Sobriety Checkpoints

[infinititech]

Any effort is good. If someone innocent was killed by drunk driver that might have been stopped by a checkpoint because it wasn't there that would suck

 

[actaeon277]

Any effort is good. If someone innocent was killed by drunk driver that might have been stopped by a checkpoint because it wasn't there that would suck

And what if they could save a life by searching your home without a warrant, once a month?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Any effort is good. If someone innocent was killed by drunk driver that might have been stopped by a checkpoint because it wasn't there that would suck

Neighbor, if you consider relinquishing rights in the name of safety to be right and proper, a free republic is not the place for you.

 

[Skywired]

Neighbor, if you consider relinquishing rights in the name of safety to be right and proper, a free republic is not the place for you.

Might I just suggest, that those who have been victims of crime, may have a different perspective.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Might I just suggest, that those who have been victims of crime, may have a different perspective.

By that logic, anyone who has been the victim of a crime would be justified in throwing out the requirement for a fair trial, a jury, and all other due process. The fact that bad things happen does not under any circumstances justify disregarding constitutional rights including the Fourth Amendment. Just in case anyone has failed to notice, it includes one's person and effects among those things protected from unreasonable search and seizure, contrive 'reduced expectation of privacy' from the white spaces notwithstanding. Again, checkpoints are stops and searches that signally lack any suspicion or cause other than a person happening to exist at a location the cops decided to camp.

I feel sympathy for those who have suffered loss, but it will be a cold day in Hell I will voluntarily give up rights because there are dangerous people in circulation. If you truly believe this, then why not advocate scrapping the Constitution completely. A person could generate arguments for the 'greater good' being served by eliminating anything that could potentially protect a criminal without regard for the honest majority being subjected to standards suitable for a police state. I strongly recommend getting a grip on the full consequences before you go surrendering rights to appease those who have suffered loss. It is wrong, and it won't help.

 

[Skywired]

Neighbor, if you consider relinquishing rights in the name of safety to be right and proper, a free republic is not the place for you.

By that logic, anyone who has been the victim of a crime would be justified in throwing out the requirement for a fair trial, a jury, and all other due process. The fact that bad things happen does not under any circumstances justify disregarding constitutional rights including the Fourth Amendment. Just in case anyone has failed to notice, it includes one's person and effects among those things protected from unreasonable search and seizure, contrive 'reduced expectation of privacy' from the white spaces notwithstanding. Again, checkpoints are stops and searches that signally lack any suspicion or cause other than a person happening to exist at a location the cops decided to camp.

I feel sympathy for those who have suffered loss, but it will be a cold day in Hell I will voluntarily give up rights because there are dangerous people in circulation. If you truly believe this, then why not advocate scrapping the Constitution completely. A person could generate arguments for the 'greater good' being served by eliminating anything that could potentially protect a criminal without regard for the honest majority being subjected to standards suitable for a police state. I strongly recommend getting a grip on the full consequences before you go surrendering rights to appease those who have suffered loss. It is wrong, and it won't help.

Easy, Easy, Easy there INDY... finger off the trigger I was merely responding to your previous post that there are folks out there who do have a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, a LOT of them think they are right. Doesn't make it so... but it does make it a factor to be dealt with.

And for the record, I didn't surrender my A$$ in S.E. Asia in '69, so I reckon I won't be doing it in Indiana in 2013, either.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Easy, Easy, Easy there INDY... finger off the trigger I was merely responding to your previous post that there are folks out there who do have a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, a LOT of them think they are right. Doesn't make it so... but it does make it a factor to be dealt with.

And for the record, I didn't surrender my A$$ in S.E. Asia in '69, so I reckon I won't be doing it in Indiana in 2013, either.

You have my respect for that! My dad visited the same lovely vacation spot for the same reason.

 

[Hwseeker]

Legal

Yes they are legal and, despite what some have said in this thread...they are successful.

My suggestion...don't drink and drive, keep your insurance, plates, and driver's license current and you won't have a problem.

 

[RockofStrength]

Yes they are legal and, despite what some have said in this thread...they are successful.

My suggestion...don't drink and drive, keep your insurance, plates, and driver's license current and you won't have a problem.

Except that I will, since I'm being interrogated even if I do all those things. I hate the very scent of alcohol and yet I will be inconvenienced for the sake of other people's "feelings of safety".

I'm with Mr. Freeman's suggestion: put a couple of those checkpoints where it'll inconvenience people "who matter" and we'll see just how legal it is...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes they are legal and, despite what some have said in this thread...they are successful.

My suggestion...don't drink and drive, keep your insurance, plates, and driver's license current and you won't have a problem.

Successful? Talk to the officers that have run the checkpoints, most will tell you it is a waste of time, money, and effort vs driving around and looking for impaired drivers. Or don't ask them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes they are legal and, despite what some have said in this thread...they are successful.

By what measure can you say this?

Again, the score for Lafayette's last roadblock was a big, fat ZERO.

Pass legislation to put roadblocks, permanent, in the neighborhoods of Indiana Supreme Court justices.

They will be back to unconstitutional in no time.

 

[zippy23]

If you are for these checkpoints, then you are the gov't doing anything and everything they want to invade your privacy, stop you from going about your day with NO CAUSE all in the name of "it may save a life." Which is the biggest load of S#!% ever. Its almost like Barrack saying we need to ban guns because "if we can just save one life its worth it" while they abort more babies in one day than guns kill in an entire year. The whole idea of "saving lives" is to get you to consent to whatever they want. So what if they search everyone's home at any time they feel to see if they can find contraband and told you it would save lives? Would you be down with that? Enforce current laws, make it too risky to commit the crime, meaning if you get caught you are ROYALLY SCREWED, and enforce it. its amazing what happens when people actually get punished for what they do, they'll stop doing it.

 

[Shadow8088]

You guys act like DUI checkpoints are this new thing that came along once Obama came into office... I've seen em since before I could drive 20 years ago... all that time and NOW you're upset? Don't drink and drive.... problem solved.

 

[dross]

Any effort is good. If someone innocent was killed by drunk driver that might have been stopped by a checkpoint because it wasn't there that would suck

Excellent. You just gave the justification for every form of tyranny.

... all that time and NOW you're upset? Don't drink and drive.... problem solved.

You don't like warrantless searches? Don't have anything illegal in your home....problem solved.

Thank you for your concise summation of every tyrant's justification for his tyranny.

 

[Skywired]

By what measure can you say this?

Again, the score for Lafayette's last roadblock was a big, fat ZERO.

Pass legislation to put roadblocks, permanent, in the neighborhoods of Indiana Supreme Court justices.

They will be back to unconstitutional in no time.

Now there's a call to action. I like that. The rest of this topic is all rhetoric.

 

[LEaSH]

You guys act like DUI checkpoints are this new thing that came along once Obama came into office... I've seen em since before I could drive 20 years ago... all that time and NOW you're upset? Don't drink and drive.... problem solved.

Not quite.

You see, I don't drink and drive. And I expect not to be stopped at the whimsy of ANY other man or woman. Regardless if it is for the children or for public safety or any other lie they want to lay down. This is control.

I'm innocent until proven guilty. I'm not suspected guilty until I'm checked out by authoritarians. And I'm to be secure against unreasonable searches unless sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Probable cause is not driving from one place to another place.

 

[ghuns]

St Joe Co DUI Checkpoints TODAY!

A guy at work brought in his world famous garlic dip today. It is STRONG. I am loading up and thinking about goin lookin for them after work.

 

[lucky3031]

Unconstitutional response to an inadequate justice system that lets drunk drivers kill people with little consequence.

^^^This 100%

 

[Shadow8088]

Not quite.

You see, I don't drink and drive. And I expect not to be stopped at the whimsy of ANY other man or woman. Regardless if it is for the children or for public safety or any other lie they want to lay down. This is control.

I'm innocent until proven guilty. I'm not suspected guilty until I'm checked out by authoritarians. And I'm to be secure against unreasonable searches unless sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Probable cause is not driving from one place to another place.

they already HAVE control.. we all bow to the almighty dollar... unless you have the land and assets to completely subsist on your own, generally the most awesome prepper that ever existed, you step to whatever tune they play... and even then, you pay taxes for owning that land... so unless you've found a way around this, you're being controlled already... (you also follow laws... MORE control)

 

[LEaSH]

they already HAVE control.. we all bow to the almighty dollar... unless you have the land and assets to completely subsist on your own, generally the most awesome prepper that ever existed, you step to whatever tune they play... and even then, you pay taxes for owning that land... so unless you've found a way around this, you're being controlled already... (you also follow laws... MORE control)

If we didn't resist at all - if we didn't raise hell about more gun regs - if we never called, emailed, and written our elected gangsters - we'd already have lost our firearms.

The absurdity that is You says, "Don't drink and drive, problem solved".

Does that mean that there is no reason to argue for the sanctity of the fourth amendment? As long as a person lays down and doesn't make an effort to stop illegal searches, the cops will continue to do so.