Montana has a deadly culture... (Bozeman: maintenance, cost of, law)

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

I have to disagree with you Rez on the checkpoints. I feel, they are not taking away my rights. My right to do what? Drink and drive? Slip by with an outstanding warrant? Evade arrest or questioning? I will happily stop at a checkpoint and take a couple minutes if it means that my sons or daughters and myself can drive home on that highway without worrying about drunk drivers.

Because it violates the Bill of Rights, for one thing. You are being searched (albeit in a small way, but these things start small) without any "probable cause" -- other than that you're out driving around.

This is only logical if the act of driving itself is "probable cause".

And remember, that cop who just stopped you is NOT patrolling out where people are actually driving at high speed. (You don't see many people crashing through checkpoints at 90mph, do you? So it must be that checkpoints prevent speeders. Uh-huh... and having pink flamingos in my yard prevents tigers, too.)

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Also, the police do have the obligation to Prevent crime, not just after the fact arrests. For instance, the Meth program in Montana. Or the DARE program. Police giving safety lectures at schools. Setting up booths at the county fair to answer questions. These are all good things and they work. I don't feel they infringe on my rights.

Not the same thing. I don't know how to make it clearer -- you can do all the discouragement you want, but that is not the same as ensuring that someone cannot commit a crime -- ie. "preventing" it. DARE is "hey stupid, look what happens if you do X". That's fine. Preventing drug use would be "we're going to make sure you CAN'T use drugs, no matter how stupid you are." How are you going to accomplish that, without locking everyone up or putting everyone under 24/7 surveillance??

If you watch everyone all the time, you can always find something to arrest them for. This is the real principle behind checkpoints and other warrantless surveillance.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

-- Cardinal Richelieu (b.1585-d.1642)

From https://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkp...heckpoints.htm:

While roadblocks are conducted under a number of different guises, they all share a common set of traits. Specifically, they:

* Operate with no individualized reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing
* Seek to control and intimidate local communities as opposed to serve and protect them
* Raise revenue for expanding government programs through fines, citations & arrest

[emphasis mine]

From a letter to the SLC Tribune:

The recent "Deer Widows" weekend checkpoint in West Wendover to catch drunken drivers netted 12 arrests, while stopping and inconveniencing 504 drivers at a cost to the Utah Highway Patrol of more than 16 man-hours per arrest ("12 DUI arrests at checkpoint," Tribune , Oct. 17). In the meantime, drivers who cause far more deaths and injuries -- drowsy, texting, distracted, speeding and aggressive drivers -- went unmonitored due to 40 Highway Patrol officers being tied up in Wendover for five or six hours. In 16 man-hours of normal patrol, each of those officers could have stopped far more than one driver committing other offenses, as well as DUIs.

Drunken-driver stops are an inefficient use of limited police resources and a waste of taxpayer money. If any overtime was paid, it was an even bigger waste of taxpayer money.

[emphasis again mine]

An article from a professor at Potsdam University, which looks at both sides: DWI/DUI Sobriety Road Blocks or Checkpoints
Note his point that the "sobriety checkpoint" functions as an exception to the Constitution.

How many of these "exceptions" should we make? What else should be be exempt?? How many before the Constitution loses all force to protect us?

Remember, the function of the Constitution is NOT to control the people. It is intended to limit the power of government.

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." --John Adams

[rickers]

Originally Posted by Reziac

And most checkpoints don't catch ANY drunk drivers; what they do catch are anyone with an outstanding traffic ticket, warrant, or the like.

The first part of this sentence I don't believe at all. The second part I do believe and all I have to say about that is "good".
I only objected to checkpoints when I was doing something that could get me busted by going through the checkpoint. I don't drive after drinking (I don't drink any alcohol anymore), so a checkpoint or two in heavy DUI areas don't bother me at all. It's no more a bother or a violation of some vague, so called rights than being frisked at the airport or when entering a big public event.

[organick]

Originally Posted by Reziac

No, they don't -- but what checkpoints DO accomplish, is to accustom people to living in a "Komrade! Your papers please!!" society. Which is a hideously dangerous precedent -- once people get used to that sort of thing, it's much easier to take away other rights, and you'll never see them slipping away til it's too late.

And most checkpoints don't catch ANY drunk drivers; what they do catch are anyone with an outstanding traffic ticket, warrant, or the like. Cops love 'em because they get to confiscate a lot of cars from people over minor offenses like that (and they're also used to confiscate cash from unwary travellers -- driving around with a wad of cash is 'evidence' that you're a dope dealer, nowadays). Meanwhile, those same cops can't be out patrolling, so any drunks driving on other roads go their merry way unmolested.

[It has occurred to me that if a town can afford a dozen cops to man a checkpoint -- and yes, they usually wind up with that many at each one -- it has at least a dozen cops more than it needs. If it really needed them, they'd be out doing useful things, not manning checkpoints.]

And remember that in a rural state with relatively low traffic, statistics can be deceiving. If a road has four deaths, then next year it has five, that's a 20% increase. If a road has ONE death due to drunk driving, and next year it has TWO, that's a 100% increase. Prohibitionist outfits (like MADD has become) love to brandish that sort of statistic, even tho overall it's pretty meaningless.

What's really stupid is when someone has the good sense to stay put and sleep it off in their car rather than try to drive home -- and gets arrested for "drunk driving" even tho they are PARKED. This has happened a few times now that I know of, with at least a couple convictions based on the illogic "because he COULD have driven while drunk since he had immediate access to a car". How does this sort of stupidity encourage people to do the sensible thing, when they're going to get punished for it?? And how is that not thoughtcrime? It's like saying "because you're carrying a loaded gun, you COULD go postal."

I'm all for punishing idiots. But let's not let their punishment slop over onto everyone, especially via methods that will negatively impact our rights, because you MIGHT be a criminal and we can't have any of that!

As to whether the cops have a duty to "prevent" crime, the Supreme Court says otherwise: According to a decision which at the moment I'm too lazy to look up, the cops' job is to catch the perps after the fact, NOT before, because there is no way to "prevent" crime without eliminating ALL our civil rights (or descending into entrapment as a full-time police method). You can discourage people from becoming perps by way of appropriate consequences, but you can't put a leash on everyone to make them behave. You can't station a cop outside everyone's house to stop burglaries (that, as I recall, was the gist of the SCOTUS decision) nor on every tailpipe to prevent drunk driving.

(BTW, I don't drink and drive, in fact I rarely drink at all and never did drugs of any sort, so I'm not arguing my own case.)

I think that maybe you are a bit unclear of how checkpoints work. First off a checkpoint is designed for a specific reason. It is either a DUI checkpoint, a registration checkpoint etc. There also has to be a standard for them to be legal. Ie. every third car gets stopped or whatever. Also during a checkpoint there is no running of ones license so no you would not be cited for an outstanding ticket because they dont run everyones licensce. What does happen is they ask if you have been drinking and they observe how you are acting and at most ask to see your licensce to make sure you have a valid one. They have no right to detain you or delay you long enough to run your info.

Again this is not taking away any rights you have. How are any of your constitutional rights being violated? You are driving on a tax payer supported/ public road. If you are intoxicated while doing so then YOU are now violating my rights by putting me in danger.

[organick]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Because it violates the Bill of Rights, for one thing. You are being searched (albeit in a small way, but these things start small) without any "probable cause" -- other than that you're out driving around.

This is only logical if the act of driving itself is "probable cause".

And remember, that cop who just stopped you is NOT patrolling out where people are actually driving at high speed. (You don't see many people crashing through checkpoints at 90mph, do you? So it must be that checkpoints prevent speeders. Uh-huh... and having pink flamingos in my yard prevents tigers, too.)



Not the same thing. I don't know how to make it clearer -- you can do all the discouragement you want, but that is not the same as ensuring that someone cannot commit a crime -- ie. "preventing" it. DARE is "hey stupid, look what happens if you do X". That's fine. Preventing drug use would be "we're going to make sure you CAN'T use drugs, no matter how stupid you are." How are you going to accomplish that, without locking everyone up or putting everyone under 24/7 surveillance??

If you watch everyone all the time, you can always find something to arrest them for. This is the real principle behind checkpoints and other warrantless surveillance.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

-- Cardinal Richelieu (b.1585-d.1642)

From https://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkp...heckpoints.htm:

While roadblocks are conducted under a number of different guises, they all share a common set of traits. Specifically, they:

* Operate with no individualized reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing
* Seek to control and intimidate local communities as opposed to serve and protect them
* Raise revenue for expanding government programs through fines, citations & arrest

[emphasis mine]

From a letter to the SLC Tribune:

The recent "Deer Widows" weekend checkpoint in West Wendover to catch drunken drivers netted 12 arrests, while stopping and inconveniencing 504 drivers at a cost to the Utah Highway Patrol of more than 16 man-hours per arrest ("12 DUI arrests at checkpoint," Tribune , Oct. 17). In the meantime, drivers who cause far more deaths and injuries -- drowsy, texting, distracted, speeding and aggressive drivers -- went unmonitored due to 40 Highway Patrol officers being tied up in Wendover for five or six hours. In 16 man-hours of normal patrol, each of those officers could have stopped far more than one driver committing other offenses, as well as DUIs.

Drunken-driver stops are an inefficient use of limited police resources and a waste of taxpayer money. If any overtime was paid, it was an even bigger waste of taxpayer money.

[emphasis again mine]

An article from a professor at Potsdam University, which looks at both sides: DWI/DUI Sobriety Road Blocks or Checkpoints
Note his point that the "sobriety checkpoint" functions as an exception to the Constitution.

How many of these "exceptions" should we make? What else should be be exempt?? How many before the Constitution loses all force to protect us?

Remember, the function of the Constitution is NOT to control the people. It is intended to limit the power of government.

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." --John Adams

I have to hand it to you, you are right. One of my favorite quotes is from Ben Franklin.

[SIZE=4]"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.[/SIZE]"

and I was completely looking at this from the wrong angle. The concept that only people doing something wrong object to laws is the beginning of the end of all of our freedoms. I still believe that penalties for thoose caught should be made stiffer. However you are correct, the second we accept even a small amount of our right being taken away is the second we begin to die. We all have rights and freedoms. We have the right not to have our privacy invaded for no reason. I got caught up in the personal feelings about drunk drivers, which I still have. I feel anyone who drives intoxicated should be punished harshly, however that does not mean that everyone else on the road needs to prove that they were not drinking. Thanks for getting me back on track

[Reziac]

That's something too easily forgotten in a surveillance state:

"I'm not worried about them watching me, because I haven't done anything wrong" is hostile to personal freedom.

Liberty is preserved thus: "If I've done nothing wrong, why are you watching me??"

[Breed327]

There is alot of drinking in Montana especially in West Yellowstone, because 1. work is seasonal because the park is closed to traffic and the new restrictions on the park is making it hard for people to come up here and vacation during the winter. People dont realize that there are plenty of places to go snowmobiling up here other than the park. 2. There is nothing else to do in the town because of low tourism in the winter time.

[AQHA]

People keep saying why there's a lot of drunk drivers on the road here in Montana-- I don't care why. Any state a person lives in you could easily sit down and list ten reasons why they drink and drive. When it comes right down to it the why is because the driver cares more about his/her entertainment than they do the safety of the other drivers on the road; thats why they drive drunk. Everyone explaining why they do it is lame as hell, you're just making excuses for inexcusable behavior!

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by AQHA

People keep saying why there's a lot of drunk drivers on the road here in Montana-- I don't care why. Any state a person lives in you could easily sit down and list ten reasons why they drink and drive. When it comes right down to it the why is because the driver cares more about his/her entertainment than they do the safety of the other drivers on the road; thats why they drive drunk. Everyone explaining why they do it is lame as hell, you're just making excuses for inexcusable behavior!

You are right -- and likewise, we should not use the excuse of "safety" for violating the principles of the Constitution and of American justice.

[mtn_viking]

Originally Posted by organick

it was flawed in the terms of saying people will just be responsible so we don't need trigger locks on guns.....well no they aren't if they were kids wouldn't get there hands on dads loaded gun now would they

No, your argument that people should be prosecuted before they commit a crime is the one that is flawed. It goes directly against everything our criminal justice system is based on. There are lots of nice authoritarian countries around the world that would give that sort of system if you so desire. I hear that Myanmar is nice this time of year.

Your trigger lock argument is also flawed. Failing to put a trigger lock on a firearm is not a criminal act, at least not in Montana.

[mtn_viking]

Originally Posted by organick

What does happen is they ask if you have been drinking and they observe how you are acting and at most ask to see your licensce to make sure you have a valid one. They have no right to detain you or delay you long enough to run your info.

Again this is not taking away any rights you have. How are any of your constitutional rights being violated? You are driving on a tax payer supported/ public road. If you are intoxicated while doing so then YOU are now violating my rights by putting me in danger.

I also pay property taxes. Maybe the helpful police officers should come check on me in my home and ask if I have any contraband. If I appear nervous, maybe they should do a quick sweep of my house. It could certainly prevent me from committing a crime.

Giving up our rights is a "slippery slope" once it starts, it easily picks up speed. I would encourage the "safety first" crowd to move to a nice country like Myanmar or UAE where dissent and illegal actions are stomped out quickly.