- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So what do the resident legal eagles think -- No-refusal DUI checkpoints .....
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:32 am to BugAC
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:32 am to BugAC
I loathe the day when instant DNA recognition is available. I can only imagine the "checkpoints" under the guise if crime prevention and how the state will spin its legality
1
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:37 am to accnodefense
quote:
Speeding laws exist and are enforced because its part of the public contract of using the road.
Same with seatbelt laws, stop sign lets, traffic light laws, etc. All part of the public contract of using a public road
How can DUI laws be enforced without making a traffic stop? Otherwise the law might as well not exist at all.
Don't like it, build your own private roads and you can do whatever the hell you want on it
Therefore no-refusal DUI checkpoints absolutely are constitutional and would win 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Plus I bet 90% of you are opposed because you are butthurt about possibly getting pulled over after a night of drinking.
So the next time you're walking down a public sidewalk or on the street or are in a park, you won't mind if the cops stop you and your family and ask if you have drugs on your person? Ask you to produce ID and submit to a pat down?
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:38 am to TROLA
Wait I thought my body was protected by that judicially derived right to privacy?
So that only applies to sober women who don't want to face te consequences of their actions? Not drunk men who don't want to face the consequences of their actions?
I'm confused.
So that only applies to sober women who don't want to face te consequences of their actions? Not drunk men who don't want to face the consequences of their actions?
I'm confused.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:50 am to accnodefense
quote:
You might think its funny but its true.
Speeding laws exist and are enforced because its part of the public contract of using the road.
Same with seatbelt laws, stop sign lets, traffic light laws, etc. All part of the public contract of using a public road
How can DUI laws be enforced without making a traffic stop? Otherwise the law might as well not exist at all.
Don't like it, build your own private roads and you can do whatever the hell you want on it
Therefore no-refusal DUI checkpoints absolutely are constitutional and would win 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Plus I bet 90% of you are opposed because you are butthurt about possibly getting pulled over after a night of drinking.
Not only is that dumb, that is absolutely false. You can get a DUI in a parking lot. Sure, there has never been a checkpoint in a parking lot, but your logic based on a contract to use the road is not valid.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:57 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Wait I thought my body was protected by that judicially derived right to privacy?
the constitution is clear on this, it only pertains to the uterus...
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:58 am to Newbomb Turk
quote:
What if a driver DOES refuse both?
Are the cops going to hold him and let the nurse draw his blood?
I asked a friend who works at the DA's office about this.
He said there is a chair where they will strap you down and forcibly draw your blood if you refuse.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:00 am to cwill
quote:
So the next time you're walking down a public sidewalk or on the street or are in a park, you won't mind if the cops stop you and your family and ask if you have drugs on your person?
hey, if you're not smuggling drugs then you don't have any reason to worry about a full body cavity search...
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:03 am to ForeLSU
OP, I hate this. I will not be doing any drinking and driving trust BUT... My concern is WHERE do these types of legal presidents stop at? Slippery slope.
Today its a no refusal DUI checkpoint. Tomorrow it is a lets search your whole vehicle because you were speeding and on and on and on
to each his own, but doesn't the US constitution prohibit these things?
Today its a no refusal DUI checkpoint. Tomorrow it is a lets search your whole vehicle because you were speeding and on and on and on
to each his own, but doesn't the US constitution prohibit these things?
This post was edited on 12/14/12 at 10:04 am
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:14 am to accnodefense
quote:
You might think its funny but its true.
No, its not. Using a public road does not automatically grant consent for the government to search your vehicle and person.
quote:
Speeding laws exist and are enforced because its part of the public contract of using the road.
There is no constitutional right to speed.
quote:
Same with seatbelt laws, stop sign lets, traffic light laws, etc. All part of the public contract of using a public road
There is no constitutional right to not wear your seat belt or disobey traffic lights.
quote:
How can DUI laws be enforced without making a traffic stop? Otherwise the law might as well not exist at all.
What are you talking about? Of course, the government can make traffic stops WHEN THOSE TRAFFIC STOPS ARE BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE THAT AN INFRACTION OCCURRED.
quote:
Don't like it, build your own private roads and you can do whatever the hell you want on it
Or just understand the law.
quote:
Therefore no-refusal DUI checkpoints absolutely are constitutional and would win 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Generally checkpoints were not found constitutional by a 9-0 vote. In fact, it was a fairly contested issue and the Judiciary placed an assload of restrictions on them.
quote:
Plus I bet 90% of you are opposed because you are butthurt about possibly getting pulled over after a night of drinking.
You're an idiot. I'm just well-versed in Colonial/Revolutionary History and Constitutional Law. I barely drink, much less drink and drive.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:21 am to Newbomb Turk
Not OK.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:29 am to Newbomb Turk
Here is a more interesting question, why are these DUI checkpoints on Corporate, College Drive, Burbank and Jefferson? Why aren't the cops running DUI checkpoints in North Baton Rouge on Plank? Is it because Jessie and Al would be down here marching within 20 minutes?
These checkpoints are painted as essential to public safety, but why aren't they in high crime areas? I guarantee you they would double their arrests on additional charges if they were done in those areas. The problem? Those areas have people of lower socioeconomic status who can't pay the fines levied, they don't hire attorneys and they would subsequently fill up the parish prison making too much additional cost.
These checkpoints are painted as essential to public safety, but why aren't they in high crime areas? I guarantee you they would double their arrests on additional charges if they were done in those areas. The problem? Those areas have people of lower socioeconomic status who can't pay the fines levied, they don't hire attorneys and they would subsequently fill up the parish prison making too much additional cost.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:30 am to UPT
This didn't quite go the way I wanted.
This is what I wanted people to think about.
I just can't see this passing Constitutional muster. FORCING someone to be strapped to a chair to have their blood drawn just seem to go WAY TOO FAR over the line. And, although I still think it would be over the line if someone was weaving in and out of traffic -- this is just for going down the wrong street where they set up a "checkpoint".
I'm surprised that the ACLU isn't sending someone through the checkpoint just to test this case from a constitutional perspective.
quote:
quote:
What if a driver DOES refuse both?
Are the cops going to hold him and let the nurse draw his blood?
I asked a friend who works at the DA's office about this.
He said there is a chair where they will strap you down and forcibly draw your blood if you refuse.
This is what I wanted people to think about.
I just can't see this passing Constitutional muster. FORCING someone to be strapped to a chair to have their blood drawn just seem to go WAY TOO FAR over the line. And, although I still think it would be over the line if someone was weaving in and out of traffic -- this is just for going down the wrong street where they set up a "checkpoint".
I'm surprised that the ACLU isn't sending someone through the checkpoint just to test this case from a constitutional perspective.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:33 am to Hammertime
quote:
Cops waited for someone to leave the parking lot and pulled over every single person that was driving
That reminds me of one night when I was out and the bar was being watched by a cop. Everyone inside got word. One guy who was stone cold sober, volunteered to be a decoy. So, he wobbles out to his truck, swerves off in one direction and sure enough gets stopped. Meanwhile all the other guys hauled arse in the other direction.
It gave a new meaning to "designated driver."
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:35 am to Newbomb Turk
Drinking and driving is not illegal. Driving while impaired by alcohol is. And the blood alcohol content numbers states use are simply an approximation of how much alcohol is needed to impair the average person.
Stopping people to check and make sure they're following laws is rediculous. But the states/municipalities need your money. And they make a killing off DUI arrests.
Stopping people to check and make sure they're following laws is rediculous. But the states/municipalities need your money. And they make a killing off DUI arrests.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 10:51 am to Papercutninja
quote:
Here is a more interesting question, why are these DUI checkpoints on Corporate, College Drive, Burbank and Jefferson?
Because, as you allude to, the increase enforcement of DUI laws is a revenue generating project. It is not about public safety.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 11:05 am to Newbomb Turk
I am against checkpoints altogether as they are traffic stops without even a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing by the police. I realize it may be a little harder for the cops to enforce DUI laws if they just have to observe drivers' conduct, but it can be done effectively. In my view, the government should have a reason to stop you, and I believe this is the better view of the Constitution.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 11:05 am to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
If they think you are drunk based upon observation of behavior, and you refuse a requested breath test, and they get a judge to sign a warrant then you can have your blood drawn.
Seems like an issue of efficiency not an attack on the Constitution.
You have a problem with the existing law?
I have a problem with it because it creates the situation where everyone coming through the checkpoint is assumed guilty until proven innocent, which is the exact opposite intent behind our justice system.
This post was edited on 12/14/12 at 11:07 am
Posted on 12/14/12 at 11:06 am to TrueTiger
"That reminds me of one night when I was out and the bar was being watched by a cop. Everyone inside got word. One guy who was stone cold sober, volunteered to be a decoy. So, he wobbles out to his truck, swerves off in one direction and sure enough gets stopped. Meanwhile all the other guys hauled arse in the other direction."
Be honest. Did this really happen? I ask because it sounds just like a joke I heard that even included the term "decoy."
Be honest. Did this really happen? I ask because it sounds just like a joke I heard that even included the term "decoy."
Posted on 12/14/12 at 11:20 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Did this really happen?
It did. It's been a few years, one of the bars on Hwy 11 in Slidell, which is a notorious DUI trap area. Now it only worked because it was a single cop. We will never know if any of the dudes going the other way were legally drunk. They just wanted to avoid any chance of legal entanglement.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 11:39 am to accnodefense
quote:
Plus I bet 90% of you are opposed because you are butthurt about possibly getting pulled over after a night of drinking.
I am in the 10% that don't want to give government the blanket authority to take my blood. What if they need say...organs in the future? It is for the public good...we need your "Extra" kidney.
Hyperbole? Yes. It is a revenue grab anyway. If they offered a license for being able to drive with a 0.1 BAC and sold it for 1K a year ($84 a month) people would line up for it.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News