Posted on 12/28/2009 6:33:55 AM PST by relictele
FRESNO, Calif. -- In a ritual nearly as familiar as Santa Claus and crowded stores, police agencies have again stepped up enforcement of drunken-driving laws this holiday season.
Studies have found sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes because they create awareness about the risk of arrest.
But some public-safety officials say that message might be lost on the group most at risk - young drivers. Trying to elude arrest for drunken driving, young people use technology to keep each other informed about the location of sobriety checkpoints, said Sgt. Dave Gibeault, head of the Fresno Police Department's traffic unit.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Excellent answer. We lose rights because we so easily waive them in the need for convenience. It is inconvenient and costly to preserve our rights.
After you spend the night in the drunk tank? How about the second or third time? Florida must be different from your state.
Best take a cab if you are going to drink.
When you sign your liscense you waive your rights ...period.
The best defense in Florida is...Broke. Do not waste money on a lawyer. Just plead no money.
It's called free will. I choose to be a person I can live with and I am sure you choose to be the kind of person you can live with. Have a great day FRiend.
You agree to take the test that may incriminate you. You are penalized for not doing so. In fact you go to jail for not taking the test.
Ah, yes. I forgot about that implied consent for DUI. You take the test or we charge you. Thanks for the reminder.
How have these implied consent laws passed Constitutional muster? Or has no one challenged them at the Supreme Court level.
I didn’t address the random stops at all???? Didn’t know I needed to. Actually I don’t need to address it. I am sure you had a point to make and since it is the season, consider it made. Cheers!
you are going to the drunk tank no matter what. (and there is no drunk tank, there is just jail)
DUI with no serious bodily injury is a misdemenor (second and third time too)
You are confusing the ADMINISTRATIVE suspension with the criminal case in court. DMV does not have jails.
Only the courts have jails and only if you are convicted.
You also forget these cops can make MORE money testifying in court than their base salary. Then you also have the showboat “dui taskforce” cops. (like the FL taskforce cop who was caught faking his affidavits when he arrest a policie chief for a friend’s revenge on the chief)
They were, and were upheld.
Driving is a “priviledge” and not a right. (therefore they can take it from you and force you to use mass greenie transit)
I am just waiting for the referendum that constitutionally declares driving to be a right. That will really screw with the DUI industry.
And then, once that has been established as perfectly fine and Constitutional, we can dd random house checks too.
You know, if you havenothing to hide, and all that. Who knows what scofflaws we’d be able to find! Cable cheats, perhaps illegal beer making, or maybe a self-loader enthusiast that has a few too many rounds, or maybe a dirty cat box and 4 cats, or perhaps dirty dishes.
It seems obvious, but since you didn’t notice, one of the the main points the original poster was making was the Constitutionality, or lack therof, of the random stops.
I support what you say. But you, nor anyone else, has the right to randomly pull me over to make sure I’m not DUI.
IF this is such an important crime to prevent, make the commission of it painful until it stops.
1st offense, 1 year in jail, no parole, $10,000 fine, no license for 1 year minimum after release.
2nd offense, there had better not be one.
But in no case will I ‘cooperate’ with the violation of MY rights for YOUR safety.
what state is that?
most states have the fist up is six months probation as a minimum.
the maximum POTENTIAL sentence is one day short of one year. (hence the misdemenor)
It is not a matter of my safety, it is a matter of other people rights that are not superseded by your rights. I do hope that you or anyone else who chooses to drink and drive suffer consequences that don't impact anyone else. Fat chance of that happening though.
Thats the issue, THERE IS NO STATE like that. But there should be.
Law abiding people have no business being harrassed by law enforcement, especially under cover of ‘safety’.
You may STOP defending your own version of ‘my rights supercede yours’.
I’m not defending DUI at all. It is a crime, that kills. But I will not endorse, nor coooperate with any attempt to abbrogate MY rights in the nebulous pursuit of safety.
The issue of constitutionality of a law falls within the purview of the Supreme Court. This, FR, court of public opinion is for expressing your beliefs as to the constitutionality of a law. My position is that if your rights are being violated, sue and by all means voice your opinion on this site. Furthermore, just as no one needs to abide by laws related to drinking and driving, you do not need to cooperate with any attempt by an individual to abrogate your rights. I am sure you are smart enough to know that decisions have consequences. My original comment offered my opinion that I do not have a problem with DUI check points, nor do I view it as an infringement on my rights. Please be aware that I am not a Constitutional scholar, lawyer or judge.
Now if you would like to discuss this further, please come to my house, I will open up a great bottle of wine I got for Christmas and we can debate this until you have it out of your system, or that you afford me a different opinion than yours. Cheers!
ps, I will stop defending my rights when I am dead. I encourage you to do the same.
My rights are inviolable, despite what that ‘court’ says. If I feel they are violated, I’ll not cooperate. Never have in a random DUI-stop.
Similarly, you’ll probably find it just peachy to have your home searched for illegal drugs, it IS for the Chill’run you know. You are not a judge, etc. You are what is called an Enabler.
Wine? I hope that is Legally acquired, you may be first in line for a Home Safety Inspection, for your own good you know.
No an illegal search of my home is not ok and I will suffer the consequences of any decision I make relative to an unlawful search.
No I am not an enabler. I have opinions different from yours and I believe the First Amendment gives me that right. But feel free to resort to name calling. It often works for my kids.
The wine was a gift and as such would be consider legally acquired by me. Safety inspection???? Would that be a legal inspection or illegal one?
I do hope you have a nice day and consider our discussion over. I do. I have to legally harvest my corn, milk my cows and collect my eggs. Then when I am done, I will go to my parents FB site and take care of their farm. They are out of town and I is a good daughter. Till next time dear FRiend.
Never challenged. I guess one would have to sign under protest in order to challenge it. But I do not imagine a judge who would let it get very far.
Illegal? Well, we’ll let the ‘court’ decide that won’t we? Secure in our personl effects. Last time I checked, my car is a personal effect of mine.
Enabler is a name? It is a description of an activity. One who will give up rights is an enabler to those that want to remove them.
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.