A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Here in my little burg it's gone beyond roadblocks and other invasions. We seem to accept people getting arrested for being "drunk in public" while they're standing on the sidewalk calling a taxi.

/the judges are complicit in this

Ugh. Just STOP DRIVING DRUNK. Spend the roadblock money on reliable public transport.

I LOL'd

bureacratic logic at it's finest.

As one who has to scrape up your brains off the road, please don't drink and drive.

No no no, you people have it all wrong. They aren't trying to catch drunks at these roadblocks, they are simply safety checkpoints. What else are they to do if someone happens to be drunk?

That's retarded. Would doctors be unsuccessful if they didn't have any lives to save?

We've secretly rerouted all of the drunk drivers. Let's see if anyone notices.

Coronach: Here in my little burg it's gone beyond roadblocks and other invasions. We seem to accept people getting arrested for being "drunk in public" while they're standing on the sidewalk calling a taxi.

/the judges are complicit in this



A buddy of mine was arrested for being drunk in his front yard.

WTF!

penis: That's retarded. Would doctors be unsuccessful if they didn't have any lives to save?

Would a stupid argument be successful even if it made no sense?

Mugato: A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz set the precedent here. You can blame Rehnquist for holding (and the majority for Joining) that sobriety checkpoints support a sufficient state interest in overriding your Constitutional rights.

"I was drunk in a bar! They threw me into PUBLIC!"

They should just make every citizen to install a Car Breathalyzer. This could be easily paid for if we just raised taxes on gas. or increase income taxes from 30 percent. Or state taxes even.

Much like mandatory health care, wire tapping, car insurance.

GO OBama make it happen!! If not Obama lets hop Mccain can make this happen!

I welcome a police state if it saves lives!

tonesskin

Good point, your argument needs work, you get an F, see me after class.

Mugato: A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

Why drink to the point of being drunk? A man or woman should know their limits....

Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

The issue isn't driving, it's unreasonable search and seizure.

Spirit Hammer: "I was drunk in a bar! They threw me into PUBLIC!"

Now THAT could be an interesting argument to try lol

mikalmd: Why drink to the point of being drunk? A man or woman should know their limits....

I've yet to hit my limit. I always hit the floor first.

Sgt. Scott) Hahn agreed, saying by making the scene a spectacle with lights, trucks and cars, the checkpoints make an impression on motorists going through them and prompt them to talk about the stops with others...


Actually you're just warning the drunks before they ever get to the checkpoint and forcing them to take another way home.

/Fine police work.....

I don't object to the assertion that a preventive measure that nets no "hits" is a success. Of course, they haven't proved that the checkpoints are really a deterrent, but I'm gullible enough to buy that they are.

What I categorically deny is that these checkpoints aren't an infringement on the rights of everyone that gets stopped. If you don't stop you'll no doubt get arrested for "failure to comply with an officer's instructions" or some equally bogus infraction. Which means the stop is essentially temporary detainment for no better reason than you happened to be driving down the road where the checkpoint was.

And if they stop you with no good reason and then nail you for some infraction that they had no reason to believe you were committing until after they stopped you? It's dangerously close to illegal search.

Traffic laws and the way they're enforced in this country are beyond asinine. If I go 80 down the highway, the penalty is exactly the same as is some homicidal asshole goes 50 down my street passing kids on bikes. We have a federally-mandated .08 BAC limit. Why? Because some neo-puritan whack jobs screamed loud enough. Go look to see if you can find any proof that it has made any of us any safer.

The reason the system doesn't self correct is that the municipalitites, counties, courts, and lawyers make a bunch of money on the status quo, and even though the laws and enforcement measures are almost universally loathed by drivers, they amount to no more than an occasional annoyance for most of us. That's why I joined NMA. It's cheap, it has good benefits, and it's practically the only voice speaking up for responsible drivers.

penis: tonesskin

Good point, your argument needs work, you get an F, see me after class.

Why? Will you use another irrelevant analogy?

mikalmd: Why drink to the point of being drunk? A man or woman should know their limits....

It's pretty dumb to think that everyone charged with drunk driving are actually drunk. A 0.08 is pretty farking low (and not "drunk" by any stretch of the imagination).

I was happy in the haze of a drunken hour.

But heaven knows I'm miserable now.

unreasonable search, even; way to beat me to the punch, AND use the correct term, SWLN

My wife's ex-husband got blitzed at a bar one night and decided to walk the three blocks home instead of get behind the wheel. Salt Lake City PD picked him up for "public intoxication" anyway, proving once again that the cops will pick you up no matter what.

I've ever driven drunk one time - it was the dumbest and scariest thing I've ever done...thank FSM no one got hurt. Ended up driving 30 miles back to the apartment at 3AM...

Malinki: Mugato: A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

Really? I've been driving for many years, and I haven't violated the Constitiution one time. (I did billet some troops in private houses once, but that had nothing to do with driving)

Yes but there is no way of knowing who is drunk if we don't force every citizen to submit to road blocks and breathalyzers.

Not only that We should set up road blocks and check citizenship that will catch these damn illegals or road blocks to check for drugs and what not.

Its time to clean up these streets! DO your duty and comply to mandatory search and seizures!

i need to run for office.

aspAddict: My wife's ex-husband got blitzed at a bar one night and decided to walk the three blocks home instead of get behind the wheel. Salt Lake City PD picked him up for "public intoxication" anyway, proving once again that the cops will pick you up no matter what.

Why do public intoxication laws even exist, ostensibly? I can certainly understand having drunk and disorderly laws...if you're drunk and being violent or causing a nuisance they should be able to pick you up. But why the hell should they be allowed to arrest you just for being drunk somewhere besides the interior of your home?

SquirrelWithLargeNuts: Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

The issue isn't driving, it's unreasonable search and seizure.

Actually the issue is driving under the influence, but nice try. I do agree that the search/seizure issue is important. So is the issue of cops getting carried away with authority they shouldn't have. But again, this is about driving under the influence, which I am all for stopping. You?

Malinki: Actually the issue is driving under the influence, but nice try. I do agree that the search/seizure issue is important. So is the issue of cops getting carried away with authority they shouldn't have. But again, this is about driving under the influence, which I am all for stopping. You?

I'm for stopping driving under the influence, but I do not believe the ends always justify the means. You?

filth: Malinki: Mugato: A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

Really? I've been driving for many years, and I haven't violated the Constitiution one time. (I did billet some troops in private houses once, but that had nothing to do with driving)

That was almost funny and almost made sense.

My point, of course, was that driving is not guaranteed by the constitution. It is not a right. Same point that's been made many, many times. I'm just repeating it for silliness in response to your silliness :)

Malinki: SquirrelWithLargeNuts: Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

The issue isn't driving, it's unreasonable search and seizure.

Actually the issue is driving under the influence, but nice try. I do agree that the search/seizure issue is important. So is the issue of cops getting carried away with authority they shouldn't have. But again, this is about driving under the influence, which I am all for stopping. You?

The Constitution has this pesky probable cause requirement that these roadblocks seem a little light on. Let's put it to you this way: is it more important to catch a few drunks (who might only be .08) than preserve the 4th Amendment? I'll take the 4th; I'm old school like that.

Mnemia: Malinki: Actually the issue is driving under the influence, but nice try. I do agree that the search/seizure issue is important. So is the issue of cops getting carried away with authority they shouldn't have. But again, this is about driving under the influence, which I am all for stopping. You?

I'm for stopping driving under the influence, but I do not believe the ends always justify the means. You?

Not always, no. See how much we agree when we do it this way? The fun part now is to define that 'not always' bit.

My wife got a DUI after the cops woke her up, got her out of the back seat, and she tested at .10 (because she had the keys on the driver's seat while she slept it off) so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

filth: Malinki: SquirrelWithLargeNuts: Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

The issue isn't driving, it's unreasonable search and seizure.

Actually the issue is driving under the influence, but nice try. I do agree that the search/seizure issue is important. So is the issue of cops getting carried away with authority they shouldn't have. But again, this is about driving under the influence, which I am all for stopping. You?

The Constitution has this pesky probable cause requirement that these roadblocks seem a little light on. Let's put it to you this way: is it more important to catch a few drunks (who might only be .08) than preserve the 4th Amendment? I'll take the 4th; I'm old school like that.

Life weighs more than privacy. I'll take the search.

Malinki: My point, of course, was that driving is not guaranteed by the constitution. It is not a right. Same point that's been made many, many times. I'm just repeating it for silliness in response to your silliness :)

Well, I think the "driving is a privilege" thing is debatable, but even if it is, I still think it's constitutionally questionable for the cops still to search you for no reason other than that you're driving. They should have to have more reason for suspicion than that.

Malinki: filth: Malinki: Mugato: A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

Really? I've been driving for many years, and I haven't violated the Constitiution one time. (I did billet some troops in private houses once, but that had nothing to do with driving)

That was almost funny and almost made sense.

My point, of course, was that driving is not guaranteed by the constitution. It is not a right. Same point that's been made many, many times. I'm just repeating it for silliness in response to your silliness :)

The Constitutuion guarantees me the right to do anything that it doesn't give the government the power to stop. Therefore, to say that driving is not constitutionally guaranteed is incorrect.

Mnemia: Malinki: My point, of course, was that driving is not guaranteed by the constitution. It is not a right. Same point that's been made many, many times. I'm just repeating it for silliness in response to your silliness :)

Well, I think the "driving is a privilege" thing is debatable, but even if it is, I still think it's constitutionally questionable for the cops still to search you for no reason other than that you're driving. They should have to have more reason for suspicion than that.

Agreed. Like pulling out of a bar parking lot.

Malinki: filth: Malinki: SquirrelWithLargeNuts: Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

The issue isn't driving, it's unreasonable search and seizure.

Actually the issue is driving under the influence, but nice try. I do agree that the search/seizure issue is important. So is the issue of cops getting carried away with authority they shouldn't have. But again, this is about driving under the influence, which I am all for stopping. You?

The Constitution has this pesky probable cause requirement that these roadblocks seem a little light on. Let's put it to you this way: is it more important to catch a few drunks (who might only be .08) than preserve the 4th Amendment? I'll take the 4th; I'm old school like that.

Life weighs more than privacy. I'll take the search.

In that case, I'm glad the framers thought to put the 4th Amendment in the Constitution so I wouldn't have to submit to unreasonable searches even if you want to.

Malinki: Life weighs more than privacy. I'll take the search.

Not me. Your argument could essentially be used as an argument against the 4th Amendment in general. After all, anyone COULD have a suitcase nuclear weapon hidden in their basement. Therefore, the cops should have the power to search anyone's house any time they want. Life weighs more than privacy. See how that works?

Malinki: Life weighs more than privacy. I'll take the search.

No, no it doesn't.

Unfortunately for the un-Constitutional argument...

SCOTUS thinks differently. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (1990).

+1 for the headline, Subby!

filth: Malinki: filth: Malinki: Mugato: A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

Really? I've been driving for many years, and I haven't violated the Constitiution one time. (I did billet some troops in private houses once, but that had nothing to do with driving)

That was almost funny and almost made sense.

My point, of course, was that driving is not guaranteed by the constitution. It is not a right. Same point that's been made many, many times. I'm just repeating it for silliness in response to your silliness :)

The Constitutuion guarantees me the right to do anything that it doesn't give the government the power to stop. Therefore, to say that driving is not constitutionally guaranteed is incorrect.

Ahhhhhh, the ol' 'if it doesn't say i can't do it then it must be okay' angle. Nope, sorry, that's the way salesmen, lawyers, and advertisers think. Yes, it has validity in some ways, but overall should be used very, very carefully.

'It doesn't say I can't' is certainly not the approach to take when dealing with alcohol and cars. That's childish.

toneskin ... 0.08 ... not "drunk" ...

Also a good point. A guy I know had a few, got stopped at a checkpoint, blew lower than .08. The cop still thought he was a risk based on observation, told him he could either "voluntarily" sit in his car at the checkpoint for an hour before driving on or else the cop was going to arrest him anyway.

So ... if the test is not diagnostic, then why bother using it at all? And if it is diagnostic, then is the cop overstepping by pulling something like that?

Malinki: Mugato: A roadblock that catches drunks is successful unconstitutional.

Maybe, but driving isn't constitutional either.

Freedom of Movement (new window) is generally considered a natural right/common law right. If driving a vehicle is really the only modern transportation available to some, limiting their access to driving is a defacto restriction.

Malinki: My point, of course, was that driving is not guaranteed by the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights.

Malinki: Agreed. Like pulling out of a bar parking lot.

Pulling out of a bar parking lot is not evidence that the driver has been drinking, by itself. And it's legal to drink and drive as long as you aren't over the limit. So that by itself is not evidence at all that someone has broken the law. Now if they are swerving all over the road? Yes, that would be probable cause.

Also, you're now moving the goalposts. Earlier we were talking about totally random driving checkpoints.

Malinki
Life weighs more than privacy. I'll take the search.

You, and everyone like you, needs to get the fark out of my country.
You are the reason our rights and freedoms are being taken from us at an ever increasing rate.
You are the reason that our nation is at war.

You are a horrible person and as un-American as a human being can be.

/I hope you're British.

Malinki: Ahhhhhh, the ol' 'if it doesn't say i can't do it then it must be okay' angle. Nope, sorry, that's the way salesmen, lawyers, and advertisers think. Yes, it has validity in some ways, but overall should be used very, very carefully.

'It doesn't say I can't' is certainly not the approach to take when dealing with alcohol and cars. That's childish.

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Those childish framers, giving out freedoms all willy-nilly!