"Sobriety Checkpoints"

On 8 Jan 2005 02:00:26 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
(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.)

Theoretically, no. You can always walk.

Try living in L.A. on foot sometime....

In article >, John David Galt wrote:

> And checkpoints ARE unconstitutional, but that camel's nose got into
> the tent the instant driving became a "privilege", and I hope it
> doesn't take a major war to get the damn thing out again.

1984 is running late, but it's still running.

In article >, John David Galt wrote:

> And checkpoints ARE unconstitutional, but that camel's nose got into
> the tent the instant driving became a "privilege", and I hope it
> doesn't take a major war to get the damn thing out again.

1984 is running late, but it's still running.

In article >, TCS wrote:

> Theoretically, no. You can always walk.

The guy who was arrested while outside the vehicle he formerly was a
passenger in for refusing to give a cop ID lost his case. So walking
probably isn't safe any longer.

In article >, TCS wrote:

> Theoretically, no. You can always walk.

The guy who was arrested while outside the vehicle he formerly was a
passenger in for refusing to give a cop ID lost his case. So walking
probably isn't safe any longer.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:06:56 -0600, Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, TCS wrote:

>> Theoretically, no. You can always walk.

>The guy who was arrested while outside the vehicle he formerly was a
>passenger in for refusing to give a cop ID lost his case. So walking
>probably isn't safe any longer.

I'm not surprise. The fourth, fifth and eight amendments were chipped away
to nothing starting in the 80's and nobody gave a ****.

At least the federal government is not slowing down on it's headlong trip into
bankruptcy. Should be interestng when the FG can no longer borrow enough to
even pay the interest on the debt.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:06:56 -0600, Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, TCS wrote:

>> Theoretically, no. You can always walk.

>The guy who was arrested while outside the vehicle he formerly was a
>passenger in for refusing to give a cop ID lost his case. So walking
>probably isn't safe any longer.

I'm not surprise. The fourth, fifth and eight amendments were chipped away
to nothing starting in the 80's and nobody gave a ****.

At least the federal government is not slowing down on it's headlong trip into
bankruptcy. Should be interestng when the FG can no longer borrow enough to
even pay the interest on the debt.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> vehicle behaving erratically,saw an infraction,or noticed a vehicle
>>>> problem such as a dead or wrongly aimed headlight,or excessively
>>>> loud stereo.It would even be legit for them to wait down the road
>>>> from known bars and stop those observed to be driving erratically.
>>>
>>> That is where they fall back to under posted speed limits. Going the
>>> speed limit or less, 10+mph under the flow speed of traffic, must be
>>> a drunk. Go the speed of traffic, speeding. Simple as that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Still better than violating everyone's right of free movement.
>
> In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.

But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.

> In the second
> case they stop and check everyone they want. The difference is only in
> the volume of people they can handle.

No,there is no PC for stopping anyone passing by their checkpoint.They are
just general fishing expeditions;stop a large enough group,some criminals
are bound to turn up, that's prohibited by the Constitution.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> vehicle behaving erratically,saw an infraction,or noticed a vehicle
>>>> problem such as a dead or wrongly aimed headlight,or excessively
>>>> loud stereo.It would even be legit for them to wait down the road
>>>> from known bars and stop those observed to be driving erratically.
>>>
>>> That is where they fall back to under posted speed limits. Going the
>>> speed limit or less, 10+mph under the flow speed of traffic, must be
>>> a drunk. Go the speed of traffic, speeding. Simple as that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Still better than violating everyone's right of free movement.
>
> In the first case they stop and check anyone they want.

But they have SOME amount of probable cause.Do they really stop people just
for driving the speed limit? I'm doubtful about that.

> In the second
> case they stop and check everyone they want. The difference is only in
> the volume of people they can handle.

No,there is no PC for stopping anyone passing by their checkpoint.They are
just general fishing expeditions;stop a large enough group,some criminals
are bound to turn up, that's prohibited by the Constitution.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

> 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/...?province=VA&s
> tate=Virginia
>
> It's not a DUI, but you lose your license anyway.
>
> nate
>

In Florida,I believe one can ask for a breathalyzer or blood test,but they
have to be transported to where the blood test can be given,eating up a lot
of time.Although if one has been drinking,that's an advantage,gives the
body more time to metabolize the alcohol.Just like burping before a
breathalyzer test invalidates it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net