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.
Wrong .. the Supremes have held them constitutional.
Wrong. I never said anything about the Supremes. They are wrong. Legally, they have the right to interpret the constitution anyway they choose and they frequently choose to expand the power of governments. But that doesn't make it right. It just makes it legal for now.
Also, the fifth amendment clearly supports your right to not answer LEO questions and be silent and that would include at these immoral sobriety checkpoints.
It NEVER cease to amaze me how some on just come out and make statements as if THEY know what they are talking about and then when we investigate their great claim we find them WRONG.
"The Supreme Court has found that sobriety checkpoints are a minor infraction of the 4th Amendment but that the state's interest in preventing drunk driving, and the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in meeting this state interest, outweigh the minor 4th Amendment infraction. The sobriety checkpoint has to be conducted properly, but if so then it's considered constitutional. The case is from 1990, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz.
It NEVER cease to amaze me how some on just come out and make statements as if THEY know what they are talking about and then when we investigate their great claim we find them WRONG.
"The Supreme Courthas found that sobriety checkpoints are a minor infraction of the 4th Amendment but that the state's interest in preventing drunk driving, and the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in meeting this state interest, outweigh the minor 4th Amendment
is this like being a little pregnant?
Looks like the supremes agree that they are unconstitutional, but once deemed for the greater good,constitutionality goes out the window. So much for checks and balances huh?
Last edited by Frank DeForrest; 08-27-2016 at 06:23 AM..
Former chief justice William Rehnquist admitted that the checkpoints violate the 4th amendment but he said it`s only a small violation and it`s in the interest of public safety. I disagree with him but as long as the door is open perhaps we have another amendment or two that we can take a closer look at...in the interest of public safety of course.
People who are against the check points need to talk to family members of people who have died as a result of a drunk driver. Because if it were not for check points you'd see a lot more fatal DUI's.
wow. Using that logic we should ban cars and save 25,000 lives per year.
Good way to lose your license to drive, which incidentally is not a constitutional right.
That is meaningless. Eating yogurt is not a constitutional right either.
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.
