There aren’t enough rolleyes for this one. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.
Let me get this straight-you’re in the country illegally, have no operator’s license, and are bitching because you were caught?
I guess asking these folks to enter the country legally and get a license is unreasonable.
"But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law. " ???
Umm, being here illegally is a felony, isn’t it? Driving with no license is illegal isn’t it? Would it be safe to assume they don’t bother to buy auto insurance either?
So just how were they “otherwise” obeying any laws at all? Yeah, asking them to follow the same laws we have to follow is unreasonable, racist, and mean. You and I are just big mean poop heads I guess, because we thought laws ap[lied to everyone.
[rolling eyes] That is so damn stupid. [/rolling eyes]
If you put up roadblocks on every street in the country you’d catch all the unlicensed drivers pretty damn quick.
And if you went door to door and searched everyone’s underwear drawer, you might find som drugs, guns, or kiddie porn.
I think the way ahead is clear.
You can twist just about anything, can’t you? I suppose it’s Rumsfeld’s fault that they’re driving illegally in a country they’re in illegally? Or is it Ashcroft’s fault. That is where you’re going with this right? :rolleyes:
But, oddly enough, you wouldn’t snare too many drunk drivers, which was the reason for the road blocks.
My money’s on Cheney, in the undisclosed location, with the candlestick.
Er, getting back to the main point…
Lou Dobbs viewpoint on Vicente Fox’s demands
San Diego Times - June 25, 2004
Grading system of California’s legislature in regards to immigration.
And this pretty much sums everything up…
Shall we just get it over with, skip over Bush and Kerry, and just write in Vicente Fox? :rolleyes:
No, oddly enough it’s a radical who advocated violent rebellion against the established government, and then claimed that searches had to have a valid reason for being conducted or they were illegal.
You know, that subversive Jim Madison.
Where can I find that Madison punk? I’ll give him a piece of my mind!
Please tell me I’m being whooshed by the posters claiming that the halting of the DUI checkpoints is a good thing…?
And there sure have been a lot of piss-poor analogies around the SDMB lately. Catching people driving without licenses (oh, and you know… being here illegally), while performing checks for drunken-driving doesn’t strike any similarities with suddenly searching people’s underwear drawers, to me. These people who are driving while intoxicated, along with the people who are driving without licenses, are committing a crime. They’re not within the “safe haven” of their own homes, they are out in public.
Geez.
LilShieste
You are not being wooshed when I tell you I think it is a good thing. What does being “in public” have to do with if it is ok for government officials to randomly search you? You shouldn’t have to hide in your house to avoid random searches. This happens to be one of intrusion that is acceptable to more people than others but they are really all the same thing. Can you say “playground slide smeared with vaseline”?
Some of you want to know why they should stop these roadside DUI checkpoints just because they’re catching people for various other crimes. That’s a reasonable question.
But there’s also another side to the coin. Since i arrived in the US, every time i’ve been in a discussion about these DUI roadblocks there have always been a few libertarians saying, quite reasonably, that such roadblocks are troublesome because they essentially allow police to conduct random stops and to conduct fishing expeditions, all in the absence of probable cause.
So, we have a policy—the DUI roadblocks—that certainly can have extremely beneficial results. I don’t think anyone would argue that reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road is a bad thing. But we also have an avenue for abuse of police power.
I humbly submit the Australian solution.
Random Breath Testing (RBT) was introduced in Australia during the 1980s. This program was exactly what the name implies—breath tests conducted on random motorists, both in an attempt to catch drunk drivers and, more importantly, as a deterrent to people who might think about driving after too much alcohol. And there’s no doubt that, in terms of road safety, RBT did the trick. Traffic deaths involving alcohol have declined markedly since the introduction of RBT, and i don’t know a single Aussie who opposes the system.
But there were some people who worried about the system when it was first introduced, for the reasons that i hinted at in the second paragraph. Civil libertarians (that’s what we call them in Austrlia; the term “libertarian” by itself has almost no currency in the Australian political lexicon) were concerned that RBT might be used as a way to get around other restrictions on police authority, and that some police might unfairly take advantage of this.
The solution they came up with was very simple: they don’t check licenses or registration at RBT stops. The only thing an RBT stop is used for is to check the amount of alcohol on your breath. They never ask your name, or to see your identification. All they ask is whether you’ve been drinking, and then they get you to blow in the machine.
If your alcohol level is below the legal limit, you are sent on your way. For all the cops know, you could be driving on a suspended license, or you could be an axe murderer. The only way you’ll get caught for those things is if you blow over the limit, because then you get arrested and your license and your identity become a matter of interest to the police.
I think it’s a good system, one that allows a certain level of intrusion in order to aid in public safety, but that doesn’t end up as just another excuse for the authorities to hassle innocent people without probable cause. I’ve been stopped by the RBT units on three occasions, and each time i was back on the road within about 60 seconds, having given the police nothing except some (alcohol-free) air. This system also allows Australia to avoid the laughable “roadside sobriety tests” that make for such amusing viewing on shows like “Cops.”
I agree that you shouldn’t have to hide in your house to avoid random searches. But I also do not think that DUI checkpoints are equivalent to having a police officer randomly pulling over cars on the highway, just to search the trunk for dead bodies.
I also agree with you that this is certainly a slippery slope argument. 
LilShieste
Thanks for the information, mhendo.
Upon further reflection of my posts in this thread (and how my position is similar to balancing atop an icicle), I think I have fell victim to the slippery slope already. I shouldn’t have jumped into this thread so vehemently.
That’s not to say my position has changed, only that I can really see where other posters are coming from.
LilShieste
<Tries to slowly, quietly, make his way down off of the ledge…>
Stopping unlicensed drivers is a worthy goal. But just because you’ve found a way to do so doesn’t mean that method shouldn’t have to pass constitutional muster.
Ends *versus *Means, remember? It’s like the monkey’s paw; be careful what you wish for cuz you just might get it.
So Lil, you’re presenting a false dichotomy; you seem to be reacting as if this method were the ONLY means of ridding the streets of unlicensed drivers, and stopping it would be sending the baby down the drain with the dirty water. Unfortunately, in this case it’s pretty much all soap scum; no baby here.
There’s no way most illegal immigrants could ever do that, but I suspect you knew that.
There is a privacy problem in pulling people over for DUI checks (which in itself seems to be quite defensible) and then using the opportunity to try to stick the motorists with other charges. Denmark had a situation with speed cameras - overzealous police officers used the photos to determine whether people were complying with seat belt laws, as well. (According to the law, the photo has to be good enough to positively identify the driver. That’s clear enough to determine seat belt use.) That got struck down, and pretty darn quickly, as an unwarranted breach of privacy.
Illegal immigration is a bit of a problem (and yes, I’m an immigrant myself, sue me), but random checkpoints are not going to solve it. Hefty fines and prison terms for those who hire illegal immigrants stands a better chance of working by drying up the job market and the incentive to cross the border, but that’ll never happen.
I can’t remember which State you were from, but it doesn’t work like that in NSW.
I got stopped about a year ago, at around 7:30 am on a weekday. The car was new, and the interim registration label had expired a day or two earlier. She checked the label and asked whether I’d received the new label. I said “yes” and she told me to make sure to stick it on when I got home. I can’t remember positively whether she asked for my licence, but I can remember telling someone later that day that the whole thing seemed designed to catch unlicensed/unregistered/uninsured drivers rather than drink drivers (because of the time of day).
I’m from Sydney, and all three of my RBT stops have been in Sydney.
And the scenario i posted is a bit different from displaying an out-of-date registration label. After all, that’s something that any cop can see from outside the vehicle, whether or not they stop you for a breath test. It’s not the same as asking for licence and registration when they stop you, and i was never asked for either of those things at an RBT stop.
Of course, i’ve been living in the US for four years now, so it’s quite possible that things have changed.
Where? Montpelier Estate, Montpelier Station, Virginia, USA. See photo here
You can give him a piece of your mind, but don’t expect him to respond much, after 168 years.
I really don’t get it. The police can check me any time they wish. I never drive drunk and I have a valid licence and valid insurance, so i’ll soon be on my way again. The only people who have to worry are the ones breaking the law, and why the hell shouldn’t they be caught?
Is it ok to drive without insurance as long as you don’t get into an accident? How else are you going to catch these people without waiting for them to rear end someone?
