Sobriety Check Points this Friday!!!! Constitutional ?

[Moveon]

http://www.courierpress.com/news/cri...379367771.html

Local City Police along with the County Sheriff and State Police will be stopping people on the roads this Friday to check to see if they are sober or not. Now they have no probable cause other than these people are out driving on the roadway on a late Friday Night and MIGHT be drinking before driving. But the vast majority of people on the roads at this time are not drinking so why are they being stopped along with the drunks.

We have become a Police State and the Police have gotten authority (I guess the stupid Court Justices some where agreed that they can do this legally) to Stop people for no reason other than they want to check everyone driving through this high accident area to make sure that everyone is sober.

I don't remember them doing this when I was younger. Now I enjoy some wild turkey or Gin or Vodka once in a while at I no longer drink and drive. When I was younger I'd go out and drink beer with my friends and party and then go back home late at night. But as you grow older that gets old and you settle down with the family and stay home more and drink less. Maybe others drink more and some drink less. YMMV.

Anyway I object to the police stopping me when I'm not drinking and driving through these police check points. While I've never been stopped.. YET... I liken these stops to the Nazi SS back in the 1940 in Western Europe after Germany invaded the low land countries and occupied Western Europe. Now of course our State Police are not going around rounding up people and putting them in the gas chambers like the Nazi's did but they are throwing people in jail just for drinking and driving. While I do agree that people who drink and drive are dangerous to others on the roads I question the stopping of everyone. Now in the old days people who were drinking and driving were going all over the road and going down the highways the wrong way and the police just noticed their erratic driving and pulled them over. But they didn't pull everyone else over and check them at the time. No, They focused on the erratic drunk driver only because they had probable cause to pull them over and stop the. What has changed? Why have they changed their methods of enforcement. Who gave them this new authority. What courts were involved in doing this and what is the case history. Any lawyers out there know the answers to these last three questions. I'd like to do some research if it's not too hard and figure out why they are allowed to do this. Our Bill of Rights has not gone though the Constitutional Methods of changing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Three Quarters of all the States have not voted to change the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and all the other amendments to our US Constitution. But the courts have made ruling that in effect changed the Bill of rights without follow the rules required by our US Constitution.

This is to me ILLEGAL SEARCH and SEIZERS. Plain and simple. We are losing our freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for when we gained our independence from the British Empire and became a nation instead of a colony of Great Britain. Back in those days the British Soldier were able to break into homes and kick the owners out and set up barracks for the British Soldiers in those homes and business. So there was a reason why our founding fathers gave us the bill of rights. The right to be secure in our homes and business. The right to not be searched without probable cause. The right to bear arms and protect our homes and persons. Remember they used words like "SHALL" to emphasis these rights. Shall not be infringed.

Now back in the 1700's our USA population was much different than today. We have way more people living in the USA these days and we have many more new laws and rules to follow. But do you think that our basis rights should be trumped by these laws without following the procedures set out in our Constitution to change the Constitution? I think that we are going down a very slippery slope. Those with the power can do what they want these days and we have not protested enough to stop it. Our founding fathers would have risen up in Arms to put a stop to what the Government is doing if this were happening back in the 1700. The world is a changing. But is it for the better or worse?

Have the Indiana State and City Ordinances drinking and driving laws surpassed the US Constitution? Did these laws do an end run around our flanks and run over our front lines of defense with the help of Justices that can't read and follow the US Constitution Properly? IMHO I think so.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/cri...379367771.html

[GeoFisher]

I don't drink and drive.......NEVER have, NEVER WILL.......so I'm not worried.

As to constitutionality...........hell all kinds of **** are no longer constitutional. If you're going to whine and complain about this, I sure hope you wine and complain about the hundreds of UNCONSTITUTIONAL orders that Obama has passed.

Just saying.

[zx150]

Yes the courts have upheld the DUI check points.

[kygorski]

Folks who give up their rights for safety, soon will lose both.

[Moveon]

Yes the courts have upheld the DUI check points.

The courts get to decide what the constitution says. That is where our founding fathers failed us. But still I don't know any better way than ours.

When I see what I think is an injustice then I'll speak out and try to get that injustice fixed.

Look how may people from the original 13 colonies it took to write the US Constitution and now all it takes is 5 justices to change what the Bill of Writes says. With the stroke of their pens they changed the US Constitution just as easily as I write a check.

[Dobe Mejuwa]

Folks who give up their rights for safety, soon will lose both.

Well said Big K!

[Dobe Mejuwa]

So then when are the coppo's gonna stand at the Walmart Check-out counters and checks us for counterfeit money?

Maybe we could have police sit in the parking lots of selected bars and places that serve booze and nab people BEFORE they get on the flippin road......oooops....to logical.

What cracks me up is when they set up a check point on a 4 lane highway, like at the base of Muldraugh Hill on Dixie Highway, 5 miles away from the nearest place to grab a beer. Are they hoping to nab the drunks that survived to drive that far?

Are cars got airbags, traction control, rearview cameras, blind spot systems, lane keeping systems, automatic crash avoidance braking systems......so when are we gonna build a breath-alizer into the dash of all cars? Insert key, blow for 20 seconds, no booze, car starts, booze detected........car dash says "wait 20 minutes and try again. After the third fail, the car uses your cell phone and automatically calls a cab to your GPS location. Cab fee paid by your insurance company.

[Dobe Mejuwa]

How about checkpoints for AIDS blood tests. Anyone positive without a contraceptive device in their possesion gets book for "assault with a deadly weapon" (Even if the weapon fails to fire) :-)

[kygorski]

Theres a place named Static tn. its on the state line, the clinton sheriff used to post a car on the Ky side. At closing time, he'd stop a driver who acted under the influence. They would send out a decoy, he'd be stopped, checked, the other drivers would leave. This was deemed obstruction of justice, BUT no charges were brought against the culprit. The SAW Mill, another watering hole on the line in cumberland county akso was plauged by that problem. The big problem in the later case was there is NO cumberland county jail. Both Ky counties are dry, and ranked fairly high for DUI offenseses.

[Moveon]

So then when are the coppo'drive that far?

Are cars got airbags, traction control, rear view cameras, blind spot systems, lane keeping systems, automatic crash avoidance braking systems......so when are we gonna build a breath-alizer into the dash of all cars? Insert key, blow for 20 seconds, no booze, car starts, booze detected........car dash says "wait 20 minutes and try again. After the third fail, the car uses your cell phone and automatically calls a cab to your GPS location. Cab fee paid by your insurance company.

Actually that would be a good idea. Why harass everyone else driving on the road at night just to catch a few drunks when they can prevent them from driving in the first place much easier. And all the other innocent folks won't get hassled or slowed down. And it would not be that hard to implement.

BTW: those crash avoidance systems on the new cars use the same radar frequency that the police use to catch speeders. Now I see why my Radar Detector is going nuts most of the time I'm on the road. It use to only go off when a police car pointed their radar at me or when I went by a business with an automatic door opener system that uses that radar frequency too. K, Ka and X ban are the most used Police Radar Frequencies that I'm aware off. My Radar Detector is old. I got it back in the early 1990's when I had to drive from Evansville to Indianapolis one summer for work each Sunday Night. I was working in the Marathon Oil Refinery that summer checking all the pipe runs, valves and other stuff for asbestos insulation. They set us up in a small trailer right next to the CO combustion unit which had a tendency to catch on fire from time to time. I'll never forget that summer. The boss rented an apartment for us and didn't spring for a telephone in there. So we used a cell phone to call home. The Cell phone belonged to a client of ours who loaned it to us to use on the job. It was called the "Brick" and it weighted a ton and looked like a cell phone from NASA in the 1970's. You older guys might remember them. You younger folks would think of it as Pre Flip Phones. My daughter started out with a better cell phone that that back in 1994. In just two short years the cell phones matured into smaller units. Now I have a fancy smart phone that tells me when it's time to go to the doctor or anything else I want it to tell me about.

[GeoFisher]

Well said Big K!

The original was stated some 200 years ago by Ben Franklin.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-- Ben Franklin.

[Dobe Mejuwa]

The original was stated some 200 years ago by Ben Franklin.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-- Ben Franklin.

WOW.....Big K must be really old.