D.u.i.

[gunnyrogers55]

In florida there trying to pass a new bill at D.U.I. check points that if i person now says no to blowing into a breathalyzer to check the persons alcohol levels to see if they are driving drunk. They will now have on site judges to order a warrant for the person to blow right then and there..As someone who lost someone from a drunk driver hitting them i like this idea but many find it unconstitutional to there rights...why

 

[Mini 14]

In florida there trying to pass a new bill at D.U.I. check points that if i person now says no to blowing into a breathalyzer to check the persons alcohol levels to see if they are driving drunk. They will now have on site judges to order a warrant for the person to blow right then and there..As someone who lost someone from a drunk driver hitting them i like this idea but many find it unconstitutional to there rights...why

In most States, refusal to take a sobriety test is not an admission of guilt, but carries the same penalties as having failed the test.

 

[Truthmatters]

Reliability of the Breathalyzer Test | eHow.com

 

[Sherry]

Driving is a privilege....the rules are simple. The rebels can take public transportation.

 

[William Joyce]

In florida there trying to pass a new bill at D.U.I. check points that if i person now says no to blowing into a breathalyzer to check the persons alcohol levels to see if they are driving drunk. They will now have on site judges to order a warrant for the person to blow right then and there..As someone who lost someone from a drunk driver hitting them i like this idea but many find it unconstitutional to there rights...why

In most States, refusal to take a sobriety test is not an admission of guilt, but carries the same penalties as having failed the test.

In my state, you're treated as if you'd blown at the highest tier of intoxication. You always lose your license for a year, regardless of what happens in the criminal case. Bottom line is it's pretty risky to refuse and most DUI defense attorneys don't advise it.

 

[xotoxi]

Driving is a privilege....the rules are simple. The rebels can take public transportation.

Yep. Some people seem to forget this fact.

 

[saltshaker]

Driving is a privilege....the rules are simple. The rebels can take public transportation.

There's no reason to confound things with simplicity, so quit being logical.

 

[uscitizen]

And on those driving on a suspended liscence for DUI.
The vehicle they are driving should be impounded and auctioned off with the proceeds going to victims of drunk drivers. If owned by someone else and they knowingly gave it to a suspended liscence DUI person then they forefeit it as well.


If they have nothing to drive they cannot drive drunk.

 

[strollingbones]

a forced blood test?

a slippery slope

 

[uscitizen]

a forced blood test?

a slippery slope

Yep but whatcha gonna do to keep em off the roads?

I keep hearing about 6X DUI types being caught here in KY.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Unless the person shows signs of intoxication, or possible intoxication, like open cans in the car. It's an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and has nothing to do with them being in a car.

Driving is a privileged.

My privacy is not.

 

[Two Thumbs]

a forced blood test?

a slippery slope

Yep but whatcha gonna do to keep em off the roads?

I keep hearing about 6X DUI types being caught here in KY.

charge them with attempted murder. 3 convictions gets you a life sentence.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I have no problem with the concept of DUI resulting in the confiscation of the car.

I also like the idea of having a judge issue warrants. That means there is someone else besides the cop watching what goes on.

What might be cool is since most cop cars are wired in anyway, is transmission of the interview directly to a judge for probable cause. Use high tech to protect our rights rather than invade them.

 

[George Costanza]

Driving is a privilege....the rules are simple. The rebels can take public transportation.

Owning a house is a privilege - yet the police cannot cross your threshold without probable cause, your consent or a warrant. None of these three requirements exist at a sobriety checkpoint. There is no probable cause to stop you to begin with, no one asks your consent before they stop you and they sure as hell don't have a warrant.

I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone. But I love our Constitution more, and am not prepared to sacrifice the rights it creates simply to "get" drunk drivers. To me, the tradeoff is not worth it.

Sacrificing constitutional rights in favor of enforcing the law is a slippery slope. Our constitutional rights were enacted precisely for the purpose of PROTECTING us from enforcement of the law in ways that violate those rights.

 

[whitehall]

How much are they going to pay "on site judges" to sit at DUI checkpoints? My guess is that they will have a folder full of pre-signed warrants.

 

[jillian]

Driving is a privilege....the rules are simple. The rebels can take public transportation.

Owning a house is a privilege - yet the police cannot cross your threshold without probable cause, your consent or a warrant. None of these three requirements exist at a sobriety checkpoint. There is no probable cause to stop you to begin with, no one asks your consent before they stop you and they sure as hell don't have a warrant.

I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone. But I love our Constitution more, and am not prepared to sacrifice the rights it creates simply to "get" drunk drivers. To me, the tradeoff is not worth it.

Sacrificing constitutional rights in favor of enforcing the law is a slippery slope. Our constitutional rights were enacted precisely for the purpose of PROTECTING us from enforcement of the law in ways that violate those rights.

i have no problem with random stops at checkpoints so long as they meet the constitutional requirements already established by the court.

sorry. i figure my right not to get hit by a drunk imbecile on the highway wins.

 

[Big Fitz]

In florida there trying to pass a new bill at D.U.I. check points that if i person now says no to blowing into a breathalyzer to check the persons alcohol levels to see if they are driving drunk. They will now have on site judges to order a warrant for the person to blow right then and there..As someone who lost someone from a drunk driver hitting them i like this idea but many find it unconstitutional to there rights...why

DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional.

DAMM doesn't give a fuck about the 4th amendment or your constitutional rights as long as they can go Carrie Nation on the public successfully. They had a point once, but now, like all social awareness/improvement institutions who have completed their task, they are seeking to find ways to continue to survive instead of shutting down operations. So now, they are on a temperance crusade and fuck the constitution and the rights of free people to be innocent till proven guilty. DUI Checkpoints ignore probable cause because they must be random, and I for one would not live in any state that has them. Put more cops on the street to watch for drunks but that means you MUST have probable cause and observed evidence of possible DUI.

As an aside, I want the book thrown at those who do commit DUI caused crimes or kill because of it. I am disgusted by multiple DUI drivers.

 

[Sherry]

Driving is a privilege....the rules are simple. The rebels can take public transportation.

Owning a house is a privilege - yet the police cannot cross your threshold without probable cause, your consent or a warrant. None of these three requirements exist at a sobriety checkpoint. There is no probable cause to stop you to begin with, no one asks your consent before they stop you and they sure as hell don't have a warrant.

I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone. But I love our Constitution more, and am not prepared to sacrifice the rights it creates simply to "get" drunk drivers. To me, the tradeoff is not worth it.

Sacrificing constitutional rights in favor of enforcing the law is a slippery slope. Our constitutional rights were enacted precisely for the purpose of PROTECTING us from enforcement of the law in ways that violate those rights.

I don't think that is a good comparison....your vehicle is used on public roads.

 

[jillian]

In florida there trying to pass a new bill at D.U.I. check points that if i person now says no to blowing into a breathalyzer to check the persons alcohol levels to see if they are driving drunk. They will now have on site judges to order a warrant for the person to blow right then and there..As someone who lost someone from a drunk driver hitting them i like this idea but many find it unconstitutional to there rights...why

DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional.

DAMM doesn't give a fuck about the 4th amendment or your constitutional rights as long as they can go Carrie Nation on the public successfully. They had a point once, but now, like all social awareness/improvement institutions who have completed their task, they are seeking to find ways to continue to survive instead of shutting down operations. So now, they are on a temperance crusade and fuck the constitution and the rights of free people to be innocent till proven guilty. DUI Checkpoints ignore probable cause because they must be random, and I for one would not live in any state that has them. Put more cops on the street to watch for drunks but that means you MUST have probable cause and observed evidence of possible DUI.

As an aside, I want the book thrown at those who do commit DUI caused crimes or kill because of it. I am disgusted by multiple DUI drivers.

the court's already said you're wrong about checkpoints so long as the checkpoints meet certain criteria.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Driving is a privilege....the rules are simple. The rebels can take public transportation.

Owning a house is a privilege - yet the police cannot cross your threshold without probable cause, your consent or a warrant. None of these three requirements exist at a sobriety checkpoint. There is no probable cause to stop you to begin with, no one asks your consent before they stop you and they sure as hell don't have a warrant.

I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone. But I love our Constitution more, and am not prepared to sacrifice the rights it creates simply to "get" drunk drivers. To me, the tradeoff is not worth it.

Sacrificing constitutional rights in favor of enforcing the law is a slippery slope. Our constitutional rights were enacted precisely for the purpose of PROTECTING us from enforcement of the law in ways that violate those rights.

I don't think that is a good comparison....your vehicle is used on public roads.

It most certainly is. Your car is your property, the cops can look in the windows but can't come in w/o probable cause, nor can they ask you to step out or force you to take any test w/o cause.