Big Brother wants Alcohol Detection System in every car

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree with RGS. Driving on public roadways is a privilege. If a citizen has not been drinking, what is the problem with proving that as a condition of being able to exercise that privilege?

How about cameras too so any other illegal activities that go on in the car can be captured on film ?

While one may have no expectation of privacy in regards the ACT of driving, one does OWN the vehicle. Thus things other then the act of driving can be considered to have an expectation of privacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm do you drive your car on public or private roads?

Both, what's your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that getting behind the wheel drunk is subject to privacy protections. Can you elaborate?

If you don't view being forced to take a BAT every time you get into your car as a privacy issue I have no idea what you think is private.

The State controls your ability and right to drive, one could argue you have no right to an expectation of privacy in regards the act of driving.

One could be wrong if they did. If that logic applied cops could search every car on the road simply because it is on the road.

 

[maineman]

If you don't view being forced to take a BAT every time you get into your car as a privacy issue I have no idea what you think is private.

The State controls your ability and right to drive, one could argue you have no right to an expectation of privacy in regards the act of driving.

One could be wrong if they did. If that logic applied cops could search every car on the road simply because it is on the road.

cops CAN stop every car on the road at a roadblock and check everyone's BAC.

 

[GHook93]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that getting behind the wheel drunk is subject to privacy protections. Can you elaborate?

If you don't view being forced to take a BAT every time you get into your car as a privacy issue I have no idea what you think is private.

There is a balancing test with everything. Protecting the public from drunk drivers seems like it could tip the scale towards its direction.

I know in AZ, if you had 1 DUI, then you had on your own dime get this installed into your car.

Not sure why this is a bad thing. I personally would want it.

 

[Dr.House]

Stupid idea...

Can't wait to see the first lawsuit when it fails in an emergency...

 

[uscitizen]

Stupid idea...

Can't wait to see the first lawsuit when it fails in an emergency...

Cops and emergency service vehicles will of course be exempt as well as legislators vehicles of course.

 

[LuckyDan]

This could also protect drunks from themselves. If I were facing a third strike and still couldn't control myself, I might pay extra for this option.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you don't view being forced to take a BAT every time you get into your car as a privacy issue I have no idea what you think is private.

The State controls your ability and right to drive, one could argue you have no right to an expectation of privacy in regards the act of driving.

One could be wrong if they did. If that logic applied cops could search every car on the road simply because it is on the road.

Already covered. The Car is owned by you thus an expectation of privacy. The ability to legally drive it rests solely with the State, no expectation of privacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The State controls your ability and right to drive, one could argue you have no right to an expectation of privacy in regards the act of driving.

One could be wrong if they did. If that logic applied cops could search every car on the road simply because it is on the road.

cops CAN stop every car on the road at a roadblock and check everyone's BAC.

They can set up roadblocks to catch drunk drivers, but the only way they can check a person's BAC is with probable cause.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The State controls your ability and right to drive, one could argue you have no right to an expectation of privacy in regards the act of driving.

One could be wrong if they did. If that logic applied cops could search every car on the road simply because it is on the road.

Already covered. The Car is owned by you thus an expectation of privacy. The ability to legally drive it rests solely with the State, no expectation of privacy.

The only case where these things are legal is when someone has actually been convicted of DWI. Everyone else has a presumption of innocence, and it thus invades their privacy to test them as a condition of driving.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Umm do you drive your car on public or private roads?

Irrelevant argument as the fourth amendment protects people not places. Thats why wiretapping a public phone booth (do those still exists?) without a warrant would still be an unconsitutional invasion of privacy.

This does not seem to be an all around horrible idea but its implementation would not something I can agree with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm do you drive your car on public or private roads?

Irrelevant argument as the fourth amendment protects people not places. Thats why wiretapping a public phone booth (do those still exists?) without a warrant would still be an unconsitutional invasion of privacy.

This does not seem to be an all around horrible idea but its implementation would not something I can agree with.

I hate it when that happens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One could be wrong if they did. If that logic applied cops could search every car on the road simply because it is on the road.

Already covered. The Car is owned by you thus an expectation of privacy. The ability to legally drive it rests solely with the State, no expectation of privacy.

The only case where these things are legal is when someone has actually been convicted of DWI. Everyone else has a presumption of innocence, and it thus invades their privacy to test them as a condition of driving.

Wrong, the State is free to determine any law they want on the conditions to allow you to drive. All that is needed is a change to the law. The State determines what legally allows you to drive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which is why everyone on the road has car insurance now, because the state is never ignored, or wrong.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Big Brother wants Alcohol Detection System in every car

Cool. At least someone will be keeping track of my high scores then.

 

[Greenbeard]

Irrelevant argument as the fourth amendment protects people not places. Thats why wiretapping a public phone booth (do those still exists?) without a warrant would still be an unconsitutional invasion of privacy.

I think the argument here (as RetiredGySgt has been pointing out) is that driving and making use of those public roads is a privilege granted by the state. You have to be licensed by the state to do it and if regulations were put in place requiring you to get some kind of futuristic laser breathalyzer test to get behind the wheel (which doesn't really follow from the OP) it doesn't seem that would violate Fourth Amendment rights.

 

[dilloduck]

I agree with RGS. Driving on public roadways is a privilege. If a citizen has not been drinking, what is the problem with proving that as a condition of being able to exercise that privilege?

How about cameras too so any other illegal activities that go on in the car can be captured on film ?

illegal activities that immediately threaten the safety of other citizens legally using the roadways? Such as?

texting in a school zone.
Turning to smack your kid in the back seat
using a cell phone
seat belt is unbuckled
speed
forget to signal
etc etc

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Irrelevant argument as the fourth amendment protects people not places. Thats why wiretapping a public phone booth (do those still exists?) without a warrant would still be an unconsitutional invasion of privacy.

I think the argument here (as RetiredGySgt has been pointing out) is that driving and making use of those public roads is a privilege granted by the state. You have to be licensed by the state to do it and if regulations were put in place requiring you to get some kind of futuristic laser breathalyzer test to get behind the wheel (which doesn't really follow from the OP) it doesn't seem that would violate Fourth Amendment rights.

I understand that and how the legislative process works. I was pointing out that question was irrelevant since people still have a right to privacy while on public streets. Again, while I dont think such a thing would be unconstitutional and I do not wholeheartly disagree with the idea behind such a requirement, I would side with the opposition to such a law. It is a very intrusive idea.

 

[Dr Grump]

Making this mandatory would be an issue to me, mostly as it assumes guilt for no reason. And for the people in the survey saying it is a good idea, I would bet 90% of them would disable the device the second they got it.

Guilt of what? If it detects alcohol on your breath, it stops you from driving.....No problem IMO....