Posted on 02/23/2006 5:12:43 AM PST by Cagey
I should not have called you a libertarian. :-)
"What a retard. Any stop based only on the license plate would be unconstitutional and require suppression of any evidence collected. No amount of legislation will overturn the probable cause requirement to stop a vehicle. What the plate will do is create a presumptive suppression issue for every DUI stop that involves someone with one of these plates. J@ck@asses"
People that accept probation or parole agree to various conditions, such as drug/alcohol urine testing, etc. Other things, too. Living arrangements, work, no other violations, etc.
It seems reasonable that a judge would similarly sentence a DUI offender, with conditions.
The state vehicle licencing agency would issue plates, with the condition the applicant knows and agrees with any follow up measures.
I am not a lawyer. If you are, I think you have this one wrong.
No, I don't have this one wrong.
The Court cannot order conditions of probation that violate Constitutional rights.
The legislature cannot create a law that allows the police to stop your vehicle without probable cause.
end of story.
"The Court cannot order conditions of probation that violate Constitutional rights."
A probation officer can and does order his probationees to undergo random drug/alcohol testing WITHOUT probable cause.
It is an agreed condition of release.
These are legal facts in California.
I think they should just adapt Gallagher's idea, give everybody a dart gun and shoot darts with "Stupid" flags on any car that does something to piss you off. Then when the police see a car with about 10 of those flags on their car, they get pulled over.
You're incredibly foolish to do so.
A person convicted twice of drunk driving is clearly irresponsible,
Wrong. He was clearly irresponsible on two discrete days. In law, it's called the "forbidden inference" to use a few past events to characterize a person's present and future conduct. You seem eager to do so.
and his civil rights don't include keeping other drivers ignorant of his potential threat.
Every human is a potential threat at all times. I'm only moments away from yet another slander of Hillary Clinton, and about 10 minutes away from potentially endangering others as I drive to McDonald's. Using your wonderful brand of "logic", then any human could be treated by the state as a target for public ridicule... and that's the problem. Government takes every possible avenue available to it, and expands it as much as possible. This short-sighted approach started with such Politically Correct hate-targets such as sexual offenders and child molesters. Now we're already moving on to DUI's. This won't be the last classification to be singled out for sanctioned public mistreatment. Orwell's 3-Minute Hates don't seem so far off, now.
That, along with being free of without-probable-cause traffic stops, is a privilege he's forfeited by his dangerous behavior.
You seem like someone who is overly eager to punish others for their misdeeds. I pray the world has fewer of your ilk.
Finally, if he's capable of feeling it, public shame and embarrassment are sometimes useful tools to motivate someone to change his behavior,
I can't wait until it's your children's turn to face this kind of response for whatever mistakes they make in life. (I know that YOU could never make any, of course. And, by the way, no, I have no DUI's in my history. I rarely log over 36 beers in a given year, and nobody in my family has ever had a DUI.)
and (more likely) for those who see him to vow, "I'm never going to put myself in that position."
But again, that's not what will happen. Others will see them as a government-sanctioned target, and vent their emotions at them on the road, in parking lots, and face-to-face. Family members who have lost loved ones will assault innocent spouses and children of those who are forced to wear these scarlet letters. It is an incredibly bad idea, and only enthralls those who love to foment hate. I'm sorry if you have been personally affected by a DUI and are eager to find some outlet for your personal frustration, but that does not excuse opening the door to this kind of moronic, short-sighted, hateful, spiteful, violence-encouraging, prejudice-creating, and liberty-destroying nonsense.
By the way, those are rights that you are so gleefully giving away here, not privileges.
It's called the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Don't hand them away so carelessly in your sanctimony, thank you very much.
That is different than agreeing to allow your vehicle to be stopped without any probable cause.
Further, this law, if passed, will not be a condition of probation. Any traffic stop made merely because the license plate displayed reads "DUI" will be unconstitutional.
It has been shown repeatedly that
You can refer to me as "rock-ribbed conservative" or "hard-right." ;-)
Can we bury the hatchet now? (My wife thinks we're misunderstanding each other. She told me that you are an "Ancient One" like myself.)
I never did like hatchets. :-)
I'd be willing to discuss this with you if you can abstain from name-calling and making assumptions not supported by anything in my posts. I'm always interested in a calm, logical debate, but not in substituting emotion for reason. That's more suited to the DU than FR.
One of the things I like best about FR is that you can find arguments based on facts, evidence, and logic, put forth by courteous people. If your position is logical, you can be sure of my interest and attention. If it isn't logical, no amount of name-calling, unsupported assertions, or emotion will impress me (or, I believe, anyone else here).
Given what you said, that's a good enough reason to raise the limit back to .1, but I can't say that the busybodies in MADD and the Maryland Congress of People's Deputies will rise to the occasion.
By the way, what would be YOUR punishment for DUIs?
progressive based on actual BAC and number of offenses. Minor fine for .08, bigger fine for .1 hellacious fine for .15, etc multiplied by number of offenses.
Alcoholism is a lifestyle disease, just as are (usually) lung cancer, other cancers, heart disease, etc. It is a sad state that alcoholism is singled out as a self-inflicted disease and is not a "reason for much sympathy" as these other diseases.
Lung cancer is stigmatized, so that although it is one of the leading killers of Americans, it gets much less funding than, say, AIDS. Alcoholism gets even less funding and even less attention, since people like you consider it a weakness of character instead of an actual disease.
As far as I know, alcoholism is the only disease that is treated by throwing the patient into prison or jail.
Sure wish they'd stay in NC.
(NC gives driver's licenses to illegals, unlike VA, if you didn't know).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.