Which speaks to one my points, that just because it was on the test, even for 17 years, that doesn't mean most drivers on the street are aware of, let alone actually have knowingly agreed to, this abridgment of their constitutional rights.
Whether or not it's on the test is irrelevant; it's in the handbook, and I'm sure when the law was changed it was publicized. So everyone who hadn't taken the test recently would know about it, and anyone who got their license afterward would have read it in the book.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
And that's not what's happening here. You don't have the privilege to drive drunk, nor do you have the privilege to drive on public roads. As a term of letting you drive on public roads, you agree to certain conditions. One of them being DUI checkpoints, which are publicized in advance.
Actually, you did, when you got your driver's license. Check it out sometime. Many states also have laws that state that having a driver's licence means that you consent to a breathalyzer or alcohol blood test. If you don't consent, then don't get a driver's license.
Businesses do the exact same thing every day to consumers, and people like you bitch and moan when we try to use the little power we have available to us in government to get them to stop it.
No, that's an even worse metaphor. You forgot the part where you don't have to enter into the agreement to have your mouth locked down, and can go with another vendor.
There is no monopoly here. The market is "Smart Phone App Stores", not "App Store for the iPhone". You are perfectly free to buy an Android phone, a Blackberry, or a Windows Mobile phone.
No they don't. In this case, you have already decided to commit the crime of driving under the influence. This is just altering how you try to escape it.
And yet, I've been pulled over while driving my Corvette and passing in a passing zone. Not because I was speeding, not because I failed to yield, or failed to signal, or lost control of my vehicle, or passing in a no passing zone, or reckless driving, or anything like that. What was the officer's reason? "I don't think passing zones should be legal." and he proceeded to tell me that if I were in a Ford Escort I wouldn't have made it (I passed uphill and there was traffic approaching a couple hundred yards ahead but sufficient space to pass both lawfully and safely). I reminded him I wasn't driving an Escort. He said "Well, in my Crown Vic, you wouldn't have made it." I remarked "Well, this isn't a Clown Vic, is it. . . " He didn't like that too much but needless to say there was no citation issued. He either just wanted to be a douche, or just wanted to check out a ZR1 up close. He pretty much shut up when I invited him to the police station to have a talk with his supervisor.
That guy was a douche. There are douches in every walk of life. I will agree with the rest of your post that they need to respond to reports, but I'm guessing they just don't have the manpower to respond to everything they hear.
I would actually like to know some stats on recidivism (sp?). As in, for the number of people who have a light, possibly stricken from the record first offense of a DUI, what is the rate of people who commit a second one? I would like to believe that there are many people who made a terrible mistake with the first one, learned their lesson, and changed their ways from then on out. And if this is the vast majority of people, wouldn't that mean the system is working? That people are being "reformed" rather than just "punished"?
You see, even though you're stone sober, and did the right thing staying overnight at the party, there's still enough alcohol in your system for supercop to rack up another bust.
Uh, no, you're not. A lot of times, you can still be drunk the morning after. You just don't have the buzz.
Slashdot Mirror
Which speaks to one my points, that just because it was on the test, even for 17 years, that doesn't mean most drivers on the street are aware of, let alone actually have knowingly agreed to, this abridgment of their constitutional rights.
Whether or not it's on the test is irrelevant; it's in the handbook, and I'm sure when the law was changed it was publicized. So everyone who hadn't taken the test recently would know about it, and anyone who got their license afterward would have read it in the book.
Extremely few people are aware of such laws, so how can the rest be said to have actually "agreed" to it?
Around here, it's in your DMV handbook. If you didn't read it, that's your fault.
The rationalization is that you can seriously hurt someone by hitting them with a bicycle, too.
Not only that, but you could swerve in front of traffic, causing a vehicle to either hit you, or swerve to avoid you and cause another accident.
Either you get to use crosswalks and be a pedestrian, or you get to move with traffic, not both.
Why? Why shouldn't a cyclist get to use both, as long as they do it in a safe manner, and when the signals show it is ok?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
And that's not what's happening here. You don't have the privilege to drive drunk, nor do you have the privilege to drive on public roads. As a term of letting you drive on public roads, you agree to certain conditions. One of them being DUI checkpoints, which are publicized in advance.
Care to point out where the Constitution gives you the right to use public roads?
So you're okay with a condition of using public sidewalks that you can be stopped and cavity searched at any time?
No. But that's such a slippery slope argument that only an idiot would make.
And you do have the right to be "left alone." You just don't have the right to use public roads at the same time.
Actually, you did, when you got your driver's license. Check it out sometime. Many states also have laws that state that having a driver's licence means that you consent to a breathalyzer or alcohol blood test. If you don't consent, then don't get a driver's license.
Not in the least. They're just saying that, should the police break the law, they are not the proper channels to go through to rectify the situation.
Agreed. Which is why it wasn't declared illegal (except in the poorly written summary).
Go for it.
Businesses do the exact same thing every day to consumers, and people like you bitch and moan when we try to use the little power we have available to us in government to get them to stop it.
No, that's an even worse metaphor. You forgot the part where you don't have to enter into the agreement to have your mouth locked down, and can go with another vendor.
Good thing Apple is not the only App Store in the world. There's Android, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, even Nokia.
There is no monopoly here. The market is "Smart Phone App Stores", not "App Store for the iPhone". You are perfectly free to buy an Android phone, a Blackberry, or a Windows Mobile phone.
Of course they do. If you believe in liberty, then you believe Apple has the liberty to decide what to sell in their store.
There is no checkpoint, and if there was one, it would probably be unconstitutional.
Actually, wouldn't the fact that they are advertising it make it legal according to the standards set forth by the SCOTUS?
No they don't. In this case, you have already decided to commit the crime of driving under the influence. This is just altering how you try to escape it.
Yes, but then other users are going to report those checkpoints as false, and start reporting route #1 as having the checkpoint.
And yet, I've been pulled over while driving my Corvette and passing in a passing zone. Not because I was speeding, not because I failed to yield, or failed to signal, or lost control of my vehicle, or passing in a no passing zone, or reckless driving, or anything like that. What was the officer's reason? "I don't think passing zones should be legal." and he proceeded to tell me that if I were in a Ford Escort I wouldn't have made it (I passed uphill and there was traffic approaching a couple hundred yards ahead but sufficient space to pass both lawfully and safely). I reminded him I wasn't driving an Escort. He said "Well, in my Crown Vic, you wouldn't have made it." I remarked "Well, this isn't a Clown Vic, is it. . . " He didn't like that too much but needless to say there was no citation issued. He either just wanted to be a douche, or just wanted to check out a ZR1 up close. He pretty much shut up when I invited him to the police station to have a talk with his supervisor.
That guy was a douche. There are douches in every walk of life. I will agree with the rest of your post that they need to respond to reports, but I'm guessing they just don't have the manpower to respond to everything they hear.
I would actually like to know some stats on recidivism (sp?). As in, for the number of people who have a light, possibly stricken from the record first offense of a DUI, what is the rate of people who commit a second one? I would like to believe that there are many people who made a terrible mistake with the first one, learned their lesson, and changed their ways from then on out. And if this is the vast majority of people, wouldn't that mean the system is working? That people are being "reformed" rather than just "punished"?
FUCK THE POLICE WHO MILITARIZED AND DECLARED WAR ON ME
Unless you have been driving drunk, they haven't. And if you have, then good, they should be doing that.
You see, even though you're stone sober, and did the right thing staying overnight at the party, there's still enough alcohol in your system for supercop to rack up another bust.
Uh, no, you're not. A lot of times, you can still be drunk the morning after. You just don't have the buzz.
They still have higher potential to cause accidents.
Different words to describe the different levels of intoxication. Both are bad, but the difference is in the severity of the intoxication.
Government cannot fix stupid, sorry.
No, but in this instance, it can help get stupid off the road.