D.u.i.

[Big Fitz]

as we have learned through out the years, no court decision is permenant till it's made part of the constitution, and even then they twist it.
therefore dont hand me this 'I'm wrong' shit. The courts have a history of being wrong AND not protecting the constitution as charged to. That is why there needs to be more ways to remove judges from the bench.
RICO is ALSO unconstitutional because it takes a presumption of guilt. But the courts have upheld it so far because they've gone activist.

 

[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.

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.

The "constitutional requirements already established by the court" are political court decisions. Sobriety checkpoints clearly violate the 4th Amendment. All the courts did was to create an "exception" in the case of DUI enforcement.

Whether or not you feel the exception is justified depends largely upon how far you are willing to go to compromise the Constitution in favor of apprehending drunk drivers. As such, the checkpoint decisions are, as I said, political decisions.

And let's not forget - there is quite often much bigger game afoot than merely an imbibing driver, when a vehicle is pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint. Also on the line, for the sober driver caught in a checkpoint, are (1) possible citation for driving without a license or with a suspended license, (2) possible citation for no insurance, (3) possible citation for vehicle equipment violation and (4) probably most significant of all - possible arrest for contraband found in the vehicle or on the person of the driver or a passenger.

In this latter regard, let's not forget that, in California, and I would assume most other states, people on probation or parole are subject to search and seizure without probable cause. As such, police ALWAYS ask if anyone in the vehicle is on probation or parole. If anyone is, here comes a search - a search that never would have been initiated in the first place, but for the random stop of the car in a sobriety checkpoint.

And even if no one in the car is on probation or parole, officers at a checkpoint always make a judgment call with regard to the occupants of the vehicle. If it's a middle aged couple and the guy hasn't been drinking, it's "have a nice evening, sir," and they drive away feeling good about the nice policeman. On the other hand, if the car is full of young, male Hispanics with shaved heads and tattoos, it's, "Anyone here on probation or parole? No? Well, do any of you boys have anything illegal on your person? No? Mind if we check?"

Once again, without the random stopping of the vehicle, none of this could have ever happened.

So what?, I hear you cry. If it gets bad guys, then where's the harm? If you don't want to get in trouble, don't ride around in cars with dope in your pocket. To those who would take this approach, I would say simply, we do not live in a police state in this country, thank God. We have a Constitution, that protects all citizens (ALL citizens, not just the innocent ones) from illegal search and seizure. If you want to get bad guys without benefit of the Constitution, then just do away with the Constitution and give the police free reign.

After all, why not? WE aren't the bad guys, are we?

 

[gunnyrogers55]

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.

This would make more sense but this isn't gonna happen those judges are going to make a killing taken time out of there poor lives on the weekend to do what the should all the time.

 

[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.

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

It's a valid comparison. The 4th Amendment provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . " Early on, the courts held that a citizen's automobile comes within the ambit of the 4th Amendment.

Using your logic, one might argue that, since guns are quite often hidden in houses, we should create an "exception" the the 4th Amendment in the case of houses.

 

[George Costanza]

as we have learned through out the years, no court decision is permenant till it's made part of the constitution, and even then they twist it.
therefore dont hand me this 'I'm wrong' shit. The courts have a history of being wrong AND not protecting the constitution as charged to. That is why there needs to be more ways to remove judges from the bench.
RICO is ALSO unconstitutional because it takes a presumption of guilt. But the courts have upheld it so far because they've gone activist.

I don't know about "activism," but, in the case of sobriety checkpoints, the courts have clearly turned their back on the 4th Amendment. As I mentioned in another post, all they did was create an "exception" to the 4th Amendment for sobriety checkpoints. A rather slippery slope, seems to me.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Jillian, the courts are wrong in the case of the DUI checkpoint decisions. As I mentioned earlier, these decisions are policy decisions. The courts are saying, basically: "We think that it is more important to nab drunk drivers than it is to apply the 4th Amendment to sobriety checkpoints, so we are going to create an exception in the case of sobriety checkpoints and allow them, even though they do violate the 4th Amendment."

They indulge in all kinds of rationalizations in the rendering of the checkpoint decisions, but where the rubber meets the road, they are simply crapping on the 4th because they feel the "slight inconvenience to the public" is outweighed by the desirability of apprehending drunk drivers.

I don't see anywhere in any of the DUI checkpoint decisions, language to the effect of: "However, since this is clearly an exception to the 4th Amendment intended to apply to DUI enforcement only, no police officer shall arrest anyone stopped in a DUI checkpoint for anything except driving under the influence."

Perhaps if something like that had been included, it might make it a little easier to swallow the blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

No to change the subject but . . . . at the airport the TSA has no probable cause to stop a passenger, no one asks your consent before they stop you and they sure as hell don't have a warrant. But they stop, pat, and roll that way anyway.

Hmmmm . . . . . .

 

[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.

No to change the subject but . . . . at the airport the TSA has no probable cause to stop a passenger, no one asks your consent before they stop you and they sure as hell don't have a warrant. But they stop, pat, and roll that way anyway.

Hmmmm . . . . . .

Yes, they do - and with the approval of the courts. Even this old, 4th Amendment junkie can't get too excited about airport boarding searches.

And consider this - everyone going through an airport boarding search has known for days, weeks and often months ahead of time, that it is coming. Not quite the same thing as driving around a curve and into the orange cones . . .

 

[Big Fitz]

A rather slippery slope, seems to me.

Slicked in teflon and an 80% grade.

 

[strollingbones]

i always object at road blocks...i always get my car searched at road blocks....seems asserting my rights....or lack of rights...causes this

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Owning property and a HOUSE is not a privilege. It is a RIGHT if you can afford it. The 4th Amendment covers it rather nicely. Of course reality is that no one actually owns property anymore anyway, The County owns it and leases it to you each year but call it property tax.

Roadblocks are LEGAL Counselor, which you know full well. Check points are also legal, as a lawyer you know this or should. Once stopped the cops have the right and duty to inspect the driver. If they suspect that driver is driving impaired they have a legal obligation to test them.

What I fail to understand is Florida law? If I refuse a breathalyzer in NC they arrest my ass and take me to jail. No more driving that night and I lose my license as if I popped on the test. Does Florida just release them?

Rather then tie up a Judge just make the same laws most states have, you lose your license for a year if you refuse to take the test. And when you refuse you go directly to jail.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Yes they can. You do not have a RIGHT to drive. As soon as you take your vehicle on a public roadway you no longer have the same protection as if you were in your home or on your property. And that is Constitutional.

Using your logic I could speed all I wanted , fail to stop and drive into my garage, close the door and go in my house and the cops would need a judge to come get me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The "constitutional requirements already established by the court" are political court decisions. Sobriety checkpoints clearly violate the 4th Amendment. All the courts did was to create an "exception" in the case of DUI enforcement.

Whether or not you feel the exception is justified depends largely upon how far you are willing to go to compromise the Constitution in favor of apprehending drunk drivers. As such, the checkpoint decisions are, as I said, political decisions.

And let's not forget - there is quite often much bigger game afoot than merely an imbibing driver, when a vehicle is pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint. Also on the line, for the sober driver caught in a checkpoint, are (1) possible citation for driving without a license or with a suspended license, (2) possible citation for no insurance, (3) possible citation for vehicle equipment violation and (4) probably most significant of all - possible arrest for contraband found in the vehicle or on the person of the driver or a passenger.

In this latter regard, let's not forget that, in California, and I would assume most other states, people on probation or parole are subject to search and seizure without probable cause. As such, police ALWAYS ask if anyone in the vehicle is on probation or parole. If anyone is, here comes a search - a search that never would have been initiated in the first place, but for the random stop of the car in a sobriety checkpoint.

And even if no one in the car is on probation or parole, officers at a checkpoint always make a judgment call with regard to the occupants of the vehicle. If it's a middle aged couple and the guy hasn't been drinking, it's "have a nice evening, sir," and they drive away feeling good about the nice policeman. On the other hand, if the car is full of young, male Hispanics with shaved heads and tattoos, it's, "Anyone here on probation or parole? No? Well, do any of you boys have anything illegal on your person? No? Mind if we check?"

Once again, without the random stopping of the vehicle, none of this could have ever happened.

So what?, I hear you cry. If it gets bad guys, then where's the harm? If you don't want to get in trouble, don't ride around in cars with dope in your pocket. To those who would take this approach, I would say simply, we do not live in a police state in this country, thank God. We have a Constitution, that protects all citizens (ALL citizens, not just the innocent ones) from illegal search and seizure. If you want to get bad guys without benefit of the Constitution, then just do away with the Constitution and give the police free reign.

After all, why not? WE aren't the bad guys, are we?

Take it to the Supreme Court. Ohh wait, that has been done.

Sorry Counselor if I can not argue that Abortion is murder because the Supreme Court said so, neither can you argue that legal road blocks are illegal after the Supreme Court said so.

 

[editec]

You know I agree that driving is a previlege, but there is one truly bad outcome from that.

The roads are part of the commons.

But the only way to use them in most cases is if you're driving.

That means that pedestrians non motorized travel is rather limited, thus putting most of us under scrutiny whenever we attempt to use the common lands that we all share.

There's not solution to this except to create common roads for pedestrians and non-motorized transport.

And, sadly, there's as yet no political movement advancing that notion.

One ought to be able to SAFELY anywhere in the USA without having to get into a car or motorized vehicle.

There should be a national system of non mechanized roads and paths equal or superior to the national system of roads built for cars and trucks.

Because otherwise it becomes a "privelge" to travel.

And that really does smack right into our constitutional rights, doesn't it?

There is NO WAY, for example that I could walk to FLA or CA without having to cross or walk alongside public highways,

Ergo, all traveler are ultimately overseen by police scrutiny.

Land of the FREE?

Hardly.

 

[SwordofDamocles]

a forced blood test?

a slippery slope

Is it any more slippery than getting molested at airports?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

a forced blood test?

a slippery slope

Is it any more slippery than getting molested at airports?

YOU chose to fly. You do so KNOWING what is in store for you. You have nothing to complain about.

My personal preference is that they search people so that the chance when I fly that I will be blown up is as small as possible.

 

[Big Fitz]

The road to a fascist police state is very easy to take. Just lie down, don't do anything and let the greased slide do it's work.

 

[jillian]

a forced blood test?

a slippery slope

Is it any more slippery than getting molested at airports?

wishful thinking about being molested.

 

[Big Fitz]

by law, what they do, if not for the fact they were ordered to by the government would be some class sexual assault, or at least assault.

 

[jillian]

by law, what they do, if not for the fact they were ordered to by the government would be some class sexual assault, or at least assault.

and if i charged interest on a loan at the rate banks do, it would be usury.

that's life.