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.
Reckless driving is illegal, I think, in all 50 states. So why add a bunch of other things on except to give cops another way to ram their boot up your ass? If somebody can drive and not drive reckless with a blood alcohol content of .25%, why shouldn't they be able too? If somebody can text and drive and not be reckless, then why not?
A huge portion of the public want the checkpoints - because they want to get the drunks off the roadways. Those checkpoints work. They will - and should, remain. Heck, I'd vote to expand them.
Reckless driving is illegal, I think, in all 50 states. So why add a bunch of other things on except to give cops another way to ram their boot up your ass? If somebody can drive and not drive reckless with a blood alcohol content of .25%, why shouldn't they be able too? If somebody can text and drive and not be reckless, then why not?
A huge portion of the public want the checkpoints - because they want to get the drunks off the roadways. Those checkpoints work. They will - and should, remain. Heck, I'd vote to expand them.
Reckless driving is illegal, I think, in all 50 states. So why add a bunch of other things on except to give cops another way to ram their boot up your ass? If somebody can drive and not drive reckless with a blood alcohol content of .25%, why shouldn't they be able too? If somebody can text and drive and not be reckless, then why not?
It's fairly difficult to spot people that are texting and just so many police officers. If you had someone that was killed by a drunk driver I doubt you would feel that way. When MADD got involved they were supported by voters and they got DUI checkpoints put in place, it saved lives, it worked.
Didn't vote, because while I know that random checkpoints are unconstitutional, I would never say checkpoints in general are. The key word in the Fourth Amendment is "unreasonable". Checking someone for weapons before they board an airplane, for example, is not unreasonable and therefore not unconstitutional. A checkpoint in the middle of nowhere with both sides of the checkpoint calling for the same level of security is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.
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.
