gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (06/24/85)
What is the opinion on the net: Is it "unlawful search and seizure" if you are stopped at a road block and checked for DWI even though you were driving your car properly (not too fast or slow or weaving or anything, just minding your own business)? Is it "uss" if they do the same thing to check driver's license and registration? If it is ok to do these things then why can't the police drive down the block and search every house or every third house for drugs, unregistered firearms, criminals, etc.? RPS AT&T-BL homxa!gritz
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/25/85)
> Is it "unlawful search and seizure" if you are stopped at a road > block and checked for DWI even though you were driving your car > properly (not too fast or slow or weaving or anything, just minding > your own business)? Is it "uss" if they do the same thing to check > driver's license and registration? I seem to recall that this particular issue was decided not too long ago by the US Supreme Court. Briefly, it is legal for police to set up roadblocks to look for motor vehicle violations, as long as they search every car (or they choose cars to search at random, without only searching cars whose drivers are, say, men with long hair). The court's basis for the decision was that you do not have the same right of privacy in your car as you do in your home, and that the right of people to drive in a safe environment overrides the right of people in cars to be free from arbitrary government interference. I think it's absurd, but the only thing I can think of to do about it is to stop driving a car, something I seriously consider every once in a while. Travel is not a right in this country.
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (06/25/85)
In article <979@homxa.UUCP> gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: >What is the opinion on the net: > > Is it "unlawful search and seizure" if you are stopped at a road > block and checked for DWI even though you were driving your car > properly (not too fast or slow or weaving or anything, just minding > your own business)? Is it "uss" if they do the same thing to check > driver's license and registration? > > If it is ok to do these things then why can't the police drive down > the block and search every house or every third house for drugs, > unregistered firearms, criminals, etc.? > No, it is now 'unlawful'. Yes, I personally think it is unconstitutional. Here is the 'logic' that they use here in North Carolina, where roadblocks for 'license checks' are common: You are required by law to have a valid driver's license when operating a motor vehicle. Your motor vehicle is very dangerous; you can't kill someone by running them over with your house. You are a potential menace to society just by being behind the wheel. Therefore, it is the state's right to enforce this law (driver's license) with arbitrary checks. NOW, if you are stopped for this check and the officer has 'probable cause' to think that you may be drinking or intoxicated from previous drinking, s/he can pull you out of the car and give you any test up to and including a breathalyzer. I know one person who has had this happen twice and has blown a .00 (or practically that) both times; he has no recourse against the state for it. As for not searching houses, etc., the argument above about motor vehicles being dangerous to others is usually used. But if we continue to sit back and let this stuff happen; it is coming, believe me. There are three interrelated prevailing attitudes in this country that I am seeing: a) There are no 'accidents'; everything is someone's fault and we MUST prevent anything like this from happening again, and b) the only way to do this is to pass more laws and have more government agencies/policies/tax_dollars to enforce them, and c) it matters not that most of these laws are unenforcable. We recently had a driver of a military truck run off the road and plow into a school bus. The guy had been on duty for 12 hours, probably partied the night before, and fell asleep at the wheel. He had not been driving for a solid 12 hours. The first thing the news media and state government leaped on was a proposal for new laws to prevent truckers from driving more than, say, 10 hours out of 24. Too bad for them, they found that there is already one on the books and will have to do their silly political posturing elsewhere. Another case in point is the Walker spy case; the first thing the Secretary of the Navy did was demand that 20% of civil service and military clearances be IMMEDIATELY cancelled, and efforts made to bring the number of cancellations up to 50%. How much posturing can you do? Does anyone who has worked in any secure business anywhere really believe that this will help or that more than a tiny handful of the revocations will be top secret clearances? I've raved enough. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
qwerty@drutx.UUCP (Brian Jones) (06/25/85)
> I seem to recall that this particular issue was decided not too long > ago by the US Supreme Court. Briefly, it is legal for police to ... ... > Travel is not a right in this country. Travel is a right, driving is a privilege. I would just as soon have DWI's, unregistered vehicles, and unlicensed drivers removed from the roads that I use as quickly as possible (include uninsured in the above list also, since we have to carry proof of insurance in Colorado). I have never had any restrictions placed on where I wanted to go or when I could go there, other than occasional detours for road construction. I have not tried to visit any top secret facilities lately though. :-) I frankly think the Court is right on target, considering drunks are involved in roughly half of the 50,000 yearly fatalities from auto accidents this country experiences. I would gladly endure random stops, considering that driving is like playing Russian Roulette - you never know which driver is loaded. Brian Jones aka {ihnp4,}!drutx!qwerty
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (06/26/85)
In article <3108@drutx.UUCP> qwerty@drutx.UUCP (Brian Jones) writes: >I frankly think the Court is right on target, considering drunks are involved >in roughly half of the 50,000 yearly fatalities from auto accidents this >country experiences. If you really meant what you said, then I will simply say that your figures are exagerrated for the point you are trying to make. If you mean that half of the 50,000 yearly fatalities from auto accidents involve drunk drivers (that's what I think you really meant), then NO NO NO NO NO!!!! This is how statistics are used to LIE. I don't mean deceive, I mean LIE. The 'official' rules for determining those statistics for 'alcohol- related deaths' are that if ANYONE involved in the accident has even a slight alcohol content (I believe it is .05, not sure though), then it is an alcohol-related accident. This includes passengers and pedestrians involved in an accident; it also includes almost any person who has had as little as ONE drink and is anything close to relatively normal build and body weight. And, as drunk driving becomes a political issue, they are testing more and more drivers involved in accidents, hence the low alcohol content necessary to qualify for an 'alcohol-related accident' and the higher rate of testing combine to send the figures sky-high. I do not advocate or like drunk driving by any means, but I'll let you in on a little secret: people drink in bars and then they have to get home. How much money would the various city/state governments save if they simply provided good low-cost transportation systems to get people home? People are always pointing to the stiff drunken driving laws in Europe and the low incidence of drunken driving there. A friend recently asked me to consider a valuable point -- in Germany or Belgium or France or England you typically WALK down to your local pub and WALK home. People in the US are so damn prudish about drinking and make it something forbidden until you are old enough to sneak around to go chugging beer and joy-riding; they blanch at the thought of a pub/bar only 2 or 3 blocks away from their nice religious middle-class neighborhoods. When I was in college I never had to think about driving drunk; my local bar was two blocks from my house. In short, and to stop my ravings without (I hope) having done too much damage, let me introduce a novel concept: Drinking and driving don't mix. You can't stop drinking; drinking of itself is not (but well can be, I know) the problem. You also CANNOT STOP DRUNKEN DRIVING WITHOUT OFFERING A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE. Throwing all drunk drivers in jail is not (in my view) a reasonable alternative; trying to get them home safely and thereby keep other people safe is. Casa Gallardo (a chain Mexican restaurant here in Greensboro) stopped serving their 1-liter margaritas, and they also have a sign prominently displayed on the wall in nice warm prose telling you that if you are too drunk to drive home, the bartender will call you a cab and give you a nice cup of coffee while you wait and THE RESTAURANT WILL PAY FOR YOUR CAB RIDE HOME. I like it; keep them off the road in the first place! -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
bdd@cybvax0.UUCP (Robert D. Donovan) (06/26/85)
> What is the opinion on the net: > Is it "unlawful search and seizure" if you are stopped at a road > block and checked for DWI even though you were driving your car > properly (not too fast or slow or weaving or anything, just minding > your own business)? Apprently not, since Massachusetts in particular has been doing these roadblocks for some time without any court case pending that I know of. Personally, I consider it harassment, an infrigement of my con- stitutional rights, and one more step closer to a police state. > Is it "uss" if they do the same thing to check driver's license > and registration? In my opinion, if the police have a reason to stop you, ie. erratic driving or violation of traffic rules, then they have every right to check your license and registration. The Massachusetts registry of Motor Vehicles will tell you that having a driver's license and auto registration is a priviledge and not a right. > If it is ok to do these things then why can't the police drive down > the block and search every house or every third house for drugs, > unregistered firearms, criminals, etc.? The way society seems to be going is to favor tactics like roadblocks, and drug testing of employees (and now high school students) as an easy solution to complex problems. I fear it won't be long before more constitutional rights are eroded to the point that it will be okay for police to "drive down the block and search every house ...for drugs, unregistered firearms, criminals, etc." Bob Donovan (bdd) Cybermation, Inc. Cambridge, MA
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (06/26/85)
I really don't mean to beat a dead horse, but one of the netters already seems to hit the mark when he says travel is a right; driving is a privelege. The state can set up roadblocks to check that vehicle maintenance laws are being followed. The amount of "probable cause" here is lower than stopping a person. For example, the state knows that some people are violating vehicle maintenance laws or that some of the vehicles don't measure up to standards. The state can set up roadblocks to verify compliance with the laws. If the police then get probable cause by seeing empty vodka bottles on the backseat or erratic behavior generally associated with drunkeness during this search, the police can do further investigations (such as breath- alizer tests or walking the chalklines). Now, the police are able to see an illegal activity which is in plain view.
dmh@dicomed.UUCP (Dave Hollander) (06/26/85)
In article <3893@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> Is it "unlawful search and seizure" if you are stopped at a road .. > .. >Travel is not a right in this country. Yes it is; travel by car on PUBLIC highways is not. (small point but an important one) Dave Hollander
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (06/27/85)
In article <587@cybvax0.UUCP> bdd@cybvax0.UUCP (Robert D. Donovan) writes: >> What is the opinion on the net: > >> Is it "unlawful search and seizure" if you are stopped at a road >> block and checked for DWI even though you were driving your car >> properly (not too fast or slow or weaving or anything, just minding >> your own business)? > >Apprently not, since Massachusetts in particular has been doing these >roadblocks for some time without any court case pending that I know >of. Personally, I consider it harassment, an infrigement of my con- >stitutional rights, and one more step closer to a police state. The Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court ruled last year that while the police do have a right to set up roadblocks, they cannot force a motorist to go through them. The case involved someone who chose to turn around rather than go through a roadblock and was summarily convicted of "evading law enforcement officials" or some such trumped-up charge. No dice, said the SJC, and threw out the conviction. Score one for justice! >> If it is ok to do these things then why can't the police drive down >> the block and search every house or every third house for drugs, >> unregistered firearms, criminals, etc.? > >The way society seems to be going is to favor tactics like roadblocks, >and drug testing of employees (and now high school students) as an >easy solution to complex problems. I fear it won't be long before >more constitutional rights are eroded to the point that it will >be okay for police to "drive down the block and search every house >...for drugs, unregistered firearms, criminals, etc." Attorney General Edwin Meese, speaking to a group of right-wing lunatics the other day, said he was in favor of essentially just that. (But oh how he screamed when his own financial dealings were under investigation!) Andrew W. Rogers
ccrms@ucdavis.UUCP (ccrms) (06/27/85)
At least in California, you give "implied consent" to have your blood alcohol level checked *every time you drive*! Usually, this is used after someone has been pulled over for speeding, etc, or after an accident. I support this position. When driving on the public highways, where an action may affect the lives of many other people, the individual's right to privacy is not as important as another persons right to live. DISCLAIMER: these are my opinions only, and I don't care if any- one else disagrees :-) Michael Shulman UCD Computer Center ...ucbvax!ucdavis!harpo!ccrms
fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) (06/27/85)
In article <761@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: >... >Drinking and driving don't mix. You can't stop drinking; drinking of >itself is not (but well can be, I know) the problem. You also CANNOT >STOP DRUNKEN DRIVING WITHOUT OFFERING A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE. >... I think this is an important point. Don't just say what you don't like, offer analternative. It is difficult to stop something, but relitively easy to redirect it. Rick ...!cybvax0!fbp "A likely story. I don't believe a word of it."
mhs@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (06/27/85)
> I frankly think the Court is right on target, considering drunks are involved > in roughly half of the 50,000 yearly fatalities from auto accidents this > country experiences. I would gladly endure random stops, considering > that driving is like playing Russian Roulette - you never know which driver > is loaded. Yes but where do we draw the line. Why not search everyones' houses to find illegal weapons, drugs, etc. Clearly this would be in society's best interest. Is it fair to search/accuse/assume_guilt of everyone too find the few who are guilty? This may be what the majority wants but it still seems to me to be a violation of the Bill of Rights.
david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) (06/28/85)
< Attorney General Edwin Meese, speaking to a group of
< right-wing lunatics the other day, said he was in
< favor of essentially just that.
Generally, conservatives tend to favor "strict construction" of the
Constitution, with firm belief in the rights of the individual vs. the
state. Perhaps you meant "left-wing lunatics"? (:-)
--
Dave Fiedler
{harpo,astrovax,whuxcc,clyde}!infopro!dave People Phone: (201) 989-0570
USMail: InfoPro Systems, 3108 Route 10, Denville, NJ 07834
Caldwell Tower, this is 16 Lima inbound for Runway 4 with information Idiot...markv@dartvax.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) (06/28/85)
<...> > I do not advocate or like drunk driving by any means, but I'll let you > in on a little secret: people drink in bars and then they have to get > home. How much money would the various city/state governments save > if they simply provided good low-cost transportation systems to get > people home? > . > . > . > In short, and to stop my ravings without (I hope) having done too much > damage, let me introduce a novel concept: > > Drinking and driving don't mix. You can't stop drinking; drinking of > itself is not (but well can be, I know) the problem. You also CANNOT > STOP DRUNKEN DRIVING WITHOUT OFFERING A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE. Throwing > all drunk drivers in jail is not (in my view) a reasonable alternative; > trying to get them home safely and thereby keep other people safe is. > Casa Gallardo (a chain Mexican restaurant here in Greensboro) stopped > serving their 1-liter margaritas, and they also have a sign prominently > displayed on the wall in nice warm prose telling you that if you are > too drunk to drive home, the bartender will call you a cab and give > you a nice cup of coffee while you wait and THE RESTAURANT WILL PAY FOR > YOUR CAB RIDE HOME. I like it; keep them off the road in the first place! > -- > > The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) > alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj > ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj Sorry, but "my house is too far to walk" is simply no excuse for drunk driving. And I feel that people caught drunk driving should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and that punishment should include a mandatory loss of license. There is NO excuse for driving drunk, least of all "Well, I had to come all the way out here to do my drinking, and now they expect me to walk home?" First of all, there ARE plenty of alternative ways to get home, including getting a ride from a friend, taking public transportation, or, if these two are not available, taking a cab. I have never been in a town where taxi service was not available into the wee hours of the morning. Certainly I agree with you that encouraging bars/pubs to provide alternative transportation for their patrons is a good idea. Many of the places in my hometown are experimenting with such policies. However, the government should not depend on this to eliminate the problem. A lot of drinking occurs outside of barrooms, in private homes and such. In any case, drunk drivers should certainly be prosecuted for their criminal act, regardless of the "alternatives" that were available. -- Mark Vita Dartmouth College USENET: {decvax,cornell,linus,astrovax}!dartvax!markv ARPA: markv%dartmouth@csnet-relay CSNET: markv@dartmouth
sct@lanl.ARPA (06/28/85)
> > I seem to recall that this particular issue was decided not too long > ago by the US Supreme Court. Briefly, it is legal for police to > set up roadblocks to look for motor vehicle violations, as long as > they search every car (or they choose cars to search at random, without > only searching cars whose drivers are, say, men with long hair). > The court's basis for the decision was that you do not have the > same right of privacy in your car as you do in your home, and > that the right of people to drive in a safe environment overrides > the right of people in cars to be free from arbitrary government > interference. > > I think it's absurd, but the only thing I can think of to do about it > is to stop driving a car, something I seriously consider every once > in a while. > > Travel is not a right in this country. Travel **is** a right in this country but operating a motor vehicle is not; it is a priviledge that can and should be revoked when one endangers the lives of others.
liang@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (06/28/85)
> > At least in California, you give "implied consent" to have your > blood alcohol level checked *every time you drive*! Usually, > this is used after someone has been pulled over for speeding, etc, > or after an accident. I support this position. > > When driving on the public highways, where an action may affect > the lives of many other people, the individual's right to privacy > is not as important as another persons right to live. > > DISCLAIMER: these are my opinions only, and I don't care if any- > one else disagrees :-) > > Michael Shulman > UCD Computer Center > ...ucbvax!ucdavis!harpo!ccrms > Approaching this whole thing from the principles involved (and not the actual question of DWI) I think that this sort of thing will eventually lead to tighter and tighter government control of our lives. When people start giving up rights in order to achieve a measure of security, we approach the ideal communist state. Its simply subordination of the rights of the individual to the rights of the masses. Our country was built on the rights of the individual, and I don't think that this should be changed just to solve a difficult problem in an easy manner. DWI is certainly a problem in America now, and I believe steps should be taken, but lets not forget the larger picture... -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/28/85)
> I frankly think the Court is right on target, considering drunks are involved > in roughly half of the 50,000 yearly fatalities from auto accidents this > country experiences. I would gladly endure random stops, considering > that driving is like playing Russian Roulette - you never know which driver > is loaded. > Actually, what we really need is a system to enforce prosecution on the DWI cases that we find before we go large scale looking for new people to add to the criminal justice system. It is next to impossible to get a simple DWI conviction with a meaningful sentence, let alone something more realistic like vehicular homicide, for the drunken redneck in the monster four-by-four who just flattened some poor third party. The system is not working in Maryland. I know. I get stuck checking out the dead bodies and handling the drunks. -Ron Natalie, EMT-A, IVT, Baltimore County Fire Department.
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (06/28/85)
> > I have never had any restrictions placed on where I wanted to go or > when I could go there, other than occasional detours for road construction. > I have not tried to visit any top secret facilities lately though. :-) > > Brian Jones aka {ihnp4,}!drutx!qwerty This brings to mind an interesting incident that happened to me last year. My wife was driving, and I was riding, past the Seneca Army Depot (the place where they keep all the bombs, for you Soviets on the net :-)) when I saw a chopper circling the airfield. I noticed that there was a C-5A on the runway that looked like it was getting ready to take off. Being airplane freaks, we decided to pull over and watch this beast take off. We had no more than pulled onto the shoulder of NYS Rt. 96, then we had a Army security vehicle behind us and an armed guard approaching us. After telling him we didn't have car trouble, we were politely, but firmly, told to leave. I can understand the security issues involved here, but I've always wondered if he had the legal right to order us off NYS, NOT Federal, land. Comments? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/29/85)
>>Travel is not a right in this country. >Yes it is; travel by car on PUBLIC highways is not. >(small point but an important one) > Dave Hollander OK, by what means is it a right?
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (07/01/85)
In the case of being ordered to move while watching an aircraft taking off, the portion of the highway next to the airbase was most likely federal. This is the case in quite a few places. Highway 35 in front of Fort Monmouth here in Jersey is Federally owned. I had a friend who was ticketed doing 50 in the 35 zone on this stretch. He wound up in Federal court to pay his fine. I have heard of several others who were nabbed for DWI and they also ended up in a Federal court. There are no signs or indications that the particular section of highway is Federal. This could have been the case in your situation. T. C. Wheeler
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (07/01/85)
> Actually, what we really need is a system to enforce prosecution on the DWI > cases that we find before we go large scale looking for new people to add > to the criminal justice system. We need to step back even further... what we really need first is to find a way to deal with the DWI drivers who are already being convicted. Tough DWI laws and tough DWI enforcement just increase the overload both on the criminal justice system and on the corrections system. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/03/85)
> We need to step back even further... what we really need first is to > find a way to deal with the DWI drivers who are already being convicted. > Tough DWI laws and tough DWI enforcement just increase the overload > both on the criminal justice system and on the corrections system. > -- Actually, the load is easier. People caught DWI who have not (yet) committed any other crimes (like running over someone) should lose their licenses. Period. End of Case. If you won't stop drinking, we won't let you drive anymore. -Ron
harry@ucbarpa (07/10/85)
From: harry@ucbarpa (Harry I. Rubin) To: net-legal@ucbvax Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto References: <979@homxa.UUCP> <3893@alice.UUCP> <3108@drutx.UUCP> <11358@brl-tgr.ARPA> <628@terak.UUCP> Organization: U.C. Berkeley While visiting in Minneapolis last December and January, I saw several TV news spots about the police setting up roadblocks to screen for drunk drivers. As I recall, there were two points which made this acceptably legal: (1) people were not forced to go through the checkpoints. The locations and times of the roadblocks were announced in advance (a day or two); drivers who did not want to go through the roadblocks were free to take alternate routes or not to drive at those times. (2) to avoid discrimination, cars were stopped and drivers checked in a very regular pattern, as every car or every fifth car. This was to avoid any possibility of personal bias, discrimination, or harassment by the officers conducting the roadblock. I'm not sure what the police thought about the first point, perhaps they thought that drunks would be too befuddled to avoid the checkpoints. Or perhaps they thought that most people wouldn't pay enough attention to really avoid them. I think these points were the position taken by the police and their counsels; I don't think they had been tested in court, but I don't remember for sure. Harry Rubin harry@Berkeley ...!ucbvax!harry
sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (07/12/85)
In article <8933@ucbvax.ARPA> harry@ucbarpa writes: >From: harry@ucbarpa (Harry I. Rubin) > >To: net-legal@ucbvax >Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks >Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto >References: <979@homxa.UUCP> <3893@alice.UUCP> <3108@drutx.UUCP> <11358@brl-tgr.ARPA> <628@terak.UUCP> >Organization: U.C. Berkeley > >While visiting in Minneapolis last December and January, Surveys were scheduled to start in January. They just started recently after delaying for court action (see below). >I saw several TV news spots about the police setting up roadblocks >to screen for drunk drivers. As I recall, there were two points >which made this acceptably legal: >(1) people were not forced to go through the checkpoints. The locations >and times of the roadblocks were announced in advance (a day or two); >drivers who did not want to go through the roadblocks were free to take >alternate routes or not to drive at those times. Locations are not announced. The TV crews easily found the location of the first roadblock and only announced which county it was in (although also being visible in the background). The unusual part of these roadblocks is that they are only for a survey. It seems nobody has accurate figures of number of drunk drivers on the road. The roadblocks are for getting a random sample of drivers: >(2) to avoid discrimination, cars were stopped and drivers checked in a >very regular pattern, as every car or every fifth car. This was to avoid >any possibility of personal bias, discrimination, or harassment by the >officers conducting the roadblock. >... There was a delay of several months in starting the survey while the courts decided if they were constitutional. The survey is being done in a way to get a random sample, but another question was what to do about people who were found to be drunk. Cars were randomly chosen. Those not chosen simply kept driving. Of course, the police were free to pay attention to every car driving past, as they do that in normal patrolling. Drivers of chosen vehicles had to agree to be part of the survey. If they were part of the survey and were found to be drunk, they were offered a free ride home if a sober passenger couldn't drive (no penalty for survey takers). If they declined to be part of the survey, seemed DWI, and insisted on trying to drive then officers could arrest them as usual for DWI. I'm not sure whether those arrested for DWI will be reported in the survey. The Minnesota State Legislature provided funds for the survey and results will be reported back to them. The purpose is to find out just how large is the DWI problem so the Legislature can try to figure out the scale of lawmaking efforts against it. Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp. circadia!mecc!sewilco 45N03',93W15' (612)481-3507 {ihnp4,mgnetp,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (07/16/85)
> >Yes but where do we draw the line. Why not search everyones' houses to >find illegal weapons, drugs, etc. Clearly this would be in society's >best interest. Is it fair to search/accuse/assume_guilt of everyone >too find the few who are guilty? This may be what the majority wants >but it still seems to me to be a violation of the Bill of Rights. It is not only a violation of the Bill of Rights. It also leads to a totolitarian society.