Are Roadblocks Constitutional?

[jillian]

Are Roadblocks Constitutional?

Are you concerned that roadblocks will infringe on your God-given right to drive a car?

They infringe upon my right to travel.

.

no. they don't.

 

[Liability]

Wrong on the first count. A detour, even a temporary one is not detainment without probable cause. Pulled over is police detainment and according to the constitution requires probable cause. The nourishment of tyranny on the second count. You are a dictators dream. Ever hear of this litle glitch in your sheep mentality? It's called presumed innocense. Learn it...know it...love it.

Government does not need your cheerleading. Greedy and power intoxicated people will always try to take more and control more for the taking.

Actually, driving is not a "right." It is a privilege. It requires that a license be issued by the State.

In order to protect the people on the roads (and close enough to it to be affected by motorists), the State has a very well defined and long recognized interest in issuing such licenses with conditions. One is that people amy not drive without a license. Another is that one may not obtain a license without passing certain tests. Another is that one may not drive at all under certain conditions (such as when one is intoxicated). And if a motorist violates these provisions, in order to fulfill its obligations to other people on (or near) the road, the State has valid legal authority to cancel licenses and to meet out punishment.

DWI is an area of overlap in that regard. Driving while drunk can get your license punched and get you criminally sanctioned.

To enforce the DWI laws, the State does have the legal authority to conduct traffic stops in a manner that is not otherwise inconsistent with our notions of fairness and justice. It's just one of the impositions one has ALREADY ACCEPTED as a condition of getting and keeping a driver's license. This is why roadblocks are considered Constitutional. Nothing about them allows for the officers to be arbitrary. ALL motorists get pulled over. No race consciousness. No sexism. No profiling. Equal application to all.

Can you make an argument that being "forced" to accept the conditions is somehow a violation of your liberty interests? Yeah. You can say it. But don't count on your argument being found persuasive.

No state shall pass a law that will supercede the constitution. I never signed a document relieving myself of my rights and if I was so foolish there is enough precident that I cannot anyway. It wouldn't matter. One cannot sign away ones constitutional rights. The government does not own anything exclusive of its citizens. We own the government..not the other way around. It would be a better government if more americans understood that.

I presume that you drive. If you do you must have good or corrected eyesight. With the gift of sight you should have been able to witness drivers that are not in control of thier vehicles. Police have these same magical powers of vision. Observing a vehicle that appears not in control is presumption and good reason to be stopped for your public safety. I am not inclined to co sign powers not spelled out in the constitution or interpreted so by those with an agenda not parallel with the wishes of the framers. You can lick fascist boots if you wish.

You missed the point.

The point is not that a State can pass a law that trumps the Constitution. It cannot validly do so; but nothing I have suggested says anything even remotely along those lines.

The point is that no Constitutional issue is even presented when you are stopped in that fashion for purposes of insuring compliance with your obligations pursuant to a LICENSE.

If your license is taken away from you, it is not a "taking" of property under the Constitution.

If the Government is trying to perform one of its lawful duties in a manner that involves administration of mere licenses, they are not violating any Constitutional right you have.

Put it in another light. If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over unless the officer saw you weaving in your lane or otherwise demonstrably violating some "rule of the road." Why should you (or any other driver) be heard to argue that you have a "right" to drive drunk -- thereby endangering the rest of us -- until and unless a cop has specific probable cause to pull YOU over?

What Constitutional-level "right" do you have to be free from the State's enforcement power over licenses GRANTED by the State?
Your PRIVILEGE to drive (not a right -- a privilege) is CONDITIONED on the granting of a license to you BY the State. One of the conditions is that you must stop at a valid traffic checkpoint.

 

[Contumacious]

Probable cause is the standard for arrest, not necessarily a detention. I know you don't agree with that though.

So a cop can pull over any car he or she wants to for no reason whatsoever?

DUI checkpoints are controlled, not random, there is a constitutional difference.

explain it the difference to me. I know the KGB used to love them,

.

 

[lawbuff]

So a cop can pull over any car he or she wants to for no reason whatsoever?

DUI checkpoints are controlled, not random, there is a constitutional difference.

explain it the difference to me. I know the KGB used to love them,

.

Stopping a motor vehicle is a seizure, and it must be reasonable in the eyes of the law. Random stops without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing are UNconstitutional. Controlled stops, such as those to check for a driver's license and DUI's are permitted as a matter of law by the SC and some states.

The Sitz case mentioned earlier outlines with case citations the legal difference.

 

[jillian]

So a cop can pull over any car he or she wants to for no reason whatsoever?

DUI checkpoints are controlled, not random, there is a constitutional difference.

explain it the difference to me. I know the KGB used to love them,

.

are you really interested? or do you want to continue blathering and drawing false analogies?

because the answer, if you're really interested, and if you read the link I posted earlier, is that there is no discretion as to which cars are stopped at a roadblock type stop. All cars are equally targeted. The law is that it can't be based on the officers' discretion, but must be in accordance with some type of plan. That cuts out possible abuses. THAT is the reason for it.

And, you can talk about the KGB all you want, but under the soviet system, no court would have struck down ANY type of checkpoint as ours did. And we wouldn't be discussing it on a public messageboard because you'd find yourself in a gulag somewhere.

 

[HUGGY]

Actually, driving is not a "right." It is a privilege. It requires that a license be issued by the State.

In order to protect the people on the roads (and close enough to it to be affected by motorists), the State has a very well defined and long recognized interest in issuing such licenses with conditions. One is that people amy not drive without a license. Another is that one may not obtain a license without passing certain tests. Another is that one may not drive at all under certain conditions (such as when one is intoxicated). And if a motorist violates these provisions, in order to fulfill its obligations to other people on (or near) the road, the State has valid legal authority to cancel licenses and to meet out punishment.

DWI is an area of overlap in that regard. Driving while drunk can get your license punched and get you criminally sanctioned.

To enforce the DWI laws, the State does have the legal authority to conduct traffic stops in a manner that is not otherwise inconsistent with our notions of fairness and justice. It's just one of the impositions one has ALREADY ACCEPTED as a condition of getting and keeping a driver's license. This is why roadblocks are considered Constitutional. Nothing about them allows for the officers to be arbitrary. ALL motorists get pulled over. No race consciousness. No sexism. No profiling. Equal application to all.

Can you make an argument that being "forced" to accept the conditions is somehow a violation of your liberty interests? Yeah. You can say it. But don't count on your argument being found persuasive.

No state shall pass a law that will supercede the constitution. I never signed a document relieving myself of my rights and if I was so foolish there is enough precident that I cannot anyway. It wouldn't matter. One cannot sign away ones constitutional rights. The government does not own anything exclusive of its citizens. We own the government..not the other way around. It would be a better government if more americans understood that.

I presume that you drive. If you do you must have good or corrected eyesight. With the gift of sight you should have been able to witness drivers that are not in control of thier vehicles. Police have these same magical powers of vision. Observing a vehicle that appears not in control is presumption and good reason to be stopped for your public safety. I am not inclined to co sign powers not spelled out in the constitution or interpreted so by those with an agenda not parallel with the wishes of the framers. You can lick fascist boots if you wish.

You missed the point.

The point is not that a State can pass a law that trumps the Constitution. It cannot validly do so; but nothing I have suggested says anything even remotely along those lines.

The point is that no Constitutional issue is even presented when you are stopped in that fashion for purposes of insuring compliance with your obligations pursuant to a LICENSE.

If your license is taken away from you, it is not a "taking" of property under the Constitution.

If the Government is trying to perform one of its lawful duties in a manner that involves administration of mere licenses, they are not violating any Constitutional right you have.

Put it in another light. If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over unless the officer saw you weaving in your lane or otherwise demonstrably violating some "rule of the road." Why should you (or any other driver) be heard to argue that you have a "right" to drive drunk -- thereby endangering the rest of us -- until and unless a cop has specific probable cause to pull YOU over?

What Constitutional-level "right" do you have to be free from the State's enforcement power over licenses GRANTED by the State?
Your PRIVILEGE to drive (not a right -- a privilege) is CONDITIONED on the granting of a license to you BY the State. One of the conditions is that you must stop at a valid traffic checkpoint.

I would argue that driving is not a privilege and is indeed a right with the qualifier that your driving right does not present a danger to the public. Hence the liscence which ensures the public that you know the rules and have demonstrated you can operate a vehicle safely.

If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over

That would be my position exactly. Unless a clear danger to the publiic is demonstrated and a violation has occured the police should mind thier own business and pursue known crimes.

I do not believe someone should drive drunk. I rarely drink myself and never drive intoxicated. That is a false threat. It is usually obvious when someone is not in control of thier vehicle. Your arguement suggests that drunk drivers just all of a sudden drive irratically and cause accidents. In my experience drunk drivers are for the most part obvious and as much as they can be a threat it is up to all drivers to be vigilant against many possible dangers. My arguement is backed up by "shared liability" in accidents applied by both police and insurance carriers. If found that the "innocent" party could have avoided an accident they are held liable also to whatever degree they were negligent in avoiiding the collision. IE...If you saw someone was not safely in control of thier car and did not give them wide birth you are also part of the problem. Lets say the bad operator was not drunk but experiencing a medical emergency. Shit happens. Do you throw the unlucky person with the physical imparement in prison even if they knew they were having problems and did not pull over?

I as the true republican am in favor of more freedom and less government intervention. It is the phoney neo republicans that are so in favor of legislating personal behavior when your personal behavior is your own responsibility as well as most of your own survival.

 

[Liability]

No state shall pass a law that will supercede the constitution. I never signed a document relieving myself of my rights and if I was so foolish there is enough precident that I cannot anyway. It wouldn't matter. One cannot sign away ones constitutional rights. The government does not own anything exclusive of its citizens. We own the government..not the other way around. It would be a better government if more americans understood that.

I presume that you drive. If you do you must have good or corrected eyesight. With the gift of sight you should have been able to witness drivers that are not in control of thier vehicles. Police have these same magical powers of vision. Observing a vehicle that appears not in control is presumption and good reason to be stopped for your public safety. I am not inclined to co sign powers not spelled out in the constitution or interpreted so by those with an agenda not parallel with the wishes of the framers. You can lick fascist boots if you wish.

You missed the point.

The point is not that a State can pass a law that trumps the Constitution. It cannot validly do so; but nothing I have suggested says anything even remotely along those lines.

The point is that no Constitutional issue is even presented when you are stopped in that fashion for purposes of insuring compliance with your obligations pursuant to a LICENSE.

If your license is taken away from you, it is not a "taking" of property under the Constitution.

If the Government is trying to perform one of its lawful duties in a manner that involves administration of mere licenses, they are not violating any Constitutional right you have.

Put it in another light. If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over unless the officer saw you weaving in your lane or otherwise demonstrably violating some "rule of the road." Why should you (or any other driver) be heard to argue that you have a "right" to drive drunk -- thereby endangering the rest of us -- until and unless a cop has specific probable cause to pull YOU over?

What Constitutional-level "right" do you have to be free from the State's enforcement power over licenses GRANTED by the State?
Your PRIVILEGE to drive (not a right -- a privilege) is CONDITIONED on the granting of a license to you BY the State. One of the conditions is that you must stop at a valid traffic checkpoint.

I would argue that driving is not a privilege and is indeed a right with the qualifier that your driving right does not present a danger to the public. Hence the liscence which ensures the public that you know the rules and have demonstrated you can operate a vehicle safely.

If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over

That would be my position exactly. Unless a clear danger to the publiic is demonstrated and a violation has occured the police should mind thier own business and pursue known crimes.

I do not believe someone should drive drunk. I rarely drink myself and never drive intoxicated. That is a false threat. It is usually obvious when someone is not in control of thier vehicle. Your arguement suggests that drunk drivers just all of a sudden drive irratically and cause accidents. In my experience drunk drivers are for the most part obvious and as much as they can be a threat it is up to all drivers to be vigilant against many possible dangers. My arguement is backed up by "shared liability" in accidents applied by both police and insurance carriers. If found that the "innocent" party could have avoided an accident they are held liable also to whatever degree they were negligent in avoiiding the collision. IE...If you saw someone was not safely in control of thier car and did not give them wide birth you are also part of the problem. Lets say the bad operator was not drunk but experiencing a medical emergency. Shit happens. Do you throw the unlucky person with the physical imparement in prison even if they knew they were having problems and did not pull over?

I as the true republican am in favor of more freedom and less government intervention. It is the phoney neo republicans that are so in favor of legislating personal behavior when your personal behavior is your own responsibility as well as most of your own survival.

I get your gist. Seriously, I get what you're saying. But the law does view it differently. I don't think there's any question but that -- in the eyes of the law -- driving is a privilege and it is BECAUSE it's a privilege that the State gets to issue licenses. If it wasn't a mere privilege, but was instead a "right," as you believe it should be viewed, then the State would have no legitimate authority to condition your driving on having a license and a registration and insurance.*

There is an area of overlap. When you get pulled over for a non-randomly based traffic stop, your freedom of movement is affected. This is why a search stemming from an invalid stop can end up having the evidence being suppressed. But a uniform traffic stop (like every fifth car or all cars) gets them past the concern of arbitrary and suspect police behavior. And the regulatory purpose is sufficient in the other regards.


_______________________
* The right to bear arms is a right, by contrast, and yet the State still claims to be able to condition citizen gun-ownership on the obtaining from the State of a license. I believe this contradictory set of results (i.e., the State conditioning a privilege on the obtaining of a license and the State conditioning a RIGHT on the obtaining of a license) is really at the core of 2nd Amendment debate issues.

 

[JD_2B]

No moreso than the cops blocking roads and such during a big sporting event.

Being asked to deture around an obstical such as a sporting event is light years from being stopped en masse without probable cause and forced to be tested for substances. Anyone that believes that this is constitutional is an enemy of our countries foundational instruments. This is not the former soviet union sport. If you concede that this is a police state then perhaps it is high time to start nourishing our failing freedom with the blood of tyrants.

They both use the same excuse. Public safety.

If you are not doing something wrong why worry?

I think I see the point made on this- The fifth amendment is to protect us against being falsely accused of a crime, even when we tell on someone else, and really had nothing to do with the other person's crime. Say someone in your car was drunk or had drugs on them. Say it is a minor. Well, just by having that minor in posession, even without knowledge, you could be charged with a crime of giving a minor drugs or getting them drunk, etc, and possession of whatever drug they had, etc.. Negligence, abuse, etc.

The fourth and fifth amendments go together in the sense that a cop is not supposed to do any search of your personal effects or property without a warrant or permission, because you can be wrongfully intertwined in a crime that you had no knowledge of.

Anyways, I see why this would be a constitutional issue. I reckon the cops better not even shine their lights into the backseats without reasonable suspicions. Who knows if they might see some cookie crumbs back there and assume that they might be drugs or something.. And then if someone in the car had gone to a friends house, and you dropped them off and waited outside for them, and without you knowing it, they bought drugs, you could get drug charges on you for that, too.. just based on where you were driving away from. It happens all the time, people getting arrested and losing their jobs for not being able to call in, all because the cops arrested an innocent person.

Like, One guy whose charges were dropped the next day after he was arrested, was arrested for being a lookout while his friend went in and purchased drugs from some friend. Well, the friend had no idea this was happening, he was just standing outside, waiting, smoking a cigarette. There was no evidence to suggest that he was a lookout, and he got arrested anyways. Its fucking ridiculous.. Thankfully the defense attorneys gave him an adequate affirmative defense, so that the prosecution decided to not pursue it further.

I bet the guy still lost his job though. Fuck that sucks.

 

[uscitizen]

All this seems to presume that an auto on public property has the same rights as a persons home?

 

[JD_2B]

That would be my position exactly. Unless a clear danger to the publiic is demonstrated and a violation has occured the police should mind thier own business and pursue known crimes.

I agree with this.

I do not believe someone should drive drunk. I rarely drink myself and never drive intoxicated. That is a false threat. It is usually obvious when someone is not in control of thier vehicle. Your arguement suggests that drunk drivers just all of a sudden drive irratically and cause accidents.

Drunk drivers do drive erratically cause a lot of accidents, dimbulb.

In my experience drunk drivers are for the most part obvious and as much as they can be a threat it is up to all drivers to be vigilant against many possible dangers.

I was driving down the street a couple of years ago, and this drunk driver was coming the wrong way down a one way street, at about 70 mph. I am alive by only about an inch of missing a head on collision with the asshole. How fucking vigilant must another person be, to avoid a drunk or drugged up driver, all because that fucking asshole couldn't be accountable, and exercise self control enough to call a cab??? That is bullshit.

My arguement is backed up by "shared liability" in accidents applied by both police and insurance carriers. If found that the "innocent" party could have avoided an accident they are held liable also to whatever degree they were negligent in avoiiding the collision. IE...If you saw someone was not safely in control of thier car and did not give them wide birth you are also part of the problem.

No- if someone is not in control of their vehicle, they need to pull the fucking thing over to the side of the road, and stop driving it. It is not MY responsibility to give him control over the whole fucking street, all because that driver is being a asshole who thinks he is above it all. I mean, if a car is coming straight at me, and I play chicken and don't move my car or even attempt to move out of the way of getting hit, there is a matter of negligence towards my own safety and well being- that would contribute to the liability percentage that I would be responsible for. Its called contributory negligence, when you simply fail to look out for your own well being and enter into some kind of presumed risk.

BUT people do not share liability simply for not moving the fuck over into another lane, all because the other driver was drunk. That is bullshit, and besides, they wouldn't share much of the liability for the accident anyways. There has to be a risk or threat that the other driver knew exists for there to be shared liability!!

Lets say the bad operator was not drunk but experiencing a medical emergency. Shit happens. Do you throw the unlucky person with the physical imparement in prison even if they knew they were having problems and did not pull over?

YES!! They were being negligent and putting your life at risk. They could have pulled the fuck over and had a paramedic take them to the hospital. Christ!!! How the fuck is that ANYONE ELSES FAULT except for the irresponsible driver having a medical emergency??? It is not MY fault that someone is having a heart attack or bleeding, or in labor, or has a broken arm, or leg, etc, and refuses to pay the 250 dollars for a safe trip to the ER that does not include killing me and my child on their way there. Fuck that shit! Let that asshole rot.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I would argue that driving is not a privilege and is indeed a right

You could, but you wold be wrong.

It is usually obvious when someone is not in control of thier vehicle. IE...If you saw someone was not safely in control of thier car and did not give them wide birth you are also part of the problem.

So the road hog who drives like a maniac should be able to have no more responsibility than the person they collide with because they were obviously a road hog and you should damn well get the hell out of their way!
I have been hit (in my car) more than once by a reckless driver, and every single time the entire fault was assigned them.
I sort of PREFER it that way. The guilty party is held accountable, not the victim.

 

[Contumacious]

All this seems to presume that an auto on public property has the same rights as a persons home?

So the state can monopolize the highways and streets and then claim that because the same are "public" property there is no expectation of privacy? That, therefore, The gestapo may stop you whenever for whatever.

.

 

[Charles Stucker]

All this seems to presume that an auto on public property has the same rights as a persons home?

So the state can monopolize the highways and streets and then claim that because the same are "public" property there is no expectation of privacy? That, therefore, The gestapo may stop you whenever for whatever.

.

Then break their perceived "monopoly"
Buy a bunch of land and build a road and drive as you please.

FYI - the gestapo were "secret" police. The roads are watched by local, county and state troopers, open police, so your abuse of the language becomes ludicrous.

 

[Contumacious]

All this seems to presume that an auto on public property has the same rights as a persons home?

So the state can monopolize the highways and streets and then claim that because the same are "public" property there is no expectation of privacy? That, therefore, The gestapo may stop you whenever for whatever.

.

Then break their perceived "monopoly"
Buy a bunch of land and build a road and drive as you please.

.

Excuse Mr. Sucker, but entrepreneurs are not going to finance roads when the government is determined to own and controlled the roads and byways.

.

 

[HUGGY]

You missed the point.

The point is not that a State can pass a law that trumps the Constitution. It cannot validly do so; but nothing I have suggested says anything even remotely along those lines.

The point is that no Constitutional issue is even presented when you are stopped in that fashion for purposes of insuring compliance with your obligations pursuant to a LICENSE.

If your license is taken away from you, it is not a "taking" of property under the Constitution.

If the Government is trying to perform one of its lawful duties in a manner that involves administration of mere licenses, they are not violating any Constitutional right you have.

Put it in another light. If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over unless the officer saw you weaving in your lane or otherwise demonstrably violating some "rule of the road." Why should you (or any other driver) be heard to argue that you have a "right" to drive drunk -- thereby endangering the rest of us -- until and unless a cop has specific probable cause to pull YOU over?

What Constitutional-level "right" do you have to be free from the State's enforcement power over licenses GRANTED by the State?
Your PRIVILEGE to drive (not a right -- a privilege) is CONDITIONED on the granting of a license to you BY the State. One of the conditions is that you must stop at a valid traffic checkpoint.

I would argue that driving is not a privilege and is indeed a right with the qualifier that your driving right does not present a danger to the public. Hence the liscence which ensures the public that you know the rules and have demonstrated you can operate a vehicle safely.

If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over

That would be my position exactly. Unless a clear danger to the publiic is demonstrated and a violation has occured the police should mind thier own business and pursue known crimes.

I do not believe someone should drive drunk. I rarely drink myself and never drive intoxicated. That is a false threat. It is usually obvious when someone is not in control of thier vehicle. Your arguement suggests that drunk drivers just all of a sudden drive irratically and cause accidents. In my experience drunk drivers are for the most part obvious and as much as they can be a threat it is up to all drivers to be vigilant against many possible dangers. My arguement is backed up by "shared liability" in accidents applied by both police and insurance carriers. If found that the "innocent" party could have avoided an accident they are held liable also to whatever degree they were negligent in avoiiding the collision. IE...If you saw someone was not safely in control of thier car and did not give them wide birth you are also part of the problem. Lets say the bad operator was not drunk but experiencing a medical emergency. Shit happens. Do you throw the unlucky person with the physical imparement in prison even if they knew they were having problems and did not pull over?

I as the true republican am in favor of more freedom and less government intervention. It is the phoney neo republicans that are so in favor of legislating personal behavior when your personal behavior is your own responsibility as well as most of your own survival.

I get your gist. Seriously, I get what you're saying. But the law does view it differently. I don't think there's any question but that -- in the eyes of the law -- driving is a privilege and it is BECAUSE it's a privilege that the State gets to issue licenses. If it wasn't a mere privilege, but was instead a "right," as you believe it should be viewed, then the State would have no legitimate authority to condition your driving on having a license and a registration and insurance.*

There is an area of overlap. When you get pulled over for a non-randomly based traffic stop, your freedom of movement is affected. This is why a search stemming from an invalid stop can end up having the evidence being suppressed. But a uniform traffic stop (like every fifth car or all cars) gets them past the concern of arbitrary and suspect police behavior. And the regulatory purpose is sufficient in the other regards.


_______________________
* The right to bear arms is a right, by contrast, and yet the State still claims to be able to condition citizen gun-ownership on the obtaining from the State of a license. I believe this contradictory set of results (i.e., the State conditioning a privilege on the obtaining of a license and the State conditioning a RIGHT on the obtaining of a license) is really at the core of 2nd Amendment debate issues.

I base my constitutional arguement on freedom of assembly. I believe that freedom of assembly strongly implies freedom of travel to that assembly.

 

[Contumacious]

I would argue that driving is not a privilege and is indeed a right with the qualifier that your driving right does not present a danger to the public. Hence the liscence which ensures the public that you know the rules and have demonstrated you can operate a vehicle safely.

If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over

That would be my position exactly. Unless a clear danger to the publiic is demonstrated and a violation has occured the police should mind thier own business and pursue known crimes.

I do not believe someone should drive drunk. I rarely drink myself and never drive intoxicated. That is a false threat. It is usually obvious when someone is not in control of thier vehicle. Your arguement suggests that drunk drivers just all of a sudden drive irratically and cause accidents. In my experience drunk drivers are for the most part obvious and as much as they can be a threat it is up to all drivers to be vigilant against many possible dangers. My arguement is backed up by "shared liability" in accidents applied by both police and insurance carriers. If found that the "innocent" party could have avoided an accident they are held liable also to whatever degree they were negligent in avoiiding the collision. IE...If you saw someone was not safely in control of thier car and did not give them wide birth you are also part of the problem. Lets say the bad operator was not drunk but experiencing a medical emergency. Shit happens. Do you throw the unlucky person with the physical imparement in prison even if they knew they were having problems and did not pull over?

I as the true republican am in favor of more freedom and less government intervention. It is the phoney neo republicans that are so in favor of legislating personal behavior when your personal behavior is your own responsibility as well as most of your own survival.

I get your gist. Seriously, I get what you're saying. But the law does view it differently. I don't think there's any question but that -- in the eyes of the law -- driving is a privilege and it is BECAUSE it's a privilege that the State gets to issue licenses. If it wasn't a mere privilege, but was instead a "right," as you believe it should be viewed, then the State would have no legitimate authority to condition your driving on having a license and a registration and insurance.*

There is an area of overlap. When you get pulled over for a non-randomly based traffic stop, your freedom of movement is affected. This is why a search stemming from an invalid stop can end up having the evidence being suppressed. But a uniform traffic stop (like every fifth car or all cars) gets them past the concern of arbitrary and suspect police behavior. And the regulatory purpose is sufficient in the other regards.


_______________________
* The right to bear arms is a right, by contrast, and yet the State still claims to be able to condition citizen gun-ownership on the obtaining from the State of a license. I believe this contradictory set of results (i.e., the State conditioning a privilege on the obtaining of a license and the State conditioning a RIGHT on the obtaining of a license) is really at the core of 2nd Amendment debate issues.

I base my constitutional arguement on freedom of assembly. I believe that freedom of assembly strongly implies freedom of travel to that assembly.

The 4th amendment as well as the 9th amendment right to travel are equally affected.

.

 

[Big Fitz]

Our little two-horse town is allegedly going to be conducting a comprehensive roadblock campaign this upcoming weekend, stopping everybody who is unfortunate enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time to be assessed for alcohol levels. They must be really hard up for money. Natch, I had plans to attend someone's BD party, replete with live band and, of course, 'potent' libations.

This whole thing strikes me as a blatant disregard for the 4th amendment. Your thoughts?

Yep. It is.

 

[Charles Stucker]

So the state can monopolize the highways and streets and then claim that because the same are "public" property there is no expectation of privacy? That, therefore, The gestapo may stop you whenever for whatever.

.

Then break their perceived "monopoly"
Buy a bunch of land and build a road and drive as you please.

.

Excuse Mr. Sucker, but entrepreneurs are not going to finance roads when the government is determined to own and controlled the roads and byways.

.

Really? Because there are plenty of privately owned toll roads in my part of the country.
Privately - as in NOT owned by the government.

 

[Contumacious]

Really? Because there are plenty of privately owned toll roads in my part of the country.Privately - as in NOT owned by the government.

Private roads in America

Though they are few and far between, there are some examples in the United States of functioning private roads.

Probably the most common are in private neighborhoods. Many homeowner associations maintain their own road systems, one of which I described in my article “The Lake of the Woods.”

The Dulles Greenway is a private road built in the western suburbs of Washington, D.C., in 1995. Though constructed with some restrictions set by the state, it was built with private money and is run as a for-profit business. The first year it opened, 6.1 million trips were made on the road. In 2006, 21 million trips were made. This type of private toll road has the ability to move large numbers of people without the aforementioned problems associated with the federal interstates that we are told are indispensable. It has shown its viability, and we might well be seeing many more of these private toll roads in the future.

One interesting example of private roads is in the city of North Oaks, Michigan. Not only does the city not own the roads, it doesn’t own any property. As it states on its website, “Because residents’ properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests only.” Perhaps one of these days cities such as North Oaks will be the norm.

Everyone, particularly libertarians, should favor private roads. They have much going for them – they rely on mutual consent for their construction and use, and the market decides what is the appropriate level of their use. People who don’t want to use them are free to spend their dollars on other things that they consider more worthy. And as far-fetched as they seem to some, we have examples of working private roads. I cannot think of a better way for cash-strapped state governments to reduce their budgets than to stop paving the roads.

.

 

[Liability]

I would argue that driving is not a privilege and is indeed a right with the qualifier that your driving right does not present a danger to the public. Hence the liscence which ensures the public that you know the rules and have demonstrated you can operate a vehicle safely.

If we were to follow the path you seem to suggest, the State (i.e., the police officer) would be unable to pull you over

That would be my position exactly. Unless a clear danger to the publiic is demonstrated and a violation has occured the police should mind thier own business and pursue known crimes.

I do not believe someone should drive drunk. I rarely drink myself and never drive intoxicated. That is a false threat. It is usually obvious when someone is not in control of thier vehicle. Your arguement suggests that drunk drivers just all of a sudden drive irratically and cause accidents. In my experience drunk drivers are for the most part obvious and as much as they can be a threat it is up to all drivers to be vigilant against many possible dangers. My arguement is backed up by "shared liability" in accidents applied by both police and insurance carriers. If found that the "innocent" party could have avoided an accident they are held liable also to whatever degree they were negligent in avoiiding the collision. IE...If you saw someone was not safely in control of thier car and did not give them wide birth you are also part of the problem. Lets say the bad operator was not drunk but experiencing a medical emergency. Shit happens. Do you throw the unlucky person with the physical imparement in prison even if they knew they were having problems and did not pull over?

I as the true republican am in favor of more freedom and less government intervention. It is the phoney neo republicans that are so in favor of legislating personal behavior when your personal behavior is your own responsibility as well as most of your own survival.

I get your gist. Seriously, I get what you're saying. But the law does view it differently. I don't think there's any question but that -- in the eyes of the law -- driving is a privilege and it is BECAUSE it's a privilege that the State gets to issue licenses. If it wasn't a mere privilege, but was instead a "right," as you believe it should be viewed, then the State would have no legitimate authority to condition your driving on having a license and a registration and insurance.*

There is an area of overlap. When you get pulled over for a non-randomly based traffic stop, your freedom of movement is affected. This is why a search stemming from an invalid stop can end up having the evidence being suppressed. But a uniform traffic stop (like every fifth car or all cars) gets them past the concern of arbitrary and suspect police behavior. And the regulatory purpose is sufficient in the other regards.


_______________________
* The right to bear arms is a right, by contrast, and yet the State still claims to be able to condition citizen gun-ownership on the obtaining from the State of a license. I believe this contradictory set of results (i.e., the State conditioning a privilege on the obtaining of a license and the State conditioning a RIGHT on the obtaining of a license) is really at the core of 2nd Amendment debate issues.

I base my constitutional arguement on freedom of assembly. I believe that freedom of assembly strongly implies freedom of travel to that assembly.

You are making an interesting argument.

In pondering what you just said there, I wonder if this is a fair analogy, however:

The phrasing of the First Amendment strongly implies that the Freedom of Speech guarantee is an absolute. Yet I believe it is crystal clear that the First Amendment is NOT an absolute. There ARE laws prohibiting the publication of state secrets. If you criminalize speech, it isn't exactly "free" in an absolute sense -- at least not in all cases. Similarly, it is considered pretty basic that a person is not permitted to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there's not actually a fire there (or at least no good faith belief that there is one). And libel and slander laws permit people to sue each other for defamation. If you can sue a person to get punitive damage$ from him or her, then the speech can be something very much "other than" free.

So, getting back to your freedom of peaceable assembly argument: yes, freedom to travel to get to the area of assembly is an implicit right. That doesn't necessarily mean that the right entails the right to drive a motor vehicle without properly meeting licensing conditions.