So…more than half of them are caused by sober drivers? Seems, then, that’s the larger threat.
It’s basically entrapment they’ll get away with. And whoever got screwed will be sitting in jail. If someone is drunk enough to hobble their drunk ass out to their cars and attempt to drive with a cop there the whole time, do you think the court would give two shits about them being entrapped? This would be the judge the whole time in court:gives: . Also, they can sit outside of a bar. They actually have to wait till you mosey to your car and get in with your keys to give you a DUI. Car doesn’t even have to be started. Man… The shit they force in your head when you get your DL suspended for speeding.
Yeah, because they set them up in places where it’s no big deal to turn around. Ever see the cop cars roll out in force when they see someone flip a u-turn before the checkpoint? Not going through, constitutes probable cause, I guess that’s optional…
Dark, why do you want to fight for some civil liberties, but not others?
On a different note, a friend of mine is fighting for Civil Liberties in other ways.
http://pittspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?p=608450#post608450
Cliffs:
Circuit City employee asks him to open his bag and show his receipt. He refuses, the CC employee won’t let him close the door to get in his car. My friend calls the cops, and gets arrested when he won’t give the cop his driver’s license.
one thing I can agree with
Driving, being a privledge and not a right is not covered by the 4th Amendment. You give up a lot of your rights when you get behind the wheel. I don’t think the founding fathers would agree with this but cars and public roads weren’t invented in the 1700’s
:greddy2:
Not going through does not constitute. As I said previously, at least here in MD, it’s law that the cops provide for a place for you to turn around to avoid the checkpoint if you do so wish. And they are also required to publicly acknowledge where checkpoints will be prior to them being set up.
Dark, why do you want to fight for some civil liberties, but not others?
On a different note, a friend of mine is fighting for Civil Liberties in other ways.
http://pittspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?p=608450#post608450
Cliffs:
Circuit City employee asks him to open his bag and show his receipt. He refuses, the CC employee won’t let him close the door to get in his car. My friend calls the cops, and gets arrested when he won’t give the cop his driver’s license.
that sounds like some bullshit.
That is not correct. You vehicle is protected by the 4th amendment provision against unreasonable search. This is the reason why police are not allowed to search your car without your permision, unless they can show 'probable cause.
As to driving being a “privelege”…says who, the government? HMMMmmm…
politics aside, ive ran into checkpoints on rt 48 between monroeville/pitcairn and on rt 30 in north versailles (more specifically the dunkin doughnuts area) in the past month and a half. just a heads up…
Yep the government says it is a “privelege”. Whole different philosophical discussion though, for a different day and a different thread.
Ok, I mentioned in an earlier post about creating a scene at a DUI checkpoint since many of us disagree with the concept. Does anyone want to find out where one is, then approach it, turn around in plain view of the cops and see just how optional they are?
We could video-tape the whole thing to protect our interests. I would really like to see what happens, because I think turning around is probable cause.
I tend to oppose any further infringement on our already very infinged upon civil liberties; anyone who thinks that allowing the government to stop and question citizens without any prior cause or incident is not an infringement on civil liberties is delusional.
video taping it is enough reason to pull you over… DUI checkpoints are a good thing. The only people that are getting in trouble are people breaking the law. It is not an infringement on privacy.
Anyone who says DUI checkpoints are a good thing, should agree to submit to random drug testing.
totally different ballgame.
I disagree.
I abide by laws, have a few drinks, possibly none, present no danger to anyone, and go through a checkpoint for “safety purposes” because some retards get ripped and run into people. By doing so I run the risk of being busted for some other retarded violation, or if I blow a .09, I can kiss my life goodbye.
“Others” use some illegal drug, stay in their house, don’t create a problem or any danger. Random drug testing would ensure that we catch those who are strung out on crack or heroin, stealing to get their fix and becoming possibly violent. Unfortunately, some peace loving hippies might get busted along with the hardcore addicts.
Seems exactly the same to me, except drugs are illegal all the time. I don’t even agree with drugs being illegal, but the point is, call a spade a spade. If anything, random drug testing makes MORE sense, but wouldn’t pay for itself.
So once again, DUI checkpoints aren’t really about safety at all.
so have you been through a checkpoint recently? bad experience? ive never heard of anyone giving that much of a shit about dui checkpoints. its not really that hard to either moderate your drinking or even just take a back road.
The only people that are getting in trouble are people breaking the law. It is not an infringement on privacy.
What a terrible mindset. Why don’t we implement 24-hour surveillance on every US citizen, with rapid response teams ready to deal with any criminal activity seen? You have nothing to worry about, it’s only the law breakers who’ll get in trouble. Crime would become virtually non-existent.
See: Frank Zappa - Joe’s Garage (1979)
There was a fictional character in the story called “The Central Scrutinizer” which did just that. If a crime was committed, it was reported instantly and the perpetrator was instantly arrested.
Everybody said it could never happen…yeah right!
POST THEM UP TONIGHT!!!
12/31/2008 NEW YEARS EVE.