Sobriety check points and the 4th amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
yeah I would be super pissed if I had to stop and prove I'm not breaking the law. If I'm drinking, I take a cab or walk. If I'm driving during those times its because I got called into work, and my time is way more important than their checkpoint.
 
Why?

Its illegal to drink and drive on public roads, regardless of the vehicle class. Yes DUI on a bicycle is possible.
 
They're a pretty hilarious ilk indeed. Might as well log onto an NFL-related forum and root for your team, then scream "BUT FOOTBALL IS FOR HOMOGAYS! LOL!"
 
Obviously you can't read. 4th amendment secures your person and effects, and doesn't allow the government to search you without probable cause. Setting up a sobriety checkpoint doesn't give them probable cause to pull you over to search you to confirm whether you are sober or not. It isn't about whether you have a right to drive, but rather what they can or can't do constitutionally. Rehnquist even agreed it was an infringement, which says ALOT.

The fact that he can acknowledge that its an infringement, and that NOT BOTHER HIM, really pisses me off. The "greater good" can kiss my ass. If the document that our government lays its cornerstone on says you can't do it, then back the fuck up.
 
I guess if you don't read communist literature then it would be a non issue if the government banned it...
 
So now with breaking the fourth amendment they want to throw in cruel and unusual into the mix
 
You don't have a right to a wife. If you have a wife, you have the right to suck on her titties.

Actually, that's not really all that great an example, because you'd still need her permission to suck on her titties. So it's not granted that having a wife guarantees you the right to suck on titties.

If you have food, you have the right to eat it. But you don't have a "right to eat."

If you have an operable car, you have the right to drive it. But you don't have a "right to drive."

And so forth.
 
I don't need a license to drive farm equipment on the roads of my state, just proper signage. So, I can drunk drive a 40,000 pound combine or a tractor...

I'm heading for the John Deere dealership first thing tomorrow morning to arrange a trade-in.
 
I've been stopped at many. The last one was just a few months ago. And I've been stopped for avoiding them, too.
 
I didn't have any problem deciphering the hair-splitting you and boosted were doing, but thanks for reiterating I guess. I was just making fun of you two.
 
But if they pull you over and only look in your window, that's not a search. It's only when they take apart the car, search your person, etc...
 
By acquiring a license you are acknowledged to be able to drive a motor vehicle responsibly but that doesn't extend to those who choose to drive impaired.

Not everyone that owns a firearm will shoot someone. But if that person is impaired they are more likely to.
 
idk, they did the major roads going out of downtown on NYE. Good place to be


Maybe if you look suspicious, but not otherwise. I've turned around with 20+ other cars, and nobody got pulled over.
 
The language in the constitution is ambiguous, specifically thanks to the use of the word "unreasonable" ... which is way, way unfortunate, but (obviously, present circumstances evidencing) apparently more than enough equivocation to let checkpoints pass constitutional muster.

Then again, I'm not myself a huge fan of the constitution. It isn't terrible, but it's really not a particularly well-done document, specifically because of allowances like this (and others, of course... welfare clause, etc etc).

Speaking to the matter of the "reasonableness" of checkpoints, in any case, it has been argued that drunk driving is bad news, and it's been argued that these checkpoints occasionally catch someone in the act. It's also of course been established that driving is ultimately a privilege, not a right, and that these checkpoints occur on public property... the use of which is non-compulsory... which means that even if you or I as an individual may not like the statutes as they happen to be written, we have very little say in their administration.

You have said that you don't see how one can argue that checkpoints aren't a violation of the fourth amendment. I can see several sides of it, specifically because the ambiguity found in the language. I'd be all for shoring up the amendment so as to clarify just what "unreasonable" means. (Using case law to sort it out as time progresses is problematic for a variety of reasons.) But until that's been accomplished, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to argue the unconstitutionality of checkpoints... you can build a variety of houses on one kind of foundation, but if the foundation's flimsy, doesn't matter what you build, it's coming right back down.

I have no problem with laws against drunk driving, and I certainly don't drink and drive myself. It's absolutely no imposition on me to have a fifteen-second conversation with an officer about it. I saw the lights in the distance, I knew what I was getting into.
 
There is no might. The simple act of driving while intoxicated, driving without a license, driving without your corrective lenses, etc... is a crime.
 
Back
Top