Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[Abundy]

So I gather, upon rereading your post. I haven't read through the MD cases and statutes regarding such things, but based on your description and the Sitz decision, it seems to me that the MD scheme is a bit more...opaque than what SCOTUS set out in Sitz. Since we're presumably talking about a federal standard, I think we can probably expect something more in line with the Sitz decision than what the MD courts have produced ;)

Sitz is pretty open-ended - which is why I don't like it. Countenancing a "checkpoint" for enforcement purposes smacks of "other regimes" to quote the dissent. IMO there is a difference between a border checkpoint (the case the majority relies on to allow these checkpoints) and a DWI checkpoint hundreds of miles from the border. There has to be some probable cause for a warrantless seizure - and the Sitz case eliminates that consideration. I really hate to take issue with Rhenquist and Scalia...but in this case I must.

MD requires that the stop be for informational purposes only, and that the motorist, absent some issue with their driving, be allowed to pass if they don't wind down their window. (Along with other criteria such as ample distance for drivers to legally turn around to avoid the roadblock.)

[VMI70]

"Actually this is not correct. Those "checkpoints" are officially called something along the lines of "informational stops" and are NOT (according to the State) designed to catch drunk drivers - stopping drivers without a reason other than to check if they have alcohol on their breath was ruled unconstitutional - so their purpose (the informational roadblock) is to allow the police to pass out literature to inform the driving public the dangers of drunk driving. If they happen to notice a driver who smells of alcohol then they can investigate further."

Is this true for all states?
If so, I can't wait to go through the next checkpoint...
How would I find the provision in the law which says I don't have to roll down my window? I live n VA.

Thanks in advance.

[Poohbah]

I think it only applies to Maryland.

[VMI70]

That's the way I read it also, so the reference to the stops being "unconstutional" refers to the MD constitution. It's nice to have a precedent, but it seems out of character for that state.

[Abundy]

Poohbah is correct (I think) - MD is more restrictive than the Sitz opinion. I haven't checked into surrounding states as I don't plan on needing to know. I don't know how VA has structured their's - you would do well to check with an attorney that specializes in DWI cases before you encounter your next roadblock...

[dcwusmc]

Provide PROOF that he's wrong. The Founders say he's 100% correct. YOU are wrong.

[Daveinyork]

hah, I thought I was travelling metal free, but then I discovered upon going through the metal detectors that I shoes had steel shanks.

[dcwusmc]

Rights are indeed absolute and unencumbered when it comes to government. It is only and solely when we deal with other individuals and THEIR rights that we have "restrictions" on how we exercise our absolute rights so as to respect the equal rights of others. THIS is what you are trying so hard to dodge. You want us to think that our rights come from gooberment and that gooberment can restrict them as it pleases. You are so wrong on all counts that I can't believe your mother doesn't slap you just for breathing her air. I would if you were my kid and had such moronic ideas. I would disown you and make you change your name so that no one would know we were related. Then I would sue you for repayment of all the money I spent raising you, because it was obviously a waste. Either the gooberment propaganda camps worked too well or you have that authoritarian bent; whichever it is, you are probably the shame of your parents.

[Daveinyork]

We are in a war. Wars demand unusual measures, and I think the Constitution permits this. The big test is when the war is over. Will the extra-ordinary wartime measures be eliminated? Knowing how government operates, I'm skeptical, but I'll keep an open mind.

[inquest]

It matters to me, but that's almost irrelevant.

I asked you if it matters to you, so therefore it's relevant for me. You keep throwing in this - I'd have to call it a phobia at this point - about "imposing" solutions on the American people, when I haven't suggested any such thing. What I'm trying to get from you is what you think our goals should be. Once we've determined that, then we can worry about how to get there.

So you've acknowledged that it matters to you whether government violates the Constitution. Would you say it's doing so now when it says that exercise of what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom shall be conditional upon "consensual" searches?

[inquest]

Since federal jurisdiction so far fails to extend to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, where Reid boarded his flight, I think this point is not quite as strong as you might think at first blush ;)

D'OH!! ...but on the other hand, federal forces also wouldn't have been checking him for weapons, or much of anything else, for that matter. So that kinda makes Reid a bad example either for or against my argument.

Pan Am 103 was brought down by a slightly modified clock-radio - unless attention is paid to preventing weapons on board airplanes, profiling alone is too coarse a sieve to be effective.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. When I said I'd go easier on "weapons", I meant firearms. Or at least BB guns or something, so we don't blow out a window.

It's easy to romanticize that kind of thing from a distance, but whether you're right or wrong about the efficacy of armed passengers, I really doubt that there is a realistic chance of persuading people that it's a good idea.

Then I guess I won't get customers to fly on Air Inquest with that approach. Such are the ways of the free market. My pilots would still be armed, for what it's worth. Maybe the stewardesses, too. So don't be complaining about the food my plane, buster.

[inquest]

That should be "food on my plane".

[TaZ]

I'd settle for a flintlock pistol with a rock salt projectile...wont' harm the plane or kill, but the recipient would sure wish he was dead!

Imagine if the each of the heroes of Flight 93 had one of my special equalizers when Todd Beamer let out his battle cry "Let's Roll"!

I have a feeling that Todd would have been able to join his wife on all of those TV interviews...

Too bad Americans have lost the patriotic spirit of the Founding Fathers and are satisfied with being herded around like sheep to the slaughter.

[TaZ]

Before some pansy bemoans how an innocent passenger might be harmed by a rock salt projectile...let be clear that I was referring to a non-fragmenting projectile in the hands of a responsible American who is trained in the use of firearms from childhood.

As it was in this country until the statist stole our national heritage from patriotic Americans and redefined government agents as the only people who can be trusted with firearms in a hostile situation...

[Feiny]

"As for the wife in question being touched...that should have been done behind a screen...most definitely. "

You have got to be kidding. Why should she have been searched to begin with? I see the people they decide to search...grandmothers, children, women with large breasts. The only people who are not searched are those who actually look like terrorists. Our security is pathetic and dangerous.

[inquest]

I actually envision some sort of "air militia", whereby volunteers who fly regularly could train, say one weekend a month, not only in the proper use of firearms on board a plane, but also on how to spot suspicious characters and to respond appropriately and effectively in various types of situations. Such volunteers could then receive discounts on their tickets.

Or, I guess we can just keep feeling up pregnant women's knockers.

[dcwusmc]

I vote for option B, Bob. I LIKE copping feels of other men's wives.

Though I have to admit more than a modicum of sense to option A.

[TaZ]

Method "A" sounds like a good common sense approach to the situation, but would there be any fat in the equation for good ol' Uncle Sam to siphon off some funds?

Would the legislature and judiciary have anything to argue over to advance their careers and pocketbooks?

I have a feeling Method "B" would be more to likely to advance the careers and salaries of those poor underprivileged masses of Federal employees and politicians, who really have the best interests of Amerika at heart...

[oceanperch]

ping

[Man of the Right]

I agree. Note yesterday's story about a man on board an airliner in Madison, Wisc. who reportedly told the pilot "I hope you aren't drinking." He was fined $225, and the case has been referred to the FBI for possible felony charges. It's a different country than I grew up in.