DNA Sampling Stops Coming to a Town Near You

Sooo, the jist of it is, since I'm in my vehicle (where I'm safe under 4, save reasonable cause) I shouldn't be subject to undue searches, ergo breathalyzer.

I understand that bit, but to me the point of the breathalyzer I would consider to be the protection of the other vehicles, pedestrians, and hopefully only mailboxes and ditches. So the protection of other persons and their property (and this is me blindly throwing that out there, are likely in your legislator somewhere?) is less important than your right not be be searched / held up on on your way to wherever by 5-10 minutes?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but maybe it's something at a cultural level I'm not understanding.

 

Hes

 

Liam,

That is the argument but, no longer the case in 40+/- states.

I don't think the language is cultural at all. It's cut & dried and was for years then a new ruling opened the gates. There are many factors but, people of a certain age didn't grow up with a VP claiming we were a "post constitutional society". Additionally, the Constitution was (and still is) the basis and provides authority and guidance for our laws. There are methods to change it. But, what happened was the change in interpretation not a change in actual text of the 4th & 5th amendments.

I actually was in a thread on this site a few years ago when one of our obviously brilliant college educated young men here on TW (who will remain nameless unless someone wants to search and find it themselves) said, after I quoted part of the Constitution, something to the effect "taking a 200 year old document seriously???". In other words he was under the impression or failed to comprehend the significance of subject document. Yes, this individule is still active on TW & is still in college. But, this was not the widely accepted thought in the past for most people born and raised in the US.

I'm sure to a degree, it's cultural in the sense if not having grown up here during the not recent history, one may not "get" the importance of the Constitution that was (correctly so) really impressed on people.

I don't agree but rather then change the interpretation rather its gun laws or search and seizure laws the legal method of revision should be used. The rulings are legal but, explain to me how and why with the swing of one appointed seat of nine should change the way of a country...

 

Over the last 10 years or so the Constitution has turned into suggestions

 

The 4th amendment is a little different when yuo talk about a house then a car. For one a house is not mobile like a car is. Also you do not have the same expectation of privates in your car as you in your house. So yes the check point are fine as long as there are being done at random or they are said that they going to stop every third car or anything that and that they are not targeting certin people.

 

Again, sorry, I didn't mean to fire anybody up, I was just trying to sympathetically understand the opposition to ride checks.

 

Some years ago I was driving on I90 and saw signs "All passenger vehicles stop at next exit for traffic survey." I didn't want to stop. I thought about my 4th Amendment rights. Then I realized the registration for my truck said "COMM" not "PASS" so it wasn't a passenger vehicle. I didn't stop. There was a State Police car by the exit, he didn't chase anyone who didn't stop.

 

Can't help but think of Mr. V

 

Some things to ponder...

Your profile indicates you're 22 (not sure if its accurate) but would guess it is.

"House & car are different under 4A". By and large WERE viewed the same prior to you being born by many.

Second and very important, the nature of "random" defies the specificity required by 4A. Where is probable cause? How are they naming a specific person and place and things to search when random road blocks can't predict who will be checked?

Really, re-read the 4th Amendment, throw out any preconceived notions and ask yourself the intent. Is a car different then ones "effects"?

Remember the Constitution is by design to limit governments reach & authority. Even in the landmark 1990 ruling involving Michigan laws (yes I remember it well) the court states essentially the benefit out weighs the intrusion. Even the benefits are in question...

In my view there has been a shift in how the Constitution is used & viewed. And keep in mind this...the final rule of all law in the US is with nine people. 5 tend to lean one direction and 4 tend to lean the other (right now) so a shift of just one appointed body can changes the law of the land.

I'm all for STOPPING any and all people operating under the influence of booze & dope but, also think it should be done within the law...if we don't like the law then use the tools available to change the law legitimately (which they have by re-interpretation if you believe they just recently been able to accurately interpret the 4th).

Seeing things like what I've attached below really raises the question of effectivness...and this is not an isolated paragraph...

Riverside County (Calif.) Sheriff Stanley Sniff, whose deputies made 491 DUI arrests at 83 checkpoints in 16 cities last year, says: "Random patrols are still the most effective. We make light-years more arrests on random patrols than at checkpoints."

Plus, an officer witnessing a weaving car (IMO) falls more within the intent if the 4th.

 

Some people have different and more modern interpretations of their country's founder's concepts...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o&feature=player_detailpage

 

Sooo... Random checkpoints to stop people using drugs and alcohol inevitably lead to Nazism? Seems a little bit like a slippery slope argument... You may also want to keep your eyes out for those heathen Kanucks up North (or East for you Alaskans!)

I also don't think Nazism can justifiably be called Nationalist Socialism, as they weren't nationalist so much as racist.


Sorry if I seem insulting, that's not my intent, I just don't seem able to wrap my head around the notion of why not being searched is so much more important than keeping intoxicated people off the roads.

 

You won't be able to get your frozen , Socialist head around this stuff , trust me

 

hahaha never would i do this! i’d probably ask if they have a warrant if not ask if i was free to go.

THIS most cases the your 1st DUI is just a slap on the wrist and is nocked down to reckless driving. just BS! 1st time should be 1year without licensee 6 months of AA, I do get some times it’s like .09 or something and some times shit happens. 2nd time should be 1.5 years without licensee and 2.5 years of AA, 3rd time you loose it for say 5 or 10+ years. and 3.5 years or so of AA.

also read some where that by the time someone if pulled over for DUI they have already drove drunk 10+ times(i for get the actual number, but pretty sure it was over 10.

most states have these laws or some kinda law, but the lawyers get it knocked down to reckless driving and i think they should not be allowed to do that.

 

I'm not insulted. It takes way more than that. I can appreciate that you have your interpretation. I have mine too. My interpretation is that our Government is way too big and is failing to serve 'The People.'

 

What's important is not infringing on law abiding citizens' privacy. There are better ways to catch drunk drivers than treating everyone like a potential law-breaker and putting them through the ringer.

 

yep it has, and that NEEDS to change but sadly it probably wont.

 

the shit will hit the fan eventually.

 

To be honest who cares anymore! This could try is going down hill and nobody seems to give a shit! Pedophiles want rights now and then this crap it only means we are screwed unless something happens to change it.