Sobriety Checkpoints on Washington Highways
Governor Christine Gregoire is pushing for sobriety checkpoints at certain high-accident areas. This is favored by law enforcement, citizens’ groups and a lot of legislators from both parties. The ACLU opposes it.
Do you think these searches are an invasion of privacy? Or do you think that when you get behind the wheel of a car you're in the public arena and certain privacy rights no longer apply?
Do you think these searches are an invasion of privacy? Or do you think that when you get behind the wheel of a car you're in the public arena and certain privacy rights no longer apply?
Labels: ACLU sobriety checkpoints, Governor Christine Gregoire, sobriety checkpoints Washington
posted by Tom Harper at 12:01 PM
18 Comments:
Public safety trumps "personal privacy." The ACLU is full of **it.
Ah that pesky fourth amendment:
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.
Our President Nitwit thinks its ok to bend this a bit too. You shouldn't mind having your email read, your phone calls monitored, not when its for the greater good.
A worthwhile quote usually attributed to Ben Franklin:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759)
I would say enough of my neighbors and their children have been killed by citizens who make poor choices to drink and drive in our area. Those of us who are not doing such foolhardy things will not mind speaking to some of Washington's finest, who are just trying to do their best at protecting us from local nitwits. Pull me over and I'll say "Thank You!"
The sheeple will comply. But they will back down and comply with anything. The wolves will not.
Pull me over and I will demand to see the warrent.
"Don't taze bro!"
You guys who think this is alright are way off base.
The problem is by announcing when and where the checkpoints are, and then you drive there...and you get stopped its like giving the police the ability to suspend and 4th Amendment rights. The police could ask you for ID, registration, where you've been, where you are going, where you live, who you live, if you have children, are you current on your child support, to show them whats in your glove box, whats in your trunk. You've already given "consent" by driving on that road (you were warned) --- which suspends all the search and seizure procedures. After this 5th degree they can THEN decide to charge you with whatever they want to charge you with.
It's not safety oriented.
We don't want to live in a police state...do we?
I've never ead such nonsense in my life. So driving while intoxicated is simply a "poor choice" and the police should not be able to enforce the law.
Thank God I'm leaving this benighted country and going back to Britain.
Well god save the queen, et al. We got a mad king george you can take with you when you go.
Its not a matter of the coppers not being able to enforce the law, its making the jack booted thugs obey the laws themselves.
You could have a lot of fun with it too. When you pull up to the cop, call 911 and claim radical fundamentalist Baptist militia death squads are stopping people and baptising them in the irrigation ditch. (you are entitled to make the call) When the 911 operator tells you its real, get out and demand to see everyones ID (again, any public servant must show ID on demand). Spell the names out loud and act like you are memorizing them. Demand to see the warrant. Complain loudly that you are being repressed. Go home, get your other car, come back and go thru the road block again.
yeah, IF you are so stupid as to drive drunk the cops should stop you FOR THAT, not put non drinking citizens under scrutiny.
It's an open invitation for police to find things to arrest you for, things which may or may not have any relevance to anything, like you being a bit cranky, or your belt is unbuckled and they jump to the conclusion that you were exposing yourself (it has happened at other sobriety checkpoints in other states). I'm NOT making up the scenario.
The reality: it doesn't deter drunk driving.
It does cause more people to have more court dates for other things, including "missing tail lights, unhooked seat belt, carrying items which are deemed improper". And, it is a HUGE waste of time for everyone. Have you ever had to sit for 25 minutes in a sobriety check point and wait while the twenty cars ahead of you are getting the 5th degree?
You're living in a dream world in lala land if you really think these checkpoints do anything to catch drunks or stop drunk driving.
Don't be so stupid. Try doing some research. I'm sure you're all educated adults....
The only ones who benefit are the courts, because little infractions -- those laws on the books that are only there to produce income for the state -- will be the ones enforced at checkpoints.
IT's like that in EVERY STATE that has them.
So, sure, open your pocket books and pretend it's making the streets safer. I wonder if this is how the Nazi's lulled the people of Germany to give up all their rights, too.
The only ones who benefit are the courts, because little infractions -- those laws on the books that are only there to produce income for the state -- will be the ones enforced at checkpoints.
IT's like that in EVERY STATE that has them.
So, sure, open your pocket books and pretend it's making the streets safer. I wonder if this is how the Nazi's lulled the people of Germany to give up all their rights, too.
to the first poster...
"public safety trumps personal privacy"
Okay, with that thinking, you won't mind if your house is emminent domained, and your bank accounts are seized to "balance the government books".
You must think that the rights of all, are greater than the rights of the individual...always, which means you are living in the wrong country.
A lot of people are all riled up about our "dictatorial" government but I don't see any of you doing anything about ... besides flapping your lips.
Fourth Amendment this and rights of the individual that. You act as though you've actually got rights or that some Federal agency is really going to respect the Fourth Amendment.
Get with it. We already live in a dictatorship run by Big Corporations, Big Media, the Military administered by their lackeys of both parties in Congress. The Bill of Rights and the idea of Habeus Corpus are mere fictions which the Power has, for the moment, allowed to remain in place. At any moment any one of us can be arrested by Presidential order and "disappeared."
The "state of emergency," the suspension of free elections and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan are test runs by the Power to see how it would fare here and how it can be finessed, just as the Isreali-Hezbollah war was a test to see how our bunker busting bombs would work in a war with Iran.
Six, two and even by late summer we'll be in a major war with Iran and there'll be a state of emergency declared along with a suspension of elections.
I agree with the last poster.
George Carlin is pushing the idea (his latest routines) that the amendment rights are just another set of myths like the tooth fairy and Santa.
Yep, I won't put any MONEY on the scenario proposed, because I TOO am afraid that will happen.
In the meantime, write our governeress and tell her she's crazy?
So much bravado. You live at the disgression of the powers that be. If they want to you disappear, you will. You can say "baaaa" and comply, you can snarl and wrap yourself in the flag and say "NEVER!". It matters about as much as a fart in the breeze.
so, who cares, it's useless...
nice attitude. Good way to justify not caring and staying on your lazy farting in the breeze tush.
No wonder America is failing.
Dude, someone farted!
Well if me not caring makes the pax american dream fail then it wasn't much of a dream to start with.
Oh and by the way, I have to register my farts with the United Nations High Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction (UNHCWMD).
Its a violation of privacy.
Why bother profiling for drunks more when most of them are on the road right after 2 o clock a.m. and the "sobriety" stops happen anyway. If clubs around here would stay open until 3am, it would give people time to sober up between 2 and 3 before they hit the street.
The real issue here is road safety and some people drive worse sober than others that have had a drink. If you want to make the roads safer, how about outlawing talking on cellphones while driving? Or restricting the people that can hardly see to begin with, let alone well enough to be behind the wheel of an automobile. A combination of slow reaction time along with it is an even greater hazard IMO. Sure there may be drunk drivers on the road during the other hours of the day, but think of the number of elderly citizens on the road who may not see and hear like they used to or even think as fast.
If we are to have "sobriety checkpoints", why not just do a better job of restricting drivers who are a hazard even sober. Im sure it will be just as effective.
Post a Comment
<< Home