DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[Good Luck]

Well then I appear to be in error. My bad.

That's OK. It's not like I keep up on Michigan law.

But the old 3.2 law was a pain in the ass - I had to go to a friggin liquor store to buy Guinness. Now it's in the grocers, alongside the popular crap. So is wine. But hard stuff (anything distilled) is still relegated to licensed liquor distributors, which kinda sucks. And, with Montana being 3rd worst state for per-capita highway accidents involving alcohol, I do not anticipate seeing our laws loosening any more for a long time to come.

But (each to his own) I'll take our mountains, low population density (our largest "city" barely tops 100K), local politics of keeping government at minimum, where even many of our democrats classify as conservative (including Governor Schweitzer), and many other aspects of Montana, over being able to find Jack Daniels at the grocer.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I guess I'm just not sure what the big deal is with 3.2%, since its weakass shite.

When I was 18 here in Ohio we had a hi and low age limits for drinking. You had to be 18 to drink 3.2 beer and you had to be 21 to drink anything stronger. They changed that to 21 drinking age when I was 19 but I was grandfathered into the legal drinking age.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i don't have a problem with dui check points...there is no invasion of privacy and no denial of any right

Not to mention that LE has dramatically reduced the numbers of drunk driving fatalities by being hard asses about DUI.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not to mention that LE has dramatically reduced the numbers of drunk driving fatalities by being hard asses about DUI.

so you're saying that we SHOULD give up liberty for safety.

 

[Socrtease]

Driving is NOT a right. It is a privilege. In NM when we sign for our license, there is a statement above your signature that tells you that by signing your license you are willing to abide by NM's implied consent law. That law says that when you are stopped for DWI or at a check point your consent, as a licensed driver, to a breath test is implied. If you refuse, then you will be charged with aggravated DWI which carries stricter penalties and mandatory minimums.

 

[Good Luck]

Driving is NOT a right. It is a privilege. In NM when we sign for our license, there is a statement above your signature that tells you that by signing your license you are willing to abide by NM's implied consent law. That law says that when you are stopped for DWI or at a check point your consent, as a licensed driver, to a breath test is implied. If you refuse, then you will be charged with aggravated DWI which carries stricter penalties and mandatory minimums.

I do not object to the principle of implied consent - we have that here in Montana, also. Refuse a sobriety test, lose your license for a year.

What I object to is checkpoints., They are a direct violation of the 4th Amendment, no different in principle than patrol officers pulling people over at random. You are subjected to unwarranted seizure, no matter how briefly, by a mandatory stop at a checkpoint.

It is very disturbing people cannot seem to recognize this basic fact. Random pull overs have been deemed unconstitutional because they violate the 4th Amendment. But mandatory stops at a check point do the same thing: stop a driver for a random check. Yet somehow our bullshit courts say this one is OK because the intrusion on our rights is "minimal" when "balanced against the needs of society"?!?

BULLSHIT!!!!

 

[Cancel8]

"MADD has strongly opposed this effort to safeguard rights provided by the Constitution..

» The Indiana State Court of Appeals has declared as unconstitutional mandatory blood tests without cause after traffic accidents...

...A spokesperson appears upset that protecting Fourth Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution might make it "hard to prosecute people who've caused pain in the lives of others."

...Mothers Against Drunk Driving has a long tradition of hostility toward the rights of the accused and apparently assumes them to be guilty unless they can prove their innocence.

MADD admits that it has never in its long history, even once so much as verbally defended the rights or presumption of innocence of an accused defendant...

The founding president of MADD, Candy Lightner, left in disgust from the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals.

"It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says.

"I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

Ms. Lightner has emphasized the importance of distinguishing between alcohol and drinking on one hand and drunk driving on the other.

Ms. Lightner has apparently put her finger on the problem when she says that if MADD really wants to save lives, it will go after the real problem drivers.

Instead, it has become temperance-oriented.

A case in point. Research suggests that using a cell phone while driving may cause more traffic fatalities than driving drunk.

But when a MADD official was asked how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care."

http://alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I do not object to the principle of implied consent - we have that here in Montana, also. Refuse a sobriety test, lose your license for a year.

What I object to is checkpoints., They are a direct violation of the 4th Amendment, no different in principle than patrol officers pulling people over at random. You are subjected to unwarranted seizure, no matter how briefly, by a mandatory stop at a checkpoint.

It is very disturbing people cannot seem to recognize this basic fact. Random pull overs have been deemed unconstitutional because they violate the 4th Amendment. But mandatory stops at a check point do the same thing: stop a driver for a random check. Yet somehow our bullshit courts say this one is OK because the intrusion on our rights is "minimal" when "balanced against the needs of society"?!?

BULLSHIT!!!!

what is unreasonable about the seizure?

do you support immigration checkpoints away from the border?

 

[Good Luck]

what is unreasonable about the seizure?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is unreasonable because it occurs without any preexisting condition. Nothing even as simple as reasonable suspicion. A person is stopped while engaging in legal activity in law enforcement's search for illegal activity.

There are all kinds of illegal activity law enforcement could be looking for. Do you want a society where you can be stopped at anytime for no reason other than LE wants to check you out to make sure you are not doing anything illegal?

What is the difference between a checkpoint, and a cop on a street corner stopping you for a quick criminal activity check? It is bullshit. It violates our constitutional protects. The SCOTUS decision giving the green light to this totalitarian activity even SAYS it is a violation, but explains it is a "little" violation and therefore allowable. BULLSHIT!

This is EXACTLY the kinds of activity our founders warned us about. It is why they added the BOR to the Constitution during the very first Congress, because they recognized that the government would bust out of its enumerated powers. As long as people accept "reasonable" violations of our protections, the definition of "reasonable" will become more and more intrusive until those idiots asking "what's the big deal" will suddenly be asking "what the fuck happened to the 4th Amendment?"

It has already occurred with the 10th. We ignored "minor" intrusions on the 10th until there is nothing significant left of it.

do you support immigration checkpoints away from the border?

Absolutely not. I do not support ANY type of random LE checks.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It is unreasonable because it occurs without any preexisting condition. Nothing even as simple as reasonable suspicion. A person is stopped while engaging in legal activity in law enforcement's search for illegal activity.

There are all kinds of illegal activity law enforcement could be looking for. Do you want a society where you can be stopped at anytime for no reason other than LE wants to check you out to make sure you are not doing anything illegal?

What is the difference between a checkpoint, and a cop on a street corner stopping you for a quick criminal activity check? It is bullshit. It violates our constitutional protects. The SCOTUS decision giving the green light to this totalitarian activity even SAYS it is a violation, but explains it is a "little" violation and therefore allowable. BULLSHIT!

This is EXACTLY the kinds of activity our founders warned us about. It is why they added the BOR to the Constitution during the very first Congress, because they recognized that the government would bust out of its enumerated powers. As long as people accept "reasonable" violations of our protections, the definition of "reasonable" will become more and more intrusive until those idiots asking "what's the big deal" will suddenly be asking "what the fuck happened to the 4th Amendment?"

It has already occurred with the 10th. We ignored "minor" intrusions on the 10th until there is nothing significant left of it.


Absolutely not. I do not support ANY type of random LE checks.

the example of walking on the street is not comparable. driving is a privilege...you don't want to happen by dui check points, don't drive. if driving was a right, i would agree with you. i don't think the seizure is unreasonable, you're only briefly stopped and you're not singled out randomly. as such, i don't think the seizure is unreasonable. now, if they stopped everyone and everyone had to get out of the car, i would say that is unreasonable, but a 25 second or so detention is not unreasonable, imo, given, driving is a privilege.

if this starts happening to pedestrians, then we have a real problem

 

[Good Luck]

the example of walking on the street is not comparable. driving is a privilege...you don't want to happen by dui check points, don't drive. if driving was a right, i would agree with you. i don't think the seizure is unreasonable, you're only briefly stopped and you're not singled out randomly. as such, i don't think the seizure is unreasonable. now, if they stopped everyone and everyone had to get out of the car, i would say that is unreasonable, but a 25 second or so detention is not unreasonable, imo, given, driving is a privilege.

if this starts happening to pedestrians, then we have a real problem

Uhuh.

Since when does exercising a privilege negate one's constitutional protections? (HINT: NEVER!!!)

What you fail to recognize is when we grant a "reasonable" exception to our protections, they WILL eventually expand their definition of "reasonable" to fit more exceptions to our protections. They have already done so with the 10th Amendment, making so many "reasonable" exceptions that it has no remaining effect on limiting federal authority.

Just look at the progression of this very issue. First, ANY type of stop, whether by patrol or by check point, was deemed unconstitutional unless there was prior cause for the stop. Checking for illegal activity AFTER the stop is NOT prior cause.

Then, later, they decide that check points are OK by redefining the word "random" so that if LE decides ahead of time how they are going to stop traffic, it isn't "random". Then they add insult to injury by ADMITTING checkpoints are a violation, but excuse it as a "minor" violation, and state concerns take precedence. How the FUCK can state concerns take precedence over our liberties? It is antithetical to the very concept that formed this country.

Do you REALLY think they will stop there? Or will they start adding MORE "minor" exceptions? Anti-terrorism is a BIG issue these days. Want to be checked out by a LEO every time you leave a drug store, or gardening center to make sure you aren't toting bomb making materials?

You like riding the road to totalitarianism? Fine. Just do not expect me to willingly ride it with you.

Those willing to trade their liberties for temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Uhuh.

Since when does exercising a privilege negate one's constitutional protections? (HINT: NEVER!!!)

What you fail to recognize is when we grant a "reasonable" exception to our protections, they WILL eventually expand their definition of "reasonable" to fit more exceptions to our protections. They have already done so with the 10th Amendment, making so many "reasonable" exceptions that it has no remaining effect on limiting federal authority.

Just look at the progression of this very issue. First, ANY type of stop, whether by patrol or by check point, was deemed unconstitutional unless there was prior cause for the stop. Checking for illegal activity AFTER the stop is NOT prior cause.

Then, later, they decide that check points are OK by redefining the word "random" so that if LE decides ahead of time how they are going to stop traffic, it isn't "random". Then they add insult to injury by ADMITTING checkpoints are a violation, but excuse it as a "minor" violation, and state concerns take precedence. How the FUCK can state concerns take precedence over our liberties? It is antithetical to the very concept that formed this country.

Do you REALLY think they will stop there? Or will they start adding MORE "minor" exceptions? Anti-terrorism is a BIG issue these days. Want to be checked out by a LEO every time you leave a drug store, or gardening center to make sure you aren't toting bomb making materials?

You like riding the road to totalitarianism? Fine. Just do not expect me to willingly ride it with you.

of course it doesn't negate your constitutional rights, it does however mean you are not afforded the same protection in all circumstances....for example, you can be searched at an airport, yet if you were searched that way at home without a warrant or probable cause with exigent circumstances, it would be a denial of your constitutional rights....with driving, since it is a privilege you are not afforded the same rights as you are walking or in your home. it is why states can force you buy auto insurance....

it is not totalitarianism, that would be if you were forced out of your car, given zero rights and your car confiscated etc....

 

[Airstrip One]

Driving is NOT a right. It is a privilege. In NM when we sign for our license, there is a statement above your signature that tells you that by signing your license you are willing to abide by NM's implied consent law. That law says that when you are stopped for DWI or at a check point your consent, as a licensed driver, to a breath test is implied. If you refuse, then you will be charged with aggravated DWI which carries stricter penalties and mandatory minimums.

One of these days we're going to have to get around to amending the US Constitution to declare driving a right. The privilege issue is getting to be ridiculous. Obviously, if the automobile and infernal combustion engine had existed in 1787, driving would be a right.

 

[Good Luck]

of course it doesn't negate your constitutional rights, it does however mean you are not afforded the same protection in all circumstances....for example, you can be searched at an airport, yet if you were searched that way at home without a warrant or probable cause with exigent circumstances, it would be a denial of your constitutional rights....with driving, since it is a privilege you are not afforded the same rights as you are walking or in your home. it is why states can force you buy auto insurance....

it is not totalitarianism, that would be if you were forced out of your car, given zero rights and your car confiscated etc....

Have you not seen me railing against airport security?

The road to totalitarianism - your definition - STARTS with allowing government their "little" intrusions on our rights. By the time it gets to the level where people like you (I don't see the problem) would start objecting, it's too late. They'll have already taken your rights away.

 

[Good Luck]

One of these days we're going to have to get around to amending the US Constitution to declare driving a right. The privilege issue is getting to be ridiculous. Obviously, if the automobile and infernal combustion engine had existed in 1787, driving would be a right.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Driving is NOT a right. It is a privilege. In NM when we sign for our license, there is a statement above your signature that tells you that by signing your license you are willing to abide by NM's implied consent law. That law says that when you are stopped for DWI or at a check point your consent, as a licensed driver, to a breath test is implied. If you refuse, then you will be charged with aggravated DWI which carries stricter penalties and mandatory minimums.

nice, harsher penalties because you didn't give up your rights. that's how the gov controls you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

what is unreasonable about the seizure?

are you serious?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Driving is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

what state constitution provides a state legislature with the power to determine who can travel in an automobile and who cannot?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

are you serious?

yes...you're stopped for maybe 30 seconds on a public road

i would rather have that than roving patrols or trumped up pull overs

 

[SmarterthanYou]

yes...you're stopped for maybe 30 seconds on a public road

i would rather have that than roving patrols or trumped up pull overs

so, like all other liberals you're fine with ignoring the right to be free of unreasonable seizures, just so long as it's only a 30 second seizure?