Sobriety Checkpoints

[Darwin333]

Can you see how conflicting those two statements are?

I don't care if the court says something is constitutional, it's unconstitutionality remains a fact.

I don't care if the court says I have to pay taxes, I say I don't.

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.

What part of that do you need help understanding? Sobriety checkpoints search both me and my "effects" unreasonably because they have absolutely no reason to believe that I am breaking the law nor do they have a warrant.

If the court says that it is ok to arrest people for saying that you dislike the presidents politics that does not make it Constitutional it simply means that the courts ruling is unconstitutional.

 

[PeshakJang]

No, because the Caucasian homegrown terrorist that actually has the bomb and was recruited to board the plane will more easily slip by. The Israelis do it best.. and we should model our airport security on their behavior profiling approach.

You don't think the Israeli's take race, religion, appearance, gender, etc., into account for profiling sake? Or do you simply believe, like so many here, that any system that works in whole will work just as effectively if it's components are used selectively?

Tell me, right now, who is statistically more likely to pose a security risk? John Smith, a Canadian businessman flying to Toronto, or Hassan Jidal Mohammud, an Arab student flying to Dubai?

 

[Darwin333]

You don't think the Israeli's take race, religion, appearance, gender, etc., into account for profiling sake? Or do you simply believe, like so many here, that any system that works in whole will work just as effectively if it's components are used selectively?

Tell me, right now, who is statistically more likely to pose a security risk? John Smith, a Canadian businessman flying to Toronto, or Hassan Jidal Mohammud, an Arab student flying to Dubai?

The 3 year old child and 87 year old Grandpa in a wheel chair, duh.

 

[bamacre]

... are unconstitutional. There is no justification for detaining everyone because probable cause has not been established.

What do you think?

I agree.

 

[bamacre]

I guess it's also unconstitutional then to have security at an airport. They have no probable cause to detain me before getting on a plane.

Well that is one problem with gov't securing the airport instead of the airline companies.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Sobriety Checkpoints are profitable.

 

[PeshakJang]

Well that is one problem with gov't securing the airport instead of the airline companies.

I agree. It would be nice to see a sign saying, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

 

[Vette73]

Privacy and freedom of movement are rights.

Only thing they ask for is your ID and Car registration. Some states may ask for insurance as well. All that is required to drive on Government roads. The information is not private and they can’t arrest you or search your car without a warrant or probable cause.

 

[drebo]

I guess it's also unconstitutional then to have security at an airport. They have no probable cause to detain me before getting on a plane.

Reasonable searches and security are fine. X-raying carryon luggage and metal detectors are non-invasive and are a reasonable precaution for physical security.

Virtual strip searches and groping are most definitely not reasonable.

A sobriety checkpoint could be reasonable, depending on how it's handled. If it's a simple "drive slowly and show me your license", then I have no problem with it. If they make everyone get out of their car and do a full sobriety test or blow into a breathalizer, that would be pretty unreasonable.

Also, they can stop you on the street and, indeed, arrest you if you are drunk.

 

[blackangst1]

... are unconstitutional. There is no justification for detaining everyone because probable cause has not been established.

What do you think?

SCOTUS disagrees with you. As far as TSA goes, SCOTUS ruled they are not violating 4th amendment in 1973 in U.S. vs Davis.

 

[bamacre]

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Yup. But there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the SCOTUS.

 

[blackangst1]

Yup. But there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the SCOTUS.

Agree

 

[zsdersw]

How many of those have we had in the last decade?

Yes, because the past is always a good indicator of the future.

 

[drebo]

What part of that do you need help understanding? Sobriety checkpoints search both me and my "effects" unreasonably because they have absolutely no reason to believe that I am breaking the law nor do they have a warrant.

If the court says that it is ok to arrest people for saying that you dislike the presidents politics that does not make it Constitutional it simply means that the courts ruling is unconstitutional.

That depends on what they are doing. Asking to see your ID is not searching (unless you're an illegal alien, aparently) you or your effects. If they require you to get out of your car, then I would agree with you.

 

[zsdersw]

You don't think the Israeli's take race, religion, appearance, gender, etc., into account for profiling sake? Or do you simply believe, like so many here, that any system that works in whole will work just as effectively if it's components are used selectively?

Tell me, right now, who is statistically more likely to pose a security risk? John Smith, a Canadian businessman flying to Toronto, or Hassan Jidal Mohammud, an Arab student flying to Dubai?

I don't think they pay more attention to any of those factors, no.

 

[zsdersw]

SCOTUS disagrees with you. As far as TSA goes, SCOTUS ruled they are not violating 4th amendment in 1973 in U.S. vs Davis.

That's fine. They have as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can always tell the libertarians in the crowd. They are the ones with lengthened left ears their Mommies used to pulled them around by. Doomed they are to list through life tilting at windmothers.

 

[zsdersw]

Only thing they ask for is your ID and Car registration. Some states may ask for insurance as well. All that is required to drive on Government roads. The information is not private and they can’t arrest you or search your car without a warrant or probable cause.

No matter what they ask for, or whether you are stopped or can drive slowly as you provide the info, it's the compulsion to provide that information in the first place by restricting your freedom of movement that is unconstitutional. Depending on how it's handled, it's also entrapment.

 

[PeshakJang]

I don't think they pay more attention to any of those factors, no.

Then you really don't know how Israeli's profile.

 

[zsdersw]

Then you really don't know how Israeli's profile.

And neither do you, apparently.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...other?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4ce0361af7973d2e,0

 

[Sinsear]

No you are not. Public drunkenness is a crime almost everywhere that I am familiar with and you do not have to damage anyone or anything to be arrested and convicted.

No it is not; i'm not familiar with everywhere, but in NY there is no such law on the books.

 

[dmcowen674]

... are unconstitutional. There is no justification for detaining everyone because probable cause has not been established.

What do you think?

Under post 9-11 Bush Era there are no rights in public.

 

[bamacre]

Under post 9-11 Bush Era there are no rights in public.

No, Obama was elected and all that changed.

 

[umbrella39]

It's clear that P&N should have stupidity checkpoints.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I love how so many people seem to think that we have no right to push for change even if it is technically 'legal'. Government doesn't have the right to do whatever it wants and we can change ANYTHING we want as citizens of this country..