MADD is a pox and should be a lesson on how special interest groups are often push undemocratic and unconstitutional policies.

For more fun, check out Border Patrol checkpoints in Arizona that occur up to 100 miles from the border.

I don't drink, I don't do drugs, I do carry the phone number of a libertarian civil defense lawyer.

I drink. I do drugs. I avoid driving while under the influence. I also grew up in Florida, where this sort of thing is common. I was surprised to find someone surprised that this happens. I thought cops did this everywhere in the U.S.

But no one should be surprised that the Supreme Court took the side of law enforcement on this issue. Since the advent of the "War on Drugs", the court has been steadily eroding 4th Amendment protections established during the Warren Court. Former Justices White and Rehnquist did more than their parts in this matter. Rehnquist was very much of the "if one is innocent, why should a search be a problem mentality", which works great as an older, affluent white man or a white woman.

The cops can now come in to your house without a warrant, detain you, make a phone call, and wait for a judge to grant the search warrant (which they more or less always do). You have no right to say, kthxbye come back with a warrant and then search my house. Traffic stops of the sort described here are acceptable because they are not applied in a discriminatory fashion; if they only stopped dudes or blacks, then not OK. But as long as they stop everyone, no protection against unreasonable seizure. Cops can detain and search pretty much anyone at any time as long as they can make up a "reasonable suspicion". At any time you encounter them, cops are threat to your freedom.

Understanding these things is very helpful. Especially if one is young and male.

Sadly, the end justifies the means slippery slope argument, leaves the door ever so slightly ajar that will enable other do-good rulings to stand. If getting drunk drivers off the roads is the goal, then why not have police set-up outside of bars and restaurants every night? Sacrificing Freedom for security is a sure fire way to enable tyranny to blossom.

The MADD mothers long ago jumped the shark. A dramatic reduction in drunk driving related deaths and injuries left them scrambling for a raison d'etre, and like many advocacy groups, their reason is now the continuing existence of the organization itself.

They changed a law here in NY a few years ago. It is an automatic license suspension if you refuse to take the breathalyzer. Basically you are punished without ever being charged or convicted of a crime.
In my county, the new DA wanted to seem tough on drunk drivers so she created a wall of shame in the newspapers. Anyone arrested on suspision of DWI or DUI found their picture in the paper the next day. That came to a grinding halt when a few people arrested were shown to be diabetics or had other medical conditions. She also had the great idea to refuse any plea bargain at all when it came to DWI cases. The ADA's hate her because now their conviction rates are going down. It never seems to be about the actual crime.
Pandering to special interest groups does not lower the drunk driving rates. I agree with Jksisco. I'd rather see the cops be a presence outside of the bars and clubs as a prevention as opposed to these roadblocks.

Texas is one of the states where the checkpoints are illegal, and have been since 1994. They tried to change that earlier this year, with SB 298 (if memory serves me correctly), which passed the state senate but never made it to the house floor. There's no doubt in my mind that it will come up again in 2011.

The political clout that MADD has is mind-boggling. While we're "innocent until proven guilty," if you're pulled over on suspicion of DWI or DUI, and refuse to blow (which is YOUR RIGHT, constitutionally), you have your license taken away and are forced to take (and pay for) an "alchohol-awareness" seminar... even though you haven't gone to trial yet. The fact that they encourage these illegal checkpoint searches "in the name of the public good" is infuriating to me.

I think public education efforts are fine; it's the (often successful) attempts at erroding our rights that piss me off.

For Austinites: If they ever do pass checkpoints in TX, my hopes are that they set them up right outside of The Cloakroom, Austin Land and Cattle, and The Austin Club.

Also, when you throw a party, it's important to make sure there's food there -- at least tortilla chips -- so people aren't just drinking with nothing in their stomachs. I actually bring cheese in my purse to some events just in case.

MADD has become a prohibitionist organization. MADD is pushing for a 0.01 BAC limit, which would mean that beer you had at lunch means you aren't sleeping in your bed tonight.

Of course, not only are sobriety checkpoints a disgusting violation of the fourth amendment, but the principle that allows them (that they are not selective in any way) has given birth to "safety inspection" checkpoints and "seat-belt compliance" checkpoints.

And at each and every one of these checpoints, they do a visual search of the interior of your car. If you have anything that even LOOKS like an illicit substance, you have no defense because they don't need a warrant (the plain-sight exception). Never mind the fact that if it were not for the illegal checkpoint the search would never have occurred.

People say I've given in to hyperbole when I say we live in a police state. But when the police can do all these things with the blessing of the courts, what else is there to call it?

At this point, the only reason any of us isn't in jail is that we haven't pissed off a cop yet.

Yup, great things those DUI checkpoints why they've helped lead to Border Patrol checkpoints looking for illegal aliens... on roads 50+ miles inland from a border. Do a youtube search for checkpoints. Are you an American citizen?

As for MADD, I view them as an "emotional" terrorist organization and really they're nothing but a bunch of grief stricken teetotalers on power trips. And I don't drink much at all, given I grew up with a alchie father and most alcohol gets my acid reflux going. Of course most outright call me a pot head or an alchie for daring to state my opinion and how its helping to erode our civil rights.

Anybody with a legal background here know whether you're constitutionally entitled to answer "Did you have anything to drink tonight?" with "That's really none of your business"?

It seems (from what I read last night) that the Constitution is just shredded and let blow in the wind when it comes to this area.

At this point, the only reason any of us isn't in jail is that we haven't pissed off a cop yet.

I agree 100% with this statement. And I doubt Brian and I agree on much.

Anybody with a legal background here know whether you're constitutionally entitled to answer "Did you have anything to drink tonight?" with "That's really none of your business"?

I quit law school cause I just didn't have any connection with the others at Georgetown and in the firm where I clerked, leading me to suppose I wouldn't enjoy a career in a profession where I didn't enjoy the company of my colleagues. But I know how a few things.

You can certainly respond with "That's none of your business". You're never obligated to tell a cop what you have been doing, I don't think; the fifth amendment is pretty broadly interpreted. But in doing so you risk the "contempt of cop" charge that often ends up with you in handcuffs for some bullshit crime (resisting arrest being the most common). I do know that as a condition of getting a driver's license in most states, you consent in advance to sobriety testing or your license is forfeit for some period of time. If you pass, you don't get the DUI, but I doubt if you're free of CoC.

Obsequiousness people. That's the ticket for not getting arrested. Especially for males.

Amy, you could probably get away with it. And if not, your case would make for grate teevee.

The Supreme Court has already stated that you do not have the right to refuse to answer a cop's demand for identification.

And at least when you're in your car, if you don't "consent" to a search, you are arrested and a search is performed anyhow.

As a profession, the cop is supreme. A cop can kill you and never see the inside of a jail cell. A cop can steal your money and never feel a moment's consequence. A cop can destroy your reputation and face no reprimand.

That cops ever get in trouble at all is merely a sop to "public relations" to keep people from being totally mistrusting of the entirety of law enforcement.

"Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving."

I had not seen such a blatant statement before. You would think that Supreme Court justices would maintain the fiction that they supported the Constitution. Here, a fundamental right is tossed away to save money or provide convenience to law enforcement.

On the other hand, the only means they have yet found for restraining the police is to let criminals go when the police make procedural errors. I don't see any logic to these positions.

Fellow small people, the law applies to you and I, or not, according to the needs of our rulers. Many, or most, see the Constitution as an unfortunate or outdated limitation to good government. Our wise rulers get together in committee and specify how we should live the good life, exempting themselves of course.

Please vote out all incumbents, every one, so we can have a chance at freedom. Those who are "better than us" will lose power. Those who are upright and good will have the consolation that they were present when the people took back their freedom, and they can run again after a vacation as a private citizen.

Or, don't vote them out, and get this:

The Department of Work and Production

> I drink. I do drugs.

Ah.

> I quit law school cause I just didn't
> have any connection with the others
> at Georgetown

Not even just for weed?

(Har!)

1 - I am ordering the book – been looking for one of these.

2 - I hate checkpoints. Ran into one a few years back and I had garlic breath...very embarrassing.

I think if a cop wants to increase his/her chances of getting drunk drivers off the road they should be patrolling around bars from midnight on looking for weavers and motorists who forgot to turn on their headlights and leave the rest of us folks out of it (but I remember being told that they weren't allowed patrol around bars, it's entrapment or something - thank you attorneys).

RE: Shredding of Constitution. It's like that saying about the frogs that are in a tub of water - slowly, the temperature gets increased a little at a time until they boil to death. It's a slow process, but it has been happening for a while now (precisely why that model's defamation case leaves me concerned).

I'm quoting this for the record because it's a near certainty that I will never so wholeheartedly endorse so many contiguous sentences from Brian, with whom I've been heatedly arguing things elsewhere.

The Supreme Court has already stated that you do not have the right to refuse to answer a cop's demand for identification.

And at least when you're in your car, if you don't "consent" to a search, you are arrested and a search is performed anyhow.

As a profession, the cop is supreme. A cop can kill you and never see the inside of a jail cell. A cop can steal your money and never feel a moment's consequence. A cop can destroy your reputation and face no reprimand.

That cops ever get in trouble at all is merely a sop to "public relations" to keep people from being totally mistrusting of the entirety of law enforcement.

In no other interaction in our society is the power imbalance so great as when a cop stops a regular citizen. Every time this happens, and even if totally in the wrong he can: 1) cite you for a noncriminal offense for which it's likely the citizen must pay a fine, 2) deprive you of your freedom, chain your hands together, and take you to jail, 3) once you are taken to jail, can question you interminably (yes, he's supposed to stop if you ask for a lawyer, but look into the law on criminal confessions to see how well this is honored), 4) beat you without personal consequence (can't we all just get along!), 5) electrocute you without consequence (even though the "Don't tase me bro!" guy did need a good tasing, lots of people who get tased, don't), 6) kill you without consequence.

Now, of course, there are times when cops have to pay for doing these things. But consequences to them are remote - they take months or years to happen - and infrequent - tons of police misconduct is never investigated or is ignored. While consequences to you as a victim of the police are immediate.

In my experiences with cops, the best solution seems to be brown-nosing. Anything else and you risk getting the "Contempt of Cop" treatment. No one else in society is in such a position to humiliate others, and no one else does it with such frequency.

I just hope cops don't wonder why people are fear and loathe them.

Ah.

I'm honest. I enjoy a break from my ordinary head space every now and again. Plus a good dry martini is delicious, as is a good wine, a joint of good weed, etc. Everything in its right place.

Not even just for weed?

Major American city. If a person is unable to find weed there, he's not making an honest effort.

I didn't like my peers. After doing the work, I didn't think a career in the legal profession sounded enjoyable. I was good at it - I'm entirely capable at the fundamental skills - but I eventually came to the realization that there were more fun ways to achieve the sort of success I desire.

"Anybody with a legal background here know whether you're constitutionally entitled to answer "Did you have anything to drink tonight?" with "That's really none of your business"?"

My brother is a cop and I was married to one so the police were a very large part of my social circle which is what I am basing my answer on. You are within your rights to refuse to answer questions. You have a constitutional right to not incriminate yourself. However, many police officers, notice I am not saying all or most, many police officers find it a personal offense to them when you refuse to go along with their questioning process no matter how illegal it may be.
Unfortunately if you offend the kind of cop who believes he is the law and not enforcing the law, then you have a problem. I know of many police officers who have had no problem drumming up false charges, usually a resisting or disorderly charge, and even perjuring themselves. And again, I want to be very clear here that I am not saying it is all or even the majority. I just know of cases, too many, where it has happened and where other officers and commanding officers were aware of it.
I had a personal experience with being held and searched illegally. When the cops found out who I was related to, the situation changed drastically. My friend and I were able to go on our way with apologies from the commanding officer as opposed to spending the night at the local precinct. It always made me realize that there are many who were not as lucky as I was that night and it is something that should not be based on luck or who you know but unfortunately sometimes is.

If you get caught in a checkpoint you need to review your driving as a driver who really pays attention at the wheel can spot the signs of a checkpoint while still having the option of avoiding the checkpoint. A driver needs to look beyond their immediate zone of attention, and very few do. A driver can still get caught in one even if attentive, but you can avoid many checkpoints with intense attention at the wheel.

Once again I'm harping about how people drive, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. California used to have random safety checkpoints done in the same manner as the DUI checkpoints, and driving/car enthusiasts, day who had tires too wide for the fenders, learned to scan way up the road for signs of a checkpoint. I never got caught in one and probably avoided fifty.

I know Chauffeur Gregg and have ridden with him many times, and I know his zone of driving attention does not normally extend up the road to spot a possible checkpoint, so it's no surprise to me he'd get caught in one. It's possible he could not have avoided it, but with my knowledge of his driving it's just as likely he could have avoided the checkpoint.

Pay attention at the wheel or pay the price. Drink any, and I mean any, alcohol and drive and you can pay the price as driving under the influence has nothing to do with the legal limit. Don't worry, I'm going to pay the price for my comments too.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm not being watched.

> I didn't like my peers

Did they like you? My nephew gradji-ated Georgetown. A warm, sober, proficient man... He thrives.

Now, when the Gates thing went down, young Balko's writings did much to clear my thinking, as they so often do. And as one who frequently traverses the wealthiest neighborhoods of Los Angeles, I've often seen the tremendous disproportion of attention given to minority males by law enforcement.

And yet...

There are many reasons to believe that much of the interest some people find in conflict with cops is all about their own psychographic makeup. ("Daddy issues" doesn't quite describe what I'm talking about, but it's in the neighborhood.)

Yes, society tells us to do things that we don't want to do. And it sends dim, arrogant people to make sure we comply. But life is short: Are these the people that you want to spend your energy and time engaging?

Really? They are? OK, good luck.

A typically good cop in the western world is the imperfection solution to a problem for an imperfect populace.

But this is like the gossip thread the other day– It's not going to get fixed by policy. And it's like our recent thread about women and their food– Maybe policy could make things go somewhat better, but a lot of the irritations are originating within the hearts of the irritated.

Did they like you? My nephew gradji-ated Georgetown. A warm, sober, proficient man... He thrives.

I got along fine. I'm good at that. People generally like me. But it didn't make them people I wanted to spend lots of time with! I thrive too, but as an entrepreneur, not a lawyer. Less tie-wearing and rules-following.

Probable cause anyone? Doesn't that sort of thing matter in the slightest?

I'm an airline pilot. That means I am subject to random urinalyses, without any regard to probable cause. Not only are they annoying, they are intrusively monitored.

I think probable cause should be paramount when it comes to pulling over a motorist.

But not so much for other activities. I think it likely most Americans are quite happy with pilots getting subjected to pee tests, regardless of what they think about random DUI checkpoints.

Hard to know where, or how, to draw the line.

Amy, in my county, they actually publish these checkpoints in the local paper ahead of time - where they'll be set up and how long. I guess that's how they get around the constitutional issue because you're supposed to know they'll be checking (a fact I'm sure all the regular drinkers read about and avoid driving in that area, so what's the point?)

I've been stopped twice this way. Once, they asked me to park between cones after I'd already told them that I'd had nothing to drink. Luckily, I parked well, but it's very scary to me, since I'm the type who could still knock over a cone, not out of drunkeness, but nerves.

Anyway, I wonder if they publish those checkpoints where you are.

"If you're not a criminal, you're not living in fear of getting caught for a crime."

In our society the police decide you are guilty of a crime and dig to find the evidence they know is there, except it isn't. Cops might look at you and stop you for a date, but cops stop anyone they want for anything they want, and the intelligent person knows this and should be prepared for an incident with the police driving, or even walking. You don't have to commit crimes to be hassled by the police.

I'm surprised that you would take the attitude that if you have nothing to hide you won't get hassled, and that if you have nothing to hide why fear being hassled. Driving while black, driving with long hair, driving and looking at a cop wrong, driving and not doing anything at all -- all can result in an encounter with police. You do not have to commit a crime or have anything to hide for a close encounter of the police kind.

Back in the late '80s in San Diego a black engineer was out for an evening walk, not late at all. An SD city cop car with two male cops and a female ride-along started pacing the engineer and then the cops stopped and started hassling the engineer. The cops were getting rough with the engineer, who had done nothing at all, and a major struggle ensued and the engineer thought the cops were going to kill him and he got one of their guns and killed them both and shot the ride-along. He had done nothing and was acquitted at trial as it was self defense.

If you're a human, you need to be prepared to be thought of by the police as a criminal at any moment, and you need to be aware of the possibility of someone watching you at all times. This is common sense, not paranoia.

Another good comment.

Here's an example of a what can happen. A mom is tasered in front of her kids simply for questioning the cop's "proof" that she was speeding while on a cellphone. She let him check her purse to see that she didn't even have a cellphone with her. Her kids were left alone in the car for 45 mins while she was hauled away to jail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dik-mgCDcg

> Amy, in my county, they actually
> publish these checkpoints in the
> local paper ahead of time - where
> they'll be set up and how long. I
> guess that's how they get around
> the constitutional issue because
> you're supposed to know they'll
> be checking

What do you think about that, Amy? I think it does a lot to diminish the offense I take at the intrusion.

Welcome to the future, kids:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://qik.com/info/faq

What can I do with Qik?

With Qik you can stream engaging video live from your phone to the world or use your phone like a camcorder to capture entertaining, interesting and special moments. Go LIVE with your life by streaming anytime, anywhere—right from your phone. Be an eyewitness, capture those first steps, or whip up your own streaming video blog. There are just a million and one uses of Qik. Do you have a favorite use of Qik? If so let us know.

Are my streams automatically recorded?

Yes, your streams are automatically recorded. These are available through your profile page on www.qik.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

One of my upcoming projects is a civil rights flowchart card, to be handed to police while recording them, which documents their acceptance of information that correctly identifies how their interactions with Citizenry should be conducted.

Oh, and my optimism about the potential for positive effect of these ideas is based upon my observation of the progress in police education and training by grassroots activists in the OCDO forums. Just a little reminder for those of you here inclined towards the baseless airy hand-waving assertion style of discussion.

Usually...I'm all about results.

Usually...but not this time.

We could catch criminals more effectively if our justice system did not require search warrents.

We could save money if we stopped providing public defenders for the accused.

We wouldn't have any shootings if we got rid of all the guns.

We would be unified if we eliminated all the religions except the most popular one.

We would trust our government more if we shut up the press.

We'd have less disorder if we prohibted demonstrations.

The ends do not always justify the means.

And the "end" we desire out of our constitution are the freedoms it GUARANTEES WITHOUT exception.

THAT is a damned sight more important an end, than cutting down on DUIs.

AND, that is an end that requires only ONE thing...

That our courts rule according to the plainly written words of our constitution, which contain no exceptions of convenience for any governmental aim for or against its citizenry.

If you're not a criminal, you're not living in fear of getting caught for a crime.

BULLSHIT!!!!

Isn't there some black woman missing teeth still running around with your id? Has she committed any crimes?

Why are you out past midnight?

I'm stopping you because one of your license plates is out.

To me it was obvious in 1993 that the US had become a police state.

Those who think the cops are bad in Mexico, I suggest you check a calendar. It has been twenty years since you took that short nap on the mountain side. I let out a sigh of relief when I cross the border into Mexico, and that includes the knowledge I have to survive Reynosa.

Cops are openly violating the laws. Google Tenaha Texas. They brazenly stopped black people and told them they would be charged with felonies if they did not sign papers surrendering their cars, when they actually had done nothing wrong.

August 5, 2007, I was driving to Hattiesburg Mississippi to stop for the night. Cops had a rental truck stopped searching it. I passed at the speed limit in the left lane, and let me say in 50 years of driving have never even had a speeding ticket in the US. A few miles down the road here came a cop obviously 120 mph, and pulled me over.

The S@B walked up and tried to rip up my back hatch. At the time I did not understand but I figured it out. When he realized he could not get in my car he came to the side window and gave me some mumbo-jumbo about how they weren't sure but they thought I had not moved over when I passed the car. I was rather upset because I thought any time they made an error like that, I could get a ticket though I had done nothing wrong.

I went on in and spent the night at EconoLodge. I called my son who was driving east by a different route. He had also been stopped on totally false reasons in Arkansas, two hours earlier. The bogus excuse was that he had swerved. His wife was awake and alert and said it was totally false.

Since then I have done a lot of research and this is happening all over the country, every day. Tenaha merely moved it to the next step. Encouraged by the refusal of judges to summarily order relief to those whose rights are openly violated, and force them to go through a $30,000 lawsuit for something of much lesser value cops all over the country have a campaign to pretty much confiscate cars for no reason.

In Mississippi, I am convinced that if he had got my hatch open, my car would have been confiscated for the marijuana he had in his pocket and which magically appeared in my car after he opened the door.

I have talked to young people from various places and they all tell similar stories. I mentioned to the woman in EconoLodge Hattiesburg what had happened, and she said a lot of people had said similar things had happened to them on that Interstate.

SCOTUS in Knowles v. Iowa ruled cops do not have the right to completely search your car for a routine traffic stop. Cops all over the place make comments to make people think they have that right. Things like, "If we have the right to search your car and you resist, we can arrest you and put you in jail."

Which is completely true. The problem is, they don't have the right to search your car. But, a lot of people think that means they have the right to search, and they will be arrested if they don't let them search.

The cops are totally out of control. Tasers were intended to help quell violent people with a minimum of injury. Cowardly cops are using it to punish people for a non-violent failure to obey, in some cases people who don't hear well or who are senile.

It has been written that a society gets the government it deserves. That is true for those who think this is fiction.

Sorry, typo, that was August 6, 2007.

They can't have check points like this in Washington either, they put it into their state constitution. I remember hearing someone talk about it when I first moved there (from LA) and thinking, wow, they are so right, why in the world DO the police have the right to stop us and ask for ids for no reason? I’ve had friends have their car taken apart (ripped seat cushions even) because the cops 100% refused to believe that they had no drugs or booze hidden anywhere. The reason that they got searched at a check point in the first place was “you guys sure are wearing lots of black”.

Are you guys totally clueless, insane, or what?

You get stopped by roadblocks specifically because you refused to let police pull over people on their discretion. This has been going on for some time. Pulling everybody over means they don't get accused of "profiling", something I recall some of you are actually backing at the airport, where the TSA skips the swarthy Arab to search Grandma.

You get Border Patrol checkpoints up in Brawley, and north of LA, because you won't let anyone close the border. Period.

I remain amazed that anyone could not recognize the awesome stupidity represented by the big "Don't run over fleeing illegals" sign on the Interstate north of San Diego.

The country is messed up specifically because its people are. They cannot seem to understand laws - especially the ones attending cause and effect.

You get stopped by roadblocks specifically because you refused to let police pull over people on their discretion.

Wrong.

We got roadblocks because MADD didn't think the cops were pulling enough drunks over.

And when that didn't shut MADD up, they started busting sober people for DUI.

If I ever manage to get a seat belt ticket that is not dismissed, I intend fully to reference Wolcott among others in my appeal to get the law overturned.

I don't expect I'll ever get the chance.

I think we are all in agreement that the roadblocks are not Constitutional. I am reasonably sure that we've all known a bad cop story or two. I make it a point to always be courteous to them if pulled over which is rarely, but I've also opened my mouth once or twice, ok, maybe more than that, if I feel I'm being treated unfairly. I do this though because I feel protected knowing that it will take one mention of my brother and one phone call to my brother and any cop in question will immediately cease bothering me even if I was in the wrong. What about the people who do not have a brother or friend on the job?
On the flip side and something I waited to mention is that my brother, though a wonderful guy, is a raging alcoholic who happens to drive under the influence on a pretty regular basis. I have never once in my life driven after drinking, but he has made it a habit. What do you think the chances of him ever getting a DWI are?
We can complain about our Constitutional rights being disregarded all we want and Crid was right when he said that policy will not correct the DWI problem, but what about that other problem? The problem where those enforcing the law also regularly break those same laws that they would arrest us for breaking?

The best way to deal with cops is to look wide-eyed and ditzy, and speak a little breathlessly.

If the tears come, let them fall.

I'll pose the question Eugene Volokh posed to me when I wrote him this morning, and that's for those of you who find the DUI roadblocks unconstitutional, do you also find the TSA searches at the airports unconstitutional, or are those somehow different? And if so, why?

I think the airport searches are somewhat different in that we all know ahead of time we will be subjected to them when we go to the airport. Theoretically, we have the option to avoid them if we wish (by driving or staying home). At the very least, if we get a bad feeling about the officials doing the search, we can turn around and leave the airport.

The DUI roadblocks are more random, and you don't have any choice but to participate. The way they're set up, you can't turn around or leave, as you could at the airport.

Nicole - some places turning on the water works is only gonna piss the cop off more because he knows you're trying to manipulate him.

Amy - I don't know how the Constitution applies to flying because it's been declared "national security" which is one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government.

LS - get spotted trying to dodge a DUI checkpoint and you'll get chased down. Happened to me at least once. Since the cop didn't manage to nail me before I got to the city limits (and I was stone sober) he had to bail.

And I can also tell you from experience that you don't always get the option to avoid. There was at least once where they set up at the bottom of the hill and there were no driveways to pull in to, and you didn't know it was there until you crested.

One of the things you can do to impact their revenue stream is sign every ticket not guilty and make them haul you in to court.

I would say that the difference at the airports is that you know that if you are taking a flight you must go through the checkpoint. It sort of becomes an unwritten contract or agreement that you are aware of when purchasing a ticket. Driving is different because the checkpoints are random and not a condition of driving from point A to B.
Good question though because it does make you start to question the difference and see where one type of search can lead to another and how easily we will accept a violation of our rights as legal when it comes to preventing certain risks.

From my experience in the legal system, when cops feel free to speak candidly, an actual quote: "There are two types of people in the world -- cops and assholes."

As they say, anyone who wants the job is suspicious.

Amy, he should try it anyway.

> was right when he said that
> policy will not correct the DWI
> problem

Never said that! Never meant to say that, anyway...

I meant to say that some people are going to have a lot of energy about police. Weird energy. Unnecessary energy. Energy that tells us more about what's going on in their souls than it tells us about the professionalism of a police force.

But policy, and police enforcement particularly, can do a lot for the DWI problem. Here are some stats and graphs. Policy has changed and made us safer.

No, brian, not even wrong. Whatever MADD wanted by way of a prosecution rate, police are routinely prohibited from the appearance of discrimination. Roadblocks stop everybody, removing that claim.

All the police had to do to raise the arrest rate is pull people leaving bars, but since some cater to ethnic groups the race-baiters popped up to say "No!"

Maybe you don't have ethnic bars where you are. So you have the BOD.

"Amy - I don't know how the Constitution applies to flying because it's been declared "national security" which is one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government."

The Lemuel Penn case established that travel is a right. The encroachment here is that you aren't prevented from traveling by TSA, you're just kept off an airliner.

It's sick. You can walk where you want, but you still have to show your papers. In the USA.

Radwaste, I think cops aren't allowed to sit outside bars and wait. That was deemed to be entrapment. Not sure if it was a law or just a procedural thing, due to being threatened with lawsuits, but they can't do it in my county in FL, and we don't have ethnic bars.

Apparently, that's just in my state. Found several blog posts saying cops in FL can't sit outside bars but can't find the law.

I know about this because a girlfriend of mine got drunk and insisted on driving herself home (we tried to take her keys). She got stopped in the parking lot of the bar. We managed to talk the officer into not charging her and letting her take a cab home. So, her husband re-parked their car and went back inside for a couple more drinks. When he came out, and tried to drive the car away, he got arrested by the same cop, who had just sat there watching the car all night. His case was dismissed for that reason - because it's considered entrapment here. They can drive by the bar, but they can't sit and wait.

Crid - I don't have the tits for it.

The point is to let the cops think you are a harmless idiot. Even if they give you a ticket, they will still talk to you in a nice voice and be nice and maybe try and crack a joke to cheer you up. They aren't going to go ballistic and arrest you.

TSA searches: if they are searching for weapons and explosives, that is fine.

What is not ok is the recent, inevitable development, whereby TSA looks for anything the consider suspicious, whether or not it has anything to do with flight safely. Unusual amounts of cash. Data on laptops. Pictures on cameras. Unusual quantities of medicine. None of these are threats to flight safety, and they have no mandate for anything else.

The right answer is to eliminate TSA entirely. Let the airlines and/or airports do the checks, not the government. They have as much interest in keeping the planes in the air, and a great deal more interest in keeping their passengers happy.

You can't even go to a concert or sporting event without going through a security check. At a Jets game last year, I watched several men in front of me get patted down and the women all had to open their purses. I asked a security guard what they were really searching for and he laughed and said mostly drinks and food being snuck in which would cut the concession profits.

Bradley - security was never the point of TSA. The point was to get Americans accustomed to being good little sheep and to get us to accept being sheared.

TSA is all about revenue and control.

As the bumper sticker goes, "Don't steal. The government hates competition."

That was deemed to be entrapment.

Entrapment is an entirely different thing; entrapment means when the police entice someone into committing a crime he otherwise would not. It's a weak defense that usually fails.

You get stopped by roadblocks specifically because you refused to let police pull over people on their discretion

I dunno where you live, but every place I've ever been, cops pull people over at their discretion all the time just to see what they're up to. They may need to gin up an excuse for doing it: 5 miles over the limit, license plate light out, failure to signal, a small weave. If a cop decides he wants to pull you over, he's gonna do it.

Around here it's the safety check (why always at the busiest times of day on the busiest roads?) or the latest "campaign against road rage."

Translation: sales tax revenues are down, and we're going to get our money some way.

Don't even be an out-of-state driver. You can pay the fine, or spend three times as much to come back and fight it...

Interesting about the cops not being able to hang out outside of the bar parking lots in some states... here, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission officers are known to arrest people for public intoxication INSIDE of the bars. But hey, we don't have checkpoints...

"Anybody with a legal background here know whether you're constitutionally entitled to answer "Did you have anything to drink tonight?" with "That's really none of your business"?"

4 rules when pulled over (at least in CA), as told to me by my good friend who practices criminal/DUI law:

1. The answer to whether or not you have been drinking is always a simple "no."

2. Always respectfully refuse a field sobriety or breathalyzer test BUT (and this is essential to keeping your license) . . . always consent to a blood or urine test AT THE STATION or nearby medical facility.

3. Always respectfully and explicitly refuse to consent to a search of your vehicle.

4. Always respectfully invoke your right to speak to an attorney.

The point of all this is that you are refusing to give up any information that could possibly be used against you. That means the cops will have to demonstrate probable cause for taking things any further. If you truly are driving dangerously, the cops will likely have plenty of evidence for PC before they ever stop you.

For those of you who have had one glass of wine and find the idea of lying (in #1) distasteful, just remember that to the cops "one glass of wine" = a boxful of Boones.

I don't know that I'd go citing the Constitution. That's likely to just piss the cop off. If you stick to the above script, the cops will get the message that you are someone who is fully aware of their rights.

I believe that searches in the airport are just as unconstitutional as 'checkpoint' searches. Let's be honest, although the plan crashes and bombs get a great deal of attention, very few people are killed in airplane crashes each year.

In 2007 41,059 people were killed from drunk driving related incidents in the United States:

http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research#888

According to wiki, 744 people were killed in commercial aircraft (the only type currently searched) worldwide. Even if we were to add private crashes, it still wouldn't add up to the drunk driving crashes. Why is it that I have to ship my morphine and other medications in advance and hide my money in my bra when flying? I say remove the search requirement. It is another example of humans not being able to estimate their odds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2007

If we must do airport security, why not do it like the Israelis? Their airport is the most secure in the world.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/

-Julie

I believe that searches in the airport are just as unconstitutional as 'checkpoint' searches. Let's be honest, although the plan crashes and bombs get a great deal of attention, very few people are killed in airplane crashes each year.

In 2007 41,059 people were killed from drunk driving related incidents in the United States:

http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research#888

According to wiki, 744 people were killed in commercial aircraft (the only type currently searched) worldwide. Even if we were to add private crashes, it still wouldn't add up to the drunk driving crashes. Why is it that I have to ship my morphine and other medications in advance and hide my money in my bra when flying? I say remove the search requirement. It is another example of humans not being able to estimate their odds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2007

If we must do airport security, why not do it like the Israelis? Their airport is the most secure in the world.

-Julie

"In 2007 41,059 people were killed from drunk driving related incidents in the United States:"

is NOT supported by the citation, which says...

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 41,059 people died in traffic crashes in 2007 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 12,998 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes."

"Laziness in support of agenda" is my most charitable take on this.

--
phunctor

In 2007 41,059 people were killed from drunk driving related incidents in the United States ...[and]... 744 people were killed in commercial aircraft worldwide. Even if we were to add private crashes, it still wouldn't add up to the drunk driving crashes.

NHTSA Abstract: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811017.PDF

-------------------------

People generally like me.

Did you share with them your views on carpet bombing an entire city to obliterate a single terrorist? Or did you only share the "critical components" of your argument?

Conan. Conan the Grammarian. Amy, you should give him a seat at the First Table for your Autumn '09 AGBlog Beach Barbecue... With a citation for Meritorious Sarcasm.

Did you share with them your views on carpet bombing an entire city to obliterate a single terrorist? Or did you only share the "critical components" of your argument?

Off blogs, military tactics just don't come up all that much in conversations. So, it's not like, "hey, I'm 'Whatever' nice to meetcha, I think we needed to blow up more of Afghanistan instead of invading it and Iraq." But when they have come up I've never shied away from my arguments voiced in the other thread that we failed to use sufficient force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and that by failing to ensure their utter destruction, we squandered an opportunity to make an example of them for other people who think they can get away with attacking the U.S.

...we failed to use sufficient force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and that by failing to ensure their utter destruction, we squandered an opportunity to make an example of them for other people who think they can get away with attacking the U.S.

What a wishy-washy summary of your previous argument. You causally dismissed, nay advocated, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants.

So, be sure to add to your statement, "And I not only condone, but strongly advocate the carpet bombing and obliteration of any and all non-combatants in the area."

Only then will you come close to your argument on the other thread.

But, don't worry. People generally like you.

Julie - and others - there is a Web site which tracks EVERY comercial air loss: The Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre.

One of the surprising things is that NO commercial airliner has ever been brought down by small-arms fire to the airframe. Several have survived bombs, mid-air collisions and SAMs.

And I not only condone, but strongly advocate the carpet bombing and obliteration of any and all non-combatants in the area.

Hey, gotta break some eggs...

But, don't worry. People generally like you.

Yep, I do alright.

New video on "border" immigration/citizen status checkpoints:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDjB1e7CNF4

This guy won his court case recently for a stop where he was held against his will by Arizona Tribal Police.

Radwaste et al.

Although my stats were messy, my point is the same. Checkpoints where you are required to submit, provide identification, and allow your vehicle to be searched are unconstitutional and shouldn't be allowed. They are just a cover to allow cops to pull more people into the pokey and get their required number of tickets for the month.

Airport security is just a hair stroking enterprise to attempt to make the stupid cattle incapable of looking a the math and seeing that the chance of dying in an airplane is slim feel better. Taking our mouthwash and nail files doesn't do anything to keep us safe, it just keeps us from getting to our destinations quickly. At least the Israeli security is effective. Ours is just a song and dance show to make it look like the government is doing something about 9/11. I say abolish airport security all together and encourage people to bring their handgun on board. Try to imagine someone trying to take over a plane when it stands to reason that much of the populace is armed. Kinda funny to think about. I always feel safest at the gun shows, why not take them to the friendly skies?

-Julie

I say abolish airport security all together and encourage people to bring their handgun on board. Try to imagine someone trying to take over a plane when it stands to reason that much of the populace is armed.

And when the bullets puncture the fuselage, negating the air-tight seal on the cabin and destroying the plane, won't the terrorists have won?

This is a favorite topic on Fark, and I'm surprised Amy's never blogged on it before. These sobriety/safety checkpoints really make me angry because I believe that it's just one step away from random Home Inspections or some other bullshit to give people the right to search my home. To give my perspective:

>>"do you also find the TSA searches at the airports unconstitutional, or are those somehow different? And if so, why?"

I find it unconstitutional that they search my checked baggage, yes. If something is checked, I see no reason why they have to break the lock off of it and rifle through my personal belongings at will without my overseeing the actions. A scan I can understand, and even being asked to open my luggage if they want to. But I think I should have the right to watch them open it, oversee their actions, and be allowed to re-lock it when they're done. As for other searches, I understand that I am tacitly giving my consent to a search when I buy the ticket. And so long as I have the right to leave if they "volunteer" me for a more in-depth search (such as asking me to take off my bra or strip to my skivvies), I understand that I consented to this by choosing to fly.

But I feel that my car is an extension of my home; it is my personal property and what I do is my own damn business, and you have no right to go stopping me or searching me without probable cause. And that means NO random stops, "just to check". I want you to state that you caught me doing 15 over, or that I was weaving, or something equally ILLEGAL. And in this day and age, I don't think its above reasonable expectation for those things to be recorded on dashcam - I believe that kind of transparency in law enforcement should be pushed for. I'm tired of hearing stories about people "caught" doing something like speeding, that cannot be proved or disproved.

>>So...if you can risk it, or you're willing to risk it, it seems the response would be "Most respectfully sir, on grounds of constitutionality, I would like to decline to answer that." Who here would be willing to do that?

Sadly, not me. I've heard too many stories of people getting put in cuffs for momentarily questioning the cops. A while back, an officer pulled us over for driving through a puddle too fast (we misjudged how deep it was), and he scared the living crap out of me. That was enough to verify that I just need to stay out of the way. It was scary, and while I agree I took the puddle a little fast, I don't think I needed that guy to get two inches from my husband's face and scream at him. What would have happened if he had asked to search the car? I can imagine seeing my hubby getting pressed to the hood of the trunk if we'd said no. [It wasn't out of the realm of possibility - I found out from a cop friend later that a car matching mine's description had been used in a home invasion thing and that was probably why he pulled us over to start with. We got let go, basically, because we weren't black like the suspects.]

I apologize for the long-winded response. Just thought it might add to the perspective.

won't the terrorists have won?

That is almost as good as what about the children?

If a terrorist is on the plane attempting to take it over, you are probably going to die unless you are able to do something. Right now the average terrorist attempting to hijack a plan has no competition. They have a container full of unarmed people that can travel thousands of miles at their whim and be killed one by one or en mass if they don't get what they want. On average, the threat of death will keep the occupants compliant until you decide what your next step is. Even if a person is wanting to fight back, they have little ability to do so, since they were all disarmed of everything that might be made into a weapon before they walked in the door.

Not to mention that if you select your ammunition correctly, you generally won't get collateral damage. Large bore hollow point rounds will expand inside the victim leaving little momentum to run through the side of the plane or the person standing beside them.

Also as Radwaste said, no commercial flight has ever been brought down by small firearms, however a terrorist easily could be.

-Julie

Large bore hollow point rounds will expand inside the victim leaving little momentum to run through the side of the plane or the person standing beside them.

I'm not worried about the bullet that goes into the victim. I'm worried about the one that misses the victim goes through the side of the plane.

A bunch of randomly assembled idiots firing guns inside an enclosed aluminum tube at 30,000 feet is not my idea of safety.

Remember, dying is part of the hijacker's plan, so he's okay with the plane being destroyed from within.

Right now the average terrorist attempting to hijack a plan has no competition.

Tell that to the guys on Flight 95.

There are ways to enable passengers to fight back that don't risk explosive decompression.

The reason most of the passengers were docile on 9/11 is that all prior hijackings involved taking the plane somewhere and making demands.

Once people realized that the rules of hijacking had changed, they quickly lost their docility and fought back.

The next attempt to hijack a plane, even for ransom, will meet with resistance.

Witness the latest school bombing attempt. The principal said more teachers were running toward the explosions than were running away.

The next attempt to hijack a plane, even for ransom, will meet with resistance.

Not resistance. Death.

The next filthy motherfucker that hops up, shouts 'Allahu Akhbar!' and heads for the cockpit won't get two steps before his trachea is flat.

As you mentioned, 9/11 changed the calculus. On 9/10/01, it was "give them what they want, and everything will be fine". On 9/12/01, it became "Die, motherfucker."

You'll note that it was a matter of personal restraint on the part of a basketball player that allowed Richard Reid to live. Reid could just have easily been beaten to death.

This is the way things work: Ppl get away with doing all sorts of stuff for which they never, ever get caught. Then the finally get caught from doing something else. That's what you're seeing-what you're seeing is a buncha ppl getting busted for a buncha other stuff they never got caught doing & their poor habits.

SCREW 'EM.