Police "saftey checks" in new york
#31
DTR Founder
Originally posted by DPG
And 25,000 of those highway deaths are caused by drunk drivers.
And 25,000 of those highway deaths are caused by drunk drivers.
#32
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack,
I am not one to split hairs, not that I could if I wanted to, and I all for anything that increases safety or better yet saves a life. I am all for it providing that it is within the boundaries of the framework that ensures all of our well being, including out much cherished freedoms. Having said that, I ask you to addres the imprfection in the executions of the check points. Are we not to address the oversteping of authority at all, in these case, in any/all cases, just because they save lives? It may seem insignificant on the surface, but any and all unchecked abuse of power, no mater how small it may apear at the time either has a direct efect on many lives or is a contributor to later greater abuses.
Peter
I am not one to split hairs, not that I could if I wanted to, and I all for anything that increases safety or better yet saves a life. I am all for it providing that it is within the boundaries of the framework that ensures all of our well being, including out much cherished freedoms. Having said that, I ask you to addres the imprfection in the executions of the check points. Are we not to address the oversteping of authority at all, in these case, in any/all cases, just because they save lives? It may seem insignificant on the surface, but any and all unchecked abuse of power, no mater how small it may apear at the time either has a direct efect on many lives or is a contributor to later greater abuses.
Peter
#33
Top's Younger Twin
I also think that in NY they are still under a higher alert status correct? Remember 9/11?
We get those checks here too.
One life saved from one roadside check taking a drunk off the road is well worth the wait for me.
I would rather wait for that then the wait for an accident.
We get those checks here too.
One life saved from one roadside check taking a drunk off the road is well worth the wait for me.
I would rather wait for that then the wait for an accident.
#34
DTR Founder
Originally posted by MCMLV
Jack,
I am not one to split hairs, not that I could if I wanted to, and I all for anything that increases safety or better yet saves a life. I am all for it providing that it is within the boundaries of the framework that ensures all of our well being, including out much cherished freedoms. Having said that, I ask you to addres the imprfection in the executions of the check points. Are we not to address the oversteping of authority at all, in these case, in any/all cases, just because they save lives? It may seem insignificant on the surface, but any and all unchecked abuse of power, no mater how small it may apear at the time either has a direct efect on many lives or is a contributor to later greater abuses.
Peter
Jack,
I am not one to split hairs, not that I could if I wanted to, and I all for anything that increases safety or better yet saves a life. I am all for it providing that it is within the boundaries of the framework that ensures all of our well being, including out much cherished freedoms. Having said that, I ask you to addres the imprfection in the executions of the check points. Are we not to address the oversteping of authority at all, in these case, in any/all cases, just because they save lives? It may seem insignificant on the surface, but any and all unchecked abuse of power, no mater how small it may apear at the time either has a direct efect on many lives or is a contributor to later greater abuses.
Peter
#35
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can go along with that, I think it was my misread of your stand point that prompted the question. For a minute there, I was under the impression that you were willing to "look the other way" on the abuse issue. My mistake, I no longer think that. Yes, the answer I think it is to stnd up to it and combat abuse anywhere and everywhere it ocurs, when it does.
#36
DTR Founder
I'm glad you understand. Looking back on my posts, I suppose one could take it that I would be willing to look the other way. I'm sorry I gave that impression because in reality, it's definitely not what I woulud want. I don't think the checkpoints are the problem. I truely believe that the whole root of the problem and 4th amendment issue comes up when abuse occurs. If you don't stop that kind of abuse of power, then yes, the 4th amendment becomes a moot point, which is very bad. ...
I say that because if you think about it, the 4th amendment is really the foundation of the country. It's the main reason why we liberated ourselves 200 years ago in my opinion. I think many would agree. we do NOT want to get to a point where citizens feel like they have to do it all over again. We've worked too hard for hundreds of years now to look the other way.
I say that because if you think about it, the 4th amendment is really the foundation of the country. It's the main reason why we liberated ourselves 200 years ago in my opinion. I think many would agree. we do NOT want to get to a point where citizens feel like they have to do it all over again. We've worked too hard for hundreds of years now to look the other way.
#37
Originally posted by Jack Thorpe
I KNEW you were going to give this answer. ...
I KNEW you were going to give this answer. ...
I really want to know what the underlying point is here. You're free to do whatever and go wherever you want within reason. You have to remember that it is considered a PRIVILEDGE to drive on every road in this country, not a right. Therefore you have to abide by the laws set in each state in order to use the highways. Why is it a threat to your freedom to make sure that you're abiding by these laws? The key word in my whole paragraph here is PRIVILEDGE.
AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM!!
See my statement above. By your logic, then nobody should have a drivers license either.
Oh, and by the way, lets go ahead and throw our traffic laws in the toilet as well. I for one would love 12 year olds driving CTD's all over the place, hauling 15-20 thousand pound trailers.
Why shouldn't I stand it? I stand it because it's part of life.
Again, you have to remember that key word I typed near the top of this post. Now I would agree with you if someone was waiting at your driveway
and would not let you in your house until you showed them your papers.
Again, you have to remember that key word I typed near the top of this post. Now I would agree with you if someone was waiting at your driveway
and would not let you in your house until you showed them your papers.
This is different though. You've chosen to get a drivers license and abide by the laws set in your state for that PRIVILEDGE.
As such, you agree to the terms and conditions of carrying such a license. How is this cause for worry about whether or not your freedoms are in danger? I'm GLAD they do these because as I stated earlier, I've seen the results in terms of pulling drunks, unlicensed drivers and other idiots off the streets.
See above.
See above.
I think your note about the illegal aliens while amusing in it's own right has no relevance on this issue. Let's not forget that this country was founded by what were easily considered illegal aliens by the residents of this land as well.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
-- Daniel Webster
#38
My understanding has always been that it isn't anyone's business where you are going. If you are asked the question, it is your right to inform them so. It is also against the law for them to retaliate, unless there is some other REASONABLE SUSPICION. HID was stopped because he was a young kid in a flashy car, heading on a highway without many such occurences. The trooper overstepped his bounds and reasonable suspicion in what he did because he was so sure that HID's profile matched the criminal the trooper was looking for. I have seen it many times, not just with the police. People put others into categories and search for every possible means to confirm the vision put forth. The checkpoint helps to actually eliminate that profile, since EVERY vehicle is stopped. I have seen these on Hwy 61 through Davenport, IA regularly. Not just during major events, but seemingly random.
I think some people are losing sight of what Privilege means. I also believe many people are assuming that their percieved right to privacy and security from a percieved illegal search is more valuable than my right to personal safety on the highway. My privilege is to drive, my right is to have the laws enforced to further protect my safety. That is how injured people are able to sue highway departments for poor maintenace or faulty engineering. It was a privilege to be driving, but it is a right to personal safety.
The key is to know your rights, your privileges, and the law better than those charged with enforcing it. That way, you have the upper hand. I saw it many times as a corrections officer -- some officer would get a wild hair and try to enforce a restriction, rule, or power trip. Then, the inmate would write a grievance and win because they nknew the rulebook better than the officer who stepped on them. The Sheriff used to get really upset when an inmate's grievance was founded!
My $0.02, based on time spent as security in courtrooms, driving, studying, and breathing.
I think some people are losing sight of what Privilege means. I also believe many people are assuming that their percieved right to privacy and security from a percieved illegal search is more valuable than my right to personal safety on the highway. My privilege is to drive, my right is to have the laws enforced to further protect my safety. That is how injured people are able to sue highway departments for poor maintenace or faulty engineering. It was a privilege to be driving, but it is a right to personal safety.
The key is to know your rights, your privileges, and the law better than those charged with enforcing it. That way, you have the upper hand. I saw it many times as a corrections officer -- some officer would get a wild hair and try to enforce a restriction, rule, or power trip. Then, the inmate would write a grievance and win because they nknew the rulebook better than the officer who stepped on them. The Sheriff used to get really upset when an inmate's grievance was founded!
My $0.02, based on time spent as security in courtrooms, driving, studying, and breathing.
#39
Registered User
How can you look at a person sitting down in a car and and tell if they are impaired to drive?
Alcohol related auto accident deaths are exagerated in statistics. ANY alcohol in a person counts in stats, even if it was not the fault of the person with alcohol in his/hers system. (I know I'm gonna get yelled at for that, but its true!) The stats are inflated for effect.
I'm not advocating driving & drinking. Impaired driving is stupid, but I see more problems with distracted drivers than drunk drivers. FAR more people are involved in accidents while being distracted than driving drunk. Cell phones, kids, MAKEUP, mail, reading the paper, CELL PHONES, radios, DVD players (give me a break!).
As for the safety stops.... they are a violation of the constitution in my mind. No reasonable cause, and no reasonable person can conclude that just by being on the road I am breaking the law?
Alcohol related auto accident deaths are exagerated in statistics. ANY alcohol in a person counts in stats, even if it was not the fault of the person with alcohol in his/hers system. (I know I'm gonna get yelled at for that, but its true!) The stats are inflated for effect.
I'm not advocating driving & drinking. Impaired driving is stupid, but I see more problems with distracted drivers than drunk drivers. FAR more people are involved in accidents while being distracted than driving drunk. Cell phones, kids, MAKEUP, mail, reading the paper, CELL PHONES, radios, DVD players (give me a break!).
As for the safety stops.... they are a violation of the constitution in my mind. No reasonable cause, and no reasonable person can conclude that just by being on the road I am breaking the law?
#40
Registered User
I go through saftey checks on a daily basis. There called weigh stations. Useually get the by pass lane or a green light on my transponder to bypass the scales all together. I know this is on a commercial level but still it is a check point. One that Iam glad that exists to remove unsafe vehicles & or drivers from the road. In 30yrs of driving truck I've been inspected numerous times, never been put out of service, inconvienced for no more than 30 min. I'm not saying we need check points like the trucking industry but some random checking to keep people aware of the fact that there are rules & everybody needs to comply in my opinion is not over stepping the bounds of our constitution.
#41
Originally posted by Geico266
How can you look at a person sitting down in a car and and tell if they are impaired to drive?
Alcohol related auto accident deaths are exagerated in statistics. ANY alcohol in a person counts in stats, even if it was not the fault of the person with alcohol in his/hers system. (I know I'm gonna get yelled at for that, but its true!) The stats are inflated for effect.
I'm not advocating driving & drinking. Impaired driving is stupid, but I see more problems with distracted drivers than drunk drivers. FAR more people are involved in accidents while being distracted than driving drunk. Cell phones, kids, MAKEUP, mail, reading the paper, CELL PHONES, radios, DVD players (give me a break!).
As for the safety stops.... they are a violation of the constitution in my mind. No reasonable cause, and no reasonable person can conclude that just by being on the road I am breaking the law?
How can you look at a person sitting down in a car and and tell if they are impaired to drive?
Alcohol related auto accident deaths are exagerated in statistics. ANY alcohol in a person counts in stats, even if it was not the fault of the person with alcohol in his/hers system. (I know I'm gonna get yelled at for that, but its true!) The stats are inflated for effect.
I'm not advocating driving & drinking. Impaired driving is stupid, but I see more problems with distracted drivers than drunk drivers. FAR more people are involved in accidents while being distracted than driving drunk. Cell phones, kids, MAKEUP, mail, reading the paper, CELL PHONES, radios, DVD players (give me a break!).
As for the safety stops.... they are a violation of the constitution in my mind. No reasonable cause, and no reasonable person can conclude that just by being on the road I am breaking the law?
I don't agree with asking where are you going though.
#43
DTR Founder
I'm starting to enjoy this discussion. I think everyone on both sides has presented some pretty good viewpoints here. I guess my next question is this; what IS the answer to keeping people safe while on the highways while trying to preserve our rights as well. Not only that, but what ARE the lines between rights and priviledge? Is there a definition? If so, where is it?
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Where my hat is
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the purposes of asking where you're going is to listen to your speech and to keep the answer to the question in mind when the nice officer asks you again, possibly in a different way. There's a fine science when determining whether one is under the influence of alcohol or drug, and the questions are just one way of making that determination.
Remember, it doesn't take much to put yourself over the legal BAC limit. The police are going to use every means possible to make that determination, including asking where you're going.
Remember, it doesn't take much to put yourself over the legal BAC limit. The police are going to use every means possible to make that determination, including asking where you're going.
#45
Registered User
Well Jack, the Supreme Court ruled, while Clinton was Attorny General of Arkansas, that stops could be made without probable cause but it had to be a stop for everyone. So road blocks are legal and are done all over. The problem comes in where you have a cop with a chip on his shoulder, that type casts and abuses the rules. Youth are picked on in all the larger cities, was so glad when I got older. Of course other groups are type cast also.
I have no problem with a spot check but there should be limits on how much checking can be done to where it does not become harrasment. A stop can be made where all ae checked with proper rules, but a singled out check cannot be made without probable cause. Of course that is a rather fluid subject, just what constituted probable cause. You will always have bad cops as well as bad people. In any group this is true and abuse of the law is sometimes the norm. LA cops are known for pushing the envelope, not just with racial issues but with anyone.
As you say, a lot of drunks are taken off the road by these spot checks. We ran them in our town while I was Mayor. They were not any more appreciated here either, but expired drivers licenses, drinking, dope and whatnot were always found in large percentages.
I have no problem with a spot check but there should be limits on how much checking can be done to where it does not become harrasment. A stop can be made where all ae checked with proper rules, but a singled out check cannot be made without probable cause. Of course that is a rather fluid subject, just what constituted probable cause. You will always have bad cops as well as bad people. In any group this is true and abuse of the law is sometimes the norm. LA cops are known for pushing the envelope, not just with racial issues but with anyone.
As you say, a lot of drunks are taken off the road by these spot checks. We ran them in our town while I was Mayor. They were not any more appreciated here either, but expired drivers licenses, drinking, dope and whatnot were always found in large percentages.