'The Fight for the Right to Drive'

“To protect and serve” is what is on the side of the squad car.

“To protect and serve”… They never finish that phrase on the side of the cars… they always omit the last two words, which are… “Politicians Interests”

3 Likes

Let’s not go any further on this one, please. Happy Friday.

2 Likes

Uh oh… I’m getting in trouble guys. LOL At least she didn’t pull me aside and make me wear that cone shaped hat this time.

Heh heh. In 5th grade I was chastised for breaking my ruler and had to pay 10 cents for it. Then later in life I worked for a nun that would regularly break rulers on unruly staff. Oh the justice of it all. Ouch.

Logic issues. HUGE difference between checking someone on a PUBLIC road to see if they are intoxicated and searching a persons PRIVATE home. I don’t see how you could make that leap.

US supreme court disagrees with you.

Ever been to Check Point Charlie? The museum will give you pause. We will allow some drunks on the road to maintain some semblance of liberty.

And the modern Supreme Court also decided that money is speech, that half of the 2nd amendment does not, in fact, exist, and the historical Court decided that making black people sit at the back of the bus was A-OK. SCOTUS does not always get it right. And they got it wrong with gestapo police tactics like this.

The logic that “well non-probable-cause searches are just fine as long as you do it to everyone” is the foundation of that decision, and by that logic as long as we paw through all the houses, searching houses is fine too. Violate any clause of the constitution you want as long as you violate it with everyone.

That’s insane.

2 Likes

So based on your thinking…The US Government (via TSA) does not have a right to stop and search you before you board a plane?

That decision was made in 1990…NOT the radical conservative court we have today.

You agree to be searched when you buy a ticket. You don’t agree to be harassed just because you obtain a drivers license. I do think the government has overreached with the TSA security theater, however.

And is still the modern court as compared to the Plessy court which was in 1896.

3 Likes

One you call searched…the other you call harassed. REALLY?

I hate to tell you, but when you get a license you agree to abide by all the laws in each state you drive…which includes DUI checks.

If you flew as much as I did, then you wouldn’t think so.

1 Like

The more I fly, the less I like security theater, so that statement is inherently false.

1 Like

Well, I’d like to see that referenced anywhere. I certainly did not receive any such notification nor did I sign anything saying that I would…

3 Likes

I signed a form that said if I am suspected of drunk driving based upon actual evidence (weaving, etc) and I refuse to submit to a breathalyzer, my license gets suspended.

I never signed a form that said I agree to be subjected to detention and lack-of-cause searches just because I happen to be on a road where the cops have decided to harass everyone…

It should be noted that in my state, such tactics are illegal, as they should be. It’s somewhat of a culture shock when I travel to states that are not so cognizant of how law abiding citizens should be treated.

2 Likes

As mentioned above, NH also recently made them illegal. I’m all for pulling someone over for probable cause but very much against the broad net approach…

IMO, big difference in public safety between DUI and submitting to search for entry to planes or sports stadiums for example. The potential for mass casualties warrants the latter…

3 Likes

They’ve been illegal in NH for at least 35 years.

When you applied for a license you agreed to abide by the laws of the state.

I don’t know why you keep calling it harassment. When I lived in NY and visited NY I’ve gone through dozens of DUI checks over the years. I was NEVER EVER harassed. All they did was ask for license and registration…and if they suspect you were drinking they will ask for a sobriety road test. Took a total of 50 seconds. I also don’t drink and drive EVER…Never have…never will. Sounds like you live in a Police state (which I suggest you move if you do).

1 Like

Sorry, they were doing them in Seabrook just a couple of years ago and reporting in the newspaper about how many they caught. They went so far as to broadcast in the paper when they planned to have them, just not where.

See here- https://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-House-passes-ban-on-police-sobriety-checkpoints-15744144

Published: 2/22/2018 2:35:04 PM
House representatives passed a bill banning the use of “sobriety checkpoints” by state and local police departments Thursday, following long-running criticism that the practice is unconstitutional and ineffective.

House Bill 1283, which passed by voice vote and without debate, would end a practice in place since 2003, in which police departments block off stretches of roads and detain drivers to observe sobriety.

I knew it was deemed unconstitutional when I moved here in the 80’s. So in 2003 they passed a law saying it was OK…now it’s banned again.

1 Like

stewart%20popcorn

1 Like