lancestorm
Platinum Member
LOL. That made me laugh, thanks 🙂 Wow can't believe how agitated people are about this. Good discussion, but enough of the name calling, etc. However I feel this was excellent and a good breather. Very funny 🙂
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Were my friend's rights infringed by the cops?
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LOL. That made me laugh, thanks 🙂 Wow can't believe how agitated people are about this. Good discussion, but enough of the name calling, etc. However I feel this was excellent and a good breather. Very funny 🙂
Where did I mention the Patriot Act?
This thread is about the continual erosion of our 4th amendment rights. The ACLU has said that the warrant has become a dead letter as far as the automobile goes, and they're unfortunately right.
At one time, Americans thought it was worth a much higher number of lives than one to create a place where the freedoms in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights could be defended. Like it or not, human lives have a finite value: we didn't ground all planes permanently after 9/11, we do let people drive cars despite over 40,000 deaths a year from automobile accidents, and so forth. We could give up those conveniences and freedoms for safety and save far more than one family, but we don't and we're right to make that choice.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
However, the question in this thread isn't about the right to drive.
The question is whether the state has the right to stop and question you without probable cause or a warrant. Sure, they can stop you if you're driving erratically on suspicion of being drunk, but the orignal poster was stopped without such probable cause.
MercenaryForHire
Lifer
Wah Wah Wah
Do you have to pass a test to get a license? Yes. It's a privledge.
- M4H
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
I think it's part of GW's plan to take over the world.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
Back to Criminal Procedure with you, my friend!
This is why randomness is the key. So long as the police have a truly random system for picking cars (and picking all cars is random, in that they aren't singling anyone out), they are allowed to conduct these kinds of roadblocks/checkpoints. No probable cause is needed because they are stopping people at random. The idea is that the stops are being conducted not to look for evidence of a crime, but to protect public safety. I don't ask you to buy off on it, but the law is very clear on this point.
I don't disagree with you on what the law states, but I do think that it's a poor rationalization for violating the Bill of Rights. The 4th amendment has really taken a beating in the last 30 years, when we should have been expanding our interpretation of it to address the dangers resulting from advancing technolgy instead.
lancestorm
Platinum Member
Thank you for contributing to the thread so much. I only learned my "retard"edness from you.
lancestorm
Platinum Member
First you bold a word you can't even spell right: privilege. Secondly, what does passing a MOTOR SKILLS test have to do with being stopped at a check point?!
Toasthead
Diamond Member
Because by taking and passing that test, you agree to abide by certain rules, of which the police have been put in charge of making sure you adhere to. And one way they make sure people are following the rules you agreed to when you took the test and obtained the driving privilege is by stopping people randomly and checking.
Vic
Elite Member
Depends on where you live, but most likely it is legal.
They are unconstitutional (per the state, not federal, constitutions) where I live in Oregon and Washington State, but those states make up for that by having the stiffest DUI penalties in the country. Our DUI rates are no higher than anywhere else in the country. It is very debatable if the checkpoints actually work in preventing accidents.
I disagree with DUI checkpoints, as they inconvenience the law-abiding majority, however they are legal on the basis that driving is a privilege (not a right), and the roads are owned by the public.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
There's a few things people are overlooking here with DUI stops. Specifically, who owns the roads. Contrary to popular belief you, the taxpayer, do not own the road. Major roads in any state are built by or under contract from that state's Department of Transportation. (U.S. Highways and Interstates are built by the state as well, just with federal money) As such these belong to the state, and you as a driver are required to submit to the state's terms in order to use their roads. This is why you have to get a license; this is why you can't drink and drive. And it's why the Highway Patrol -- or the local police if it's a municipality-built road -- can pull you over without any evidence of wrongdoing. Now of course there are exceptions for behavior that would constitute harrassment, and the stops must follow an unbiased pattern, but the fact of the matter is that it's simply the state enforcing the rules it has put forth.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
No, they were not.
Vic
Elite Member
Odd that there are like 4 people in this thread that flamed the OP that I know live in a state where these checkpoints are not allowed. Hmm...
For example, checkpoints are not legal up in Tacoma, Don...
I remember when WA state did have checkpoints, up until the late '80s. The cops abused the power, especially doing frequent license and registration checks, sometimes in the middle of the afternoon rush hour, making commuters hours late coming home from work. The public put their foot down.
Like most everything, DUI is an issue too complicated to be solved by simple-minded knee-jerk reactionism. At this point, more checkpoints, more cops, and lower BAC's appear almost certainly to be NOT the answers we need.
For example, checkpoints are not legal up in Tacoma, Don...
I remember when WA state did have checkpoints, up until the late '80s. The cops abused the power, especially doing frequent license and registration checks, sometimes in the middle of the afternoon rush hour, making commuters hours late coming home from work. The public put their foot down.
Like most everything, DUI is an issue too complicated to be solved by simple-minded knee-jerk reactionism. At this point, more checkpoints, more cops, and lower BAC's appear almost certainly to be NOT the answers we need.
Vic
Elite Member
Not at all. Now that many states have given discretion to the police to arrest for DUI with a BAC as low as 0.01%, DUI itself has become in many cases just another form of revenue generation. Not all, of course, not even half. But abuse is becoming more and more widespread. Do you really think that a person is impaired after only one drink?
No I don't, but I happen to know that this is not common and would not happen here. I know a legislator that was vehemently against lowering the BAC limit in MO from .08% to .05%. However, the police held a gathering where all the legislators came and blew into a machine. This legislator was convinced that he was, in fact, impared slightly by .05% intoxication.
Most law-makers drink too, so they wouldn't want unreasonable restrictions on drunk driving laws. If there are unreasonable (ie. .01%) BAC limits in your state, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Write letters. Make appointments with lawmakers.
But also remember something: a cop won't test you unless you give him reason. If a person is driving erratically, a cop might pull him over and give him a breathalyzer (sp?). Maybe he fights it for awhile and sobers up. As long as he still has a .01% BAC, they can get him. If a guy's speeding and gets pulled over, unless he acts impaired he probably won't be tested. Or, at worst, he'll be asked to take a sobriety test. That person will probably pass if they really are in the .01% - .05% range.
Here's my story: I left a wedding one night after having a few drinks. I obviously waited for it to get off of my breath, but I was probably right around the .05% BAC level. I was extremely careful and was driving below the speed limit. My friends were very drunk and I was taking them home. You can all judge me how you like, but I know that my driving wasn't impaired. I hit a deer that jumped RIGHT out in front of me. I thought I might have to call the cops to get a police report for my insurance. Granted, I had been drinking, but I knew I was sober enough that the cop wouldn't ask questions. I called. They said they didn't need to come. I then was pulled over for having a headlight out. Obviously, the deer knocked it out. That cop didn't question a thing, even though my passengers were harrassing him for taking so long (my tags were up to date, but they said I had two years left whereas the system only said I had one year left, os the cop took forever figuring this out).
If you're not drunk, you won't be questioned. Keep your cool and you'll be alright. Drunk driving is more than enough of a threat to warrant the inconvenience of a few minutes every once in awhile IMO.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
