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

[halfback20]

It's just my opinion, but on the surface it seems like the police are violating the fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures. It would seem like Police would need probable cause to issue a Breathalyzer test. Either that or the Breathalyzer should be optional.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the fourth amendment ensures the Citizens rights to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Wouldn't a Breathalyzer be violating that fourth amendment right?

 

However I can also see the other side of the argument too. I believe that in a vehicle citizens should expect, according to the Supreme Court, to have a lowered expectation of privacy. That is probably why Police can perform stops similar to this in the first place.

[ladiesbballcoach]

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

 

Because my family is on that road and you as a drunk driver is endangering their life.

 

In your home, you are doing nothing to directly endanger my child's life.

 

I don't see how you can't see the difference.

 

There is a BIG difference if I take my shotgun and target practice in my backyard and I target practice on Fountain Square.

[ladiesbballcoach]

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?

 

Again, if I am endangering others, yes. If I am not, NO!

 

And yes, the Constitution DOES change when you put others in danger.

 

If you do not believe it does, I guess you would feel it is my FREEDOM of SPEECH to go into a movie theater and yell fire and act like there is a fire in the movie theater. I guess you would feel making physical threats against others is protected by freedom of speech.

[Habib]

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.

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

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

 

Not inherently, no. After all, these are public roadways and the government does have an obligation to keep them safe. There is a fine line that must be walked between safety and unwarranted intrusion, however.

[Clyde]

Because my family is on that road and you as a drunk driver is endangering their life.

 

In your home, you are doing nothing to directly endanger my child's life.

 

I don't see how you can't see the difference.

 

There is a BIG difference if I take my shotgun and target practice in my backyard and I target practice on Fountain Square.

 

I won't even acknowledge the last line.

 

If your argument is that checkpoints are fine because it could lead to one less person being killed by a drunk driver, would you not then also say that searching my home without cause is Okeydokey as well because it might just keep one less illegal gun off the streets? It might just keep one less stash of heroin out of the Pendleton County High School halls?

 

Or are those not as important as keeping a potential drunk driver off the streets?

[Clyde]

Again, if I am endangering others, yes. If I am not, NO!

 

And yes, the Constitution DOES change when you put others in danger.

 

If you do not believe it does, I guess you would feel it is my FREEDOM of SPEECH to go into a movie theater and yell fire and act like there is a fire in the movie theater. I guess you would feel making physical threats against others is protected by freedom of speech.

 

Once again the problem with your "if I am endangering others" argument is that no one knows UNTIL you let them check. So , again, you're OK with them checking to see if you're storing hash in your bible or if you are writing checks to extremist pro-life organizations?

[ladiesbballcoach]

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

And you seem to be holding on the position that the government has no rights to do anything.

 

Why should they be allowed to outlaw drugs?

Why should they be allowed to post a speed limit?

Why should they be allowed declare public property off limits?

Why should a government be allowed to have a military draft?

 

There are times that government HAS to have the right to set guidelines and laws and procedures that IS best for this country.

 

The argument is not whether it should or not, but that seems to be what you are saying, but rather whether this procedure fits the definition of what is right for society.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Once again the problem with your "if I am endangering others" argument is that no one knows UNTIL you let them check. So , again, you're OK with them checking to see if you're storing hash in your bible or if you are writing checks to extremist pro-life organizations?

 

You are making a HUGE, HUGE jump.

 

No one is saying they are going to do that. They are simply saying that if you are out in public, than it is a different matter. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to benefit your argument and it won't fit.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Once again the problem with your "if I am endangering others" argument is that no one knows UNTIL you let them check. So , again, you're OK with them checking to see if you're storing hash in your bible or if you are writing checks to extremist pro-life organizations?

 

Huge assumption that checkpoints will lead to this. Huge and wrong assumption.

[acemona]

to paraphrase Ben Franklin

 

Anyone who would give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security deserves neither.

[stickymitts]

You sure that wasn't Confucius?

[Run To State]

to paraphrase Ben Franklin

 

Anyone who would give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security deserves neither.

:thumb:

[True blue (and gold)]

:thumb:

 

Wait...did RTS and Acemona just agree? :scared:

 

[ladiesbballcoach]

to paraphrase Ben Franklin

 

Anyone who would give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security deserves neither.

 

So, you guys are for repelling the laws in this country against the speed limit, the ability to go into a crowded place and yell fire, to make threats against the President's life?

 

That is giving up a little freedom and according to some dead guy from 200 years ago, we allow speed limits and we don't deserve freedom or security.

 

Life is NOT black and white buy shades of grey.

[Run To State]

Wait...did RTS and Acemona just agree? :scared:

 

:lol: When he's right I have to let him know. :devil: