Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 54 times

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:17 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by getreadyalready
"Routine" traffic stops are not legal. They have to have probable cause to pull you over. They have to have probable cause to make you exit the vehicle. And, in my humble opinion, there is absolutely never a reason to take your breath or your blood! What about the 5th Amendment? Surely my very lifeforce of blood qualifies as "self-incrimination" which I am constitutionally protected from doing!

You'll note that I'm in Canada, so we have different laws. Personally, I'm willing to allow the state a little extraordinary power to combat drunk driving. The laws have effected societal change in that regard. "One for the road" is no longer acceptable behaviour.

And if one doesn't like it...one can walk.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:19 AM by mamabeth

reply to post by Whereweheaded

There is a big difference between your constitutional
rights and common sense.
Common sense should tell you not to drink and drive.
Common sense should tell you not to use cellphones,
text message others...
Most people don't use common sense,they don't like
having anyone telling them what they can and cannot
do.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:20 AM by getreadyalready

reply to post by ldyserenity

I'm telling you, I am friends with a lot of Florida LEOs, and all of my buddies are great guys, and highly professional. It still doesn't make them immune from enjoying their jobs once in a while. They might not do anything inappropriate, everything by the book, but if I had a daughter, I would not want her surrounded by a group of leering men, bending, stretching, walking, blowing, etc. Even if nothing goes wrong, and nobody has any bad intentions, it is still an uncomfortable and inappropriate situation for a hormonal teenager. Worse yet, what if a couple of them are only 20 or 21 themselves? What if she flirts back a little?

This is starting to get off-topic, but the point I was making is the slippery slope. If we give them the "authority" then we can't complain when they abuse it!

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:22 AM by Chadwickus

reply to post by getreadyalready

Well luckily for your hypothetical daughter, there'll be a judge on site!

Win/win!

edit on 30/12/10 by Chadwickus because: BAZINGA

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:24 AM by getreadyalready

reply to post by mamabeth

Mamabeth,

The OP states this is a "deterrent." You are correct about Drinking and Driving, but if someone has already decided to risk their life and the lives of others, and has already decided to risk losing their license, going to jail, and incure thousands of dollars of fines, do you really think this additional measure is going to suddenly spark their common sense?

There are already plenty of laws on the books to combat this problem. It is already illegal to drink and drive. Why should I give up more liberties, and my very blood, when I have done nothing wrong?

I agree with what you said, and I still think this added measure is ridiculous. As a fan of "common sense" I would think you could see the ridiculousness in adding more and more laws to combat the same old problems?

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:25 AM by crimvelvet

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

The world does not revolve around your children.

Everyones Constitutional rights take priority over your little snowflake.

SHE is missing the point of "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" in:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the driver is showing signs of being drunk or having been drinking then I do not think any of us have a problem with having that person tested. However since I do not drink, and therefore have NEVER had a drink and drove (I am always designated driver) why should I be subject to testing?

It is the 100% testing, ALL people are guilty until proven innocent part that we are having hissy fits with.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:29 AM by ldyserenity

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by ldyserenity

So with your logic, because of your kids, and your friends daughter's death, that makes it ok to infringe on the rest of public by forcing a blood test? Tell me your kidding?

So you wouldn't be offended if your precious lil 15 year, was say 16, and was fine, and yet was searched, frisked, and the like. Knowing the " groping " methods, you'd be ok with that?
edit on 30-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

Like I said down here they do take probable cause seriously, they have to smell it first, however that's not saying some officers will do it without probable cause. It would be more efficient if they did field sobriety tests and I think most people who knew they could still do them & pass would do them without issue...those who would refuse would be subject to arrest/blood testing etc...because it would be obvious that they would not have the coordination, meaning they know that they are beyond controlling their vehicle as well, more people refuse the breathalizer I would assume because they may have had just one drink and it show that they are over the limit, but may be in full faculties. I can sort of understand that. It used to be before the tech of breathalizers that field sobriety was all that was used. I think sometimes people rely too much on technology when older ways may be more accurate and less infrigning. I don't know, I do feel safer that they are cracking down on it, can't change that. I do beleive though here, they take probable cause very seriously and most people they will just pass through because they don't smell alcohol...at least this has been my experience. And I don't have all the answers, I am not saying that, but something does need to be doe especially in this state. If you drove down here you would understand. It's scary and I have driven in Philadelphia and All Down the coast, but the scariest by far are the drivers down here. It's like playing russian roulette, but not only with yourself but everyone else in the vehicle.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:29 AM by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by getreadyalready

Well luckily for your hypothetical daughter, there'll be a judge on site!

Win/win!

edit on 30/12/10 by Chadwickus because: BAZINGA

LOL! I know some judges and that doesn't make me feel any better! As a matter of fact, I think out of 3 or 4 judges that I know, only one of them is without a DUI on record! All the rest of them are liable to be "customers" of the checkpoint rather than judges there!

Besides, as I said, maybe everything that everyone does is absolutely professional, it is still a violation of the sanctity of my hypothetical daughter's right as an individual. She should not be put through that situation under situation. I am a 37 year old man, and I wouldn't like it. Imagine how scary and uncomfortable it might be for a naive young girl.

Do I want my hypothetical daughter growing up thinking she must submit to the authority of everyone in a uniform and that her life will be easier if she just goes along with the program. Is a little bend and pat on the hiney really worth causing trouble over. 20 years ago it was perfectly acceptable for an executive to give his secretary a little squeeze at the copy machine, no need to make waves if your job is otherwise enjoyable. Are we going back to that mentality?

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:36 AM by crimvelvet

reply to post by getreadyalready

You would allow some perverted cop to take her 15 year old body out of a car...

You forgot the part about if the girl says one word in protest, she will be slammed onto the ground, handcuffed taken to the station house, strip searched and left naked in a holding area while her clothing is checked.

That is the actual experience as reported to me by a very angry mother and her daughter. The mother was pulled over for a burnt out break light.

Unfortunately Until this becomes common practice, the sheeple will continue to bleat "keep me safe" until it is was too late.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:39 AM by Chadwickus

reply to post by crimvelvet

Unfortunately Until this becomes common practice, the sheeple will continue to bleat "keep me safe" until it is was too late.

By the way you're talking it sound as if you believe it to already be the case.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:44 AM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Chadwickus

I don't think anybody believe it is already "common practice" but the problem is that even one occurence is cause for alarm.

For now, these things happen randomly, and they happen to people that will not respond violently. Occasionally they result in dismissals or lawsuits, but not riots.

If something like leaving a naked wife, mother, or daughter of mine on a jailhouse floor occured over a brakelight, rest assured that it would not result in a dismissal or a lawsuit. It would certainly result in a series of unfortunate "accidents" for the offending parties!

Until these types of things happen to people like me, or to enough people to cause an uproar, then we will finally push the reset button on this government and get back to our Constitutional roots. Until then, we will allow every legislative body to make more and more well-intentioned, redundant laws that only serve to complicate these situations and make life more difficult for the common person as well as law enforcement.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:46 AM by Whereweheaded

reply to post by mamabeth

Since when did common sense supersede or " over rule " the Constitution?

A court case which found unwarranted searches and seizures did not permit any LEA to infringe on someones rights.

Weeks v. United States

Weeks illustrates the Supreme Court's first use of the "exclusionary rule." The case concerns a man who was subject to a warrantless search by the police and deputy marshal. While searching Week's premises, the law enforcement agents discovered lottery tickets in his mail. Based on this evidence, Weeks was prosecuted for the illegal transport of gambling items. Prior to the trial, he requested the items taken from his house be returned; during the trial, he objected to their being offered into evidence. This provided the grounds for the Supreme Court appeal. The Court found in favor of Weeks, stating in their decision "...if letters and private documents can thus be seized and used as evidence...his right to be secure against such searches... is of no value, and...might as well be stricken from the Constitution."

With your logic, its ok to infringe on the 4th Amendment, just because common sense says so?

Warrantless search's and seizures are Unconstitutional. And the last I checked, the Constitution was still the supreme law of the land.

edit on 30-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:47 AM by ldyserenity

Listen, I know where all you guys are coming from about your liberties, yadda yadda yadda and I have been on both ends of this debate, You know no stop checks, etc. & what not and then a good friend of mine like I said lost her daughter to a drunk driver. I don't think though one can truly understand until they are on this side of the fence, it changes your whole outlook.
I don't really know and am very skeptical about them making every single person do the breathalizer without probable cause. I could be wrong, and as I see it that would be unconstitutional, but I'm divided because it may also save lives, even the person who is drunk, it may save their life. We don't know...you never know until you say know someone whom has left a party drunk and never gets stopped at a checkpoint or otherwise and dies, and then you may think, hmmmmm I wonder if a checkpoint would have saved his/her life? I'm just saying.
I do however think that there's a lot of blowing this out of proportion... I don't think they're going to do a breathalizer on each and every driver going by. I mean it would take an awful lot of time and money. I mean they have to sheath the breathalizer for every single person as per disease control, and well, I certainly would want them to in front of me put a clean sterile sheath on it before I would blow into it...that has to cost them a dime or two, so I really think people are jumping the gun here!

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:53 AM by getreadyalready

reply to post by ldyserenity

I think we have all been on both sides of this debate. My wife's uncle left a bar drunk, crashed into a parked flatbed truck, was trapped, and subsequently burned to death and was not discovered until the following morning.

My nephew was supposedly driving drunk (no tests were ever done) he went through a green light intersection, another car with 4 teenagers ran a redlight, they crashed, a girl was killed, and my nephew spent 8 years in prison as part of a "plea bargain" that his public defender got him. He hadn't broken any traffic laws, and he was only "suspected" of being drunk, but he went to jail anyway.

Liberty is still the most important thing we have as Americans, and it is eroding fast. Our economy is eroding, our human rights are eroding around the world (Abu Ghraib), and our Liberties are eroding at home.

How far do we intend to let this country fall?

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:54 AM by Stewie

"Help, I am potentially being assaulted and endangered by someone who possibly has had too much to drink! Please pull everyone over until you find this potential killer!"
Now I feel safe...
Let's just have more bureaucracy, more police, more judges, and a whole lot less money in our pocket and freedom.
And who thinks it is really about solving problems? Yes, some drunks will get arrested. The poorer ones will get impoverished further, and the well connected will get off.
Daily, I see the highway patrol pull trucks over, and lift the hoods, and basically write tickets. The trooper drives a super high tech car, and the trooper has polished boots and a burr haircut. He is there to keep the roads safe. Many would say, well the trucks might not be safe! What is the problem? Well, for the same money the state is spending on harassing truckers, the state could fund repair vehicles that could repair the truckers vehicle, put a safe tire on where the tire is unsafe, and instead of a ticket give them a repair bill. Pay it, or suffer the consequences like a ticket, and the vehicle is now SAFE!
But no, that would actually make the roads safer, and that is not our intent. Our intent is to keep you in fear of the state, always, and the power of the state to punish you. By making you pay, you have less power, and we have more troopers to harass you.

edit on 30-12-2010 by Stewie because: spelling

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 10:58 AM by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Listen, I know where all you guys are coming from about your liberties, yadda yadda yadda

That casual dismissal of people concerned about their Constitutional rights is indicative of what kind of person you are.

You have no regard for the rights of the people as long as you and your little snowflake perceive some form of "safety" net provided to you by government agents.

Absolutely pathetic.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 11:01 AM by Whereweheaded

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

Apparently the rights of the majority must be infringed by those whom wish to have a feeling of security. The ignorance of one, should not permit the infringement of the rights of the rest.

reply posted on 30-12-2010 @ 11:08 AM by crimvelvet

reply to post by butcherguy

...Think about it, if for some whacky reason the government said they were going to suspend everyones driving 'privileges', do you think everyone would listen to them? I think not. I think we would claim our right to drive a car, just like any law-breaking LEO would....

I think we are about to find out whether the US government can take away our rights. These two clashes with the US government give us a glimpse into the Mindset of the Federal Behemoth.

In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA....” Dr. Linda Fallice www.vtcommons.org...

You thought you had the right to choose what you eat? The FDA says you don't. They claim that there is no fundamental right to choose your food or freedom to contract for it. Responding to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit, the FDA clearly states that you do not have the right to freedom of choice in your diet....

The FDA's Response and Claims

The FDA makes several statements in response to the lawsuit. The implications for personal freedoms are frightening.

The FDA claims that, before filing a lawsuit, the FTCLDF should have filed a petition with the FDA. In other words, they're claiming that they have the right to set the rules by which they may be accessed and controlled. If the FDA has such a right, then it is unaccountable to the people.

No Historical Tradition of Access to Food of Choice
The FDA states that "there is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to food of all kinds."...

"There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health."

This title quotes the title of a section of the FDA's response to the lawsuit. If that doesn't terrify you, then nothing can....
gaia-health.com...