It is, in fact, a blatant violation.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the courts have often inferred driving to imply consent to various kinds of searches that would be unconstitutional if you were just walking around. No person has to drive, so when you make the choice to do so, you consent to submitting to certain procedures designed to ensure the safety of the public. Don't want your property or person searched in this manner? No problem - take the bus or walk instead of driving.

EDIT: obviously I know that's not realistic for everybody, but it's the logic the courts have used to justify this kind of search.

No. The constitution prohibits arbitrary and unreasonable searchers. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided that public benefits of checking if you are in compliance while executing your privilege to drive a car overweights your inconvenience to be stopped. They cannot stop you if you are walking or riding a horse, because it's not a privilege.

While it's technically lawful I personally think it's bullshit and just executing a loophole in the Constitution.

Driving isn't considered a right because it takes place on government-provided streets.

I googled that answer here: https://constitutionstudy.com/2019/07/05/is-driving-a-right-or-a-privilege/comment-page-1/

I think because we live within 100 miles of a border (two-thirds of the United State’s population does) we forfeit our fourth amendment rights.

I’m not exactly sure on the particulars although I do know about it, maybe someone that knows more about it can chime in.

I concur 100% with you two. What’s even worse are the government surveillance drones I constantly see in my town and am followed by constantly. I know it sounds crazy but apparently I’m under some kinda “investigation” for something….one example of the drones for all u downvoters

Or we could just turn all the roads into sidewalks and make it a walking city like some of the people in here want.

It typically means that they'll check every fourth car, or check only cars with registrations that expire in July (any plate ending in a 7), or some other system that specifically isn't "grab that guy, and then grab that guy, annnnnnnd that guy looks like he's worth talking to".

fReEdOm amiright?

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the checkpoints, but this seems like an oversimplification of the issue. If we say it is constitutional then theoretically we’re also approving other warrantless searches such as the random stop and frisks enacted in NYC under Rudy Guliani. Both are examples of search without probable cause. It’s one thing to argue that the value of increased safety is worth the price, and any court can arbitrarily approve one and not the other, but you have to admit that it’s an end justifies the means policy. In that light I at least understand why people are apprehensive about it.