DUI no refusal checkpoints.

[markseven]

I don't feel the need to elaborate. Don't want to be checked from incompetent TSA staff don't take a plane. But the TSA isn't what I call smart security. And yes I do think the back scatter X-ray machines are a violation of your privacy.

I am in agreement that the TSA is a weak answer to a tough issue, but the underlying policy is the same ;)

[joshh]

If the police drive my house and they see me all wide-eyed in the front yard doing something stupid and it smells like a meth lab is operating inside, then they have probable cause.

Please elaborate as to how airport security is different from a DUI checkpoint.

I don't feel the need to elaborate. Don't want to be checked from incompetent TSA staff don't take a plane. But the TSA isn't what I call smart security. And yes I do think the back scatter X-ray machines are a violation of your privacy.

[markseven]

That's not following my logic. You get a ticket you no longer have a choice, tough shit. You're thinking that any security is unconstitutional. With your logic carrying a weapon is unconstitutional.
I actually believe in security as long as it's half way smart (but liberals don't want to offend anyone by profiling), unlike the TSA.
What's the difference between doing house searches and DUI checkpoints...it's all in the name of public safety right.

If the police drive my house and they see me all wide-eyed in the front yard doing something stupid and it smells like a meth lab is operating inside, then they have probable cause.

Please elaborate as to how airport security is different from a DUI checkpoint.

[joshh]

They are both in the interest of public safety, same as a DUI checkpoint... and following your logic, airport / local, state and federal building security is as much a violation of the Constitution as DUI checkpoints (Courthouses even more so because sometimes the public are compelled to enter by order of law, it's not optional.)

That's not following my logic. You get a ticket you no longer have a choice, tough shit. You're thinking that any security is unconstitutional. With your logic carrying a weapon is unconstitutional.
I actually believe in security as long as it's half way smart (but liberals don't want to offend anyone by profiling), unlike the TSA.
What's the difference between doing house searches and DUI checkpoints...it's all in the name of public safety right.

[markseven]

I see the difference in that one is for security reasons the other is for the sake of catching the bad guy in a crowd among the innocent. If you don't go into an airport or Government buildings you don't have to be checked. It's optional. Unless you work there in which case you know and understand that that is part of the job duties. Just like you don't have to buy car insurance as long as you don't drive.

One I see as necessary in this political environment for the safety of our politicians and government officials. The other is an outright violation of the Constitution.
Even private businesses have the right to screen. How they screen however is another issue.

They are both in the interest of public safety, same as a DUI checkpoint... and following your logic, airport / local, state and federal building security is as much a violation of the Constitution as DUI checkpoints (Courthouses even more so because sometimes the public are compelled to enter by order of law, it's not optional.)

[joshh]

I haven't had time to read all of the responses so I don't know if this has been covered:

How is a this checkpoint different than the security screening at an airport? How is this different than a security checkpoint at the local courthouse?

I see the difference in that one is for security reasons the other is for the sake of catching the bad guy in a crowd among the innocent. If you don't go into an airport or Government buildings you don't have to be checked. It's optional. Unless you work there in which case you know and understand that that is part of the job duties. Just like you don't have to buy car insurance as long as you don't drive.

One I see as necessary in this political environment for the safety of our politicians and government officials. The other is an outright violation of the Constitution.
Even private businesses have the right to screen. How they screen however is another issue.

[markseven]

Markseven. Read my last post on this page

I did - that post does not address my question.

[mrsleeve]

Markseven. Read my last post on this page

[Need4Speed1299]

Thats a great point. /\

[markseven]

I haven't had time to read all of the responses so I don't know if this has been covered:

How is a this checkpoint different than the security screening at an airport? How is this different than a security checkpoint at the local courthouse?

[325i_Medic]

I honestly don't know how I feel for checkpoints:

As a Paramedic, I think they are a good thing. I can't even begin to count how many intoxicated dumbasses I've had to deal with, scrape up, cut out of what's left of their cars, haul to the funeral home in a body bag. If they catch 1 drunk driver, that's 1 less to do something stupid and injure or kill themselves or an innocent bystander.

But, when the uniform is off and I'm Joe Citizen driving home late from a night out with the wife. The last damn thing I want to do is deal with a State Trooper on a power trip, shuffled off onto a side road and stuck in line while getting the once over by Trooper Hardass and his trusty Mag Lite.

Ironically, the State of Louisiana (yes, LA- The last state to make the drinking age 21, in 1995; Where you are pratically born with a .03 BAC; Where off-duty cops do security at parties where there is known underage drinking and driving) just passed a law making cooperating with a Breathalyzer a condition of your DL, IIRC, refusal is an automatic 1 year suspension regardless of outcome and is considered probable cause for a blood draw. Here they hire off-duty medics to staff the DUI van-You refuse the breath test, you are brought in, explained what is fixing to happen, the Police agency Faxes a warrant request to a judge on standby, as soon as it comes back, your blood gets drawn right then and there.

When I worked in Arkansas, It was normal for EMS to draw blood from Patients suspected of DWI, The Trooper/PD/Deputy would hop in the back of the rig with the kit and get the medic to do it when the IV was started. Most medics I knew hated this too many legal and liabilty along with Chain of Custody issues, when you drew for these cases. I thank god I got never hauled into court.

Ohio passed a law requiring EMS to draw blood at the request of Law Enforcement-There was a BIG uprising among EMS personnel, Medics usually want no part of the legal and evidentiary problems that come with DUI draws. I haven't heard anything lately-but a lot of medics were planning to refuse to participate.

One interesting note: I have seen people refuse and demand the blood test thinking it wouldn't show-It's actually worse, BAC is higher in blood than exhaled breath

[Need4Speed1299]

Checkpoints themselves are illegal. Police have no legal right to stop you without probable cause, but they do it anyways.

Exactly.

If you agree with checkpoints, you may be an idiot.

[mrsleeve]

Well then all law enforcement is infringement... Right?

No hence the Probable Cause provision in the 4th. You know they have to catch you doing something, OR have to have a good fucking reason to believe you are doing something wrong. Driving around is not probable cause no matter what the hour of the day is

The fact of the matter is that the police need to be able to force wrong doers to give up what they are hiding.

Again WRONG. Presumption of innocence, its the job of the state to collect enough evidence in accordance the 4th 5th 6th and 14th amendments to prove to impartial jury that you are guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Since the 4th defines Search and Seizure rules and bases them on the Probable cause.................... Well do I have to connect those dots????

What drunk driver in his write mind would say yes to a blood alcohol test if he had the option to say "no" and drive away?

Again its up to the state to build their case. If you are exhibiting lots of signs of intoxication then thats the probable cause. blanket stopping of everyone for the shear fact they are on a particular road is NOT PROBABLE CAUSE. This is the sticky wicket and why people are pissed. but sadly there are so many that just go along with it, and say YES SIR, because they have been trained our whole lives to do so.

For that matter why would a meth making baby rapist say yes to a SWAT team coming into his house and depriving him of his crystal and his huggies models if he knew he could just say "Sorry guys. Come again on Sunday ."

Again a a case is built with enough evidence to show there is a probable illegal activities going on there and with and oath of Affirmation from the LEO a judge will issue a Warrant for the search of the home and arrests are made if wrong doing is found. The state has to prove you are fucking up before they can search or arrest you.

Some times infringing on people is the only way to get them to admit a wrong doing. I am not saying it is right or wrong, its just the way it is.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO this is the path to a tyrannical over bearing govt this is why the founders wrote the Constitution and why we have it. Its to protect you and me from the powers that be form trampling our Rights as free men with out recourse.

IT IS WONG PERIOD there is no debate on this there is no room for interpretation its just flat out wrong.

Have you even read the US Constitution ??? If not I suggest you do so.

here

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

[joshh]

Hey, if you stopped watching FOX News you might realize how far reality is.

But most sheeple that watch FOX News are a lost cause..

Back on topic little man.

[Frog]

I bet you have a hair cut like Rachel Maddow...no I know you do!

Hey, if you stopped watching FOX News you might realize how far reality is.

But most sheeple that watch FOX News are a lost cause..