Over the Top Policing

[rationull]

Random breath tests and cheek swabs sound pretty bad to me. I'm as against drunk driving as anyone (distracted or reckless driving, really, as I think the alcohol part kind of misses the forest for the trees) but I am not a fan of random checkpoints.

We had one here the other day, on my way home from work. They were out in force for the holiday weekend. Everybody had to stop. Officer comes up to the window, which I've already rolled down, asked me if I'd had any drinks and where I was going while she peered around the car with a flashlight.

Now, she was nice enough about it and just doing her job, but it still bugged me. Number 1, no, I haven't had any drinks. Number 2, why does it matter where I'm going? I just wanted to get home but next time maybe I'll ask why they need to know.

Personally I think it's more about giving them an excuse to pull people over and look for any probable cause than curbing drunk driving. It was 7 pm for crying out loud!

 

[dparm]

motorists.org

Join up, they fight this stuff.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: rationull
Random breath tests and cheek swabs sound pretty bad to me. I'm as against drunk driving as anyone (distracted or reckless driving, really, as I think the alcohol part kind of misses the forest for the trees) but I am not a fan of random checkpoints.

We had one here the other day, on my way home from work. They were out in force for the holiday weekend. Everybody had to stop. Officer comes up to the window, which I've already rolled down, asked me if I'd had any drinks and where I was going while she peered around the car with a flashlight.

Now, she was nice enough about it and just doing her job, but it still bugged me. Number 1, no, I haven't had any drinks. Number 2, why does it matter where I'm going? I just wanted to get home but next time maybe I'll ask why they need to know.

Personally I think it's more about giving them an excuse to pull people over and look for any probable cause than curbing drunk driving. It was 7 pm for crying out loud!



1. I had 7 beers.
2. I'm going to the crack house, then possibly to my secret marijuana garden.

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: rationull
Random breath tests and cheek swabs sound pretty bad to me. I'm as against drunk driving as anyone (distracted or reckless driving, really, as I think the alcohol part kind of misses the forest for the trees) but I am not a fan of random checkpoints.

We had one here the other day, on my way home from work. They were out in force for the holiday weekend. Everybody had to stop. Officer comes up to the window, which I've already rolled down, asked me if I'd had any drinks and where I was going while she peered around the car with a flashlight.

Now, she was nice enough about it and just doing her job, but it still bugged me. Number 1, no, I haven't had any drinks. Number 2, why does it matter where I'm going? I just wanted to get home but next time maybe I'll ask why they need to know.

Personally I think it's more about giving them an excuse to pull people over and look for any probable cause than curbing drunk driving. It was 7 pm for crying out loud!



1. I had 7 beers.
2. I'm going to the crack house, then possibly to my secret marijuana garden.


Believe me it was very tempting, but I had to get home to let the dog out and also wanted to enjoy my weekend

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The cheek swab seems a little more ominous than "checking for drugs". That's usually how they obtain DNA.


No need to gather roadside DNA. Every Oz child get a heel [censored] at birth (to test for congenital stuff), and the card goes on file forever.

Every so often after a particularly heinous crime, there's a call to open the database for law enforcement purposes (yeah, like they'll test 40M DNA samples for a single crime).

They will get there 'though.

There's been a couple of towns where every male has had to submit to a "voluntary" DNA test. The voluntary part is questionable, when the Police state in the media that failure to submit voluntarily will obviously draw suspicion as to why they denied the test.

Neither case did they find the perp.

 

[Y_K]

Very interesting. So, what would happen if you answer: 'I am going on my private business and do not want to discuss my destination'? Presumption of guilt is creeping in, and we are to blame ourselves.

oops, thequestion was meant for the distinguished gentleman from California

 

[sentra]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I don't like the "automatic guilt" that is put onto the population for certain things like asking for ID when using a credit card (against the user agreement)....

I am also really annoyed when a cashier asks me for an ID when using a credit card, although i have always refused to show one. The use of idiotic and unearthly reasoning by the imbeciles, often including the store manager(s), to justify the request is even more disturbing.

It must note that uneducated consumers are largely to blame for such outrageous demands, though. If every customer refused to present his/her ID when making a purchase, usually over $100, these stores would change their antics.

 

[65cuda]

I've been through some of these checkpoints and to be honest have never had a problem. They just checked for DL, registration and insurance that we are suppose to have in the car anyway. They did flash the flashlight real quick in the back, but were nice and polite and let me go on my way.

 

[Drew99GT]

Welcome to the united police states of the world.

We have police check points every few weeks, mostly on the weekends. The buggers are either stupid or they try and skirt the 4th amendment by putting up signs saying there's a check point ahead. 90% of traffic turns around.

 

[Kestas]

That's funny! When people turn around, it usually draws attention to them, implies guilt, and makes them targets for the police. When 90% of them turn around, that's a strong statement to the police that they're not serving the public well.

 

[Drew99GT]

The thing is, the signs are usually far enough from the check points that the police either can't see the hoards of traffic turning on to neighborhood streets, or they're simply focusing on the people going through the check points.

I was driving home one night a few years ago and saw a sign for a check point and it was a traffic jam going through this residential neighborhood as everyone was avoiding it.

 

[Spazdog]

I think my state is the only state that prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on our interpretation of the US Constitution.

That either means we're wrong or the other states that do them are wrong.

But that didn't stop them from doing "homeland security" checkpoints after 9/11. They were annoying and you had local police equivalent of Deputy Barney Fife trying to play "criminal psychologist" with his line of questions while his fat buddy tried to look under my car with an inspection mirror.

The fact that his buddy's XXXL uniform did not rupture like a kielbasa casing in a microwave while he was bending over is a testament to the quality of fabrics used in police uniforms.

After he asked the same slightly restructured question a third time in a pathetic attempt to catch me in a lie I felt like giving him a two word answer. "4th amendment"

I was annoyed but cooperated. To the best of my knowledge, they caught exactly zero terrorists. Domestic or otherwise. But they probably issued a lot of insurance and equipment violation tickets that went unpaid and then I paid for that violator to sit in jail.

 

[tgferg67]

Also, the police are abusing the civil forfeiture laws. They take cars without even being charged with a crime because the "property" as violated the law. Then use "perponderance of evidence(a hunch) because they have skirted it as a civil matter instead of criminal matter - beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a conflict of intrest for revenue without checks and balances and serious crimes that do not produce revenue have less manpower.

 

[dishdude]

Sad state of affairs in this country. Reading some of these stories (if they are not elaborated or twisted) are very scary.

 

[65cuda]

It is sad if they are totally true, but on one point I believe that the courts have ruled that they have to announce these checkpoints and they have to follow a certain procedure on which ones to check. Even at that at our checkpoints they still catch those on DUI's and outstanding warrants so within some reason I don't have much of a problem with it. If they are catching drunks even when it has been said then imagine the ones that they don't catch. I also have seen where the police set up the checkpoints are hard to turn around at without the police being able to notice. If they see you then you can bet they will catch up and check you.

 

[JoeWGauss]

I'm completely against folks driving under the influence, BUT somehow our nation survived this selfish and thoughtless action without the government writing laws that violate our 4 and 5th amendment rights...


I believe that ANY bill, act, or law, or court decision that violates the law of our land, the Consititution, are null and void. Correct?

 

[65cuda]

There are many laws that we might not agree with, but when it is my hide on the line I have little problem with a law that will get them off the road and in jail. I'm more worried about my basic right of being able to live than their's of DUI.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: JoeWGauss
...I believe that ANY bill, act, or law, or court decision that violates the law of our land, the Consititution, are null and void. Correct?


It's all in the interpretation.

There is no state law prohibiting sobriety checkpoints here. They are prohibited here based on my state's interpretation of the US Constitution. But I can cross the border into Oklahoma and they have sobriety checkpoints validated by their interpretion of the US Constitution.

 

[volvos_rock]

interpretation....and mostly case law. Case law is made every day in court and has more impact on the law than interprtation. Obviously case law is a form of interpretation, but the US or state constitution is NOT a be all/end all, it is the case law that matters.

 

[expat]

Not being critical, But is this what happens when you have the 'Oldest and shortest' constitution in the world- It just fall open to interpretation?
I guess they all do, to a degree (thankfully) But (for clarity) on many issues, it looks like an update may be in order, But I guess 'That' is a Can of Worms NOBODY wants to open.

Policing in the U.K. got well out of hand during the 70's and 80's
(Google SPG and Blare Peach) I think the populous called for the 'Orwellian Dogs' to be 'reigned in' a little though, about the time of the Pole Tax riots.