These non-checkpoints are basically an accosting (check your case law) since there is no PC [PROBABLE CAUSE] or RS [REASONABLE SUSPICION] to stop the vehicles. Therefore, as in any accosting, the citizen has no obligation to submit to the accosting and can walk/drive away at any time.Thanks for the post of reason.Eventually the Courts will correct the legal fiction of these non-checkpoint checkpoints and the argument will go away.
Unlawful restraint: "A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint if the person knowingly or purposely and without lawful authority restrains another so as to interfere substantially with the other person's liberty."
Kidnapping light under color of authority. An abusive tactic.
Please, no legal opinions from non-lawyers. Some idiot might follow your advice and get into lots of trouble.
FYI, even the damned ACLU agrees that the production of a DL is required at a sobriety checkpoint
ROADBLOCKS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACLU of Arkansas
Updated June, 2009
Law enforcement officials are allowed to use roadblocks for specific, limited purposes. Whether a roadblock is legal depends on the facts of that roadblock. The legality of the
roadblock depends on the primary purpose of the roadblock.
If a roadblock’s primary purpose is general crime control (such as searching for illegal drugs), the roadblock
would generally violate the Fourth Amendment because general crime control is not a valid primary purpose. However, ensuring road safety is a valid primary purpose, so
roadblocks with that goal may be lawful.
Sobriety checkpoints and checkpoints to verify drivers’ licenses and vehicle registrations are two examples of roadblocks motivated by road safety, so those two types of checkpoints have a valid primary purpose.
If a roadblock is operated to seek information from local motorists about a recent crime or to prevent an imminently threatened crime (for example, to prevent a terrorist attack about which law enforcement has been warned), these would also be valid primary purposes.
If the roadblock has a valid primary purpose, detention of motorists may still be unlawful if the circumstances fail a three part test. The test looks at the seriousness of the public concern being addressed by the roadblock, the
ffectiveness of the roadblock in addressing that public concern, and the severity of the interference with idividual liberty during the stops.
The severity of the interference with individual liberty is measured two ways: objectively (looking at the duration of the seizure and the intensity of the investigation); and subjectively (looking at the fear and surprise felt by law-abiding motorists at the prospect of being stopped at a roadblock).
For sobriety checkpoints, for example, courts have generally said that deterring drunk driving is a very serious public concern, and that removing even a few drunk drivers from the road makes the roadblock an effective way of addressing the problem. Moreover, sobriety checkpoints usually require less than a minute of individualized attention per car, and if all cars are receiving equal attention, courts assume that law-abiding citizens would not feel afraid or surprised once it is their turn to speak to the officers at the roadblock.