Yeah, that … doesn’t make sense.
If the police looked at someone and said “I bet that guy wearing a trenchcoat in August in Miami is up to no good” and stopped him for a stop-and-frisk, then Trenchy can reasonably argue that the police were singling him out for an unlawful search as they had no probable cause.
With the DUI check point, they are not singling anyone out, so there’s no profiling, the stop is minimal (less even than a stop-and-frisk), and they are looking for one specific thing: signs of drunkenness, a reasonable thing to look for on a highway at night.
I can see why that may make it make sense, but I’m still interested in hearing the narrator’s explanation, in case there’s more subtlety than that.
They’re singling out people who drive :D
because there’s no suspected crime, you being there is considered basic contact with the officer. Now, if the officer were to notice you under the influence, bam, justification to stop/hold you further.
Isn’t basic contact with an officer supposed to be consensual? Like, you can choose to walk away?
I know at least some states (at least Utah, for sure) have an “implied consent” law, which states that by driving on state roads, you agree to submit to drug or alcohol screenings. Dunno if it’s strictly necessary (or how it’s justified), but it cuts through a lot of red tape.
Wait, we have a sister now?
I was just as surprised as you. He never mentioned her to me before.
So THAT’s who he’s been talking to all this time…
The plot thickens…