Sobriety check points and the 4th amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
While i agree, you have lobbyists like MADD and SADD that beg to differ and lobby for tougher laws...and they get them.... due to the claim of "public protection" and when you get the media involved when teens get killed and there is Booze involved, your claim is blown right out of the water.

Welcome to Minnesota, this state does more to infringe on personal freedoms in the name of "protectin the kids", or "public safety' than any state ive ever seen
 
Agreed 100%.


There should only be criminal charges if you actually do some damage to someone or someone's property, i.e., there is actually a victim.
 
I do not understand anyone who is for less strict DUI laws. Have you never been drunk before? You would have no idea what the hell you were doing.

And don't argue the BS "Oh but I can handle myself when drinking" excuse, you just THINK you are driving fine but you are definitely swerving and reacting slower.

The best thing would just be for NO ONE to ever drink and drive then we don't even need DUI laws but humans are retarded.
 
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone. It limits and defines powers of the Federal Government.
 
Actually, the best thing would be for the state not to criminalize "not harming anybody, not causing any damage, obeying all traffic control laws, and handlingi a vehicle safely" just based on what you've consumed.
 
You're a moron. Please die.

Seventh, if this isn't a trolling thread, I humbly applaud you.
 
There is no definition of the word "reasonable" that could apply to stopping EVERY driver on the road to see if maybe one of them is drunk. Searching everybody to see if they've done anything wrong is antithetical to the whole point of the 4th Amendment: That the police need CAUSE to suspect you of being involved in a crime before they can harass you.
 
my phone battery ran out and I wasn't getting out of bed to get the charger





if I walk out of my house and randomly fire a gun, you believe that's assault on anyone who happens to be in the general area. I didn't see you, I didn't aim at you, I didn't know you were there or even think someone might be there...how is that assault, but driving drunk is not? the only difference is in how it's defined, and that's what I am and have been saying is wrong. so please don't tell me I'm wrong because I don't know the definition, when the definition is what I'm saying is wrong.
 
No fucking shit, we all know it's illegal, you stupid fuck. It is still a law punishing NOT HAVING CAUSED ANY HARM OR DAMAGE TO ANYBODY, INCLUDING YOURSELF. IT IS A PREEMPTIVE PUNISHMENT TO PUNISH YOU FOR WHAT YOU MIGHT DO.

Quit playing semantics and thinking you're clever, and discuss the issue.
 
Yes it is a search. But let me save you some effort. Regardless of whether you think it's a search or not (it is), it's unquestionably a seizure. So the same issues apply.


United States Supreme Court, Michigan State Police v. Sitz (1990)

So stop bickering.
 
Back
Top