For the record, the Supreme Court addressed this in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond and struck down random drug checkpoints.
It’s important to bear in mind that the Fourth amendment only bars unreasonable search and seizures, and what you consider unreasonable is not necessarily what the Supreme Court considers unreasonable. The Michigan State Police v. Sitz case your friend cited is rather clear that the immediate public safety danger of drunk drivers on the road outweighs the “slight” intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint upon motorists.
You might disagree with that, but I find the rationale compelling.
Fuzzy Wombats… the rationale may be compelling, but I’m against any intrusion on our rights, no matter how slight. If you read the link to the speech I provided it pretty much summed up how easy it is for lobbyists to intrude upon our rights over a lengthy amount of time; to the point where if one stands back and sees just how slowly the process took to erode these very rights, it might serve to give them pause. Hopefully more than pause.
SteveG1, in an above post, expressed it brilliantly as he took a wide-view angle shot of the whole shebang:
Well, I think it’s a mistake to assume it’s a right being invaded. That’s why I emphasized that the fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches.
There is no constitutional protection against a reasonable search. Now, you may disagree as to what constitutes reasonable, but if it is, then your rights aren’t being eroded. That’s why I commented on their analysis of the reasonableness of the search. I wholeheartedly agree that any erosion of our rights is unacceptable (although it happens with unfortunate frequency) but a right has to be violated for that outrage to apply.
In Sitz, the Court held that the DUI checkpoints were a reasonable search, and therefore the it was consistent with the fourth amendment, not contrary to it.
So, there’s no erosion of your fourth amendment right. In Edmond, the court did find the searches unreasonable and violated the fourth amendment. So the state can’t conduct those searches.
So, I fail to see how our rights have been eroded here. The court upheld a reasonable search and struck down an unreasonable one.
If you want to make the argument that all checkpoints are unreasonable, by all means do that, but don’t make the claim that a right is being eroded when it doesn’t apply to the situation presented.
Ok, I’m making the argument. When I think of checkpoints, I envision it happening within other countries, and not in ours where travel is unfettered (for the most part). Oh well, maybe I’m over thinking the whole thing. And God knows I don’t have anything even close to resembling a law degree. I need a beer after all this… oh the irony.
How is this similar to a DUI checkpoint? Looking at your link:
“manifestly”… “to the degree that”… no mention of a BAC or sobriety tests, beyond not falling down drunk, or singing rowdily…
Wouldn’t it seem sensible that the police could wait near a bar at closing and then issue citations to people observed to be sufficiently manifestly drunk that they are a hazard or obvious nuisance?
It is a privilege, and you (and I) have decided to base our livelihoods upon having this privilege. No one held a gun to our heads. We could have tried to be a web gurus and just sit in our houses all day designing sites for businesses; but we didn’t . It’s a damn compelling reason to stay sober on the road.
They used to do this outside the Black Angus restaurant in San Jose that I used to live near (ages ago). Luckily I lived cat corner from the BA and always walked there, knowing I was going to have some beers, probably a lot of beers.
The cops watched you carefully, especially if you headed towards the parking lot and were staggering.
I want to hear more in response to this link. I’m not a lawyer but I am pretty technical and I was scared too. Can a breathalyzer really say you’re drunk because you were painting the day before? And many more. This speech made a lot of points that I would like to see debunked and/or fleshed out.
I am for protecting the Constitutional rights of every citizen including those who drink and drive and kill someone. I am also for tougher drunk driver laws: The kind that take your car away and sell it the first time you are convicted of driving under the influence. That is in addition to six months in jail.
Technically, both your house and jobs are privileges, too (though not in the real sense of the word - but you know what I mean, which is what you meant by the word). Privileges enjoyed by many, most even, certainly, but there are homeless people and unemployed people around who don’t want to be, and nowhere in the books does it say anything should be done for them. Homeless and penniless is the ground state of being, anything up from there is a boon.
Which isn’t to say that the US government can take away your house or job on a whim (respect of individual property and all that), but nowhere in the [del]mission statement[/del]Constitution does it say that all citizens were entitled to a roof, or a job. IOW, you have an inalienable right to the *pursuit *of happiness, not happiness itself :p.
The matter of driving licenses is even more clear cut, since it’s a literal privilege : only those who own them are allowed to drive on government-owned roads (i.e. all of them except your driveway), and the government is the one to issue them to those it deems fit to have that right. The State giveth, the State taketh away if you don’t follow rather simple and explained at length rules, one of which is not to drive while out your stonking gourd.
Don’t like it ? Buy your own road network. You’ll get to make the rules.
