- 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 11:43 am to TheHiddenFlask
Posted on 12/14/12 at 11:43 am to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
I think DUI checkpoints are sincerely the worst infingement on our freedoms that exists today.
Really? This is the biggest infringement on our freedom?
0
Posted on 12/14/12 at 11:44 am to TrueTiger
"They just wanted to avoid any chance of legal entanglement."
Always a good plan!
Always a good plan!
Posted on 12/14/12 at 12:11 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
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.
Sure it is, how did the driver in the parking lot get there? He used the roads. You find a drunk on the side of the road and not on the road bed, the same contract applies. He can try to rebut the presumption he was driving.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 2:54 pm to accnodefense
I hope you aren't this stupid in real life.
The government can't specify what you can protest or talk about (or prohibit you from free speech in the first place) simply because you are doing so on public property.
Public contract... lol. Get a grip.
They can be enforced with the use of, you know, this thing called probable cause.
LINK
There is no probable cause about random and unwarranted searches/checkpoints.
The government can't specify what you can protest or talk about (or prohibit you from free speech in the first place) simply because you are doing so on public property.
Public contract... lol. Get a grip.
They can be enforced with the use of, you know, this thing called probable cause.
LINK
There is no probable cause about random and unwarranted searches/checkpoints.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 2:58 pm to Newbomb Turk
quote:They will shoot his dog.
I just think that it raises an interesting Constitutional question.
What if a driver DOES refuse both?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:01 pm to Newbomb Turk
I think all DUI checkpoints are anti-freedom. The supreme court even agrees but hey who cares about freedom when the greater good is more important?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:01 pm to Newbomb Turk
I am against all such checkpoints because I believe you should not be stopped by an office who does not have at least some reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Enforce DUI laws with patrols and traditional police work that is less intrusive.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:02 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Sure it is, how did the driver in the parking lot get there?
They could have been dropped off then passed out becuase they didn't want to drive drunk. It has happened before.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:03 pm to lsu13lsu
I am not a fan of DUI checkpoints but driving is not considered a right by the govt. If you don't want to be stopped don't drive.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:04 pm to Newbomb Turk
I had dinner with a judge last weekend and he thinks they are unconstitutional.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:05 pm to Newbomb Turk
quote:
So what do the resident legal eagles think -- No-refusal DUI checkpoints .....
with nurse on scene to draw blood, district attorney on scene, and judge on call to issue search warrants by phone.
google implied consent
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:06 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
I had dinner with a judge last weekend and he thinks they are unconstitutional.
If he's a Louisiana judge I wouldn't put much stock in that. I was at a party for Louisiana judges once and two of them got into a argument over whether their job was to apply the law or to do what they think is right.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:06 pm to TrueTiger
That's because they are and he actually has some balls.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:06 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
I think DUI checkpoints are sincerely the worst infingement on our freedoms that exists today.
Getting killed is a pretty big impingement on liberty, as well.
You agree to search of your saliva, blood, and urine for drugs and alcohol by obtained a driver's license and driving on the public roads. If you don't want to submit those items for search - don't use the roads.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:08 pm to SpidermanTUba
So we should outright ban driving, right?
Because plenty of people are killed by perfectly sober drivers.
Because plenty of people are killed by perfectly sober drivers.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:09 pm to M1911
quote:
So we should outright ban driving, right?
Because plenty of people are killed by perfectly sober drivers.
Should we make driving drunk legal? Because plenty of people aren't killed by drunk drivers.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:09 pm to SpidermanTUba
"Getting killed is a pretty big impingement on liberty, as well."
And I fully support a prohibition on the government's ability to kill you in the absence of a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that you intentionally murdered someone.
And I fully support a prohibition on the government's ability to kill you in the absence of a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that you intentionally murdered someone.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:11 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
And I fully support a prohibition on the government's ability to kill you in the absence of a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that you intentionally murdered someone.
So if I kill you, you wouldn't consider than an impingement on your liberty?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:11 pm to M1911
holy BUMP, I thought Newbomb Turk was back for a second
I miss laughing at that dudes f***ing posts
I miss laughing at that dudes f***ing posts
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:12 pm to SpidermanTUba
lololol
There is no constitutional right to drinking and driving.
This is about checkpoints.
Drinking and driving should of course be illegal, just don't violate the fourth amendment to catch drunk drivers.
If lawmakers wanted to outright ban driving, it would probably be constitutional as far as I know. Of course that simply won't happen because they will be out of office in a heartbeat.
There is no constitutional right to drinking and driving.
This is about checkpoints.
Drinking and driving should of course be illegal, just don't violate the fourth amendment to catch drunk drivers.
If lawmakers wanted to outright ban driving, it would probably be constitutional as far as I know. Of course that simply won't happen because they will be out of office in a heartbeat.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 3:14 pm
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News