Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Another good catch by Balko, who links to this article about a DUI checkpoint in Florida that found lots of other things to arrest people for and give them tickets for - but no DUIs.
A DUI checkpoint over the holiday weekend resulted in 10 people being arrested and more than 100 drivers being issued traffic citations.The Florida Highway Patrol arranged for the checkpoint to be set up in the 2500 block of Southwest 13th Street in Gainesville between 10 p. m. Friday until 2 a.m. Saturday. FHP Lt. Pat Riordan said that during that time, 1,131 vehicles were checked.
Here's what they did find:
Although no one was arrested for DUI, FHP said the following actions were taken during the checkpoint:--Two arrested on outstanding warrants.
-- Seven arrested on felony charges, including six on drug-related charges.
-- One arrested for misdemeanor drugs.
-- 104 traffic citations issued.
-- 10 faulty equipment warnings were issued.
-- 10 warnings were issued.
But if that justifies having a checkpoint to check every single vehicle and driver, ostensibly for DUIs, doesn't it also justify just having random checks for no reason at all? Why not just go door to door and ask everyone for their license to see if they have any outstanding warrants? Or set up a checkpoint outside every mall, or on every major street, and run a police scan on every single person? After all, that would lead to the same results. And those results seem to be the only thing that matters.
Politics
Comments
I think we should consider amending the Constitution to protect people's rights. We could call it the Bill of Rights or something.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 11, 2009 9:30 AM
Kersham,
That is bloody brilliant. I suggest we put in some protection against this kind of search and seizure. Let's make it number four on our list though... I want to make sure stupid people forget about it.
Posted by: Schmeer | July 11, 2009 9:56 AM
@Kersham - We can't do that, dude. Guaranteeing certain rights deprives people of the right to deny other people their rights... or something.
Posted by: Imrryr | July 11, 2009 9:59 AM
Kehrsam, you bleeding heart liberal. People like you whining about rights and liberty are going to destroy this country. I bet you even think those people who were arrested should be treated like they're innocent, at least until they're tried. You bastard.
Posted by: Owen | July 11, 2009 10:24 AM
Sheesh, next you Americans will want independence or something! :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 10:30 AM
Hey, if you have to stop and search everyone to put a few potheads in jail and fill the states (or county) coffer with fines from traffic tickets, why let the bill of rights stop you?
Screw the checkpoints outside the mall. Search the people going into the mall! And the grocery store! Think of the results! Who cares if a few "innocent" citizens are inconvenienced. No one is really innocent. Isn't that a fair trade for safer streets and full jails?
Sad thing is, I know a lot of people who would actually support this. Sigh.
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | July 11, 2009 10:49 AM
"Think of the results!"
Take a page from german history - house searches at will at any hour and no approval needed by a judge. That would bring results. Proven by history...and since the regular jails could not handle the input - again, german and english history shows you how to.
Posted by: peter | July 11, 2009 11:08 AM
I can't agree with you here, Ed.
Drunk driving is an extremely serious crime that kills people. I see nothing wrong with checkpoints at certain times and places to get drunk drivers off the road. I also see no reason to be upset about the fact that once the police identify you at a checkpoint, they can arrest you for outstanding warrants or give traffic citations. Similarly, I would hope that any car with faulty equipment would be given a warning, since I don't want to be driving behind someone with no head or taillights.
I do agree that people should not be arrested for most drug "crimes"; but arresting people stopped at a necessary DUI checkpoint doesn't seem any more offensive than arresting someone for drugs at any other traffic stop.
Posted by: Alan | July 11, 2009 11:20 AM
Zero drunks of 1131 after 10pm on Saturday? You would find at least one drunk even if they were all Amish buggies.
Hey Ed, did you teach a class on "Creative Process" at the University of Toledo circa 1990?
Posted by: flounder | July 11, 2009 11:21 AM
Anyone who has ever spent any time in Gainesville knows that over holiday weekends the place is a ghost town. If they really wanted to make a statement for safe driving, the FHP would set up checkpoints after a UF football game. But that would run the risk of busting dozens of Florida legislators for DUI and that would be harmful to any future pay raises.
Posted by: Dogbert | July 11, 2009 11:29 AM
Alan stated:
You avoid the core point which Ed illustrated with an anecdote, i.e., the efficacy of checkpoints in containing or reducing the rate drunk driving.
Before you make an argument it's fine to violate innocent people's rights by stopping them and invading their privacy, you need actual empirical evidence that checkpoints do in fact reduce drunk driving. Until then your argument is, "I'm OK depriving innocents of their rights even though I have no empirical evidence society will benefit to a degree the marginal benefit outweighs the costs."
After providing empirical evidence that checkpoints do in fact reduce the rate of drunk driving, you'll then to need provide a cogent argument regarding the marginal benefit (reduction of drunk driving) relative to the cost (violation of innocents' rights).
If you're asking why the onus is on you, that's simple. We live in country of self-proclaimed free people who delegated limited powers to government, where one of their delegated powers requires them to defend our rights, not violate them. So while that power may allow police to restrict or limit our right to privacy to protect our greater right not to get plowed into by a drunk driver if a feasible method exists that significantly reduces the rate of drunk driving, the onus is on the one attempting to deny innocents their rights, not on the innocent.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 11:47 AM
Alan -
I am all about getting serious about DUI's. Get the breathalyzer bugs ironed out and the categories solid - I would totally support making DUI's a felony offense. But as others have pointed out - where do we stop?
You mention not wanting to drive behind someone with no lights - neither do I, so why not checkpoints for that? And we really shouldn't let people with warrants to wander free - so lets check them for that too. And fuck DUI dheckpoints that stop drivers. Lets get them before they get behind the wheel - it only makes sense right?
Or is the abregation of our rights only justified when it is protecting us against particularly egregious bullshit? Because there are a lot of egregious offenses that would be even greater justification for taking away even more rights - like those pesky terrorists that have enough people pissing their pants in fear, that they are comfortable with even more egregious violations of our civil liberties.
But then I'm the same guy who just said we should release people we are pretty sure are terrorists, if they are acquitted in court on anther thread, so what the fuck do I know?
Posted by: DuWayne | July 11, 2009 11:56 AM
Alan,
Indeed drunk driving is a serious crime, but that pesky little thing called the Constitution says the coppers aren't supposed to search you without probable cause and a warrant. A priori, driving down the street where the checkpoint is does not provide probable cause, and the fact that they didn't actually stop any drunk drivers provides a posteriori evidence that there was no probable cause.
Your arguing that the presence of some drunk drivers justifies stopping all non-drunk drivers who pass a particular point, despite no evidence whatsoever leading to a suspicion that they are drunk.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 11, 2009 11:57 AM
Michael Heath -
Not to try to bring that discussion over here, but this:
After providing empirical evidence that checkpoints do in fact reduce the rate of drunk driving, you'll then to need provide a cogent argument regarding the marginal benefit (reduction of drunk driving) relative to the cost (violation of innocents' rights).
also applies to those terrorists we are talking about elsewhere. The onus is on you (and those in power who are abrogating those rights) to show relative benefit in the face of violating the rule of law.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 11, 2009 12:00 PM
Michael Heath: It's too bad that you don't understand beauraucratic logic. Since there were no arrests for DUI, then the idea of a checkpoint must be a good one - since it obviously kept people driving while intoxicated.
Posted by: natural cynic | July 11, 2009 12:00 PM
DuWayne:
I think its self-evident regarding the stupidity of releasing KSM, or other known terrorists into America if we can't convict him in criminal court or future detainees like him in criminal court and other countries won't either take them or insure us they'll mitigate the threat. Trying them in criminal court and letting them go on our streets is the only argument I heard in that thread so I gave up and closed down that page.
As I stated there, I'm on the fence on that issue; I'm not in favor of Obama's position as you state. I do empathize with Obama's dilemma but also see no feasible alternative to that dilemma where I do desire an alternative option relative to perpetually holding them as if they're POWs in an endless so-called war on terror. I remain open to suggestions beyond the one I discounted - which I find insanely idiotic and in no way politically feasible.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 12:43 PM
Then I suggest revisiting, because that was not my suggestion at all. There are other options, including options that could even become a net advantage to our fight against terrorism. However, the rule of law is rendered meaningless, if we decide that violating it is justified for various reasons.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 11, 2009 12:55 PM
Michael: Existing aw already provides alternatives to the dilemma: Try them as terrorists in the criminal justice system and live with the results; or hold them as POWs in accordance with the applicable Geneva Convention. That was easy. See In Re Merryman
Posted by: kehrsam | July 11, 2009 1:03 PM
I mean Ex Parte Merryman, of course. Brain fart.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 11, 2009 1:21 PM
A lot of this result has to do with how DUI checkpoints are set up in Florida.
It is announced weeks in advance that there will be checkpoints. Typically the presence and locations of checkpoint are announced on TV, radio and in newspapers at least 24 hours before they are set up. Also they are almost all set up during certain times of year, Christmas and New Year, and at one of a relative few usual locations. You don't see them just any time of year unless there has been a major DUI related crash that made the news. The locations are pretty limited. They are always on main roads that have the necessary paved areas to accommodate the extra activity conveniently.
Most professional drunks take back roads as a matter of course. It is not unknown for notices to be posted in bars reminding people where the checkpoints are. Many localities offer free drives home during the same seasons when DUI checkpoints are typically set up.
The bottom line is that the checkpoints are not designed to catch drunks. They are designed to make the news and keep people aware of drunk driving. Which is why they primarily, in this case exclusively, catch people who are either unaware of the offense, like burnt out tail lights, or have been getting away with it so long they overlook that it is still an offense, like warrants.
If you want to eliminate most drunk driving it isn't that hard. A combination of free rides and heavy patrols that randomly pull over cars pulling out from bar parking lots would do it.
Of course that isn't going to happen. Free rides, outside the Christmas season, would be objected to by the moral scolds who would claim it 'promotes drinking'. Pulling people over as they pull out of bar parking lots, or breathalyzing people walking out of the bar and try to get into a vehicle, would offend the business owners and the sensibilities of the civil libertarians.
A local bar owner got himself a breathalyzer unit and was intending to check patrons as they walked out as a voluntary service. The problem was that virtually every patron was legally drunk and, as his lawyer pointed out, knowing they were drunk made him in part responsible for anything that happened. The breathalyzer got stuffed into a drawer and never seen again. Officially not knowing, plausible deniability, is a well founded, and frequently used, legal protection.
The bar owners make good money, DUI kills and maims thousands, the DUI checkpoints don't catch people for DUI and it has been this way for as long as anyone can remember. So it goes.
Posted by: Art | July 11, 2009 1:23 PM
kehshram - I'm comfortable with their being dispositioned as POWs with the exception of indefinite detention for those we can't get other countries to take responsibility for in their system. That is why I'm looking for alternatives to Obama's position. That is why I raised my question and was provided with what I believe are extremely weak arguments. I've re-opened that thread after DuWayne redirected me to it and will follow responses there accordingly.
My major issue was that Ed dismissed Obama's position as absurd as if we should all know what the proper response was. So far I have not heard one compelling argument that even adequately addresses Obama's dilemma, let alone makes for a superior or even competitive argument to Obama's position, which I too am uncomfortable with as I've stated repeatedly in that thread.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 1:29 PM
If we were really serious about DUI, we would insist on a license to drink. It's a whole lot easier to justify pulling someone's ticket to consume alcohol than it is to pull someone's ability to get around American communities which all too often have crappy-to-nonexistent public transport.
It's also more realistic, because a fair number of repeat DUIs happen when someone has already (legally) taken on a load and no longer has the restraint to keep away from the wheels.
There's a serious perversion to the fact that in order to get a legal drink in the USA, my kids have to present drivers' licenses!
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 11, 2009 1:30 PM
D.C.: "If we were really serious about DUI, we would insist on a license to drink... There's a serious perversion to the fact that in order to get a legal drink in the USA, my kids have to present drivers' licenses!"
I don't drive and have what's called a "liquor ID". It looks like a drivers license, shows I'm over 21 and is issued by the state. It couldn't be a more valid form of ID. Yet a lot of liquor stores wont take it, only wanting a drivers license (I went to one once that wouldn't even take a passport). I agree that there is something seriously wrong when people insist you be able to drive in order to legally drink.
Posted by: jba | July 11, 2009 1:56 PM
jba -
What state are you in? In MI and OR, you are required to get a state ID if you don't or can't get a drivers license. It is the same format as the DL, but states clearly that it is not a license to drive - it is a completely legal ID and places that require ID for whatever reason are required by law to treat it as such. This includes not only banks and employers, but alcohol sales as well.
In OR, a lot of people in urban areas (especially Portland) never drive and have no need to spend the extra money on an actual license. The same is true of a few areas of MI. In both states, those who lose their license are usually told in court and always get a letter from the sec-state, reminding them that they need to procure a valid ID.
Art -
I am a pretty solid civil libertarian and have long supported allowing cops to sit outside bar parkinglots to pull people over. It isn't feasible to do that to every bar, every night, but I could totally see doing it randomly and also targeting bars that have been shown to be particularly irresponsible about it. I also tend to say fuck the morons who object to free-rides, on the grounds that it encourages drinking - assholes drink anyways, knowing they'll be driving. While free-rides may not stop it all, they are certain to keep some drunks from behind the wheel.
D.C. -
I am not particularly enthusiastic about the notion of a "license to drink." Though I would not be averse to the ID's of alcohol violators being marked "don't sell to." The only reason DLs are used, is because most people only have a DL for legal ID. I find jba's experience rather disturbing, but have a hard time believing that it is very common. In the two states in which I have a lot of first hand experience, non-DL legal IDs are never a problem and know many other people in other places who don't have DLs and don't have a problem procuring alcohol.
Personally, I want less in my wallet, rather than more. Since I currently need and therefore have a DL, I see little reason to add more ID - especially given I also have my student ID, which has my picture and my APA membership card, which has other pertinent information. Now I'll give that I don't really drink and therefore don't need to worry about being able to buy booze, but I am far from alone in having way too much ID, wasting space in my wallet (I also have memberships to a couple of other things, one of which also has my picture). Hell, I'd be happy to go down to one fucking money card - or even better, use my DL as access to my accounts...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 11, 2009 2:33 PM
DuWayne:
Totally OT, but I can also totally identify with the "too many pieces of shit in my pocket" position. Not to mention bruises on my butt. I found a partial solution: http://www.umbra.com/ustore/product/460330/c641/bungee_card_case.html
At least it makes the lump smaller.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 11, 2009 2:48 PM
Unless 566 or more drivers were found to be driving under the influence, then the checkpoint was illegal: absent warrant or probable ( p > .5 ) cause, they cannot stop (legalese 'arrest') anyone.
They're wiping their ass with our Bill of Rights.
Posted by: Nattering Nabob of Negativism | July 11, 2009 3:09 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 11, 2009 3:21 PM
Damn You D.C.!!!! I really can't afford any of the rather large number of really neat things they carry!!!
Posted by: DuWayne | July 11, 2009 3:46 PM
The Florida Highway Patrol arranged for the checkpoint to be set up in the 2500 block of Southwest 13th Street in Gainesville ...
It needs to be mentioned that this location is about two blocks north of the offices of the Gainesville Sun (in which the original story appeared), on the road where and at the time when most of the paper's reporters and editors would be leaving work for home. There are several restaurants in the area, but it's a good hike to the nearest bar.
Need anyone ask the motivation for this piece of fearless investigative journalism from a (New York Times, Inc-owned) newspaper whose only other tendency to challenge authority involves occasional armchair critiques of the UF Gators' coaches during a poor season?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 11, 2009 4:18 PM
Not surprising, as usual when this topic comes up anywhere, I see no mention of the fact that Driving is an earned Privilege not a Right!
By choosing to drive, you agree to be bound by the rules of driving which include having a valid driver's license, obeying the rules of the road, and ensuring your vehicle is entirely fit for the road within those rules, etc.
And surprise! those rules include allowing the cops to check that you are following the rules! wooo shocker!
Did any of you actually read the papers you signed when you got your license that stated you agree to abide by the law? Better check your insurance papers too, you likely won't be covered in an accident where you broke the law.
Now if, as a driver, you identify yourself so that the cops can validate your license to drive and the cops determine that there is a warrant out for you ... too frakkin bad, you chose to drive and thereby agreed to give access to your identity to the cops!
If you're not the driver, and you identify yourself beyond how the law may require you to identify yourself, and they find there's a warrant out for you ... you're just a dumbass!
If while stopped, the cops can see you or your passengers visibly stoned, can see drugs in the car, see you throw drugs from your car (or otherwise show good reason for the cop to suspect you of a crime) and you get charged ... too frakkin bad, you're just an idiot! You put yourself in that position.
Even if driving were a right as you all seem to assume, you would still have to abide by your responsibilities. Freedom of Speech does not allow you to scream 'fire' in a movie theatre that isn't on fire.
The connection between a road check and having a cop do random searches of your home is entirely false. Again by driving you have made a choice to enter the public space and follow the rules and responsibilities that govern that public space.
Don't you think you all should actually learn what your freedoms and responsibilities are before shouting out about how unjust a common road check is?
Maybe this is why you Americans (happily I'm not one) so eagerly threw away your true Rights over 911.
Posted by: Ken | July 11, 2009 5:30 PM
Ken,
Not sure where you are from, but I'm also happy you're not an American. We already have enough people with zero grasp of logical reasoning and a tendency toward fascistic social control. My sympathies to your country though.
First, in the U.S., we do not give up all our privacy and due process rights in exchange for the privilege of driving. By entering "the public space" we have not given up the right to not be stopped and searched arbitrarily. Our good ol' Bill O' Rights says so. Have you considered the possibility that whatever the rules on this are in your country, they don't necessarily apply in my country?
Second, your final line is quite ironic, given that you're the one arguing that we should throw away our rights, in this case our privacy and due process rights, for the privilege to drive. See, those of us criticizing these checkpoints also tend to be those who criticize the surrenduring of rights post 9/11. That is, we're the logically consistent ones, not you.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 11, 2009 5:42 PM
James,
Have you not given up those imaginary rights when you make the choice to get behind the wheel?
.... Show me the 1100+ lawsuits for rights violations that should be working their way through your legal system as a result of that one road check. Huh? where are they?
I argue that you should know your rights so that you aren't throwing them away as you did over 911 ... AND that you should know your RESPONSIBILITIES so that you are not a menace to society when you falsely think your rights have been violated.
Every driver that went through that road check legally agreed to abide by the rules of the road which include identifying themselves and proving that their cars are roadworthy. Your good ol' Bill O' Rights does not release you from the consequences of your choices.
As for your logic, I'll remind you of the 'logic' (outright lies) that led to your country to invade Iraq over an attack that had nothing to do with Iraq (unless you're one of those Denialist Dubya lovers)
Posted by: Ken | July 11, 2009 6:08 PM
Unfortunately, polls consistently show that you could never pass the Bill of Rights in America today. Would have been a nice idea, otherwise.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 11, 2009 6:08 PM
Ken, you seem to be arguing that agreeing to obey the law has to mean agreeing to be subject to arbitrary search and seizure. It just ain't so.
That notion of arbitrariness is crucial to the whole point. The police have the right - and a duty - to stop me if they have probable cause to believe I've committed an offense. They do not have the right to stop me whenever they want just to see if they can find something to charge me with. The DOI checkpoint Ed describes seems to have turned into exactly the type of fishing expedition that the 4th Amendment does not allow.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 11, 2009 6:46 PM
"You mention not wanting to drive behind someone with no lights - neither do I, so why not checkpoints for that? And we really shouldn't let people with warrants to wander free - so lets check them for that too. And fuck DUI dheckpoints that stop drivers. Lets get them before they get behind the wheel - it only makes sense right?"
Apparently that is exactly what they did since they arrested people with outstanding warrants and gave tickets for violations. As to the last, are you suggesting a cop in every bar?
Posted by: Tom | July 11, 2009 6:58 PM
Scott,
Yes I understand your point, but (for the third time) when you chose to drive, when you signed for your driver's license, you freely agreed to let the cops check your driver's license on demand and to let the cops check that your car is roadworthy. It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of living up to the responsibilities you freely bound yourself to when you agreed to abide by the rules of the road.
And back to my side rant ... What 4th amendment? You Americans virtually cheered with joy (and your founding fathers virtually turned in their graves) while Dubya pretty much destroyed the 4th amendment with the Patriot Act(s), your judges haven't had the balls to perform their proper duty by striking down the law as unconstitutional. Your people have not risen up to take back the 4th amendment as is their duty.
No point trying to resurrect the 4th amendment now for such a little thing as a road check where you've already agreed to be subject to them as part of abiding by the rules of the road. Especially when so many people were obviously ignoring their responsibilities and ended up cited or charged.
Like the sign at the Airport says ... you don't have to be subjected to all the searches if you chose to not travel by plane.
Likewise, driving a car is a privilege, not a right, if you don't like the terms, don't drive.
No doubt Probable Cause is exactly the procedure that led to all the drug charges.
Posted by: Ken | July 11, 2009 7:18 PM
Hey Ken, why don't you shut the fuck up, until you can show us the laws that allow the police to make random stops. You couldn't, because they don't exist - not on the books and not in anything I signed to get my drivers license.
And you can seriously just go fuck yourself with your completely off topic rhetoric about our motherfucking civil liberties. I daresay that there are a very few people here who didn't fight voraciously against these intrusions. Got something constructive or even some evidence, feel free to share, otherwise, feel free to go fuck yourself with a long sharp knife.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 11, 2009 7:40 PM
Michael Heath --
Something sort 'a bugs me about your position re: terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was the record-setting terrorist prior to 9/11. And he managed to be tried in the criminal justice system. Even the Brits at their most egregious basically used the criminal justice system against the IRA-- in fact it was a central demand of the IRA that they be treated as POWs, not criminals.
The only thing that changed after 9/11 was someone found a way to kill more people at a shot. But beyond that, I see no reason why, when someone commits a terrorist act, you can't try them as criminals in whatever jurisdiction they did it in. It worked quite well for decades.
I won't disagree that there is a possibility that someone could be acquitted. But you do realize that for most crimes conviction rates are at something like 80-90%? For most crimes your chances of acquittal are pretty small-- that's why it's such news when someone is found not guilty.
The whole problem with the detention system thought up by the Bush administration was that it was almost completely arbitrary, and based on evidence that is so shaky it's ridiculous. Then there was the argument that torture was necessary, which is such a stupid argument I can't believe anyone buys it. To recap, if you think torture works, then witches must really be able to fly through the air and sicken cows. We New Englanders found that out 300 years ago.
Treating the war on terror as a war is simply silly. Terrorism isn't a movement, it's a method. A war on terror can have no end by its very definition. And treating terrorists as soldiers is, to my mind, exactly what they want. Had Bin Laden been treated as a criminal, rather than a military leader, the US would not have handed him the kind of propaganda victory he dreamed of.
On top of that, the longer we hold a lot of these guys, the more terrorists we create.
Much of the 'dilemma' is a false one. If the logic that releasing people would automatically mean they would return to the battlefield was correct, no prisoner of war would ever, ever be released. Yet we did prisoner exchanges with the Germans during the war.
There's also a deep, deep misunderstanding of just what it is that your typical terrorist -- or freedom fighter/resister depending on what side you are on -- actually does, and how these things work. The short version is that no terrorist group has ever been able to destroy any country, or even do much damage, without the support of the local population. That is, to do any real damage to the US, bin Laden or any other group would have to have the support of the local populace. Timothy McVeigh had that in some places, OBL et. al do not.
I am not discounting the effect of the 9/11 attacks -- I am a New Yorker now after all (though I can't be a Yankees fan :-) ). But there is just no way laden is going to destroy the country, or even change its government -- unless we let him scare us into it.
In fact, the first time someone tried to blow up the WTC, we treated it as a criminal act. That guy is still in jail.
I might add that the rules for treating POWs are rather specific about repatriation. You put 'em where they want to go (within reason). I'd bet a rather large chunk of Gitmo detainees want to go home.
Sleeper agents and men of mystery are fictional.
Posted by: Jesse | July 11, 2009 7:49 PM
Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 12:43 PM:
wait. Wait wait wait.
KSM == Kalid Sheikh Mohammed?
I thought only 9/11 troofers were crazy enough to think Kalid Sheikh Mohammed had a reasonable chance of escaping conviction in a fair trial.
What have I missed?
Posted by: llewelly | July 11, 2009 7:53 PM
Here in Australia (were we don't have a Bill of Rights as such) we have had Random Breath Testing for decades and so we are quite use to it and I've not really heard of any open abuse of it. Sure, infringements for other offences can be issued, but in general the Police aren't on a fishing trip for anything they can find.
The Road and Traffic Authority claims: "Since the introduction of RBT in 1982, fatal crashes involving alcohol have dropped from 40 per cent of all fatalities in 1982 to the current level of 19 per cent. Last year [2007] police conducted 3.4 million breath tests in NSW."
Of course some of those percentages will be related to the RBT campaign, but what this Agency claims does not take into account that in that same period, the active and passive safety of cars has improved dramatically too (e.g. ABS, Airbags, Stability Control, crumple zones etc). It would be very interesting to see what the stats are for non-DUI fatalities in that same period, but it is pretty hard to come by those without spending a few hours compiling them.
Posted by: Andrew | July 11, 2009 8:23 PM
Ken: You are mistaken. Yes, driving is a privilege, but only to the extent that one must meet the licensing and insurance requirements. You cannot waive your 4th Amendment rights in advance; otherwise those rights do not effectively exist.
DUI Checkpoints are a specific exception to the general rules concerning probable cause and warrants (there are about nine such exceptions for reasons of "Exigent Circumstances). Law Enforcement has no right to otherwise stop a vehicle absent probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
Truck drivers can generally be stopped, but only because of the safety risks involved with these vehicles and because they are specifically under the jurisdiction of the state and Federal Departments of Transportation.
And why should it matter that many lemmings went along with the USA Patriot Act? That is a non sequitur of amazing proportions. My Constitutional rights are not lost just because some other parties do not elect to enforce theirs.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 11, 2009 9:48 PM
Ken, no. Just ... no. As in, this isn't a matter of opinion that we disagree about, but as in "That is a factually incorrect statement." A driver's license does not waive any 4th Amendment rights, as kehrsam stated.
The shameful lack of regard for the 4th Amendment does NOT mean that it is legally inoperative.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 11, 2009 10:26 PM
What's wrong with DUI checkpoints? Or with the government entering your home and searching without a warrant, or tapping your phone, or intercepting your emails? Only those who have done something wrong need to worry about it.
Except of course that it's the government who decides if you've done anything wrong, and their definition of what is wrong is totally arbitrary.
We were told we had to give up some freedoms so we could be more secure. Except I don't feel more secure and I'd rather have those freedoms.
Posted by: Chayanov | July 11, 2009 11:37 PM
Actually Scott, let's look at what Kersham said ...
"Yes, driving is a privilege, but only to the extent that one must meet the licensing and insurance requirement"
Actually ... it's only a privilege to the extent that one must meet the LEGAL requirements to be allowed to drive (meaning that it is entirely a privilege and in no way a right), which includes identifying yourself with your license upon demand, and ensuring your vehicle is roadworthy.
We could spend hours listing the accepted limitations to your supposedly absolute Bill o' Rights. Warrantless wiretapping, not yelling Fire in a movie theatre which is not on fire, the requirement of permits to carry firearms, the Patriot Act(s) ... etc etc etc. Precedence for your people's acceptance of the limitation of your rights is stacked up everywhere you look.
You happily (and apparently quite ignorantly) waive your rights all the time.
The present case is no different.
It must just hurt a little more to realize this fact.
Posted by: Ken | July 11, 2009 11:54 PM
Go fuck yourself Ken. We don't happily waive our rights all the time - most of the people on this forum are pretty solid absolutists when it comes to our bill of rights. The fact that a lot of other Americans accept those limitations and piss them away in fear, doesn't change that. There are very few limits that any of us find acceptable - if you're looking for those hypocritical fucking Americans, you came to the wrong fucking place.
And nor are we ignorant of it. Read the archives of this blog alone, you fucking moron, for proof of that and the fact that there are few around here that accept it.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 12, 2009 12:43 AM
Jesse - regarding criminal vs. military. Sometimes the criminal courts do not have jurisdiction. KSM is a prime example, he's being tried by the Dept. of Defense given the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
llewelly @ Post 39
I've been making an argument that the criminal courts have neither the jurisdiction in many cases or are equipped to deal with national security matters. In the case of KSM, he's not being tried in the criminal courts, which on the other thread several people have argued he should be. I argue that the criminal courts would almost certainly dismiss the case given his denial of legal counsel after his capture and his forced confession through torture which also appeared to have done him severe mental damage - though the latter has yet to be determined.
Given the nature of his capture, Pakistani Intelligence with CIA in Pakistan as part of our ongoing Afghanistan War, I don't see how the criminal courts would ever have jurisdiction but IAMNAL.
KSM is currently in a DOD administrated trial, which has been going on for more than a year. He has no legal defense, he doesn't want any. It's my understanding KSM wants to plead guilty but a sanity test is being performed to validate his ability to both serve as his own legal counsel and enter a plea.
I have never commented on the validity of KSM "getting a fair trial" in his current trial nor was I even aware conspiracy nuts or anyone though he wouldn't. So I have no idea how my argument KSM: doesn't belong in criminal court, rejecting others advocacy we release him as several commenters argued which I rebutted, or my rejection he be held indefinitely without formal legal disposition has to do with 9/11 or birfers. I suggest perusing your own mind for conspiracy theories given I provide none here or anywhere.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 12, 2009 12:55 AM
Ken @36:
And again, Ken, that is not true in the United States. You haven't announced where you live, other than to say you're not an American, so we cannot say what the law is in your country, but it's quite rich for you to lecture us Americans on what the law is in our country.So let me repeat this again: In America, the privilege of driving does not require us to submit to arbitrary and random police stops. Yes, we must obey the rules of the road, but submission to arbitrary and random police stops is not one of the rules of the road.
Why do you persist in trying to explain to us how our law works? You clearly do not know it as well as we do.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 12, 2009 9:49 AM
Michael Heath--
Khalid Muhammed would be, in the normal course of things, extradited to the US anyway (if he committed a crime in the US). I might add that in the cases of drug lords in other countries, several over the years have been tried in the US if the relevant country has an extradition treaty and if whatever they did was here (in the US) -- a lot of it is financial crimes (bank fraud and the like, or money laundering).
In Muhammed's case, given that he committed a crime in Pakistan, there is no reason the Pakistani authorities can't take care of that. If it makes you happy, they torture and execute prisoners pretty routinely.
But again I note that it wasn't like terrorists had never been caught before, tried and convicted -- in several jurisdictions, I might add. bin Laden brought nothing new to the table, except the ability to tweak the US's nose in a way that previous miscreants had not -- in that sense he was much more media-savvy.
Do terrorists -- of whatever persuasion -- hide out in places where local governments can't operate? Yes, and they have done so for decades. Some of them even get help from 'friendly' countries. I am from Boston, and if current terrorism law was applied in any way that wasn't completely based on faith and ethnicity, half the population of Boston would be in Gitmo for providing material support. I mean, they had a freaking fund raiser every year, publicly, and nobody made any bones about it. Nobody bothered to hide the fact they yeah, the IRA ought blow the hell out of the Protestants.
I don't see how the current crop is any different.
Yes, using the criminal justice system(s) is hard. And it doesn't provide the visceral satisfaction of sending in the marines or vicariously living an episode of "Mission: Impossible" or a Bond movie.
But it works. And the reason is what I would call a bit of political judo -- when you declare war on someone they are entitled to be a POW, by our very own rules. When you treat them as criminals they are not, see my point about the IRA. That rather neatly solves several problems, which is the whole reason most countries (until the US decided to change things) treated local terrorists as criminals when possible. (There was a slight difference when dealing with armed insurgencies that were particularly large or represented bigger chunks of the population, in Sri Lanka for instance. But in that case there was an organized military structure).
As for whether courts are "equipped" to hear "National Security" cases -- present the evidence, with no shenanigans. End of story. No bullshit about "secret sources" or "we can't show you but take our word for it." We convicted McVeigh without any of that.
Y'know, I was living in London when 9/11 happened, having just moved to the UK the year before. The best decription of theUS was when someone said "The bully just got a bloody nose. Let's see if he reacts as bullies do."
I mean, there were huge rallies in Teheran -- in support of the United States, with these gigantic expressions of sympathy and solidarity. Holy shit, I thought. Teheran. (You may not have seen them in the US, sine CNN had rather poor coverage there).
May people were hoping --praying -- that Americans would take the high road, and show that we could seek justice, not vengeance. Unfortunately, we managed to show the whole world that we were not one whit better, and in fact worse since we had the power to beat on anyone. Great job, Bush. A century of painstaking work, down the drain. Thanks. I am now less safe than I have ever been as an American who travels, thanks to you.
Posted by: Jesse | July 12, 2009 11:06 AM
Jesse - there is little I disagree with in your post with the following two exceptions:
McVeigh is an excellent example of someone who should have, and was tried in a criminal court. There are examples that do not fit this context however, those picked up in war zones who are or suspected terrorists, or where our intelligence agencies arrange for custody that: a) at a minimum are an enemy combatant, b) not a national of the country within which the war zone exists or they were originally detained, c) picked up by either our military or intelligence services or those of our allies' non-law enforcement but instead military/intelligence people, and d) are from countries we can't extradite or return them to either because they refuse to accept them or because we believe that would be remain a national security threat, i.e., there's a likliehood they'd re-engage against us.
The conventions of war do not work well with these sorts of actors, contrary to your assertion. The problem emerges now for two reasons: Bush violated the rights of many if not all detainees thereby compromising our ability to mitigate their threats through the courts - criminal and possibly military. This is coupled to our military efforts outside our own borders which has increased the number of these types of cases. We could have over a 100 of these types in Gitmo alone, not including those held in centers in the Middle East. Even if we did not mistreat new detainees, this issue would still exist, which is probably a reason Obama's defends his power to detain enemy combatants under conventions governing POW treatment.
I don't believe America lost the world's support after 9/11 because we've didn't exclusively use our criminal courts to disposition detainees as you claim above. I believe we lost the world's support because:
a) we wrongly invaded Iraq
b) we mistreated detainees - both through torture and/or violating their human rights - including their right to hearings and other legal rights.
c) our response against al Qaeda was near impotent
d) we were arrogant and dismissive of our mistakes post-invasion in Iraq which aggravated the suffering of the Iraqis
d) our actions enabled Iran and Russia to increase their influence in the Middle East
e) our impotent efforts in Afghanistan coupled to policies in Pakistan enabled an even greater threat to emerge - a destabilized Pakistan with a history of selling nuclear materials to bad actors and our literally shoving the Taliban to within 40 miles of Islamabad.
Obama finds himself in an incredible quagmire with all thanks but one easily attributable to President Bush and VP Cheney. In spite of their missteps, how to disposition some of these actors remains a giant gaping hole in the conventions of war since they don't adequately protect non-state actors from indefinite detention in a manner that also allows countries to defend their security interests from known threats currently being detained.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 12, 2009 11:37 AM
Didn't St Ronnie of Alzheimer's sign a document that made 'terrorism' an act that has no statute of limitations and no limitation on jurisdiction? That is: KSM could be tried by an Indonesian court in twenty years from now (say) no matter where the 'crime' was committed? Isn't this why the Spanish courts are trying to convict Bush, Cheney et al. on 'terrorism' charges*? - Curiously DJ
___________
*The use of single quotes here indicates my uncertainty on what these terms actually mean, legally. I don't know if there is any generally legally accepted definition of 'terrorism' that excludes certain other acts that some would not define as such. Also I think the Spanish Inquisition (yes, unexpected as it is) is not likely to ever succeed. But we live in hope I guess.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2009 11:59 AM
I would support a sobriety checkpoints on the following conditions:
1) When and where the checkpoints will be shall not be public information until such time as the checkpoints are actually set up. It makes no sense to tell the drunks where they will be ahead of time.
2) The police shall not ask for drivers licenses or identity without probably cause. If the person looks sober let them go on their way. This would speed up the checkpoint considerably. Give verbal warnings for minor offenses at most unless someone is recognized as a fugitive or is clearly committing a major offense.
This type of system could catch dangerous drunks with minimum inconvenience to the innocent and not subject us to unwarranted search.
As for Ken, I can say that I did not sign anything about anything when I got my driver's license. I signed a screen that was used to put my signature on my license and I signed my check which was used to pay the fee. And for most parts of the United States having a car is not a luxury or a privilege. It is a necessity. And do bear in mind that I am someone who usually rides his bicycle to work -- and I consider owning a car and having a driver's license to be a necessity. Of course most people have to travel father to work or travel in conditions that make a bike impractical or too dangerous in areas with little or no public transportation.
Posted by: a lurker | July 12, 2009 1:18 PM
Well, here in Oz random breath tests are part of life if you drive (which, of course, you do). So I have some trouble what you are getting worked up about. Some criminals were caught, some dangerous vehicles were taken off the road. Feh. A person on the road is out in public - talking about random searches of your home is outright strawman. Driving is not a basic freedom - it's an incredibly risky and dangerous thing to do.
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 13, 2009 12:05 AM
MIchael Heath--
German and Japanese soldiers weren't nationals of the countries they were picked up in a lot of the time (I don't know too many German-speaking Algerians, or Frenchmen, or Italians, and last I checked the Japanese weren't native to the Philippines).
We seemed to make that work somehow.
"Enemy combatant" is a fiction cooked up by the Bush administration. Someone is treated as a soldier or they are not, end of story. If the former, you apply the laws of war the we in the United States insist others follow. If not, and they are criminals, you treat them as criminals and send them to the local cops to deal with.
And if you think they are still a national security threat, than have the decency to explain exactly what you think they are going to do and why. The Bush administration hasn't done that in any of the cases that have come to light. Not one. It's all "We can't tell you, it's a security matter."
The problem is the rather expansive definition of security -- which actually ties into the DUI issue here -- does anyone honestly think that Ahmed the Afghan farmer/possible fighter from Afghanistan is going to show up in LaGuardia Airport with a freakin' bomb? He can't afford bus fare to Pakistan. "Hey, tere's a nervous looking guy who doesn't speak anything but Dari and is wearing a kind of heavy coat." Nah, nobody will notice that. I can't come up with a way that these guys are a danger to most Americans. They might be a danger to our "interests" but what the hell did that ever mean, anyway?
Why not just round up a big chunk of the Catholics in Ireland? I mean, they probably are all terrorists anyway, right? Why not do that in Michigan (see: Timothy McVeigh).
You see the problem here?
Posted by: Jesse | July 13, 2009 7:54 AM
Paul Murray,
We're a little bit fetishistic abotu our liberties here in the U.S. (except when we throw them away wholesale because some half-wit, two-bit terrorists have a lucky day), and believe we still have those rights even in public. To most of us, random breathalyzer tests for drivers wouldn't be much different than random body pat downs of pedestrians on public sidewalks. After all, just as any given driver could be drunk, any given pedestrian could be carrying illegal concealed weapons. Or, here in the U.S., where our politicians worry more about drugs than terrorism, the Chinese, and the Russians put together, they'd likely do random pat downs for drugs. Or, as our other major public policy fear is illegal immigrans, perhaps we could also do random stops of everyone to ensure they're not "illegals."
You may say we're making much ado about nothing, but we'd likely reply that each small step away from defending our rights is one step further toward tyranny. That is to say, to both of us our country's approach seems normal, and perhaps your politicians and cops are satisfied stopping just at random breathalyzer tests, but there's no way in hell our Bill-of-Rights-hating police and desperate-to-be-seen-doing-something about-drugs-and-illegal-immigrants politicans would be satisfied to stop there. Hell, Bill Clinton, a Democrat even, once declared the homes of every family in public housing open to warrantless searches.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 13, 2009 8:32 AM
Pretty pathetic isnt it. And they wonder why people rejoice everytime some stupid cop gets clipped in the line of duty!
RT
http://www.privacy.cz.tc
Posted by: JOhn Thomas | July 13, 2009 8:59 AM
three words, Prison Industrial Complex. The system needs more bodies or else it starves. Just like how our entire economy is based on military spending, the g'ment is looking for new revenus sources. I'm not saying that the people that got caught didn't deserve to get caught, or that the police were not justified in their actions, but its the reality. watch your step, b/c they are looking for any reason to get everyone in the system, and get your money.
Posted by: SamfromBam | July 13, 2009 9:53 AM
If it's a visible offense that you could be sited for, say by just someone looking at your car from a far, then I think that's OK to happen at DWI check points as well. From there they ask for your ID and whatnot. If they also find out you have other things going on, well that's a YP not an MP.
But if you have no visible problems with your car and they ask if you've been drinking and you say no, they should have to let you go. They have no reason to stop you other wise.
Posted by: QwertyFlirt | July 13, 2009 10:28 AM
I got a ticket at one of these things. At fist I was furious but now I just look at it as a driving tax. Its just a way to raise money.
Posted by: throbo | July 13, 2009 10:33 AM
Alan,
Murder is an extremely serious crime that kills people. I see nothing wrong with house to house searches at certain times of the day to get murderers off the road. I also see no reason to be upset about the fact that once the police identify you during a house to house search, they can arrest you for outstanding warrants or for something else they find in your home.
Tool.
Posted by: skitzo | July 13, 2009 11:04 AM
Paul Murray,
The Constitution was amended with the Bill Of Rights in the effort to ensure certain rights were guaranteed protection from governmental revocation. The Bill in no way merely defines or limits our rights. It does not attempt to list all rights, only ensure certain rights are clearly respected by government.
The freedom to travel is one implicit right which the framers felt was so basic there should be no need to enumerate it. Perhaps they should have. But in the 18th century, only the wealthy or very determined would travel from one major city to another. Today, we do so daily for work or on a whim for pleasure. Is travel dangerous? Sometimes. Should we restrict it to protect people? No.
Driver's licenses were created to ensure people were properly familiar with a new and "dangerous" technology, the horseless carriage. Until that time, people could travel freely by horseback or carriage without government permission for the privilege, precisely because it wasn't a privilege but a right. So, operating a motor vehicle is dangerous, right? Yup. And we have to restrict people from doing so to protect the public in general and individuals from themselves, as well? Actually, no. There are no laws prohibiting adults from driving on private property without a license. Only on public roads.
Unfortunately, driver's licenses have become twisted into a State-issued permission slip for grownups, to be revoked upon the lightest slight or a minor infraction of law. People lose their licenses for unpaid parking tickets or a single missed child support payment in some jurisdictions. This power of revocation is used to keep the populace in line. Rather than serve what should be it's true function, certification of competence to drive, driver's licenses are misused as a tool of the state to punish.
Voters must start pressing Legislatures to amend laws restoring people's rights and restricting government authority to revoke those rights. Right now, we're merely serfs subject to the whims of bureaucrats, police and judges.
Posted by: Mike | July 13, 2009 11:13 AM
Interesting topic I will chime in with some facts regarding DUI/Seatbelt checkpoints in the state of NC.
I was stopped at a checkpoint operated by the NC Highway Patrol in March 2008, and arrested for DUI. After spending several thousands of dollars to defend myself I started doing some research. Understand that at 55 years old I boast zero traffic offenses and never had an accident, thank God.
So here are some interesting facts:
Upon being stopped I was asked one simple question, “Have you been drinking tonight”?
Being the honest person that I am I said “Yes”, Stupid answer, I gave the officer probable cause. Passing first the roadside sobriety test and an additional sobriety test at the police department meant nothing. I had blown a .08 in an antiquated looking breathalyzer machine.
In the State of NC we have a law called the per se law which states that regardless of ability to perform you are guilty by BAC (blood alcohol content).
I later discovered that the officer running the checkpoint was the number 1 arresting DUI officer in the entire State of NC and had only been with the department for 2 years, a 24 year old.
The Judge I was set to go before is to date the number 1 convicting Judge in the State and sadly 2 years earlier had lost a child in a drunk driving related accident, I personally don’t believe this person should be functioning in that capacity. Fortunately my attorney had my case moved to a courtroom in front of a Judge who was a long time friend.
Having some close ties to law enforcement in the state I further learned some additional items, which I must state are Not facts, but third party information.
1. It is alleged that in order for the State to acquire Government Highway Funds, it must conduct a required number of checkpoints per month with a required number of arrests/tickets, this is allegedly by County. The actual Numbers are known only to the highest in authority but the checkpoints are allegedly monitored by someone at the federal level.
2. It is also alleged that MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, lobbies hard to be sure States with the highest DUI/DWI conviction rates receive the bulk of those Highway monies.
To make matters more interesting upon my arrest my vehicle was left at the roadside and not impounded along with a briefcase containing nearly $8,000.00 in cash, several expensive gem stones and a loaded semi-automatic pistol, unregistered, loaded and illegally concealed. The arresting officer seemed uninterested when I informed him that the carry of the Pistol was a Federal Offense and a much higher crime than the DUI. I was seriously concerned about leaving these Items and wanted to be charged with the weapons charge just easier to get out of due to my line of work.
The officer felt that due too the volume of contents in the vehicle the time involved to inventory it all was too much and insisted we just lock it in the trunk and after my release I could retrieve the vehicle.
So what have I learned from this experience and subsequently tell my children?
1. If stopped and asked “Have you been Drinking”? Just lie, now normally I instill honesty in my three children, not in this case. If you tell an officer in NC that you have been drinking you have just given probable cause and it will be used against you in the court room.
Judge: Mr. Smith, the arresting officer stated under oath that you informed him you had been drinking, is this true?
2. If your BAC is anywhere close to .08, DEMAND an immediate blood test, proven to be much more accurate than the Breathalyzer. It is allowed you by law but will never be offered at the time of arrest.
3. Higher an Attorney that specializes in DUI/DWI related cases
4. Just Don’t Drink and Drive.
In closing let me say this, I do believe that MADD is a good organization and I do support the laws against DUI. However I further believe the tight economy is straining State and Local budgets and increasing the number of both DUI and Seatbelt checkpoints.
On one heavily traveled road I often use I have been stopped 4 times in the last 15 months at various checkpoints, without incident. It saddens me to see an unemployed Mother fined $250.00 because her child escaped from his/her child seat.
Yes we do need laws to protect the innocent and we need laws to keep drunk drivers off the roads. We also need laws that protect us from other operating unsafe or dangerous vehicles. My fear is that vehicle checkpoints are becoming ATM machines for the State in a strapped economy where I see more and more friends and neighbors unemployed.
Posted by: John L | July 13, 2009 11:16 AM
Here's an article about a DUI checkpoint that netted 10 drunk drivers. Took me all of 10 seconds to dig up on Google.
Doesn't this mean that checkpoints are sometimes a good thing and help to ensure the rights of others to not be killed by drunk drivers?
http://www.venturacountycrimeblog.com/2009/05/oxnard-dui-checkpoint-nets-10-drunk.html
Posted by: Colin | July 13, 2009 11:41 AM
No DUI's is great news. Apparently the citizens of Gainesville are enlightened enough to not drive drunk.
On the other hand checkpoints evoke a "cold war" kind of emotion. Once you are stopped by the police its very easy to escalate the situation into something more serious http://proudtoliveinamerica.com/forms/main/default.aspx?l=en-us&p=americanlife1
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"-Benjamin Franklin
Posted by: Sam | July 13, 2009 11:57 AM
Maybe you should all file a lawsuit or something.... seems to be the American answer to everything
Posted by: Patrick | July 13, 2009 12:22 PM
Zero tolerance means just that. Felonies handed out like candy - great for voter turnout.
This is good news for our prison/industrial complex. 1 in 10 Americans lives behind bars.
Ain't it grand?
Posted by: jack rabbit | July 13, 2009 1:04 PM
I've been through a DUI checkpoint before but they don't have any right to ask for ID, so how is what you're describing possible?
Posted by: James | July 13, 2009 1:17 PM
Drunk driving is a serious crime? Give me a break. We know for a fact that talking on a cell phone while driving is far more dangerous than driving drunk. Is that considered a serious crime as well?
Rape is a serious crime, so is murder. Let's not get confused about that.
Posted by: Sarah Williams | July 13, 2009 1:20 PM
If you really want to stop drunk driving put ones of those breatalyzers "ignition interlock device" in every vehicle in America. It doesn't allow the car to start if bac is over a certain level.
Posted by: john | July 13, 2009 1:43 PM
It's You Right wing Law and order types who got us into this bullshit. starting with Nixon , But when Saint Ronald Regan declaired war on DRUGS/PEOPLE the shit hit the fan. Hey MOMMY DUH,uh I think I forgot, oh yeah, Lets get tough on crime.
Now look at the results, instead of being in treatment the Prision population is exploding with non violent drug offenders . the police are given cart blanch, and the bill of rights, well every republican, all the blue dogs and most of the centrest democrats whipe their ass with it. But what it comes down to is the lack of representation in the house, check out www.Thirty-thousand.org
Posted by: Wm McDevitt | July 13, 2009 1:52 PM
This cartoon seems appropriate.
http://www.farleftside.com/2009/3-27-09.html
Posted by: dean | July 13, 2009 2:25 PM
They're not DUI checkpoints, they're "bend over and forget all about the fourth amendment" checkpoints. They're blatantly illegal.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 13, 2009 3:31 PM
This website would seem appropriate:
www.dwiduihelp.com
Posted by: Steve | July 13, 2009 3:43 PM
In Alaska DUI checkpoints are illegal. They fall under illegal search and seizure due to our state constitution. In our state such a search is too general and implies that everyone caught is a suspect for a crime, and thus we don't make such accusations.
Posted by: Mike | July 13, 2009 5:03 PM
Rape is a serious crime, so is murder. Let's not get confused about that.
So what? Nothing else can be a serious crime then?
We know for a fact that talking on a cell phone while driving is far more dangerous than driving drunk.
We do? You might, but without citation, it's rather silly to assume that others do. And without that cite it's impossible to know if they mean all drunk drivers, those who are a little buzzed or those who are totally trashed.
Is [driving while on a cellphone] considered a serious crime as well?
I think it should certainly not be taken lightly. When you choose to drive a ton or so of steel around in public and choose to significantly impair your ability to control that ton or so of steel, then yes, I think you're committing a serious crime. Maybe not on a par with rape or first degree murder, but certainly on a par with attempted manslaughter. Because we've learned something over the hundred+ years we've had motorized vehicles, when you impair your ability to drive, you dramatically increase the odds that someone is going to die in an accident you caused.
So yeah, I am pretty sure I would be ok with making talking on a cell phone while driving the same felony that I would love to see drunk driving become. Both kill people, both are avoidable.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 13, 2009 5:22 PM
@ Alan "I see nothing wrong with checkpoints at certain times and places to get drunk drivers off the road. I also see no reason to be upset about the fact that once the police identif..."
Gods, I wish I could downvote you.
Posted by: remccain | July 13, 2009 5:24 PM
Let me introduce a fun new concept for you.
a "Crime" has to have a victim. None of the people arrested nor the purpose of the checkpoint involves any victims at all.
DUI isnt a crime, hurting people for any reason whether you are intoxicated or not is.
Posted by: Stan Lee | July 13, 2009 5:41 PM
DUI isn't a crime?
"In every state, it is a crime for a driver to operate a vehicle while impaired by the effects of alcohol or drugs."
In michigan: "The first time you receive a OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) conviction you will be fined from $100-$500 and serve up to 93 days in jail. You may also be sentenced to 360 hours of community service. Your drivers license will be suspended for 30 days, followed by driving restrictions for an additional 150 days. Other possibilities include vehicle immobilization and the installation of an ignition interlock device at the owners expense. You will also have to pay a $1,000 "Driver Responsibility" fee for 2 years."
I'm not sure what you mean stan
Posted by: dean | July 13, 2009 5:51 PM
Checkpoints should only be used for real issues of national, state or local security. Terrorist, multiple escaped high security prisoners, multiple murderer that's still armed or the like. Besides, it'd be cheaper too. I bet they are getting taxpayer overtime for these police state checkpoints.
Posted by: Cameron Lufkin | July 13, 2009 6:24 PM
I agree that the rights of the people need to be upheld and we all need to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. I just have one small issue with people arguing that DUI checkpoints are wrong. Driving is a privilege not a right. And with any privileges come certain checks and balances. When you gain the privilege to drive, via passing your driving test, it comes with the knowledge that there are laws in place governing the use of said license. The police are tasked with upholding those laws and to do so certain inconveniences have to be endured. Don’t want to get stopped while driving? Don’t drive. Take the bus or take a cab. But driving is most certainly not a right in any sense of the term. Not being able to drive in no infringes on your right to assembly, your right to practice your religion, your right to free speech, your right to bear arms, or any of the other rights granted to you by the constitution. And yes the freedom to travel is in the constitution and as the founding fathers did, you are free to walk.
Posted by: P C Childs | July 13, 2009 6:32 PM
PC: This red herring has already been debunked upthread. Accepting the privilege does not imply the cessation of 4th Amendment rights.
Stan: Staggeringly wrong comment. You win a cookie.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 13, 2009 6:57 PM
Mike is correct. Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. It is our right to implement any technology that is available. It is also our duty, and the duty of the government, to ensure that that right does not result in suffering of others. Mike is correct in noting that this concept has been twisted by lackluster government agents into being named a "privilege".
It's interesting that for quite a decent period (a matter of years, I believe) after the motor vehicle was invented, there were no licenses issued nor required. It was only after serious injury became common and apparent that licensing was invoked in order for the government to carry out its duty.
To those who think otherwise, (re-)read the constitution. All rights not enumerated there are retained by the states and by the people.
And while the results of a DUI checkpoint are largely positive in the immediate, the concerns are legitimate and large, as others have noted, as they apply elsewhere. And to those who would denigrate us for having such concern: get off to (or stay in) some fascist country. --> This comment forum, and the ideas exchanged within, are democracy in action. We are doing it, right here!
In general, it's clear, from this (albeit very minor) issue and, more importantly, others, that the U.S. government is nearly out of control, and out of bounds, and needs to be re-booted, as part of a more comprehensive revision of socio-political-economic life here.
Unfortunately, as great as it is having this new electronic forum for public discourse, all I see is a lot of talk. And merely voting and putting faith in government agents is like trying to build a house with toothpicks.
Posted by: occasional contributor | July 13, 2009 7:25 PM
Stan -
Shooting a gun in the air in a urban setting rarely manages to kill or injure someone. Yet most jurisdictions make it illegal because it is unnecessary and causes a unreasonable risk to the neighbors. In some places discharging a firearm within municipal boundaries is a felony because it is in effect, attempted involuntary manslaughter or attempted negligent homicide.
So how exactly is it necessary to drive drunk, necessary enough that it warrants the significant risk it poses to health and human safety? Note that I am not defending DUI checkpoints - they are an absolutely egregious violation. Nor am I arguing that people should not be allowed to drik, that too would be an egregious violation. But how exactly is you choosing to drive drunk not an infringement of my right to expect people in ton+ steel boxes on wheels to drive them unimpaired and thus less likely to cause an accident? Personally, I am all about the cops stopping the dipshit who's weaving and barely in control of his car before he runs me or mine down. Or for that matter, before she kills herself...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 13, 2009 7:32 PM
Apparently PC Childs needs to reminded...
The founding fathers didn't walk. They were already here. The founding fathers FOUGHT!
Tard.
Posted by: occasional contributor | July 13, 2009 7:43 PM
Road blocks and other techniques of enforcement/deterents work because of the "potential" consequences inherent in them. When Joe Q public hears about them before or after the fact he may rethink his choices or reevaluate his long held beliefs that he had held onto for dear life.
Rates of DUI/DWI decline at at the (publicized) threat of them. The effects are incured before and after.
Posted by: franc | July 13, 2009 7:55 PM
I take exception the the anti-police remarks in this forum. But as Patrick Henry once said "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to die for your cause."
Or something of that nature.
Posted by: Jules Winnfield | July 14, 2009 1:53 AM
Anybody who believes that in this instance rights were infringed upon is mistaken.
Nobody has the right to break the law.
Checkpoints are legal search warrants.
If the police finds something illegal, it's the person's fault. He/She should not have committed illegal acts. Whether or not the illegality is ethical, it's still illegal. For now, anyway.
Posted by: Kevin C | July 14, 2009 2:43 AM
listen up intellects!!IDEA!!! hmmmm why not cut da crap ay......if u really care about savin lives n shit...why not go to ur congress and make them banned ALCOHOL? while ur at it...get them to banned CIGGARETTE as well? But u guys really not that serious arent you? Anyway i have much more important world issues i needed to address. Simple problems requires simple solutions, then we wont continue killing our planet. Ur debate does not take humanity no where. Wake up smart people.
Posted by: roderick caparoso | July 14, 2009 3:13 AM
Jules Winnfield: I haven't noticed "anit-police remarks," but I have no doubt not read all the posts. I don't think it is anti-police to point out that law enforcement officers do not see their job as protecting our Constitutional rights; their job is to arrest people and secure a conviction. I have never been involved in a case with a Motion to Exclude Evidence where the LEO did not feel his search was justified. Conversely, there have been many occasions when I thought the Motion to Exclude was unjustified, but I had to make it for the purpose of following due dilligence.
The 4th Amendment is not a mere technicality: It exists to protect us from arbitrary or selective enforcement of the law; against fishing expeditions; against private vendettas by those in power.
Kevin C:
This is just incoherent and wrong. No one has claimed the right to break the law. A DUI Checkpoint, by definition, does not involve a search warrant; it is one of the specified exceptions to the warrant requirement, or so says the Supreme Court. There are procedural conditions that the Checkpoint must meet to qualify for the exception. In this case where the checkpoint was announced in advance, I very much doubt that it meets these requirements, as the one thing it is clear that will not be caught by the dragnet is a drunk driver. The bartenders will tell everyone to take an alternate route. In NC, all of the evidence of fresh criminal acts (the drug arrests, inspection violations, etc) would be candidates for exclusion.
franc: Not catching any DUIs is not evidence that the Checkpoint worked. It is evidence that any potentially drunk drivers took an alternate route.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 14, 2009 6:09 AM
"anti-police" in the first sentence, of course. Must. get. coffee.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 14, 2009 6:12 AM
Profiling, by marking tires and headlights has been a big thing if your vehical is parked outside a bar for years. So check points are just a little more convenient for them so they do not have to get out and mark head lights or tires. They can just stop everyone who comes through. What are the people who wrote the constitution doing right now? Possible they may be rolling in there graves. I remember a time when the police would actually give you a ride home if you were too drunk to drive. Now they will give you a ride to jail. I am not for drunk drivers or law breakers, I lost three very good friends to it. One was drunk himself and two were sobber and on vacation. So I have dove drunk myself so I would be a hippacrit if I said I have done no wrong. I have recieved a ride from a cop to my house. I more than appreciated it I never forgot it. Good guy!! Not to think I could get away with drunk driving after that I considered myself extermly lucky and reflected on it and still do. We are not a communist country!!!! Check points in the US ARE JUST NOT RIGHT. If that the way they want to do it then every time u go to work, quickshops, off a interstate, every county line and state line make it like Germany and get it over. Or stand up for your rights. Somebody did in the past called it what? I do miss my friends alot. But that is something that we all have to consider when we get behind the wheel. Just like when you go to the woods and a beer eats you. Well its kill all the bears time. So you see where I am going with this. Even though I lost my friends and have some hate in my vains. I am no angle. No body is a angle. Some may be close but we all have some sins. This is the circle of life.
Posted by: tom johnson | July 15, 2009 8:23 PM