Thomas, Thomas Fitzgerald and Rita Garman -- felt police acted properly. The police were not randomly searching cars or questioning drivers, the justices said. They were passing out information and asking for help at a carefully chosen time and place.
Mom of 3.I think the judge was wrong. The road block was set up for a good reason and the drunk got caught in it.
I would be very irritated though, to be stopped for a seat belt check. Don't think that's legal here in Wisconsin. If you are involved in an accident or stopped for some other reason you can be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, but you can't be stopped just for a seat belt check.
And may I take this opportunity to tell you that I don't care for your toll roads there in Illinois.
Mad Town
I would be very irritated though, to be stopped for a seat belt check. Don't think that's legal here in Wisconsin. If you are involved in an accident or stopped for some other reason you can be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, but you can't be stopped just for a seat belt check.
And may I take this opportunity to tell you that I don't care for your toll roads there in Illinois.
Mad Town
Madtown, we in Illinois think the tolls are a bunch of you know what. that has been the subject for many years here. they were supposedly set up to pay for road repairs. they have been paved numerous times. It's just another way for the state to take more money. 
Momof3.
Driving a car puts you in charge of a 'lethal weapon'.
It can kill and injure if not used correctly.
Down here in Australia ALL the police, cars and moterbikes, carry breath testing equipment to indicate drinking.
If we are stopped for speeding, or any other infringement to the traffic rules, we are automatically tested.
We also have 'Booze Busses' who set up road blocks on freeways who randomly test drivers for drinking.
We have had cases down here where a drunk driver has killed innocent people and, after going to court, has been set free (with a small fine).
It really boils down to the fact that during the court hearing if the killers lawyer finds better words than the other lawyer....he wins.
I said this once before in another post................
YOU DO NOT GO TO COURT FOR JUSTICE.
YOU GO FOR A DECISION.
Regards..........Alan
Driving a car puts you in charge of a 'lethal weapon'.
It can kill and injure if not used correctly.
Down here in Australia ALL the police, cars and moterbikes, carry breath testing equipment to indicate drinking.
If we are stopped for speeding, or any other infringement to the traffic rules, we are automatically tested.
We also have 'Booze Busses' who set up road blocks on freeways who randomly test drivers for drinking.
We have had cases down here where a drunk driver has killed innocent people and, after going to court, has been set free (with a small fine).
It really boils down to the fact that during the court hearing if the killers lawyer finds better words than the other lawyer....he wins.
I said this once before in another post................
YOU DO NOT GO TO COURT FOR JUSTICE.
YOU GO FOR A DECISION.
Regards..........Alan
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.