Police "saftey checks" in new york
09-30-2004, 03:54 PM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Where my hat is
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wood_n_soldier
It’s ok for the government, the state troopers, the city console, the dog catcher to have “laws” that go against the constitution.....
It’s ok for the government, the state troopers, the city console, the dog catcher to have “laws” that go against the constitution.....
10-02-2004, 01:06 AM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkpoints
Interersting to see that Washington no longer allows such stops. No wonder I haven't seen any in a long time. Before I retired (Sheriff's Department) in 1988, they went back and forth on such checkpoints. What they settled on for quite a few years at that point included several restrictions.
They had to be in an open, well lighted area.
They could only stop cars when they had no more than 2 waiting - thus avoiding 'waiting' delays.
The ONLY agency that could conduct them was the Washington State Patrol. No local agencies.
There had to be at least one ranking officer (I think it was a LT.) on site to supervise.
They worked quite well, and got a lot of drunks off the road as I recall.
I think there were some other minor limitations too, like length of delay without some articulable reason.
As to asking where I am headed, if I had the guts, I think I would be inclined to say that if they could give me some articulable reason that it was their business where I was headed, I would answer, but if they just wanted conversation, they just got some and could judge my sobriety on that. Having been a non-drinker since 1979, I am reasonably certain to pass that part of the stop.
As to it being a privillege to drive, I know that is the common terminology, but I don't know that I am totally comfortable with that word. Also, whether the words are "driver's license" "operator's permit" or whatever is not the point. Allowing and preventing those appropriate on the roadways is a complex problem.
As for traffic citations and enforcement being a revenue generator, I suspect it is still true that with the exception of a small percentage of agencies, by the time one figures the costs of manpower, equipment, paperwork, courts, prosecutors, and the like, the fines don't begin to cover the true costs. What traffic enforcement DOES do is make us come a lot closer to towing the line than if there were no such enforcement.
I know some will differ with all or parts, but that too, is a privilege... one I welcome you to exercise... .. off the soapbox..
They had to be in an open, well lighted area.
They could only stop cars when they had no more than 2 waiting - thus avoiding 'waiting' delays.
The ONLY agency that could conduct them was the Washington State Patrol. No local agencies.
There had to be at least one ranking officer (I think it was a LT.) on site to supervise.
They worked quite well, and got a lot of drunks off the road as I recall.
I think there were some other minor limitations too, like length of delay without some articulable reason.
As to asking where I am headed, if I had the guts, I think I would be inclined to say that if they could give me some articulable reason that it was their business where I was headed, I would answer, but if they just wanted conversation, they just got some and could judge my sobriety on that. Having been a non-drinker since 1979, I am reasonably certain to pass that part of the stop.
As to it being a privillege to drive, I know that is the common terminology, but I don't know that I am totally comfortable with that word. Also, whether the words are "driver's license" "operator's permit" or whatever is not the point. Allowing and preventing those appropriate on the roadways is a complex problem.
As for traffic citations and enforcement being a revenue generator, I suspect it is still true that with the exception of a small percentage of agencies, by the time one figures the costs of manpower, equipment, paperwork, courts, prosecutors, and the like, the fines don't begin to cover the true costs. What traffic enforcement DOES do is make us come a lot closer to towing the line than if there were no such enforcement.
I know some will differ with all or parts, but that too, is a privilege... one I welcome you to exercise... .. off the soapbox..
10-05-2004, 11:08 AM
#82
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spudwrench - you're killin' me...
I saw a show on pbs last night about bobby kennedy and he was having a discussion about arresting people that were protesting (keep in mind this was during the civil rights movement) and the sherrif of this town stated that it was his duty to arrest people that might do something wrong just in case to protect the good people, bobby's response was that during the lunch break the sherrif and the DA should go read the US constitution. ... I think it would do all of some good to read it. - You should not be able to arrest someone b/c they have the potential to do harm. Not completely on subject but very valid for this conversation.
i agree with checkpoints because some embysils fail to use common logic and good sense.
10-06-2004, 10:30 AM
#83
I was banned per my own request for speaking the name Pelosi
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bristol Michigan
Posts: 1,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here, the current staus of checkpoint is that they constitute an illegal search. Not every state has that oppinion. Look what the mind-set is in New York, by who they put into their legislature.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post