"Sobriety Checkpoints"

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

Sad thing is that it's stupidity is so high it doesn't realize it.

Sad thing is that it's stupidity is so high it doesn't realize it.

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?

AFAIK, no state requires (or can require) the acrobatic nonsense that
goes by the name of "field sobriety tests". If they want to test me
for alcohol or drugs they can test me for them, but I'm not going to
play games like "walk a straight line" or "stand on one foot & touch
your nose" because some bored cop wants to make me look stupid.
Screw 'em.

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.

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?

AFAIK, no state requires (or can require) the acrobatic nonsense that
goes by the name of "field sobriety tests". If they want to test me
for alcohol or drugs they can test me for them, but I'm not going to
play games like "walk a straight line" or "stand on one foot & touch
your nose" because some bored cop wants to make me look stupid.
Screw 'em.

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.

> It's called Judicial Activism.
> Judges not going by the Constitution,but by how they feel,popular
> opinion,or by what other countries do.

Yup. That's the biggest part of FDR's legacy we've got to undo.

> It's called Judicial Activism.
> Judges not going by the Constitution,but by how they feel,popular
> opinion,or by what other countries do.

Yup. That's the biggest part of FDR's legacy we've got to undo.

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

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

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....