Posted on 09/18/2007 9:39:52 AM PDT by Philistone
Its not unreasonable, given when it occurs,
If he doesn’t have a warrant, or really strong probable cause, it’s unreasonable. Random stops and searches are illegal. Period.
No problem you holding a personal opinion like that. The courts have said otherwise, repeatedly.
I’m happy with those rulings. We kill more in a single year due to idiots driving drunk than we’ve lost since 9/11 in the war...by quite a bit actually.
The number of people who are actually killed by drunk drivers each year is very small. And I am not talking about “alcohol related fatalities.” All this Government hysteria is not justified.
‘Sorry but you are wrong, when it’s a random stop with no probable cause it’s wrong.’
In your opinion. In the real world, its law thats been affirmed repeatedly.
Random searches cannot be reasonable, as there is no probable cause.
And I would argue that driving IS a right, by the way.
I like turtles.
‘The number of people who are actually killed by drunk drivers each year is very small.’
Really? Whats the total?
Second question. How many is ‘enough’ for you?
One can drink. One can drive. But it’s incredibly stupid to do them at the same time.
‘Random searches cannot be reasonable, as there is no probable cause.’
I think the statistics available undermine this claim. Just my opinion.
‘And I would argue that driving IS a right, by the way.’
Sorry, thats established fact that it is not a ‘right’ by court precedent.
Well there may have been just the slightest tad bit of sarcasm in there... ;-)
#1 - Lighten up, Francis! No where did the poster declare, imply, or infer that the U.S. Constitution granted anyone the right to drive.
#2 - If you think rights are granted to citizens in the constitution, then you're either a troll or you don't understand Conservatism very well. The Constitution clearly defines the (very limited, or supposed to be) powers that the Federal Government may exercise, not the rights that citizens may enjoy.
Boy are you going to be a basket case when you wake up in this country one day ruled by totalitarians who have tons of "precedent" to justify their controlling every aspect of your life. But of course you believe it won't ever happen because your belief in this cause is with the purest of intentions. ((SPIT))
‘....then you’re either a troll ....’
I’ve come to realize this term is one of the most misused here at Free Republic.
A troll? Since 2000?
Riiiight.....(chuckle)
Saw a link from another thread the other day concerning random drunk driving roadblocks. This was from some town in Virginia. The report stated that they stopped 682 vehicles and arrested 1 (one) driver for DUI. 682-1. Makes you think that there are other reasons for such roadblocks.
Gov’t statistics list an accident as “alcohol related” if ANYONE (including passengers - so much for the “designated driver” theory) involved has ANY alcohol in his/her body at all.
Check out the 4th Amend.
Drunk driving deaths are too many at any level. But so are murders. Each should be subject to law enforcement action and judicial sanctions without subjecting everyone else to unreasonable detentions and searches.
Love it. Here’s a modification that actually better fits with the overall structure:
I’m sorry that you are mentally and physically unfit to serve in our nation’s Armed Forces, but that does not give you the right to dumb down the requirements so you can pass.
Sorry, thats established fact that it is not a ‘right’ by
court precedent.
‘Boy are you going to be a basket case when you wake up in this country one day ruled by totalitarians who have tons of “precedent” to justify their controlling every aspect of your life. But of course you believe it won’t ever happen because your belief in this cause is with the purest of intentions. ((SPIT))’
I cite the prevailing legal opinion as it exists in this very narrow context, and you draw a rather ridiculous conclusion from it.
Now, wipe the backside of my screen off, that spit is dripping....(chuckle)
This thread is hilariously typical of FReeperdom — everybody’s arguing over the FIRST LINE!
‘Check out the 4th Amend.’
Unless its been changed in the past 24 hours or so, no need to do so.
I understand your ‘theory’ on this. It makes for great dinner conversation.
I know how the courts have ruled on this arguement over the years, and I suspect you do as well. They found it lacking...by miles and miles and miles. As I suspect you already 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.