The only thing offensive about this, is if someone who is/has been drinking and driving, is not caught and causes an accident.

 

If you smell of alcohol, than I'm sure there will be a request for a test. If you don't, then a driver has nothing to worry about. I'm for it and doesn't bother me.

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.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

Surveillance cameras at stop lights is another injustice to me. How can you face your accuser in court?

The only thing offensive about this, is if someone who is/has been drinking and driving, is not caught and causes an accident.

 

If you smell of alcohol, than I'm sure there will be a request for a test. If you don't, then a driver has nothing to worry about. I'm for it and doesn't bother me.

This is America, they have no right to forcibly take your blood. So if there are drugs in you neighborhood, it's OK with you if they randomly search your house. Same thing.

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'll assume we agree on the following:

 

People should not sell crack to kids.

 

People should not sell guns to kids.

 

People should not drive drunk.

 

People should not partake in child pornography.

 

I feel safe that we agree.

 

So, by your logic, the police should be allowed to enter your house without you having shown the proclivity to participate in any of the above and do so whenever they wish in front of your neighbors, priest, and co-workers and search your house and computer BECAUSE if you're not a drug dealer, gun seller, drunk driver, or child pornographer you should not be upset.

 

You cannot use the logic selectively. You're either for govt intrusion or you're not. There has to be consistency or it will just erode away.

I'll assume we agree on the following:

 

People should not sell crack to kids.

 

People should not sell guns to kids.

 

People should not drive drunk.

 

People should not partake in child pornography.

 

I feel safe that we agree.

 

So, by your logic, the police should be allowed to enter your house without you having shown the proclivity to participate in any of the above and do so whenever they wish in front of your neighbors, priest, and co-workers and search your house and computer BECAUSE if you're not a drug dealer, gun seller, drunk driver, or child pornographer you should not be upset.

 

You cannot use the logic selectively. You're either for govt intrusion or you're not. There has to be consistency or it will just erode away.

BINGO! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

Very well stated, Clyde!

I'll assume we agree on the following:

 

People should not sell crack to kids.

 

People should not sell guns to kids.

 

People should not drive drunk.

 

People should not partake in child pornography.

 

I feel safe that we agree.

 

So, by your logic, the police should be allowed to enter your house without you having shown the proclivity to participate in any of the above and do so whenever they wish in front of your neighbors, priest, and co-workers and search your house and computer BECAUSE if you're not a drug dealer, gun seller, drunk driver, or child pornographer you should not be upset.

 

You cannot use the logic selectively. You're either for govt intrusion or you're not. There has to be consistency or it will just erode away.

 

They're not entering a home, they're administering breathalizers at a checkpoint. The last I heard a cop can pull you over at any time, and citing probable cause can give you a breathalizer. I would expect the same to be true at a check-point.

This is America, they have no right to forcibly take your blood. So if there are drugs in you neighborhood, it's OK with you if they randomly search your house. Same thing.

You're reaching, to make a road check point, into a invasion in your home.

 

When you choose to operate a motor vehicle, after driving you're no longer on your property, but rather on city/county/state owned property.

 

This thread is about the check point and not about "the man", snooping into our lives at home. I have no problem, with them shining a light in my face and making sure, I'm not impaired. I can spare the 2-3 minutes, for safety.

They're not entering a home, they're administering breathalizers at a checkpoint. The last I heard a cop can pull you over at any time, and citing probable cause can give you a breathalizer. I would expect the same to be true at a check-point.

Rockmom, that's not the problem. The problem is if you refuse the breathalizer, they're going to haul you away and take your blood without your consent. That's a major violation of your privacy as well as against your most private property.

They're not entering a home, they're administering breathalizers at a checkpoint. The last I heard a cop can pull you over at any time, and citing probable cause can give you a breathalizer. I would expect the same to be true at a check-point.

 

So you're pulled over at this checkpoint despite the fact that you've been driving perfectly. The officer notices a laptop in your backseat. You're OK with him telling you he wants to check it for "criminal activity?" And by the way, he wants you to also produce your cell phone so he can see who has called you and who you've called. You've got nothing to hide so I guess you turn the phone and laptop over?

You're reaching, to make a road check point, into a invasion in your home.

 

When you choose to operate a motor vehicle, after driving you're no longer on your property, but rather on city/county/state owned property.

 

This thread is about the check point and not about "the man", snooping into our lives at home. I have no problem, with them shining a light in my face and making sure, I'm not impaired. I can spare the 2-3 minutes, for safety.

Not reaching at all, you're not getting it. It's not the checkpoint I have a problem with, it's TAKING YOUR BLOOD WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT! Do you not consider that an invasion?

 

I'm very pro-police, BTW.

You're reaching, to make a road check point, into a invasion in your home.

 

When you choose to operate a motor vehicle, after driving you're no longer on your property, but rather on city/county/state owned property.

 

This thread is about the check point and not about "the man", snooping into our lives at home. I have no problem, with them shining a light in my face and making sure, I'm not impaired. I can spare the 2-3 minutes, for safety.

 

How it happens is irrelevant. When you say "fine by me because I have nothing to hide" you are now opening yourself up to any and all intrusions including coming into your home. Its an all or nothing proposition.

Not reaching at all,, you're not getting it. It's not the checkpoint I have a problem with, it's TAKING YOUR BLOOD WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT! Do you not consider that an invasion?

 

I'm very pro-police, BTW.

I'm getting it fine and perhaps you don't understand. If the police suspect you have been drinking, there is usually a reason for it, perhaps odor, slurred language, visible disorientation or a combination of things.

 

I'm no expert but most instances, there is usually justification. Simply don't consume alcohol and perhaps, you'll get it and they won't get you.

 

How it happens is irrelevant. When you say "fine by me because I have nothing to hide" you are now opening yourself up to any and all intrusions including coming into your home. Its an all or nothing proposition.

Again, not a problem with me. I don't want to be the driver, than is involved in an accident, because some idiot wanted to drink and drive, but hit me instead.

 

You're lumping all or nothing, into a broad spectrum. This is a checkpoint, for a specific reason.

Rockmom, that's not the problem. The problem is if you refuse the breathalizer, they're going to haul you away and take your blood without your consent. That's a major violation of your privacy as well as against your most private property.

 

 

If you take the breathalizer, there's no issue. I don't see a problem, unless you create it for yourself.

So you're pulled over at this checkpoint despite the fact that you've been driving perfectly. The officer notices a laptop in your backseat. You're OK with him telling you he wants to check it for "criminal activity?" And by the way, he wants you to also produce your cell phone so he can see who has called you and who you've called. You've got nothing to hide so I guess you turn the phone and laptop over?

 

Yes, I would. I don't have anything to hide. If they want to see what I've posted on BGP, have at it!

I'm getting it fine and perhaps you don't understand. If the police suspect you have been drinking, there is usually a reason for it, perhaps odor, slurred language, visible disorientation or a combination of things.

 

I'm no expert but most instances, there is usually justification. Simply don't consume alcohol and perhaps, you'll get it and they won't get you.

 

Again, not a problem with me. I don't want to be the driver, than is involved in an accident, because some idiot wanted to drink and drive, but hit me instead.

 

Are you saying that the police should not have to have witnessed you driving erratically or speeding in order to see if you have consumed too much alcohol?