"Sobriety Checkpoints"

wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> >James C. Reeves Jan 6, 7:57 pm
>>
>> >How does the level of penalty change the method/type of enforcement?
>>
>> Hey stupid. If DUIs knew they'd get prison time, they wouldn't drive
>> drunk and we wouldn't need checkpoints. And those few that still did
>> drive would find themselves in prison and no longer on the highways.
>> STOP BEING A CRIMINAL CODDLER.
>
> Yeah RIGHT. Because MURDER has been eliminated in this country because
> of stiff prison time, right? What an idiot!
>
>

Well,it will never be -eliminated-,but stiff prison terms HAS resulted in a
reduction in murder rates.Also other crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Olaf Gustafson > wrote in
:



>
> I've heard they often announce where and when they'll be. I have yet
> to find any of these notices where I live now, but the conventional
> wisdom holds that they only do them on major holiday weekends and in
> the 2 years I've lived in a state fascist enough to have such
> checkpoints, I've never seen one.
>
>
>

In Central Florida,they sometimes announce their locations in advance,other
times they are a surprise.I once was in a Hooters when they began setting
one up at the nearby intersection.I didn't get stopped,though.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Olaf Gustafson > wrote in
:



>
> I've heard they often announce where and when they'll be. I have yet
> to find any of these notices where I live now, but the conventional
> wisdom holds that they only do them on major holiday weekends and in
> the 2 years I've lived in a state fascist enough to have such
> checkpoints, I've never seen one.
>
>
>

In Central Florida,they sometimes announce their locations in advance,other
times they are a surprise.I once was in a Hooters when they began setting
one up at the nearby intersection.I didn't get stopped,though.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Olaf
> Gustafson wrote:
>
>> I've heard they often announce where and when they'll be. I have yet
>> to find any of these notices where I live now, but the conventional
>> wisdom holds that they only do them on major holiday weekends and in
>> the 2 years I've lived in a state fascist enough to have such
>> checkpoints, I've never seen one.
>
> I've seen several, that if announced it wasnt done in a manner I would
> see it. Because my commute to work is short (in distance) and the
> culture at the company isn't one of get in early I avoid traffic by
> leaving later than most people. I've seen checkpoints being dismantled
> on my route 3-4 times. This is morning commute, M-F.
>
>

Announced or not,it's still unconstitutional;they interfere with a
citizen's freedom of movement without government intrusion.(without due
process or probable cause.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Olaf
> Gustafson wrote:
>
>> I've heard they often announce where and when they'll be. I have yet
>> to find any of these notices where I live now, but the conventional
>> wisdom holds that they only do them on major holiday weekends and in
>> the 2 years I've lived in a state fascist enough to have such
>> checkpoints, I've never seen one.
>
> I've seen several, that if announced it wasnt done in a manner I would
> see it. Because my commute to work is short (in distance) and the
> culture at the company isn't one of get in early I avoid traffic by
> leaving later than most people. I've seen checkpoints being dismantled
> on my route 3-4 times. This is morning commute, M-F.
>
>

Announced or not,it's still unconstitutional;they interfere with a
citizen's freedom of movement without government intrusion.(without due
process or probable cause.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote in
:

>
> "Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:55:12 -0700, Bob Lutz
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their
> holiday
>> >weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>> >
>> >This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
>> >direction.
>> >
>> >How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
>> >'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and
> I'm not
>> >sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.
>> >
>>
>> IANAL, but I believe the rationale is that there is a compelling and
>> immediate safety hazard created by drunks and as long as their
>> targeting of people to check is unbiased it is not a violation of our
>> rights.
>
> And there are far more effective ways of nabbing the true dangers on the
> road with out having to ensnare the rest of un in an unconstitutional
> "papers check." Its just that the cops are either too lazy to use those
> other methods or there is a hidden agenda behind these road blocks....
>
>
>

Sure there is;they snag those operating without license,registration,or
insurance,or defective vehicles,wanted criminals,illegal concealed
weapons,or contraband.


Roadblocks allow them searches that would not be allowed(Constitutional)
under other conditions,simply because one is using a motor vehicle.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote in
:

>
> "Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:55:12 -0700, Bob Lutz
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >As my fellow Coloradoans are aware, they just wrapped up their
> holiday
>> >weekend "The Heat is On" campaign.
>> >
>> >This may have been answered elsewhere, if so, point me in the right
>> >direction.
>> >
>> >How exactly does the state get away with stopping motorists at a
>> >'checkpoint'? Seems to me they have to have 'probable cause', and
> I'm not
>> >sure the mere act of driving late at night constitutes that.
>> >
>>
>> IANAL, but I believe the rationale is that there is a compelling and
>> immediate safety hazard created by drunks and as long as their
>> targeting of people to check is unbiased it is not a violation of our
>> rights.
>
> And there are far more effective ways of nabbing the true dangers on the
> road with out having to ensnare the rest of un in an unconstitutional
> "papers check." Its just that the cops are either too lazy to use those
> other methods or there is a hidden agenda behind these road blocks....
>
>
>

Sure there is;they snag those operating without license,registration,or
insurance,or defective vehicles,wanted criminals,illegal concealed
weapons,or contraband.


Roadblocks allow them searches that would not be allowed(Constitutional)
under other conditions,simply because one is using a motor vehicle.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

>> If I do happen to encounter one, and refuse to submit to the FST, what
>> are the consequences?

> In Virginia at least if you don't stop for the checkpoint, you get
> arrested for evading. If you stop and are requested to take a sobriety
> test and refuse, I believe that's an automatic DUI.

So what you're saying is, I encounter a checkpoint, am ordered to take a FST
and refuse, it's an automatic DUI? Is that what you're saying?

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

>> If I do happen to encounter one, and refuse to submit to the FST, what
>> are the consequences?

> In Virginia at least if you don't stop for the checkpoint, you get
> arrested for evading. If you stop and are requested to take a sobriety
> test and refuse, I believe that's an automatic DUI.

So what you're saying is, I encounter a checkpoint, am ordered to take a FST
and refuse, it's an automatic DUI? Is that what you're saying?

Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>
>
>>>If I do happen to encounter one, and refuse to submit to the FST, what
>>>are the consequences?
>
>
>>In Virginia at least if you don't stop for the checkpoint, you get
>>arrested for evading. If you stop and are requested to take a sobriety
>>test and refuse, I believe that's an automatic DUI.
>
>
> So what you're saying is, I encounter a checkpoint, am ordered to take a FST
> and refuse, it's an automatic DUI? Is that what you're saying?
>
>

I mis-typed.

http://www.lawyers.ca/international/...state=Virginia

It's not a DUI, but you lose your license anyway.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel