Posted on 03/08/2006 6:12:23 AM PST by Enterprise
"Fresno police are taking enforcement of drunken driving laws to a new level — which officers expect will bring both success and outrage. Saturday night, the traffic unit unveiled a new operation in which plainclothes police officers stake out bars and target drunk patrons. If the heavy drinkers get behind the wheel, officers in unmarked cars follow them and call in marked police cars to pull them over."
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
They don't have to notify the public ahead of time in Canada, although they do usually publicize around holidays and such that there will be checkpoints, but they don't say where. It's just that naturally they tended to set them up on the higher traffic routes.
What you call probable cause does not meet the legal definition. For most of your country's history they would have been considered unconstitutional, just like asset forfeiture. The fact that some judges have stretched the meaning of the constitution to allow them doesn't make them right, does it? But I'll leave that argument to your countrymen. In this country they are perfectly constitutional and legal, but I still think they are a poor use of police resources, in most cases. Sometimes, for example on the main route out of an event, like the stock car races, where there's good reason to believe many intoxicated people might be hitting the road, I think they're useful.
Gosh, you're dense. Hamas is receiving welfare, free money. The states and the people in the states pay gasoline and other taxes to Washington, who then attaches strings and sends it back.
Surely you can see the difference.
True conservatives don't believe the Federal gov't is the proper place to set policy on things like simple crimes. Find me an enumerated power that gives the Federal gov't the power to regulate intra-state criminal activity?
SD
Why do it in secret? HA is quite childish. The issue in that case is the secrecy. When going to videotape a cop tell him that you are doing it. That does not mean you cannot tape a cop and it doesn't mean you will be prosecuted for doing so.
The issue is doing it in secret no wether or not you can do it. Tell them you are doing it an you can do it....and when you do they will act as they should.
You must do better than that spin to claim HA!
Well you go ahead and drive drunk knowing then by your standards that when you do finally harm someone you give up your life, wether to prison or to the DP....you game to take that risk?
Kinda defeats the whole purpose if you tell them in advance. Do the undercover cops announce their presence in the bar? (This thread).
In Massachusetts, there have been convictions for taping officers. Here is an excerpt from the first case to hit the Mass. Supreme Court:
http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/9012
(Massachusetts) Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Justice Robert Cordy used the famous videotape of the Rodney King police beating in Los Angeles as an example of a recording that would have been prohibited under Massachusetts law.
In another case, a home security camera was tripped when police entered a home. A friend of the homeowner posted the video on the Internet. The cops don't like the way they look on tape so they threatened the woman with arrest. Haven't heard the outcome.
.123 three hours after the crash actually happened.
Some argue he could have been blowing more some say he could have blown less than he was at the time.
Both arguments have merit...which is good cause for cops to administer some BAC in the field.
This kid was a second time offender. First time being underage consumption....obviously,for him, the punishment was not enough to deter further alcohol infractions.
What I call probable cause is not required for roadblocks. SCOTUS has also ruled on that here. Roadblocks are fine so long as they adopt proper protocals.
I would not call a license an asset, you do not own it, the state does. Therefor it is their asset to afford you or not.
I think we agree that roadblocks should be used in a targetted way that would see them being as beneficial as they can be when used.
That proves the point, doesn't it? He wasn't at 0.08, he was well above the established 0.10
This kid was a second time offender. First time being underage consumption....obviously,for him, the punishment was not enough to deter further alcohol infractions.
Juveniles are always a tricky subject. I don't think anyone should get away with harming another. That's not what anyone here is arguing.
I don't know what standard was in place then, but neither a 0.08 or a 0.10 deterred this person.
SD
That's funny. OK, I am opposed to blackmail that makes domestic American life less free. I am in favor of blackmail that coerces foreign terror groups.
I am inconsistent on the use of blackmail. But I prefer it be used against terrorists, not my state government.
BTW, NJ debated this reduction before the federal blackmail. As a reporter, I asked a State Police spokesman to provide me with a copy of the study(ies) that showed how dropping from .10 to .08 would save lives.
This is the exact answer I got from the state spokesman, acting in an official capacity:
"There are none."
Tax dollars are tax dollars.
Sure I see the difference you point out, but that difference does not change the similarities.
Dollars for actions. On that level they are just the same.
So now you want states to legislate their own?
Ok deal with the NH example earlier on in this thread.
Confucious say....be careful what you wish for.
I doubt the say hey I am an undercover cop, lol. I agree it defeats the purpose. But hey Scotus said they gotta disclose them...so that is how they are done.
What's the limit in your state? At "two beers" you should have been at about a .04 BAC, not including your burn rate which is typically -.015 per hour. Two beers in say one and a half to two hours in the restaurant equates to you having a blood alcohol concentration of .01 to .015 which is not illegal in any state of the union that I'm aware of. What traffic violation did you commit that caused you to be pulled over? The reason I ask is that in Washington state you must commit a violation before being stopped. DUI checkpoints and the like are not allowed.
Hey, gotta run. Interesting discussion. You are wrong about a couple of things but not about the dangers of driving impaired.
WRONG!
It only proves that my situation is not an example of a .08 offender.
Nothing tricky about juveniles. Punish them so they understand that their actions and choices have consequences.
What didn't deter this kid was the fact the punishment was to lax. I opposed the SA at the time of this kids bench trial and my snapping got his sentence raised considerably. He still didn't get what I think he should have gotten but he did get a probation that mandated 364 days in jail if he had any alcohol infractions till he was 21. He didn't go to jail for a year so he was (at least) never caught doing it again.
Funny how when you KNOW you WILL spend time in jail for offending it actually has a deterring effect, isn't it?
Your ignorance on how field sobriety tests are conducted and what they consist of is amusing. Please continue.
One question is how a free people govern themselves, and whether the actions of our federal gov't are consistent with the compact the several states joined in creating the federal gov't.
The other is how to coerce foreign powers to behave as we desire. If you can not see how people have a right to be outraged at their own gov't bribing them with their own tax dollars, and in the process usurp the proper power of the state, I'm sorry.
Ok deal with the NH example earlier on in this thread.
I have no problem whatsoever with treating commercial drivers or juveniles with different standards. They are different classes of people. As you noted, driving a big rig is a far more potentially dangerous thing than the typical automobile.
And juveniles can be restricted on several logical bases. They should not be in possession of alcohol in the first place, they are more likely to do so clandestinely (hence drinking and driving because they drink while driving), and are less experienced in both the handling of an automobile and in handling alcohol.
In my state, minors who are caught drinking lose their driver's licenses period. Even if they are no where near a car. Even if they are at college 500 miles away from mom and dad's car.
SD
So American lives being less free is different than palestinians lives being less free?
Well I posted a link that shows how the drop in 08 AT LEAST contributed to drops in the majority of states studied.
You can say whatever you want but you still have to follow .08 wether you like it or not.
I request this state police spokesman's name because I would really like to talk to them. Sounds like Dan Rather sourcing if you ask me!
Get your own dancing monkey
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.