posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by jude11
Yea probably. But the guy is siting the fourth amendment there when the law actually works two ways.
If you're DWI you are a "danger to the public." You may have it in your mind that youre not out to harm someone, but just being drunk on the road
creates the potential. By removing a drunk driver from the road the officer ensures the right of the people to be safe in their person, effects and
homes. Thats how that one works ya see. lol odd I know.
as to methods, An officer would have no way of knowing whether or not you were dui unless they "checked." a check begins with a visual observation of
the vehicles movements and the condition of the person behind the wheel who is in control of the vehicle. Followed by the stop, questioning, and a
search if necessary based on all of that.
The cops will tell you hey, just comply and get your ass down the road. Start some mess and youre going to jail and they use "obstruction" to
determine whether or not your preventing them from doing their job which is what, protecting the public. O.o
I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole
cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to
happen in the first place.
Just my two on it.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason