Drunk driving check points Do you think these stragtegies reflect on the interest of individuals rights or?
public - order advocates. Do you think that they can be effective tools to reducing crime in society.
Answer:
Where is the probable cause?
Just because I'm on the road doesn't mean I've been drinking.
They are an infringement of my rights.
How about check points all along the damn border already!
if you think you might get caught, your less likely to commit the crime.
I think they can be effective tools if the news doesn't broadcast where they will be at. I think they are in the interest of my rights to drive on the road and be reasonably safe.
this is how you lose your liberty bit by bit have you noticed that since russia became so-called free our freedoms are being eroded do you think they are selling them to the russians
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. There is nothing about spot checks that impede the rights of an individual using a public road way.
They are predominantly in the best interest of the public as they do effect public roadways and the general population that has to utilize them. It is somewhat comforting to know that even if the effort may seem futile something is being done to keep the impaired off the roads.
They are not an overly effective tool in reducing crime however as people are going to drink and drive regardless of the existence of spot checks. However those few that have the misfortune of being caught by one will be off the road temporarily
I think the check points reflect the rights of individuals who may otherwise be the victims of accidents due to drunk drivers! I would be happy to stop for a few minutes and take a breathalyzer to prove that I'm not drunk since it will stop others who are and potentially save lives. Yes, I do think checkpoints would reduce the crime of drunk driving as those who plan on drinking would hopefully decide to make arrangements other than driving themselves. Obviously their own personal safety and that of others isn't enough for some people, but maybe the fear of losing your license and spending time in jail would be sufficient.
What the checkpoints do is randomly check for drivers who have blood alcohol levels over the legal limit. The legal limit was established to try to alleviate some of the drunk driving accidents. The checkpoints seem to be helping--drunk driving during holidays seems to be down. The checkpoints DO NOT ban anyone from drinking. If you want to drink, just don't drive--which is only wisdom--because if you get in an accident, you can kill folks who had nothing to do with your good time, who were just out trying to have their own good time. I don't think it was instituted to reduce "crime" per se--it was put in place to try to avoid accidents, and perhaps let drivers know that the police are on the prowl for drunk driving so if you are drinking, get someone else to drive you around.
The interests of the victimless crime (public order being the PC term now) advocates. This is partly a 'war on drugs' tactic. It's interesting how many local papers publish the info on these check points. From what I've seen it can be said that drunk driving check points are, on average, about 1% effective at accomplishing their purported goal. This seems to be a real waste of taxpayer dollars and the time of law enforcement personnel who could have otherwise been dealing with actual crimes or actively patrolling for people who are actually driving drunk. The majority of citations handed out at checkpoints are for minor moving violations which only logically shows that this is an effective way to increase revenue based on traffic tickets, which otherwise require probable cause to justify a traffic stop.
So no I don't believe that check points can be effective at reducing crime, much less violent crime or even personal injuries from an accident caused by a drunk driver. Furthermore, I'd say they are detrimental to the effectiveness of law enforcement in general.
EDIT:
The 'right to travel' is well recognized by the courts as opposed to the 'privilege of driving' for commercial gain. The average American does not use the roads for profit, but rather as a place for transportation of his/her person and property in the normal course of life. This usage was long recognized as a right, how people bought into this propaganda of it being a privilege I will never know.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579
"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either inwhole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.
"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
Yes they are deterrent to drunk driving. As far as individuals rights, they have no right to get their drunk @ss in a car and run over me. Catch them anyway we can.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Questions and Answers: