mr@isrnix.UUCP (06/22/84)
Beginning next week, Indiana State Troopers, county sherrifs and state
Conservation Department police will be manning roadblocks in a five county
area: Looking for drunk drivers.
Times and locations of the roadblocks will not be made public (as are radar
locations), and each roadblock will attempt to stop all vehicles that pass
the checkpoint. Officers will then "check for signs of alcohol in the car
or truck and for behavior that indicates a driver might have been drinking."
Someone driving drunk will undergo a field examination with an "Alco-sensor"
device...and the rest you probably know.
Is this not illegal search and seizure? Is this not unconstitutional?
--
Michael Regoli
...ihnp4!inuxc!isrnix!mrparnass@ihuxf.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (06/25/84)
> > Beginning next week, Indiana State Troopers, county sherrifs and state > Conservation Department police will be manning roadblocks in a five county > area: Looking for drunk drivers. > > Times and locations of the roadblocks will not be made public (as are radar > locations), and each roadblock will attempt to stop all vehicles that pass > the checkpoint. Officers will then "check for signs of alcohol in the car > or truck and for behavior that indicates a driver might have been drinking." > > Someone driving drunk will undergo a field examination with an "Alco-sensor" > device...and the rest you probably know. > > Is this not illegal search and seizure? Is this not unconstitutional? > Your article doesn't say that car searches or siezures will be made, but from your own quote, it sounds like the officers will only perform a breath analysis on drivers if they find "probable cause". Open liquor containers in plain view constitute "signs of alcohol in the car." -- ========================================================================== Bob Parnass, AT&T Bell Laboratories - ihnp4!ihuxf!parnass - (312)979-5414
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee) (06/25/84)
Concerning the roadblocks-for-drunks; we had them here in Seattle this past Christmas but then the ACLU got into the act and eventually won a restraining order (I'm pretty sure at least). It may be unconstitutional but can you think of better ways to curtail drunk driving? In Seattle they made a point of not ticketing anything but drunks (no hassles about tailights etc.) and so the roadblocks were only a minor nuisance if you were sober, in fact, traffic moved quickly enough through them that a driver was given little warning in the way of a traffic jam. I guess my point is that if this is an unconstitutional act what do we have to do to make it constitutional? I feel very strongly about drunks on the road-they don't belong. I'm willing to undergo this limited "illegal search and seizure" to accomplish that goal. DOWN, off the soapbox! Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (06/26/84)
I dont know about other states, but in Marykand where I am originally from, being stopped at a roadblock for a Drunk Driver Test is legal in that to get your license, you sign that right away. Driving there (and in most places I assume) is a privilege rather than a right. Thus, if you dont sign that right away, you dont drive (at least not legally). -- ------------------------- Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym -------------------------
ron@brl-vgr.UUCP (06/27/84)
Well I got my license in Maryland (where Marykand is, I don't know) where I just signed an application to get my license upgraded for driving trucks (but it is the same application that me and everyone else signed), I consented to taking an alchohol test for determination of whether or not I was intoxicated. I didn't consent to being stopped arbitrarily to see if I was violating any crimes at the time. Driving as a privelege is not a valid view. The whole point of this clause is not to find drunk drivers but to give them a means of providing prima facie evidence that a driver is under the influence when they find a drunk one. -Ron
ciampa@wivax.UUCP (Robert Ciampa) (06/27/84)
We here in Massachusetts have had them for a while now.
There is a golden rule, however:
No matter how much you hate the idea of it,
don't give the officer your piece of mind.
My cousin was arrested for disorderly conduct at a roadblock
last winter while complaing about the legality of the issue.
This is definitely a tough moral issue...
--
Robert A. Ciampa {apollo, cadmus, decvax, linus, masscomp}!wivax!ciampa
Wang Institute (617) 649-9731 x372dpw@rayssd.UUCP (06/27/84)
In this country your Constitutional rights ends when it denies someone
else there. A drunk driver on the road that kills someone is denying them
there rights and there lifes. This may not be a big deal to you, but ask
the family of the victim that drunk kill. It is a big deal to them. Or that
paramedic that get to put the hips and legs in one body bag and the rest of
a three year old girl in another. A few minutes at a road block is a small
price to pay. Sure you can say it won't happen to you, they all do.
!allegra!rayssd!dpw
Darryl Wagoner
:wqstewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (06/29/84)
r.e. roadblocks: > It may be unconstitutional but can you think of better ways to curtail > drunk driving? > ... > I guess my point is that if this is an unconstitutional act what do we > have to do to make it constitutional? What we have to do to make the roadblocks legal is to remove the "probable cause" restriction on law enforcement officials. That is, a police officer must be able to stop (in legal terms, "stop" = "arrest") anyone at all, with no reason to believe that the person has broken any law. This is one of the most important guarantees that the citizens of this country secured in the U.S. Constitution. As much as I'd like to get the drunk drivers off our roads, I'm not willing to give this power to the government. Please don't take your rights lightly; if you give them up now for the sake of one issue, you may find yourself wishing that you had them back. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart
heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/29/84)
One way to discourage drunk driving is to impose HEAVY fines on those
arrested for just driving drunk (i.e., not involved in an accident) and to
impose prison sentences on those drunk drivers involved in accidents (this
could include sentences equivalent to those for 1st degree murder when deaths
ocurr). Revocation of the offender's license would be standard in either case
with the understanding that the revocation would be permanent if the offender
was subsequently arrested for driving without his license or on a second DWI
charge.
I want drunk drivers off the road as much as anybody else does but I am not
willing to forgo my Constitutional rights (or put up with the inconvenience)
to do it. First it's giving up the gaurentee against illeagel search and
seizure to benefit society, next thing you know we'll be expected to give up
some other right to benefit scoiety. Tyranny does not come upon a people over
night; it's a gradual process that must not be allowed to take it's first step
so that will not one day walk all over a nation. I would rather leave to my
children a world that contains some risks than one that has no freedom.
--
Yrs. in Fear and Loathing,
DW @ ...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd
Thus always to tyrants. Won't get fooled again!keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic) (06/30/84)
> In this country your Constitutional rights ends when it denies someone > else there. [sic] Sorry, that's no justification at all. What you are saying is that by denying my rights you're protecting others' rights. Which makes it a moral decision as to whose rights are more important. Let's turn the discussion around; I choose to protect the constitutional rights of drivers not to be illegally detained by taking away the constitutional rights of 3-year old little girls to live. Keith ARPA: keith@seismo UUCP: seismo!keith p.s. No flames on the constitutionality of stopping drivers. I'm not qualified to say. I'm only responding to the logic (not) in the previous submission.
ron@brl-vgr.UUCP (06/30/84)
It happened again. Another midnight stopage. This time on the Army Post where I work. They stopped me just long enough to see that I wasn't a drunk GI and went on their way. At least they didn't hit me with some stupid unsafe vehicle citation for having dirt on my license plate or something. The conversation went like this: Me: Yes, Sir? MP: Going a little fast there, weren't you? Me: No, not at all. MP: Oh, sorry. -Ron
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/30/84)
I'm sorry but I just don't agree. I work at night so I'm frequently out between midnight and 3 AM and I am tired of getting stopped not just by roadblocks but on nuisance issues just so the State Police can see if they can get me for having a .08 BAC. They aren't compensating me for making me 15 minutes late for work nor for having to go down to the police station later that week to demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with my car so the inspection notice isn't valid. I don't like the idea of drunk driving and I am one of the Ambulance people that has to pick up the mess. I think we'd be a lot better off when the driver of a car with alchohol on his breath rams into another gets his license yanked and criminal charges brought on him, rather than being allowed to negotiate himself down to a fine and sleeping through a few driving safety classes. -Ron
scw@cepu.UUCP (06/30/84)
In article <669@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP writes(in part): >Concerning the roadblocks-for-drunks; we had them here in Seattle this >past Christmas but then the ACLU got into the act and eventually won a >restraining order[...]belong. I'm willing to undergo this limited >"illegal search and seizure" to accomplish that goal. Right on for the ACLU, go get'em, rip their lips off...!! "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey." -Benjamin Franklin Note that I am probably one of the more conservative netlanders, but I am a firm beliver in gad-flys to keep government on the straight and narrow. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs CORRECTED location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
ge@mcnc.UUCP (George Entenman) (07/01/84)
In a recent article, Stephen C. Woods (scw@cepu.UUCP) applauds the ACLU for winning a restraining order against roadblocks for drunks in Seattle. He signs off with the comment: Note that I am probably one of the more conservative netlanders, BUT I am a firm beliver in gad-flys to keep government on the straight and narrow. [my emphasis] The term 'conservative' used to mean someone who wished to restrain the powers of government. Woods' use of the word 'BUT' shows how far the term 'conservative' has drifted from its original meaning. As the actions of so-called conservatives in government (e.g., our president) show, conservatives now LOVE powerful, intrusive governments. a member of a truely conservative organization, the ALCU - George Entenman
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (07/04/84)
"Illegal search and seizure?" What's being seized? Your car is NOT an extension of your home (you = driver); hence, search (for murderous drunken drivers) is not considered illegal either!
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (07/04/84)
Maybe this really belongs to net.politics (or net.nlang), but: > The term 'conservative' used to mean someone who wished to restrain > the powers of government. Woods' use of the word 'BUT' shows how > far the term 'conservative' has drifted from its original meaning. > As the actions of so-called conservatives in government (e.g., our > president) show, conservatives now LOVE powerful, intrusive > governments. > a member of a truely conservative organization, the ALCU The dictionary we have at the office, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate, defines "conservatism" as: ...2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change 3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change which can either mean restraining the power of government (if it is felt that that power is being used to distrupt established institutions, oppose tradition and social stability, and encourage abrupt change) or extending the power of government (if it is felt that that power can be used to bolster established institutions, uphold tradition and social stability, and limit change). Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
blenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko) (07/06/84)
> What we have to do to make the roadblocks legal is to remove the > "probable cause" restriction on law enforcement officials. That is, > a police officer must be able to stop (in legal terms, "stop" = > "arrest") anyone at all, with no reason to believe that the person > has broken any law. > This is one of the most important guarantees that the citizens of > this country secured in the U.S. Constitution. As much as I'd like > to get the drunk drivers off our roads, I'm not willing to give this > power to the government. Please don't take your rights lightly; if > you give them up now for the sake of one issue, you may find yourself > wishing that you had them back. I keep seeing this (apparent) confusion in articles, and I don't really understand why. There are rights which are guaranteed to individuals in the consttitution, and there are privileges provided by local/state/federal governments to the citizenry (not necessarily at large). In both states in which I have held driver's licenses, the license is extended as a privilege to those who are judged qualified. By accepting the license, one undertakes particular responsibilities for driving on the public highways. Roadblocks are used in New York state, my current habitat. As I understand it, they simply slow the drivers and observe them as they drive by in a single lane. If an officer observes signs of intoxication, the driver is pulled over. No one is arbitrarily stopped; No one is subjected to scrutiny they might otherwise be expected to (legally?) undergo; All the (licensed) drivers have undertaken an agreement with the (state) government to assume certain responsibilities for safety on the road. In some states this includes taking a breathalizer test if requested, or submitting to an equipment check if requested. So I guess it seems to me that those who fail to destinguish between their legal RIGHTS and the PRIVILEGES extended to them are in error. If I'm mistaken, I'd be pleased to hear why. Tom
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/09/84)
Well, maybe that's the way in works in New York, but it is not how it works here. -Ron
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (07/13/84)
what if your home *is* your motor vehicle? (Be it car, truck,
camper, motor home, even a bike)
--
_____
/_____\ "Get out there and keep moving forward!"
/_______\ - Leo Franchi
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifertdubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/13/84)
>[George Entenman] > In a recent article, Stephen C. Woods (scw@cepu.UUCP) applauds the > ACLU for winning a restraining order against roadblocks for drunks > in Seattle. He signs off with the comment: > > Note that I am probably one of the more conservative > netlanders, BUT I am a firm beliver in > gad-flys to keep government on the straight and > narrow. [my emphasis] > > The term 'conservative' used to mean someone who wished to restrain > the powers of government. Woods' use of the word 'BUT' shows how > far the term 'conservative' has drifted from its original meaning. > As the actions of so-called conservatives in government (e.g., our > president) show, conservatives now LOVE powerful, intrusive > governments. I recommend George F. Will's recent book "Statecraft as Soulcraft" for a good discussion on the meaning of conservatism. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer) (07/19/84)
You've hit here on what I feel to be an error made by the courts (that your car is not an extension of your home, therefore is not covered by the appropriate amendment regarding illegal search and seizure). I happen to feel that my automobile is as much an extension of my home as my suitcase, which the courts feel is covered. I also feel that I have a right to expect the same degree of privacy in my car as in my home. The fact that the courts don't agree with me only means that I have to consent to the search, and that anything they find can be used. It doesn't mean that the courts are correct in their interpretation. -Joe P.