[ICARRY2]

Ive only run into one dui checkpoint about 20 years ago.

Leo asked if I had anything to drink, I said one beer (it was just one) he said okay have a good night.

If the police have pc your dui and you refuse to do a breath test, then I have no problem with them getting a search warrant signed by a judge and a blood sample being taken by force.

Too many good people are murdered (and thats what it is) every year by people who drive drunk. It seems most of the deaths are caused by drunks who drive drunk over and over again to the point if oblivion.

[rvanpelt]

Originally Posted by badge315

So if accepting a DL from the State means that the driver has given implied consent to test for impairment, what is the limit of that implied consent? Can an LEO demand that a licensee submit to tests for intoxication even if that person is not operating any kind of vehicle?

No. Just the driver. He or she can be the designated driver of people who wish to over indulge.
Rod

[.264 magnum]

Originally Posted by TBO

Strawman extraordinaire: on a public street vs inside your home.

Nice dodge.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by w30olds

...

The first question he asked me up front was "What have you had to drink". I told him. ....

Safe guess that the answer was to the effect that you had no alcoholic beverages?

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by dino1

Gee, it's ok to twist the 4th and 5th amendments how ever you see fit but by God you better not touch that 2nd....

I said that long ago.

But dont worry, what these "checkpoints" are is simple. Start small with somethibg very targeted. Make the LEO feel like they are doing something good. Then add in check license and registration. Next thing there will be checkpoints inside the USA for people who have never left for Customs and Border Patrol. Then, we will put Federal employees at Airports using the guise of an administrative search, have made people believe that when criminal and administrative searches are intertwined, they can be searched without PC and/or warrant.

Its small steps that will end with police confiscating guns.

One LEO has stated that he would not participate. Lets here how many others, if a law is passed to require registration/confiscation will refuse to enforce said law. Just wait, they will have checkpoint to see if you have any illegal weapons in your car and these guys will say you have no rights against that either.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

Nice dodge.

Cant be. That would be dis-ingenious.

[w30olds]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Because, you like others who claim to be harassed about non-dui issues at checkpoints have been proven "irresputely" incorrect by the LEO on the forum by their jumping up and down insisting that doesn't happen. So, it is clear that it never happened, you are fabricating the incident, don't understand what LEO do since you aren't one, and are anti-LEO.

I think I have properly summed up the reasons. Maybe my LEO friends can help me out in case I missed something why it didnt happen as he says it did.

BTW. They were checking over your car for your own safety and that of the children.

Your right. I made up the whole thing. Geez....busted. Yep I fabricated some story to sound like I'm anti LEO. So go ahead and get you LEO buddies to say it didn't happen as well.

Really good fabrication story? It actually happened, but I guess you were there and saw the whole thing. Don't really care if you believe it, or not honestly. But since I'm anti LEO it doesn't matter.

[Nanuk]

If you don't drink and drive you have nothing to worry about.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Gunny Lingus

Members of DAMM (drunks against Mad Mothers) should saturate those checkpoints while not drinking, slur their speech, refuse the test, get the court order, be shown as sober, then do it again and keep judges up all hours of the night on holidays for nothing.

They could overload the system and bog it down.

Obama, is that you?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by DanaT

When you refer to me by my proper title,

Graf Prof. Dr. Dipl Ing Dana, then I will take your "insult" seriously. Until then, I say you lack manners.

Senator Barbara Boxer: "Don't Call Me Ma'am" - General Michael Walsh - YouTube

Senator Barbara Boxer: "Don't Call Me Ma'am" - General Michael Walsh - YouTube

[Kevin108]

Originally Posted by sombunya

Put real teeth in the law and it will stop or reduce greatly. First offense, 10 year license suspension...

And at that time you might as well sign them up for their 99 weeks of unemployment, put them on welfare, get them on the waiting list for public housing, start the paperwork for food stamps and WIC, and get their phone number ported to their Obamaphone.

You want to destroy people's lives over a simple mistake. Now keep in mind we're only talking about DUI, not any accidents or injury, just simply having more of a given substance in their body than a bureaucracy chooses to allow.

Painting with broad strokes is so moronic. Lumping together anyone who drives after having a beer is ridiculous.

Allowing sobriety check points is trying to trade freedom for security. It's a waste of resources paid for by hard-earned tax dollars and assumes anyone who happens to be on that stretch of road is guilty without probable cause.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by DanaT

And yet "drive and fly" are included in "travel"

rav·el
[trav-uh l] verb, trav·eled, trav·el·ing or ( especially British ) trav·elled, trav·el·ling, noun, adjective.
verb (used without object)
1.
to go from one place to another, as by car, train, plane, or ship; take a trip; journey: to travel for pleasure.
2.
to move or go from one place or point to another.

All that fancy schooling, and you still don't know the difference between operating and traveling in.........

It's sad.

[PA Wizard]

WOW!! I usually post on non-confrontational matters. However after reading all 14 pages in this thread, well for once I DO have a comment.

I live by what I call the 10% rule. That is: if you take any (all) group of people, fully 10% of them are a@@holes. (Now this is just my own personal observation you understand.) Cops, doctors, lawyers, cabinetmakers...you see my point.

Now some people are lucky, they win the lottery 2 or 3 times, find money, never run into the 10%. Me, I've never won on the lottery, but I do seem to run into more than my share of that 10%. In ALL walks of life. But to be honest I still interact with the other 90% to a much larger degree.

I guess that my point is, we've ALL met that cop, that doctor etc. But if you're at all honest, they ARE in the minority. Now I am against DUI checkpoints for all of the reasons listed. BUT guys, the people to be vilified, if anyone is, are the politicians who try to feed us the BS. Also too, those in power who use (And they do) these checkpoints for monetary gain. (not personal, public)

/soapbox off

Sorry if this is too long or rambling.


Wiz

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

All that fancy schooling, and you still don't know the difference between operating and traveling in.........

It's sad.

All my fancy schooling has let me know that "to go from one place to another" and "to move or go from one place or point to another" does not include the definition of operate.

Show me where definition of "travel" which I have shown by Supreme court ruling have affirmed Americans have a right to, includes any of the following terms.


op·er·ate
[op-uh-reyt] verb, op·er·at·ed, op·er·at·ing.
verb (used without object)
1. to work, perform, or function, as a machine does: This engine does not operate properly.
2. to work or use a machine, apparatus, or the like.
3. to act effectively; produce an effect; exert force or influence (often followed by on or upon ): Their propaganda is beginning to operate on the minds of the people.
4. to perform some process of work or treatment.
5. Surgery . to perform a surgical procedure.

[Glockworks]

Originally Posted by johnd

Im a LEO and volunteer for every DUI checkpoint that comes our way. Id work them for free if that was the deal.
I guess the OP first few lines says it all..."never met an honest cop".
Suffuce to say that "we" get the killers off the roads and thats probably the most effective way of doing that.
I usually work the line and "we" all know all the tricks of the drinkers to hide their guilt.
If you havent been drinking then theres nothing to fear. if you have then the penalties are never enough.


>>>If you saw the carnage DUI causes, not to the DUI ciminal but to the victims they hit, you would feel a whole lot different for sure. We have a neighbor whose daughter was hit head on by a DUI on her prom night some 20 years ago...her date was killed outright, he was the lucky one...shes still a vegetable and fed only through a tube. She will never dance, date or have kids or go anywhere or see anything, never enjoy anything or communicate again .....EVER.
The DUI himself did 8 years and was out and back into society no doubt to wreak more death and destruction on the roads again.

RE refusal...here in FLA a refusal is an automatic charge and loss of license. Its great when they refuse as it saves all the court costs etc AND....a refusal means they cant even get a Cinderella license to drive to work....great!
Only one State I know of, NJ, is charging DUI homicides as murder >>>>>we need all 50 States to do this<<<<

Thank you for the work you do in this regard. You get it, too bad so many are living with their heads in the clouds on this issue. BTW I am not a police/cop person.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by DanaT

All my fancy schooling has let me know that "to go from one place to another" and "to move or go from one place or point to another" does not include the definition of operate.

Show me where definition of "travel" which I have shown by Supreme court ruling have affirmed Americans have a right to, includes any of the following terms.


op·er·ate
[op-uh-reyt] verb, op·er·at·ed, op·er·at·ing.
verb (used without object)
1. to work, perform, or function, as a machine does: This engine does not operate properly.
2. to work or use a machine, apparatus, or the like.
3. to act effectively; produce an effect; exert force or influence (often followed by on or upon ): Their propaganda is beginning to operate on the minds of the people.
4. to perform some process of work or treatment.
5. Surgery . to perform a surgical procedure.

Go re-read post #165, specifically breaks down that the right to travel, does not mean you have an intrinsic right to operate. It also explains that vehicle operation is a privilege not a right, because it pertains not to everyone, but to a specific class.

[Noles26]

Originally Posted by johnd

only one state i know of, nj, is charging dui homicides as murder >>>>>we need all 50 states to do this<<<<

completely agree

[RussP]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Dunno. There was a threat of it, so the PD admitted to putting in "performance goals"

Where did you get that information? It isn't anywhere in the linked DUI Blog post: “Yes, We Have No Quotas”. I cannot weave anything there into the story you're telling.

[PA Wizard]

OK one more thing to add to the pot. Anyone truly interested in a legitimate discussion on the rights of travel and Drivers Licenses NEEDS to read this web site. Hope that you can understand it...



http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivi...e07apr05.shtml

This IS enlightening!!!!!

Wiz

[Bren]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Because, you like others who claim to be harassed about non-dui issues at checkpoints have been proven "irresputely" incorrect by the LEO on the forum by their jumping up and down insisting that doesn't happen. So, it is clear that it never happened, you are fabricating the incident, don't understand what LEO do since you aren't one, and are anti-LEO.

I think I have properly summed up the reasons. Maybe my LEO friends can help me out in case I missed something why it didnt happen as he says it did.

BTW. They were checking over your car for your own safety and that of the children.

Why would "the LEO on the forum [jump] up and down insisting that doesn't happen"? It's perfectly legal to enforce the law on anything that's observed at a checkpoint, whether it's DUI, an expired tag, drug trafficking or murder. While the purpose of the checkpoint has to be "traffic safety" in most cases, there is no law requiring the police to ignore any violation of law observed at the traffic safety checkpoint.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Go re-read post #165, specifically breaks down that the right to travel, does not mean you have an intrinsic right to operate. It also explains that vehicle operation is a privilege not a right, because it pertains not to everyone, but to a specific class.

Don't bother....it will be ignored and 10 posts from now someone will again repeat they have a "right to drive their car".

I don't see the confusion. The Constitution protects the right to travel as fundamental, it does not protect the right to drive on the public roadway, the right to pilot an airplane, to be the engineer on a train, or the captain of a cruise ship. Those are privileges subject to licensing, restrictions, regulation, fees and revocation.

I will give them more to ignore.

City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981

"Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right; it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."

"The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state law; it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and nothing in that document or in our state constitution has even the slightest appearance or an implicit guarantee of that right. The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel ... is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right."

State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953

"The appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registration .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state.

This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures.

[packinaglock]

If I'm drinking the wife drives because she does not drink. I only really drink at home any more any way.

[skeeter1959]

I am for whatever gets a drunk drunk driver off the road. RIP Sammy. Killed by a drunk driver who was also an illegal from mexico.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by PA Wizard

OK one more thing to add to the pot. Anyone truly interested in a legitimate discussion on the rights of travel and Drivers Licenses NEEDS to read this web site. Hope that you can understand it...



http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivi...e07apr05.shtml

This IS enlightening!!!!!

Wiz

And yet every state seems to issue drivers licenses and there are court cases involving traffic citations, drivers license suspensions, DUIs and other traffic laws every business day of the week in courts all over the nation. Apparently every one of them are unaware of or ignore this gem of jurisprudence.

[Napalm561]

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Freedom for security you say, Russ?

Here's an idea then. Back ground checks for every gun sale period. Who knows maybe your wife and kids won't be mugged by that felon then, and a 4473 takes all about the amount of time it takes for a cop to setup a checkpoint.

Hell yea, Background checks for every gun sale. Wait, Thats already in place.....but crime hasn't ceased! Backgrounds checks ensure that felons (as the felon in your scenario) cannot legally purchase, or possess guns. Felons continue to possess guns, because they steal them.


try again.