To Protect and to Serve II

[davethevol]

I can't figure out how sobriety checkpoints are legal.

I have no problem with a cop pulling over someone swerving or driving recklessly. But that should be the charge, reckless driving.

Aren’t they legal because M.A.D.D. lobbied for them? There’s an offshoot of them now trying to take guns away. I seem to remember years back that the Supreme Court looked at the legality of DUI checkpoints and stated that they were basically illegal, but they didn’t want to overturn them because it would cause a massive cluster nationwide with all the cases being thrown out and criminals caught at the checkpoints would have to be released from prison. They said it would open Pandora’s Box.

 

[hog88]

Private business versus public roadway. Inside the bar, that responsibility resides on the individual, the bar staff, and any friends they're with...police can't be held responsible for ensuring that people make good choices.

Just stop with the checkpoints are about public safety drivel. They are about money and only money. I couldn't fathom a bar owner denying an officer a place to set up and give breathalyzers to people leaving unless your department would use that as an opportunity to get them for drunk in public.

 

[ob79]

Just stop with the checkpoints are about public safety drivel. They are about money and only money. I couldn't fathom a bar owner denying an officer a place to set up and give breathalyzers to people leaving unless your department would use that as an opportunity to get them for drunk in public.

I haven't said one word about checkpoints. Not a word.

 

[hog88]

I haven't said one word about checkpoints. Not a word.

My apologies then.

 

[hndog609]

Aren’t they legal because M.A.D.D. lobbied for them? There’s an offshoot of them now trying to take guns away. I seem to remember years back that the Supreme Court looked at the legality of DUI checkpoints and stated that they were basically illegal, but they didn’t want to overturn them because it would cause a massive cluster nationwide with all the cases being thrown out and criminals caught at the checkpoints would have to be released from prison. They said it would open Pandora’s Box.

Actually it was the Sitz case and it upheld (6-3) the 4th's legality by virtue of a "balancing test".

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

Several states have independently made roadblocks of this type illegal.

 

[davethevol]

Actually it was the Sitz case and it upheld (6-3) the 4th's legality by virtue of a "balancing test".

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

Several states have independently made roadblocks of this type illegal.

Unbelievable.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

However, as several dissenting judges pointed out, the Constitution doesn’t make room for exceptions and, whether beneficial or not, DUI checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, forcing drivers to participate in “suspicionless investigatory seizures.”

 

[hndog609]

Unbelievable.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

However, as several dissenting judges pointed out, the Constitution doesn’t make room for exceptions and, whether beneficial or not, DUI checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, forcing drivers to participate in “suspicionless investigatory seizures.”

Yeah, I've got some issues with that ruling. The precedent of deciding what does/doesn't meet the level of sufficiently "inconvenient" vs the government's interest (that balancing test) gives me the heebie jeebies if people like Looth decide to start running with the idea.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Lynchburg officers who shot man inside his home sentenced to community service

New bodycam footage of Link Road officer-involved shooting released

 

[davethevol]

New bodycam footage of Link Road officer-involved shooting released

Wow. As a civilian, we are told that we have to know what’s behind every target. I guess they didn’t get that memo.

At least they were actually held accountable for their actions.

 

[InVOLuntary]

@DEFENDTHISHOUSE We are closing in on these meth heads stealing my stuff. We've identified them, same guy the I helped send to prison back in 2011. We have his girlfriend on video at my place and at the scrap dealer selling my stuff. He's also violated his parole so an arrest warrant has been issued for that as well. They're trying to find him.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

@DEFENDTHISHOUSE We are closing in on these meth heads stealing my stuff. We've identified them, same guy the I helped send to prison back in 2011. We have his girlfriend on video at my place and at the scrap dealer selling my stuff. He's also violated his parole so an arrest warrant has been issued for that as well. They're trying to find him.

Good. I hope you nail them. Damn thieves!

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Wow. As a civilian, we are told that we have to know what’s behind every target. I guess they didn’t get that memo.

At least they were actually held accountable for their actions.

Held accountable? Shockingly they’re still employed by the Lynchburg Police Department.

No jail time for Lynchburg police officers in Link Road shooting

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So a drunk guy runs through your fence, kills your dog, with nothing to his name and no job, just chock it up?

You just made his point. There was an actual crime committed. Had that guy been able to go home without incident then there would be no crime. How hard is that for to understand?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

If you wanted to protect the public safety and property you would go into the bars and offer breathalyzers before people got behind the wheel instaed of setting up a roadblock a mile down the road.

But there is no money in fines and court fees if they went out and prevented crimes. That would actually be protecting and serving.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Private business versus public roadway. Inside the bar, that responsibility resides on the individual, the bar staff, and any friends they're with...police can't be held responsible for ensuring that people make good choices.

Chuckle... so now law enforcement is concerned about violating property rights?

 

[ob79]

Chuckle... so now law enforcement is concerned about violating property rights?

Is it possible for you and I to have a conversation where you don't insult my integrity on the reg? Just curious...

 

[InVOLuntary]

You just made his point. There was an actual crime committed. Had that guy been able to go home without incident then there would be no crime. How hard is that for to understand?

Have you been drinking? He was on his way home, drunk, with no insurance. If the cops had caught him on the road , prior to him running through my fence, I'd still have my dog.

 

[MercyPercy]

Have you been drinking? He was on his way home, drunk, with no insurance. If the cops had caught him on the road , prior to him running through my fence, I'd still have my dog.

And if the cops had taken away [insert mass murderer's name here] guns before he went on a shooting spree, the victims wouldn't have been shot by guns.

We can only have so much protection in life before our own freedoms start to be trampled on. If i had to pick a side which I would rather lean towards, it's freedom, and I will do my best to protect myself, my property, etc.

 

[InVOLuntary]

And if the cops had taken away [insert mass murderer's name here] guns before he went on a shooting spree, the victims wouldn't have been shot by guns.

We can only have so much protection in life before our own freedoms start to be trampled on. If i had to pick a side which I would rather lean towards, it's freedom, and I will do my best to protect myself, my property, etc.

How do I protect myself against the guy with no insurance that runs through my fence and kills my dog? He's worthless so I can get financial compensation. Should I just kill him? Your analogy sucks.

 

[hog88]

How do I protect myself against the guy with no insurance that runs through my fence and kills my dog? He's worthless so I can get financial compensation. Should I just kill him? Your analogy sucks.

You can't protect yourself from someone doing it, that was his point. He/I would rather live with that risk and be free than the alternative.

 

[hndog609]

And if the cops had taken away [insert mass murderer's name here] guns before he went on a shooting spree, the victims wouldn't have been shot by guns.

We can only have so much protection in life before our own freedoms start to be trampled on. If i had to pick a side which I would rather lean towards, it's freedom, and I will do my best to protect myself, my property, etc.

Because it isn't about the inanimate object. (car/gun) It's about actively using said object in an overtly dangerous manner that puts people at risk.

As to freedom I've previously stated I've got some issues with the manner in which the 4th is circumvented regarding checkpoints.

 

[MercyPercy]

How do I protect myself against the guy with no insurance that runs through my fence and kills my dog? He's worthless so I can get financial compensation. Should I just kill him? Your analogy sucks.

You can't protect yourself from everything... and neither can the police. That's kind of the point. No amount of legislation or armed enforcers can protect you from everything, despite what the democrats and republicans in DC seem to believe. Freak accidents happen, ****** people exist, they always will.

Should you just kill him? If he drunkenly smashed into your fence and killed your dog, I would not blame you. If I were on the jury I would push for nullification.

 

[hog88]

Because it isn't about the inanimate object. (car/gun) It's about actively using said object in an overtly dangerous manner that puts people at risk.

As to freedom I've previously stated I've got some issues with the manner in which the 4th is circumvented regarding checkpoints.

Precisely my point, if someone is driving recklessly I have no problem with the cops hammering them. But just because you have a BAC of .08 does not mean you are driving recklessly.

 

[hndog609]

Precisely my point, if someone is driving recklessly I have no problem with the cops hammering them. But just because you have a BAC of .08 does not mean you are driving recklessly.

As long as we're saying observable suspicion of impaired driving being required for probable cause to initiate a stop and check for sobriety and then charge accordingly we're pretty much on the same page.

 

[hog88]

As long as we're saying observable suspicion of impaired driving being required for probable cause to initiate a stop and check for sobriety and then charge accordingly we're pretty much on the same page.

We’re not then. If someone is driving recklessly then nail them for that. No need to check for sobriety since it doesn’t matter why the person is driving recklessly.