re: So what do the resident legal eagles think -- No-refusal DUI checkpoints .....

quote:

---

DUI (Driving Under the Influence)- Reserved for cases when the driver has been drinking and their BAC is above a certain amount (say .08). However, there is no evidence of them being unable to operate their vehicle safely. Punishable by a fine and a hit on their driving record. A lot of these would be doled out at checkpoints and people would go on with their lives.

---

So A person is driving, has a BAC of greater than .08, and is forced over at a CP, and despite having caused no harm to person or property, should be fined and his "record" blemished. Why?

You even said "no evidence of them being unable to operate their vehicle safely" which makes it even more difficult to defend. Your proposing a purely revenue focused program to replace our current revenue focused program.

quote:

---

DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) - For when a driver has a high level of alcohol (say above .15) and/or there is evidence that they cannot safely operate a motor vehicle. This would be punished like DUI's currently are. Fine, imprisonment, community service, etc.

---

I still find it hard to rationalize fines and imprisonment unless there has been actual personal or property damages incurred. We shouldn't be punishing people for damage "potential", though I think BAC evidence gathered after the commission of a crime is fair game.

I am hoping I did misread what you said.

What an odd bump for this thread.

It was dormant for over a year.

quote:

---

the bump post doesn't even explain the bump, just dives in as if this was posted today

---

maybe he bookmarked it and forgot about it until now?

quote:

---

It's absolute BS

---

Its worse than that Paddy.

quote:

---

Philosophically, I agree with you, but what you are saying is ideal is an impossibility in our current society.

Only the staunchest of conservatives and libertarians would support completely doing away with DUI laws except in the instance of damage caused.

What I propose is a sort of compromise.

As was already pointed out by another poster, even my compromise would be a long shot to actually happen because the legal system has made an entire industry on the existing laws.

---

It is easy to predict that government will only grow more intrusive and overbearing as time goes on. That is how all governments trend over time. I am talking about a fundamental disagreement with that trend. It is purely philosophical, as is the vast majority of the conversation on the poli board. I see no point in compromising my beliefs on a message board just to seem more realistic.

I personally never drink and drive. Ever. I think it is highly irresponsible to risk my lively hood (I would be terminated with a quickness even without a conviction) and my family's well being over something that can easily be avoided. That being said, I think the government is way out of line when they violate the 4th amendment and punish people for victim less crimes based on the potential damage an impaired driver might cause. At what point is a capable driver who blows a .08 worse than an 80 year old woman who can barely see road signs and has significantly poorer reflexes and judgement? What is the cutoff for crime potential? Do we really think all drivers are equal with the exception of those who have had 2-3 beers? There is no consistency here at all and that makes these types of laws and statutes hypocritical and discriminatory to the point which government should just stay out of it.

We have had many successful grassroots campaigns intended to modify or improve individual behavior that haven't required a dime of un-volunteered money and don't violate any of the amendments. I think we will have to let those suffice if we wish to retain our basic liberties.

It is BS and could be considered entrapment; but it is good to live walking distance from at least one bar you enjoy.

That little Constitution thingy died some time ago. You just need to get your head wrapped around that fact.

I have not read the thread so I don't know if this has been covered.

I think Louisiana is a castle state and your vehicle is considered an extinction of your home.

If the state can legally stop 100% of the drivers on a certain road, not for suspicion of drunk driving, but for simply being on that road. Once stopped they have suspicion that someone has been drinking force them to submit to a sobriety test.

Hit the button to soon.



If the above is legal in the states eyes, what is to prevent them from going door to door and knocking. If the person who answers the door seems suspicious the police search the home for drugs. How is that any different?

Having a nurse take the sample really doesn't mean shite in fact. How many times have any of you endured the nurse that can't make a stick for shite and tortures you with multiple attempts of getting a sample or getting an IV going?



ETA three years ago while having a heart attack it took six nurses multiple attempts to set up a line, I was just a damned pin cushion along for the ride, and it was near to twenty minutes of torture in fact.