So, you aren't in favor of wire tapping for purposes of determing terrorist activity?

Clyde is right on the money, here.

 

There has to be some burden placed on the wiretappers to show SOMETHING as far as justification.

 

Checkpoints do not show that SOMETHING.

That sounds very illegal IMO...

 

Shouldn't they need some sort of probable cause for this?

Totally agree. The way I hear it is they will have two judges on duty to sign warrants to get the blood, whether you want to give it or not.

 

Ohio is also about to pass a bill to force a blood or urine test on people with at least two convictions for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol suspected of drunken driving.

 

"Driving in Ohio is a privilege not a right," said state Sen. Timothy Grendell, the Chesterland Republican who sponsored the bill. "We can precondition that privilege on any condition we want that helps keep the other drivers on the road safe."

Sounds American to me.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html

 

 

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz 1990

 

Petitioner's highway sobriety checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

 

The "fear and surprise" to be considered are not the natural fear of one who has been drinking over the prospect of being stopped at a checkpoint but, rather, the fear and surprise engendered in law abiding motorists by the nature of the particular stop, such as one made by a roving patrol operating on a seldom-traveled road. Here, checkpoints are selected pursuant to guidelines, and uniformed officers stop every vehicle. The resulting intrusion is constitutionally indistinguishable from the stops upheld in Martinez-Fuerte.

 

...this case involves neither random stops nor a complete absence of empirical data indicating that the stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety. And there is no justification for a different conclusion here...

 

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment

 

This upholds the Constitutionality of the Checkpoints, but as to what is being described, I haven't seen a case that addresses the "forcing" of the breath or blood test. Guess currently, state law is what we have to go on.

Clyde, you are correct, it is Columbus.

 

No Refusal Weekend

 

Apparently, Columbus isn't alone.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6243256

 

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1816438992/July-4-6-a-No-Refusal-weekend

 

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/may/22/denton-countys-no-refusal-weekend-targets-drunk-dr/

How far do you let it go then? Are you OK with them stopping you on a regular basis to see if you have explosives in your car? Guns? Drugs?

 

It depends. Are they exiting a Crack House? An explosive warehouse?

 

Just curious, are you okay with the same procedures of search and seizure, wiretap, or other strong arm tactics for those considered to be "enemies of the state" or harmful to security? Or do we only get upset with those who might be us driving on border of sobriety?

 

BTW, I'm just asking the difference. Both endanger the public, do they not?

My point is, you already get arrested and lose your license for six months, it's not like there's no punishment. What they're doing is just flat out wrong, it's Govt overstepping their bounds IMO.

 

I wasn't clear on that. My thoughts were the breathalyzers were to prove the case, without them their insobriety might be not proven in court. Maybe I misread.

Wouldn't this turn on "the reasonable expectation of privacy" of motorists on public highways? In that context, seems like a smart move by the city police to pre-announce their behavior.

Hope this might persuade some to not drink and then drive.

Wouldn't this turn on "the reasonable expectation of privacy" of motorists on public highways? In that context, seems like a smart move by the city police to pre-announce their behavior.

 

 

I agree. It would be different if they didn't warn motorists.

 

IMO, whatever it takes to keep drunk drivers off the road is acceptable. If you're not drunk, there should be no reason to be upset, or no reason to refuse the brethalizer. I always crack up at people who won't do something like that, even if they're not guilty. :lol: They obviously didn't go to Catholic schools! :lol:

I wasn't clear on that. My thoughts were the breathalyzers were to prove the case, without them their insobriety might be not proven in court. Maybe I misread.

 

Don't get me started on the Intoxilyzer 5000EN.

I agree. It would be different if they didn't warn motorists.

 

IMO, whatever it takes to keep drunk drivers off the road is acceptable. If you're not drunk, there should be no reason to be upset, or no reason to refuse the brethalizer. I always crack up at people who won't do something like that, even if they're not guilty. :lol: They obviously didn't go to Catholic schools! :lol:

I'm sorry RM, but this kind of thinking is why we're losing our liberties in this country. Before long, we'll be nothing more than a police state in we continue down this road.

Would you be OK if the town your son lived in decided to take all males DNA without permission because there was a rape in that town?

Hope this might persuade some to not drink and then drive.

It doesn't matter; suspicion alone is enough for them to take your blood, and that's just wrong.

I'm sorry RM, but this kind of thinking is why we're losing our liberties in this country. Before long, we'll be nothing more than a police state in we continue down this road.

Would you be OK if the town your son lived in decided to take all males DNA without permission because there was a rape in that town?

 

I think that's a whole lot different than asking for drivers to take a breathalizyer at a check point.

 

DNA evidence has been known to be skewed and his whole future would be at risk. If his breathalizer came back with a drunk reading, he has the right to a blood test.

I think that's a whole lot different than asking for drivers to take a breathalizyer at a check point.

 

DNA evidence has been known to be skewed and his whole future would be at risk. If his breathalizer came back with a drunk reading, he has the right to a blood test.

Has the RIGHT to a blood test, they're just taking it. Big difference. You are aware that breathalizyers are problematic? They malfunction and aren't always maintained the way they're supposed to be, a good reason to refuse it.

 

I don't view it much differently, they're both wrong.

This is offensive. Like the surveillance cameras at stop lights. More of the Nanny State.

 

If it's about public safety on the highways, then while they're at it they should check the drivers' cell phones to see if any calls have been received or dialed, as well as the duration of the calls.