gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (07/02/85)
My original posting was more on the legality of police stopping drivers to check something rather than on the morality of driving drunk. I am against driving drunk but I feel it is unconstitutional to use DWI roadblocks to find drunk drivers. The most interesting concept that has come up in this discussion is the idea that you give up your right to privacy and your constitutional GUARANTEE of unwarranted search and seizure when you drive a motor vehicle on public highways. The constitution makes it illegal for anyone to "sign away" their constitutional rights (thereby preventing creditors from forcing an insolvent individual to become their slave). Hence, it cannot be implicit that you give up a right to privacy when you receive a license and drive a motor vehicle on the public roads. Several postings have put forth the concept that: Since it is in the public's interest (safety) to perform roadblock checks, these checks are justified. This is flawed for the constitutional reason above and for the reason that if this is to be allowed, then: the police have the right to round up everyone in Times Square (NYC) and inspect them, check their coordination, possibly check whether they are high on drugs or drunk (former is illegal, the latter is illegal in public) and arrest the offenders. The logic is that Times Square is a public area, it is illegal to be drunk in public, it is illegal to be high on controlled subs. and besides you may be dangerous (like someone on PCP) to others around you. With this same logic the police could search everyone at a rock concert (good place to look for dangerous individuals with drugs) etc. in the interests of protecting public safety. NO ABUSES of constitutional rights should be allowed in this country. The laws that permit them should be contested and struck down in the judicial branch of the government. If society wants these laws then it must pass a constitutional amendment permitting them. In the mean time we drivers should oppose these measures! Russ Sharples homxa!gritz
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (07/08/85)
> The most interesting concept that has come up in this discussion is > the idea that you give up your right to privacy and your constitutional > GUARANTEE of unwarranted search and seizure when you drive a motor vehicle on > public highways. > ... > NO ABUSES of constitutional rights should be allowed in this country. The laws > that permit them should be contested and struck down in the judicial branch of > the government. While I agree that this is an undesirable state of affairs, the fact is that 1) there is no such thing as a "constitutional right to privacy"; and 2) the Supreme Court is the final arbitor of how the Constitution is to be applied, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that even a house trailer ("mobile home") located on private property is *not* protected against unwarranted search unless it is sufficiently immobile that the police can be sure that it can't be moved during the time it takes to obtain a warrant. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp