westcoaster

this is a quote from an rcmp traffic officer from another forum I am a member of. It was a discussion on a speeding ticket he had given a driver but I found his reply about hanging around handing out tickets interesting...

link to the discussion... http://bb.bc4x4.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56353


maybe there is something similar down there.....
Technology may be part of the answer....

Mopardan

Around her they put up a sign that says "This is a AR State Police sobriety checkpoint". I work shift work so I get caught in several a year. I'v never had a problem with any of the officiers. ( I do have a firefighter license plate ). And being a vol. fireman, I have worked wrecks where impaired drivers walked away but their victims got hauled away! I'v seen first hand what can happen. I can't count the times in 24 years of making my 30 mi. commute, that I'v been run off the road! While listening to the radio the other day, they got 4 dui, 2 with warrants, and recovered a stolen car @ a checkpoint in 1 hr. I'd be the last to give up my rights, but I they can get a impaired driver off the road and I can get home to my family> so be it!

jfpointer

I'm just not in favor of judicial activism, which is what we're really talking about here. Whether or not driving is a privilege really has nothing to do with it, nor does the very real tragedy of x number of deaths due to drunk driving. Those are red herrings.

The Supreme Court agrees with most people that drunk driving is bad, so when presented with the opportunity to do so, they created a loophole in the 4th Amendment that allows the authorities to get away with the roadblocks. What they're saying is that they believe the ends justify the means, and to heck with that pesky 4th Amendment.

The problem with this sort of thing is that court decisions, especially Supreme Court decisions, don't exist in a vacuum. Once a particular doctrine is established it can be extended to other decisions concerning other pesky amendments, like the 2nd. For example, the automobile you drive is an enabling technology that allows you to exercise your inherent rights to freedom of association and freedom of movement within the borders of the country in a fashion that is faster than but not fundamentally different from walking or riding a horse, etc. Similarly, a .45 pistol or a shotgun are enabling technologies that allow you to exercise your inherent right to self-defense in a more effective but not fundamentally different fashion than a big stick or a rock.

So the not-so-rhetorical question that arises is, what happens if a future Supreme Court decides that using deadly force is so unjustified even in self-defense that they're willing to overlook that pesky 2nd Amendment in order to make sure that it doesn't happen? Look at Great Britain; they've essentially outlawed self-defense, and while they don't have an explicit guarantee such as our 2nd Amendment provides, we might as well not have one if the Supreme Court is willing to toss them on a whim.

joel

This attitude is what gets me. Just because it's not new doesn't mean it's still OK! This is a general statement for just about anything, too.

Now, as for checkpoints, I believe they are legal like this in all 50 states. They used to be random and capricious (good word, huh? meaning unpredictable or on a whim). The cop could pull over a 17 year old kid in a sharp convertable for no real reason and harrass the crap out of him.

Now they have to be either ALL cars or random, based on some outside determination like rolling a pair of dice and stopping every Xth car. That may be out of date - any cops or lawyers feel free to jump in, but that was how it stood last I heard.

Are they intrusive - yes, to a point. But what are the police? They are Law Enforcement and this is just one tactic they use in carrying out their job. Done professionally and efficiently, it is a valid trade off in the government's role of ensuring our safety.

wood_n, we do live in a free society. You can come and go as you please. You might be inconvenienced by one of these checkpoints and, I guess I would say I agree that the police have no business in asking where you are going or where you've been really. But as for setting up a checkpoint on a public road to enforce the laws? Absolutely.

RustyJC

This, like many other situations, illustrates the difficulties in balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of society. It's like the overused illustration: Is an individual Constitutionally guaranteed the right of free speech? Yes, but that right cannot be used to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, nor can it be used to commit slander. In other words, it's a limited not an absolute right.

If I'm stopped for whatever reason, I'll remember the words of my dear old departed Dad - "You may have the right to not cooperate with a law enforcement officer, but if you do, expect things to go downhill fast!" After spending almost 57 years on this planet, I've found that to be pretty good advice.

Rusty

zulusafari

Again, the privilege of driving is not the same under the 4th amendment as a search of your home or personage. True, they can't just pull you over in a checkpoint and tear your vehicle apart, but stopping and checking for the proper license, registration, and insurance isn't a violation. Coming into your house to look around, ask questions and check for proper identification, etc. without any form of probable cause or warrant IS a violation of your rights.

This discussion can be extended to the security screenings at airports. Is it a violation of your 4th amendment rights to require us to empty our pockets and remove our shoes for inspection to get in an airplane? Some may say it is ridiculous, others say it is necessary. Your right to move around freely isn't being infringed upon, since there are other means to do so -- walking, horseback, bicycle, etc. These modes of transportation aren't allowed on the freeway, but that is for safety and doesn't violate any rights, either. Many people travel cross country by horse every year, using the backroads. They sometimes have problems finding proper accomodations for the horse, since the right to property ownership infringes on the right to move around, but these people manage.

Everything has a check and limit to it, based on where the rights of each infringe on the rights of the other.

As for applying to the 2nd amendment, the languge allows for the right to bear arms, which (although debated) gives you the right to have the .45, shotgun, etc. Our laws state that if you are convicted of a felony, then you lose your right to bear arms. I know someone who spent time in prison 30 years ago for a stupid decision to do an armed holdup of a convenience store. He has been a squeaky clean, upstanding individual since his release, but he can not own a firearm, and also can not vote! He lost his rights when he violated the law. He is pursuing the course to get his rights reinstated, but has been saving for the attorney fees, etc.

While it may cause a pecedent for further vehicular searches, I do not see it being extended to the firearms. Look how unsuccessful the AWB was. Look at the fiasco with the Australian gun control policy. Look at the crime shifts in the UK. Shootings went down, stabbing went up.

Chrisreyn

OK I am going to take a deep breathe and get up on this soap box for a few minutes.....

Check Points are legal in all 50, often they are scheduled and you can actually call your local Law Enforcement and find out where and when they will be conducting them. If they bother you that much, avoid them.
Rusty makes a very good point in differentiating between ABSOLUTE and LIMITED rights.
We all give up a certain amount of our " rights" by opting to be a member of this society. That has been the way it is since this countrys beginnings.
Our Federal, State and Local goverments have a duty to protect the citizens of their respective areas and have an oblligation to take steps to ensure the safety of the public. What the courts have said is that check points are a reasonable tool towards fullfilling that obligation.
A Law Enforcement Officer has the right to ask reasonable questions during a stop to determine the legality of the operation of a vehicle. Who you are, where you are going and what you are doing are basic questions that can determine the need for further investigative questions or not.
Often questions may be asked in a conversationable context as well. This doesnt violate your 4th amendment rights.
You make choices, and many people confuss "choice" with " right".
You Choose to drive,
it is not required or garunteed that you do so.
You Choose to operate a vehicle on the public roadways,
you cannot be punished or sanctioned for not doing so.
When we choose to excerise those PRIVLIGES, you also choose to accept the responsibilities and inconveinences that go along with that. Those namely being that you operate your vehicle in accordance with the laws. And a a citizen you have a duty to assist with insuring the compliance of those law by yourself and your fellow citizens.
All of our laws curtail individual rights, that is thier purpose. That is what allows a large group to peacefully co-exist with one another. They keep your rights from treading on mine.
This is a democracy( last I knew). The neat thing about democracies is that if you dont like the laws, you can change them. That is why we elect lawmakers every so often, so new ideas and veiwpoints can get in there and change things.
If there are that many people who feel checkpoints violate the constitution, then lobby, write your lawmakers, run for office, CHANGE IT!
But as long as the majority feel they are a viable tool for Law Enforcement and a justifiable inconvience, they will remain.

OK I know I am not as articulate as I want to be about this, but I am out of breath... I will step down now..

DieselDaze

joel

You took my quote out of context. I never said it was right or wrong. I was replying to the fact that it is not something specific to his state/county.

Is the checkpoints abuse of power?
I dont think so.
Can the checkpoint inspections be abused?
Yes.
Are they abused regularly?
I dont think so.

How much are we willing to sacrifice for safety?
Be it on the road, in the air port, or where ever, you must give a little to get a little.
Trying to draw a line between personal freedom and government control is like drawing a line in the beach sand while the tide is out.

Just an opinion.
Rich

jfpointer

I don't know why so many people accept at face value the assertion of some nameless control-freak bureaucrat in the far distant past who decreed that driving is a privilege. I wish someone would explain why they think that's true.

"Society" as such has no rights whatsoever, being an artificial construct. Only individuals can have rights.

The Supreme Court likes to create loopholes to allow things that they approve of even when they know those things are Constitutionally questionable. They do it all the time. Doesn't mean it's right.

I gotta quit reading John Stuart Mill. Makes me too cranky about assertions of "society's" power over the individual.

Chrisreyn

Driving is a privlilege because...( sounds like I am helping my daughter with her homework again )...not a put-down Jim, laughing at myself.
There is no article in the constitution that garuantees an individual the right to drive....even a horse...not having a vehicle doesn't bar you from enjoying any of your constitutional rights, tho it may inconveince you..
You are limited in what you are allowed to do with a vehicle on the public roads as a matter of public safety, and if you violate those limits you may be prohibited from operating a vehicle on public roadways.
Absolute rights are those wich may not be infringed upon nor denied an individual in society, i.e. the right to live, the right to be safe, ect.
Our goverment has an obligation to ensure those rights. Most everything else falls under the catagory of either limited rights( wich may be curtailed or infringed upon in the interest of public safety or social mores), or privliges wich a member of a society may earn or be granted based on the discretion of the governing body.
I am not as well-spoken as I want to be, and would quote all this directly if I had time, but you may also want to read ( gosh, I am not 100% sure of this title, been a long time ago I read this)" The Republican Papers" a publication of letters and essays written by Thomas Jefferson that discuss govermants role in society and an individuals rights, obligations and such. Very intersting to see what some of the " legislative intent" of our founding fathers truly was....

Tmc243

I believe that driving is a right, I’ve earned that right by being trained to safely operate a motor vehicle, by paying a tax to get a drivers license, by paying a tax to license my motor vehicle, and by paying for insurance for my vehicles. I don’t believe that a “privilege” can (or should) be taxed. To me a “privilege” is something I’m given not something I’ve paid for. I can lose my right; just a felon can lose there right to vote or own a gun, by not complying with the laws related to operating a motor vehicle. Generally when those rights are lost it is just for a temporary amount of time, and it is done by the suspension of your “license to drive”. I guess what I’m saying is if I want to start a business I have to pay the government for a licenses, If I want to go hunting I have to pay the government for a licenses, If I want to drive a vehicle I have to pay the government for a licenses. Once I have paid for my licenses, the license gives me the right to start a business, go hunting or drive. (I’m not complaining about having to pay for licenses, as I see the necessity, just trying to make a point).

TomW

The license gives you permission (that's why they're also called "permits"), thereby allowing you the privilege of driving.

Tmc243

I just checked my license (Texas should be same as yours) and no place on it does it say "permit", I do recall when I was learning to drive (before I had a license) that I was issued a "permit", with my parents permission. At that time my driving was a privilege that my parents allowed me (and took away sometimes) because they were paying for most of the expenses involved.

RustyJC

From Merriam-Webster's on line dictionary:

Main Entry: 1li·cense
Variant(s): or li·cence /'lI-s&n(t)s/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French licence, from Latin licentia, from licent-, licens, present participle of licEre to be permitted
1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
2 a : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful b : a document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted

Main Entry: driver's license
Function: noun
: a license issued under governmental authority that permits the holder to operate a motor vehicle

Rusty

Cumminsdude

WOW, this thread is intense. I live in NY and I personally like these stops. It's a good way for us civilians to see how our law enforcement is trying to protect our streets. We have had these stops for as far back as I can remember so they are nothing new. I think it's pretty clever how they have under cover cars sit up the road a ways to see who doesnt have their belt on because they could slip it on real quick when they saw the lights. It's not like they are hiding these stops either. I've seen them in the paper and growing up in the fire dept. I've been around scanners my whole life so I remember listening to them talk about it. It's clear that driving is a privlege and you can lose that privlege if you don't follow the law. If you follow the law, then you should have nothing to worry about. I've seen far too many people killed in car accidents from not wearing a seatbelt or because they were intoxicated. The worste is when that person kills and innocent person. So if these road checks take one more drunk person off the street then I don't see how in anyway how these checks aren't a positive thing. Maybe you would have a better understanding if you rolled up to a car accident where 2 out of 3 kids all younger than me died because of alcohol and driving. I was only 18 at the time and the images still haunt me to this day. So maybe that is why it is so easy for me to agree with these checks. Just my $.02