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.
I could say the same for you. How can I have a conversation with someone who does not understand that the word "should" does not = the words "must" or "shall". This is guideline language, not the language of law. Or, how can I reason with someone who doesn't understand that, without proof that these guidelines are in fact laws that are being enforced (Remember the cases I asked you for?), this is nothing more than a document anyway. The people have no way of knowing when/where they are being protected.
But we can actually let that entire conversation die, because it doesn't mean they are any more constitutional either way. Whether the seizures and searches are just "random" or certifiably random, they are blatantly stopping and/or searching people without reason to suspect those particular people of criminal activity or a violation. That in and of itself is enough.
All I'm really interested in is your reasoning as it pertains to the question in the subject title of this thread. You've done everything you can to dance around it. I even asked you point blank for an explanation as to why you consider this constitutional, and you couldn't answer the question.
Like I said, you didn't understand what you read. The courts said that the DUI checkpoint MUST limit discretion, and then it provided some examples that were allowed (drawn from the DUI checkpoints at issue in the case). Each state can set up it's own method, and that method would be tested by the courts if it came to a lawsuit. Like I said - I gave you the case, and you didn't understand it.
Searches without P.C have been allowed since the establishment of this nation. There is a lot more to the constitution and its amendments than the mere words.
After all, if we take the 4th amendment in the strictest sense (as you advocate), then this wouldn't be an issue, since the police would need probable cause only when getting a warrant (I don't recall the case, but it was obviously a very early one, and nicely illustrates that the constitution is not exactly a well written document), not when conducting a search. Further, in the strictest since, we would not have incorporated the 4th amendment, and thus the 4th amendment would limit only the federal government.
Sorry, but the issue is a lot more complex than you simply reciting the 4th amendment and deciding yourself what it means.
Like I said, you didn't understand what you read. The courts said that the DUI checkpoint MUST limit discretion,
And like I said, if you're not going to quote where in the document the courts mandated adherence to the "stop every third, fifth, or tenth" sort of guideline, forget it. If you're referring to the same paragraph we had discussed before, it talked of what the officers should do, not what they must do. Big difference in the world of law, where lawyers and officers look for loopholes every chance they get. This is no form of protection whatsoever.
If you're not going to quote where in the document the courts said the officers must adhere to this sort of guideline, we might as well move on to more relevant questions... You know... the questions you keep avoiding? (See my last post for details)
Searches without P.C have been allowed since the establishment of this nation. There is a lot more to the constitution and its amendments than the mere words.
What, interpretation? Are you going to provide an alternative interpretation of the Fourth Amendment now? I'll be happy to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom
After all, if we take the 4th amendment in the strictest sense (as you advocate), then this wouldn't be an issue, since the police would need probable cause only when getting a warrant
I'm not arguing for "probable cause". I'm arguing for reasonable suspicion, and DUI checkpoints blatantly deviate from even that standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom
Sorry, but the issue is a lot more complex than you simply reciting the 4th amendment and deciding yourself what it means.
It's in the case law. Are you telling me you haven't read the case law on the very legal issue you're arguing?
He / she is not interested in the case law. He / she is only interested in their own interpretation - and they believe they are the only correct one here.
Totally discriminatory! Just because they have a device to measure blood alcohol levels!
Sleep-deprived drivers are equal to drunk drivers, but no test yet for them! It will come: Sleep deprived checkpoints when they get the measuring devices invented!
I'm a notorious day-dreamer at the wheels, and I already know when I cause an accident some day, my day-dreaming will be the culprit!
And how many accidents today are labeled: medical episode. Too many prescription drugs in their systems? Took one too many pain pills?
Just one more witch hunt! Hard to believe, there's actually people who drive better with a drink or 2!
When I leave a bar with having had a drink or 2, I'm much more careful behind the wheel of a car, more vigilant, fearful of getting a DUI! No alcohol? I'm much more reckless in my driving habits!
Unconstitutional? Only when you single out one class of drivers!!
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.
