Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that negates the presumption of innocence how? That justifies obstructions the basic right of free travel how? And finally your car IS your private property even when on a public road so your point is invalid.
Somebody thinks that driving is a right when it is not.....
That said, police should not be searching cars, just determining operator sobriety.
Somebody thinks that driving is a right when it is not.....
That said, police should not be searching cars, just determining operator sobriety.
the right of presumed innocence IS a right, the right to free travel IS a right. Remember stop and frisk in NYC.. sobriety checks are the same thing, fishing expeditions and most of the arrests that occur have nothing to d with DUI, it is an excuse to unjustly and in my view illegally use the police force
From Brennan's dissenting opinion (Marshall joining) in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz:
"I do not dispute the immense social cost caused by drunken drivers, nor do I slight the government's efforts to prevent such tragic losses. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that today's opinion will be received favorably by a majority of our society, who would willingly suffer the minimal intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint stop in order to prevent drunken driving. But consensus that a particular law enforcement technique serves a laudable purpose has never been the touchstone of constitutional analysis.
The Fourth Amendment was designed not merely to protect against official intrusions whose social utility was less as measured by some "balancing test" than its intrusion on individual privacy; it was designed in addition to grant the individual a zone of privacy whose protections could be breached only where the "reasonable" requirements of the probable cause standard were met. Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials -- perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens -- may be tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a true balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of "the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
The majority, delivered by Rehnquist, argued essentially that the state has an interest in preventing drunk driving. It is an interested read, especially the dissenting opinions.
The original post was about thanking the Portsmouth Police for the roadblock.
Which is fine.
But in a web forum other opinions may come up about these police roadblocks. And issues about these roadblocks.
It is my understanding in New Hampshire, that these roadblocks, that the public has to be notified. Either by posting some place or in a local newspaper. Is that true or correct in NH?
It is my understanding in New Hampshire, that these roadblocks, that the public has to be notified. Either by posting some place or in a local newspaper. Is that true or correct in NH?
Yes, true. Looking at the stats in that Concord Monitor article I posted the other day (re: the constitutionality of these road blocks in NH), I would guess that it is the posting in advance which is deterring most of the drunken driving (though, how can that be quantified?), as the road blocks themselves don't actually catch very many drunk drivers, and often "catch" more people who are doing other illegal things, or have outstanding warrants, etc..
Although I don't drive drunk I know for sure that back when I used to live near the site of a frequent road block, I would avoid the area when one was coming up, just to avoid the hassle. (It was, however, always at a location which was fairly hard to avoid if you were out at that time, coming from the popular drinking establishments, and lived anywhere beyond it. A big hassle if you worked a night shift or something and were coming home tired.)
Yes, true. Looking at the stats in that Concord Monitor article I posted the other day (re: the constitutionality of these road blocks in NH), I would guess that it is the posting in advance which is deterring most of the drunken driving (though, how can that be quantified?), as the road blocks themselves don't actually catch very many drunk drivers, and often "catch" more people who are doing other illegal things, or have outstanding warrants, etc..
Although I don't drive drunk I know for sure that back when I used to live near the site of a frequent road block, I would avoid the area when one was coming up, just to avoid the hassle. (It was, however, always at a location which was fairly hard to avoid if you were out at that time, coming from the popular drinking establishments, and lived anywhere beyond it. A big hassle if you worked a night shift or something and were coming home tired.)
a big hassle, and there is the point right there. Are those who party to dumb to read about where a roadblock will be? For the most part no. Now folks who ain't thinking about getting drunk that evening might not look for such a notice at all. They are no thinking in those terms to begin with.. so by and large they are the ones who are being harassed and of course dealing with the hassle
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
