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.
Actually you are required to provide license, registration and proof of insurance. If you choose not to participate in a sobriety test, you will lose your drivers license in all the states that I know of.
Well everyone knows that, but you are not required to answer any question. Period. If you are not the driver you do not have to show ID unless you are being detained. And if you are being detained, they better have a good reason. A friend of mine, a sheriff's deputy, said to politely tell them to "go to h*ll". if they ask for ID and you are not driving.
I always avoid this crap if possible. I also post it online to warn others. I barely drink and NEVER drink and drive....but this along with license check points is pure harassment.
I don't drink, either. But I still care, and here's why. They eventually stopped doing them, but for quite a while driving out from D.C. to Virginia at night you'd run into a sobriety check point at the 14th Street Bridge. I wouldn't have minded half as much if the check points didn't sometimes take 20-40 minutes to get through. If they had randomly chosen a few cars or opened things up when there got to be a backup, well, okay, but no...they stopped every car and it took a LONG time.
In the meantime, from a practicality standpoint, I happen to know what happens between me and that officer is up to me. And since, when I drive, I'm not intoxicated, but more importantly, I typically want to get where I want to in the fastest and most efficient way possible, I'm not going to waste 5 minutes sword fighting with a cop. I'll just say "no, I haven't been drinking" and be on my merry way. Sometimes I even have to go pee and would prefer not to go in my pants. Problem solved. Everything doesn't have to be confrontational...law or no law (especially since the result of such actions is going to be meaningless in the grand scheme of things). But do go on with your hyperbole as I'm sure there must be some extremely insignificant event you can point to that led to all Americans losing their rights. I think I'll stick with practicality.
I just remember that either on this forum or another that I'm on, when in a discussion about cops who kill without sufficient justification, it was suggested that every time a cop kills or seriously wound someone, the case should automatically go to a sort of grand jury for citizen determination if charges should be pressed, and a couple of cops basically said why should an officer be harassed like that unless charges have been placed? While I'm not particularly upset about sobriety checkpoints if they do not delay people by much time and are handled professionally, I don't see the difference in terms of principles. Why should the vast majority of people be even temporarily detained if they haven't had charges placed against them. It gets down to do cops have more rights than regular citizens. And the answer ought to be no...never.
I just remember that either on this forum or another that I'm on, when in a discussion about cops who kill without sufficient justification, it was suggested that every time a cop kills or seriously wound someone, the case should automatically go to a sort of grand jury for citizen determination if charges should be pressed, and a couple of cops basically said why should an officer be harassed like that unless charges have been placed? While I'm not particularly upset about sobriety checkpoints if they do not delay people by much time and are handled professionally, I don't see the difference in terms of principles. Why should the vast majority of people be even temporarily detained if they haven't had charges placed against them. It gets down to do cops have more rights than regular citizens. And the answer ought to be no...never.
Right on cue. From a sobriety checkpoint to cops killing. Thanks for being predictable.
The roads you pay taxes on isn't necessary for you. They are for use of the general public, police, fire, ambulance, post office (original justification for government funded roads), delivery services, etc. Now, if you want to take part in their use, you have to follow certain laws, including being sober.
I would rather live in a police state than an anarchy state. I have a right to drive on roads that are not being used by drunk drivers. The only way to insure that is with police enforcement.
You do realize the taxpayer(those people driving on those roads) pays the salary of the police, fire dept., post office,etc.
Rather live in a police state? You will get your wish soon enough.
You would have done great in Germany in the 30s "get your belongings and get in zee truck".
These are illegal where I live, but I have no problem with them. Your license is issued by the state and you are driving on public roads. You have to follow certain laws. Police ensure you are doing so. Don't like it? -- Dont drive!
What other constitutional rights do you waive when driving?
Ohio has something worse. They have safety checkpoints. One guy I know, who had an older car, was stopped every day while they safety-checked his car on the interstate.( his car passed every time) It was his direct route to work. He was late so many times because of the stops, he got fired.
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.