Constitutionality of DWI checkpoints?

[03DOHC]

if you wouldnt mind, please take a moment and refer to my post and please quote where i said i expected it.

It's funny when people write things and they don't know what it means. You implied it by stating "you're welcome", as if you know better than the people not suspected on any crime you were instructed to stop. You actually said "YOUR welcome" but I guess you showed me.

 

[Outlaw99]

It's funny when people write things and they don't know what it means. You implied it by stating "you're welcome", as if you know better than the people not suspected on any crime you were instructed to stop. You actually said "YOUR welcome" but I guess you showed me.

darn right I did.

 

[Silver2003Cobra]

Safety is never a substitute for liberty. Thousands+ died to ensure liberty, and now we take away that liberty from 300 million who didn't do anything just to *POTENTIALLY* save 1 life that will be lost when another drunk driver who didn't hit the checkpoint hits him 5 minutes later.

People who are fanatical about DWI are just upset that there is nobody to make pay for the crime when the drunk driver also dies, so it's taken out on society preemptively.

The true price of liberty is that you CAN'T police everyone all the time or assume everyone is a bad guy* just to catch the few that are, and attempting to do so violates the very liberty that which you have laws and government to protect in the first place. There will always be a few rotten eggs that have the initiative to cause harm to others before they can be stopped. Fact of the matter is in a society that values individual freedom, you aren't a bad guy until you actually do something bad, and by then it's too late. Having laws which try to stop things before they happen and treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent are counter productive to the one true purpose of government.

On the other hand, being safe in your vehicle from drunk drivers is a right afforded to you by YOUR OWN individual liberty, which the government has an obligation to provide for. However, the balance between protecting your liberty (right to be safe from drink drivers) and that of those who may or may not pose a threat to you (all drivers who are not drunk but treated and suspected as if), often tends to bias on the side of incriminating as many people as possible preemptively and doing more harm than good, even if it's with good intention.

*I don't use the term criminal because all one needs to be a criminal is to commit a crime, a crime which is defined as such due to a law prohibiting it, a law which may or may not be valid to begin with when it violates the rights of the innocent. And by rights I mean all natural rights that supercede all government, law, and any constitution. If ice cream cones are illegal and I have one I am a criminal, but not a bad guy. Whether someone is a criminal or not depends on whether you agree or disagree with that particular law.

I think that this is one of the best posts that I've ever read on not just this forum, but any forum.. thank you for stating what needed to be said..

:rockon::rockon:

 

[03DOHC]

darn right I did.

LOL. It helps if you are smarter than those you are being condescending to or it doesn't work. Emphasizing a misspelled word by capitalizing it isn’t blinding anyone with brilliance. But if you claim you don't then I will take your word at face value.

 

[MANbearPIG11]

PS: If you don't agree with my above post, and feel that any sacrifice, inconvenience, nuisance, and loss of liberty is worth it to save just 1 life...

Then why aren't you campaigning for 5 mph national speed limits?

Or could it be that there are many things in our day to day lives that we accept that the freedom and convenience IS in fact more important than the safety risk and that 1 life? Freedom and mere convenience that is not more important than just 1 life but, 50,000+ lives every year so you can get to work 15 minutes faster?

You don't care about the inconvenience and intrusion of liberty on 300,000,000 people to potentially save 1 life, but you're ok with 50,000+ lives lost so you can shave an hour off your day?

or you could stop thinking that america is out to get you and sit on your ass for an extra 2 seconds while they make sure you arnt intoxicated. seriously... its not a big deal, they arnt violating any law or otherwise they wouldnt do it. as far as im concerned its just something to keep the roads a little safer. op 5 is a little extreme, i have to say ive gone through 1 my entire life.

 

[Falconskaterjoh]

Wow....At what extent is your safety worth your liberty? The government is not here to baby sit and make rules to protect you from yourselves!!! IE: seat belt laws, helmet laws, and smoking in public areas. One of the biggest problems we have is that the government is too big and feels the need to "protect" us from ourselves.

Maybe we just need to ban weapons so that "no one" has the power to kill anyone.... Ridiculous

 

[txyaloo]

Wow....At what extent is your safety worth your liberty? The government is not here to baby sit and make rules to protect you from yourselves!!! IE: seat belt laws, helmet laws, and smoking in public areas. One of the biggest problems we have is that the government is too big and feels the need to "protect" us from ourselves.

Maybe we just need to ban weapons so that "no one" has the power to kill anyone.... Ridiculous

How are smoking in public areas portecting you from yourself? There protecting the majority of the population from the nasty second hand smoke you're blowing out. Feel free to smoke. Just don't do it where I have to breathe it in or smell like it when you're done.

 

[Falconskaterjoh]

I am glad you asked that txyaloo, I was mainly talking about public establishments. If I save up $40,000 and work hard to open up a restaurant or bar who is the government to tell me I can not allow people to smoke in my own establishment. I do not smoke but it should be up to the owner of the business. If you do not want to go there then do not go there! Who is it really hurting besides the owner....If you do not want to smell it or breath it then boycott the establishment.

 

[recalcitrant]

I dont think that thy are allowed in NY to open/enter and inspect your car. Only if they see something that is illegal (like something in the ashtray or on the floor). But I'm all for them if they help save just one life. To me its worth it.

Those willing to give up any small amount of liberty for ANY amount of safety will acheive neither.

 

[rkomo]

What I find really amazing is after publishing in advance the location of our sobriety checkpoint, after setting up lights, barriers AND providing a turnaround point a block prior (for those who wish NOT to engage the officers) last night 11 drunk drivers were taken off the road in the city of Fresno at one checkpoint. A few suspended licenses were discovered, all other mechanical issues are waived through since it is not the intent of the exercise. That's 11 drivers too drunk, stupid or a solid combination of both to avoid the situation.

Just think that out of the 11 how many DUI's avoided detection that night? This is a very serious problem that has no easy answers. The problem is we grew up in NNJ laughing at the situation and taking it lightly like a lot of people do. As I became older, I knew more & more people who were either killed or had caused a deadly DUI accident. I guess age has a lot to do with how you perceive this matter and I now have no tolerance for anyone commiting DUI. A few months ago, I turned in a woman for DUI who was on her way to pick up her kid from kindergarten.

I just question how States treat the problem more as a 'revenue base' rather than doing more to address treatment & prevention.