Self-Defense & Violence Prevention Blog

news and commentary about security, self-defense, and topics like violent crime prevention and bullying

Our Police State

Tonight, while driving I had to stop for a cop in the street at, as I then found out, a DUI checkpoint. After looking at my license and asking if I had anything to drink, the cop quickly let me on my way.

While I want the cops to stop drunk driving to protect innocent people, I have to wonder about the unconstitutionality of these checkpoints. They have no probable cause. They treat all people as guilty until proven innocent. How does this differ from a police state?

By | August 17th, 2007 | SHOW COMMENTS (2)


I am the creator of this website, which I use to post about self-defense and violence prevention. I have two children who I love so much. I want them to be proud of me, and I hope what I do here contributes to that. Please let me know what you think about my posts by leaving a comment below. I throw my opinions around pretty openly here, but I am totally open to opposing viewpoints and a productive discussion. So please post a comment. And follow me on Twitter: @scottmhughes

2 Responses

  1. Scott says


    I want to stop drunk driving just as I want to stop all forms of victimization. Nonetheless, I do support a police state.

    Surely more murders and potential murders would be caught if cops just came into every house and searched through everything for any type of weapons or evidence.

    Obviously, you can stop any outlawed behavior simply by treating everyone as guilty until proven innocent– or “aggressive enforcement” as you say.

    No matter how terrible a certain outlawed behavior is, I would never ever support treating people as guilty until proven innocent. I will always oppose a police state.


  2. Brad says

    I guess people killed by drunk drivers do not meet your criteria for victimization; which according to your “About Us” page is something you would like to see as a thing of the past.
    Yes checkpoints can be an inconvenience but there are numerous case laws that clearly state checkpoints are fully constitutional. I am curious about the background of someone claiming to be a purveyor of safety that has such a limited knowledge of law enforcement and our criminal justice system. Especially when your “About Us” page only states:
    “Hi, my name is Scott Hughes. I want this blog to be the best resource on self-defense and violence prevention. I want to see the day when rape, murder, sexual assault, theft and other forms of victimization are a thing of the past. If you have any suggestions, please post a comment or contact us.”
    I fully understand someone having an issue with being stopped at a checkpoint. I do not understand someone claiming to be a safety advocate having such blatant disregard for law enforcement (or “cops”) and the importance of stopping drunk drivers. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 1982 26,173 people were killed in alcohol related traffic crashes. In 2006, that number was 17,602. Obviously we have a long way to go, but progress is being made – largely through education & aggressive enforcement (both of which are accomplished through checkpoints).


(no http, so not