Police Intrusion: Does the End Result Justify the Means??

[Clyde]

We were having another discussion and it was limited to DUI checkpoints. So, I thought I'd expand the scope of the discussion.

 

Here is a quote that reflects the views of some folks:

 

 

If a checkpoint saves "1", just one potential driver, than could have the disposition or cause an accident to themselves or others....nothing wrong with that, in my book and I say "well done".

 

At first blush, you cannot argue with the point that saving one life is invaluable. However, how far are you willing to bend that mindset?

 

I would argue that if you're OK with having police test you for DUI despite having shown no indicators that you are dangerous then you would also be OK with the police showing up at 3:00 in the morning to check your computer for child pornography or to search your house for drugs. No one wants children to suffer at the hands of a child pornographer nor does anyone want children to gain access to drugs from a supplier.

 

Can you be OK with the checkpoint and NOT be OK with the 3:00 home invasion by the police? I say no. However, I am open to hearing why I am wrong.

[Habib]

I agree with both you and Run To State. "I have nothing to hide, go ahead" is a frightening reaction.

[Clyde]

I agree with both you and Run To State.

 

That , by itself, should cause others to question your ability to reason.

[Run To State]

I agree with both you and Run To State. "I have nothing to hide, go ahead" is a frightening reaction.

 

That , by itself, should cause others to question your ability to reason.

:ylsuper:

[shamrock fan]

"I have nothing to hide" is like pulling your hand back from a hot stove. It's a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't require alot of thought.

[ladiesbballcoach]

 

Can you be OK with the checkpoint and NOT be OK with the 3:00 home invasion by the police? I say no. However, I am open to hearing why I am wrong.

 

If you are driving your home down a public road, then it is the same thing.

If you are not, then it is the proverbial apples and oranges.

[Run To State]

If you are driving your home down a public road, then it is the same thing.

If you are not, then it is the proverbial apples and oranges.

Totally disagree. Taking your blood without your consent is an invasion of privacy, there is no difference.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Totally disagree. Taking your blood without your consent is an invasion of privacy, there is no difference.

 

The point above mentioned checkpoints not taking one's blood.

[rockmom]

There it is again! Someone deciding that if someone disagrees with their thought, there must not be any thought process put into the disagreeing position.

 

Hogwash!

 

First of all, as presented in the thread starting post, the whole story of the check point is not presented accurately.

 

There is a clear effort on the part of the police to communicate in advance the procedures that will be followed.

 

Secondly, the choice is in the hands of the person who's at the check point. There is clearly no "invasion" of privacy if one just takes the breathalyzer.

 

Thirdly, there is a clear difference in the police "invading" one's home, and in administering a breathalyzer and taking someone to the hospital for a blood sample. If one doesn't take the breathalyzer, it's an enforced blood sample. If one takes the breathalyzer and disagrees with the reading, then one can request a blood sample.

 

 

I have a question...do all of you disagree in whole to check points in general?

 

I guess, given your logic, it's ok for a person to potentially drive drunk, ignore the request for a breathalyzer, and then be free to continue after the check point, tooling down the road in their drunken, merry way.

 

See how crazy that sounds? That's as crazy as blowing this whole thing out of proportion is sounding.

 

I love the "fear tactics" people try to invoke when they think their liberties are being infringed upon. Everything gets blown completely out of proportion.

 

I also seem to remember quite a few of you were completely fine with the DHS requiring phone companies to turn over phone records of all it's customers, whether they were suspected of terrorist activity or not.

[Run To State]

There it is again! Someone deciding that if someone disagrees with their thought, there must not be any thought process put into the disagreeing position.

 

Hogwash!

 

First of all, as presented in the thread starting post, the whole story of the check point is not presented accurately.

 

There is a clear effort on the part of the police to communicate in advance the procedures that will be followed.

 

Secondly, the choice is in the hands of the person who's at the check point. There is clearly no "invasion" of privacy if one just takes the breathalyzer.

 

Thirdly, there is a clear difference in the police "invading" one's home, and in administering a breathalyzer and taking someone to the hospital for a blood sample. If one doesn't take the breathalyzer, it's an enforced blood sample. If one takes the breathalyzer and disagrees with the reading, then one can request a blood sample.

 

 

I have a question...do all of you disagree in whole to check points in general?

 

I guess, given your logic, it's ok for a person to potentially drive drunk, ignore the request for a breathalyzer, and then be free to continue after the check point, tooling down the road in their drunken, merry way.

 

See how crazy that sounds? That's as crazy as blowing this whole thing out of proportion is sounding.

 

I love the "fear tactics" people try to invoke when they think their liberties are being infringed upon. Everything gets blown completely out of proportion.

 

I also seem to remember quite a few of you were completely fine with the DHS requiring phone companies to turn over phone records of all it's customers, whether they were suspected of terrorist activity or not.

See post #109 in the Losing Our Liberties thread if you think I'm OK with drunk driving.

Taking blood without your consent simply because you refuse a breathalyzer because they might suspect you is an invasion of privacy and no different than invading one's home.

[stickymitts]

We were having another discussion and it was limited to DUI checkpoints. So, I thought I'd expand the scope of the discussion.

 

Here is a quote that reflects the views of some folks:

 

 

 

At first blush, you cannot argue with the point that saving one life is invaluable. However, how far are you willing to bend that mindset?

 

I would argue that if you're OK with having police test you for DUI despite having shown no indicators that you are dangerous then you would also be OK with the police showing up at 3:00 in the morning to check your computer for child pornography or to search your house for drugs. No one wants children to suffer at the hands of a child pornographer nor does anyone want children to gain access to drugs from a supplier.

 

Can you be OK with the checkpoint and NOT be OK with the 3:00 home invasion by the police? I say no. However, I am open to hearing why I am wrong.

 

If announced like DUI checkpoints, I'm fine with it. Of course, I'd request a different time than 3 am...

[Clyde]

If you are driving your home down a public road, then it is the same thing.

If you are not, then it is the proverbial apples and oranges.

 

Why does the fact that one is on a public road have anything to do with this discussion?

[Hearsay]

For Fourth Amendment purposes, the law does not distinguish between the "right" of privacy in a home or car. Some of the "means" are different, however.

[Clyde]

First of all, as presented in the thread starting post, the whole story of the check point is not presented accurately.

 

There is a clear effort on the part of the police to communicate in advance the procedures that will be followed.

 

So you're fine with the police announcing that they will be coming down your street and searching your house for anything that could hurt others in the public? Drugs? Guns? Child pornography? As long as they put in the CJ?

 

Secondly, the choice is in the hands of the person who's at the check point. There is clearly no "invasion" of privacy if one just takes the breathalyzer.

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. If you're saying the driver has the choice to not be at the checkpoint, that's a weak argument.

 

Thirdly, there is a clear difference in the police "invading" one's home, and in administering a breathalyzer and taking someone to the hospital for a blood sample. If one doesn't take the breathalyzer, it's an enforced blood sample. If one takes the breathalyzer and disagrees with the reading, then one can request a blood sample.

 

I must admit that I'm fascinated by the logic that since its on a public road vs in one's private home that there is somehow a difference in the fact that either a)you've forfeited the right to not have to prove your innocence and b)the Constitution only applies to your rights while you're tucked into bed.

 

We're talking about the right of the govt to force you to prove your innocence when you've not given them any indication of being guilty of anything. Why does it matter WHERE that happens?

 

 

I have a question...do all of you disagree in whole to check points in general?

 

I guess, given your logic, it's ok for a person to potentially drive drunk, ignore the request for a breathalyzer, and then be free to continue after the check point, tooling down the road in their drunken, merry way.

 

See how crazy that sounds? That's as crazy as blowing this whole thing out of proportion is sounding.

 

This mentality proves my point that many feel that the end justifies the means. No one is saying someone has the right to drive drunk. However, just like with any felony, its not my job nor my obligation under the Constitution to prove that I'm not guilty. I have to give the govt some sort of reason, and not very much, to SUSPECT that I may be guilty.

 

I think the fallacy of your position is that since it was announced (albeit only to those who read the paper which is not a lot of people) that we , as citizens, should forgo our rights. That is incomprehensible to me. To use a cliche, that's a slippery slope. You are now saying to the govt, I will give up my rights at any time as long as the intrusion is under the guise of "its for the good of the public."

 

That's not how we were set up as a country.

[Clyde]

If you are driving your home down a public road, then it is the same thing.

If you are not, then it is the proverbial apples and oranges.

 

The only way you can believe the above is if you think the Constitution doesn't apply to its citizens when they leave the house. I'm far from a legal scholar but I'm going to guess that you would be incorrect.

 

Can you elaborate on why you're OK with giving up your rights at , say, a checkpoint vs giving them up when the police knock on your door and want to check your PC for money laundering or child pornography?