[DanaT]

Originally Posted by TBO

Remember the schtick of the online community:

- If something is legal, you must support it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, or how much you dislike it.

Nope.

Just because something is legal,doesnt mean that I must support it nor does something being illegal mean I must be against it.

Moral (ethical) and legal are can be mutually exclusive terms.

It is LEGAL for me to screw around on my wife; it is not MORAL (ethical) for me to engage in such activities.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

I don't understand. Why did you use the rationale that signing your license gives the police the right., then turn right around and say this.

The license really doesn't make a difference does it?

Not really...implied consent is more focused on the states right to suspend your license simply for refusing to provide the voluntary sample you agreed too. The BAC sample is simply evidence just like any other crime so it can still be obtained by warrant if necessary.

In reality, you can be placed under arrest, refuse the implied consent sample and get an automatic license suspension, have blood drawn by search warrant and still get convicted with additional punishment for that.

[JLB768]

I've got no problem with DUI checkpoints, but then again, my Uncle was hit by a drunk while on his motorcycle, and left dead in the road. Some time later, he was hit by a second car, that didn't see him in time. The drunk, he drove on home, and went to bed.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Officer X

Just speaking for NJ:

There is implied consent in this state if you drive a car.

If I have reasonable suspicion that you're DWI, I'm going to detain you for further testing and observation (100% legal).

Even if you feel you are smarter than everyone else (including cops), and play games about doing roadside testing (I have actually let people go after this), I have had enough training and experience to determine and articulate probable cause to place you under arrest.

Once under arrest for DWI, I can do a limited passenger area search. Unless one of the exemptions in the state AG guideline's is triggered, it is highly likely that your car will be subject to a mandatory impound and an inventory search will be done.

If you then refuse the breath test, I'm also going to process you and issue you a summons for Refusal. I'm not going to spend any time getting a warrant. In addition to Refusal, you will also be issued a summons for DWI. I have had convictions on DWI on observation only when drivers refused and had them convicted for both DWI and Refusal, that will get you double the penalty. Often a plea will be made to merge the DWI if you plead guilty to the refusal but it will still get you a 6 month loss of license and fines.

If you're over the limit, it's your right to challenge the results in court on a technicality. If you're borderline, you can always try to plea bargin a lesser penalty. There is no right to refuse. You refuse and you get convicted, you're subject to all the same penalties as a DWI. The only difference is if you're arrested for DWI in the future, without an actual "DWI" conviction on your record, you're not subject to enhanced penalties.

Originally Posted by DanaT

hopefully someone you have arrested finds this post where you admit fabricating probable cause.

Originally Posted by Officer X

For the reading impaired:

I have let people go who have cooprated where upon further testing, it was my belief that you were not, or I could not prove DWI. Those drivers were thanked for their cooperation and time, issued the appropriate summons or warning and sent on their way.

If someone wanted to "play games" and not cooperate or be a b-ll buster, If I had enough PC on my observations, I would articulate those in my report to testify in court. Just because someone doesn't want to cooperate doesn't mean you get a free pass.

To be clear :
Articulate-


adj.
1. Endowed with the power of speech.
2. Composed of distinct, meaningful syllables or words, as human speech.
3. Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language: an articulate speaker.
4. Characterized by the use of clear, expressive language: an articulate essay.
5. Anatomy Consisting of sections united by joints; jointed.

Fabricate-


1. to make, build, or construct
2. to devise, invent, or concoct (a story, lie, etc.)
3. to fake or forge
[from Latin fabricāre to build, make, from fabrica workshop; see fabric]

It seems that you are using your own prejudice to twist my words to fit your definition.

They're just trolling you, Officer X.

They can be let go with a warning, this time...

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by DanaT

This is a late 20th century interpretation of travel.

Are you implying that the founding fathers would have said that travel by means of the day (horses, boats, carriage) would have been a "privilege" and not a "right"? This is teh exact same argument as the govt saying owning a firearm is a "privilege" and not a "right"

We (collectively as a society) have simply accepted the notion that travel by common means of the day is a privilege.

Except we have a written bill stating ownership of firearms is a right. But nothing saying that you have a right to operate a car, plane, train, or pony.


Even back then I don't think you got to travel for free. Pretty sure you had to pay. So yes, I'd say that's the definition of priveledge.


There is no right to travel by any means except by your loafer express.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

Like speeding or any other crime, you are not going to catch everyone. But if you are looking for drug dealers I would say you need to look in those areas where they are known to congregate. Same for drunk drivers. If reducing hazard to the public is the real goal. It would make sense to go where you have the greatest impact.

In business it is called utilizing your resources for their highest and best use.

Those driving after drinking at a private residence are still on the street and bound to pass a policeman on the way hom anyway.

They are bound to? How so? What is the LE coverage between midnight and 3:00am in your area?

[Jonesee]

Originally Posted by RussP

They are bound to? How so? What is the LE coverage between midnight and 3:00am in your area?

Highest and best use of their law enforcement resources...

You go fish in the desert, I will go to a stocked lake. I won't catch all the fish, but I bet I catch more than you.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Except we have a written bill stating ownership of firearms is a right. But nothing saying that you have a right to operate a car, plane, train, or pony.


Even back then I don't think you got to travel for free. Pretty sure you had to pay. So yes, I'd say that's the definition of priveledge.


There is no right to travel by any means except by your loafer express.

There's gobs of judicial precedence confirming that travel/driving is a right, not a privilege. Few persue it in minor traffic cases, however.

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

[AK_Stick]

Oh, don't get me wrong travel is a right.

But you choose to travel in an automobile, means you must obey the limitations and restrictions you agreed to abide when you got a liscense.

You do not have a right to get in a car without a liscense and do as you please.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

Those driving after drinking at a private residence are still on the street and bound to pass a policeman on the way hom anyway.

So you do not know if your statement that they are "bound to pass a policeman on the way hom [sic]" is true or not.

Have you ever been stopped for DUI, or what ever the designation is in your area?

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by G19G20

There's gobs of judicial precedence confirming that travel/driving is a right, not a privilege. Few persue it in minor traffic cases, however.

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

Many of the very rulings cited agree it is subject to regulation. You have a right to travel but driving a car, flying a plane, boating all have regulations attached to make such travel lawful.

[Jonesee]

Originally Posted by RussP

So you do not know if your statement that they are "bound to pass a policeman on the way hom [sic]" is true or not.

Have you ever been stopped for DUI, or what ever the designation is in your area?

I admit that there is no guarantee they will pass a policeman.

I am saying if they are serious about getting impaired drivers off the streeet it makes more sense to watch those areas of high concentration of bars and those drivers coming out of those parking lots. That is a much more wise utilization of law enforcement resources than hoping a drunk passes an officer on patrol, or setting up a road block in a semi residential area and pulling everyone over that passes even though the closest bar is 15 miles away.

Are you disagreeing with that?


I HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN STOPPED FOR DUI!!!!
I have however gone through DUI checkpoints 5 miles from my home in Florida frequently even though I lived in what was a dry county and the nearest bar was miles away. I was not exageraring when I said I have probably been through them about 100 times.

To me that is a total WASTE of resources. In business I would never ever allow that to happen. I only have so many employees and they can only work so many hours. I make sure their time is used in the most productive way possible. Anything else is a waste of time, effort and money. It would seem law enforcement should do the same.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Except we have a written bill stating ownership of firearms is a right. But nothing saying that you have a right to operate a car, plane, train, or pony.


Even back then I don't think you got to travel for free. Pretty sure you had to pay. So yes, I'd say that's the definition of priveledge.


There is no right to travel by any means except by your loafer express.

Wouldnt it be great if you were actually correct???

9 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architecturaland Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

So does 9 U.S.C. § 40103 not apply any more since it is inconvenient?

[DanaT]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 618, Shapiro v Thomson, No. 9 Argued: May 1, 1968 --- Decided: April 21, 1969

This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.


So tell me how "all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited" has not been interpreted as a right to travel?

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by ray9898

Many of the very rulings cited agree it is subject to regulation. You have a right to travel but driving a car, flying a plane, boating all have regulations attached to make such travel lawful.

ISnt it great that a cop thinks that 49 U.S.C. § 40103 doesnt exist?

So tell me, how Shapiro v. Thompson, decided when cars were in use and that 'all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited" is not a right.

Or does Shapiro v. Thompson not apply because you dont like it.

[AK_Stick]

And if we look into that further, is one required to be liscensed to enjoy that right? Or can one simply walk onto the ramp, fire a plane up and transit through the airspace without asking, or receiving permission?

You have a right of transit, through navigable airspace. That is true. But that doesn't mean you can do as you please. The act of piloting the vehicle, is still a priveledge as such your priveledge can be rescinded if you fail to meet the terms of your agreement with the local or federal govt.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

To me that is a total WASTE of resources. In business I would never ever allow that to happen. I only have so many employees and they can only work so many hours. I make sure their time is used in the most productive way possible. Anything else is a waste of time, effort and money. It would seem law enforcement should do the same.

Those who dont produce wealth, think there is an endless supply of it to spend as they like.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by ray9898

Many of the very rulings cited agree it is subject to regulation. You have a right to travel but driving a car, flying a plane, boating all have regulations attached to make such travel lawful.

Then stop calling it a privilege. It is a right. Just like gun ownership, with certain regulations, is a right.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

And if we look into that further, is one required to be liscensed to enjoy that right? Or can one simply walk onto the ramp, fire a plane up and transit through the airspace without asking, or receiving permission?

You have a right of transit, through navigable airspace. That is true. But that doesn't mean you can do as you please. The act of piloting the vehicle, is still a priveledge as such your priveledge can be rescinded if you fail to meet the terms of your agreement with the local or federal govt.

I am sorry, you said there was no right.

Where in the USC does it say "[sic]priveledge [that] can be rescinded"? Please show me this.

And no, I do not need a license to travel by air. I have had over a million miles traveling in the air over the last 4 years and have no license to do so.

[bucky_925]

Just to add some levity to the thread. I'm now 51 and don't drive impaired. However a funny story from back in my high school days. A few guys were riding around in my jeep to smoke pot (which I gave up after high school), we had not sparked up yet and ran into a license check. Everything was cool and we proceeded on. Well as pot will do to a teen we completely forgot about the license stop on the way back, smoke rolling out the doors and all! They remembered me and waived us through. Talk about picking ***** out of my drivers seat....lol

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Then stop calling it a privilege. It is a right. Just like gun ownership, with certain regulations, is a right.

That doesnt fit the Stasi's agenda.

Remember a few posts back:

Originally Posted by DanaT

Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time. – Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception. – Sun Tzu

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by DanaT

I am sorry, you said there was no right.

Where in the USC does it say "[sic]priveledge [that] can be rescinded"? Please show me this.

And no, I do not need a license to travel by air. I have had over a million miles traveling in the air over the last 4 years and have no license to do so.

Right of transit does not equal right to operate an airplane.

[clancy]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

There is a solution. Walk.

And then you can get arrested for public intoxication.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Right of transit does not equal right to operate an airplane.

So now you are saying there is a right but that a right should have "reasonable" and "common sense" restrictions, Nancy?

[AK_Stick]

No, I'm saying there is no right to operate said vehicle.


You have a right to transit. That does not mean you have a right to drive.

You have a right to use the land, the ocean, and the air to arrive at your destination in your choice of conveyance.


But that does not mean you have an innate right to operate your choice of conveyance simply because your American.