LEO Interaction DUI Checkpoint

[speedsix]

...I totally agree...but the example remains...thousands of (gasp-even Texans) surrender their 4th amendment rights to get into a ballgame...or a concert...and we disarm to go into this place or that...we pick and choose what we'll get upset over...and all of us draw our personal lines in the sand...based on our life experiences/values...

You should know better than that! The "ballgame" is not a government agency. There is no 4th amendment (or any other amendment) involved in attending a ballgame, or any of the security measures they may implement. If you don't like their rules, your options are to not attend.

The constitution ONLY protects people's rights against GOVERNMENT transgressions -- not private individuals or companies.

...of course...but the example is to say that some of us squeal like a pig when the po-po wants to stop us to check our sobriety(which we don't even HAVE in Texas)...yet submit to a stranger's search so that we can see a ballgame or concert...if you don't like the govt's rules...find a state that's different or work through the legislature to change them...we always have choices...

[speedsix]

Even though I knew in my heart it was a violation of the 4th I have complied for the most part with this type of stop, but our local PD started setting up roadblocks asking for driver's licenses. They had traffic backed up three blocks. I told the officer I disagreed with the stop and he told me they're stopping everybody as if that made it all right. I was in a hurry so I showed my DL and went on my way. Apparently someone put a stop to it and I've never seen one again. I have reconsidered and these days I would not cooperate with any information. Just subtitute - Do you have any weapons, have you fired any weapons today, do you have any ammunition, do you have a large sum of cash, do you have a Bible (substitute any other theological/religious text) or any questionable literature with you?

...the courts have found that it's NOT a violation of the 4th for them to check Dr Lic, registr., or insurance...if we refuse...they'll pull us to the side, cite us, and can put us afoot or impound the car...legally...driving isn't considered a right...its a privilege...also called a benefit...totally different from a DUI check...

[speedsix]

...if we aren't involved in our government enough to know what's up in the legislature and if we don't do what it takes to support or squelch a proposed law...that's not their fault...it's ours...if and when we don't control our legislatures as the system was designed...they'll do to us what they wish...
...the powers under HSA will be rescinded when enough of US make it clear to our legislators that we want it so...and we're in one of the few countries on earth where that's possible...when will enough people get riled up enough to make it happen.....that's the real question...citizens willing to do whatever it takes within the system...or without...to get it changed...

...we didn't know or we didn't get a voice doesn't cut it when we get stopped for speeding, run a stop sign, or misuse our guns...we'll hear real quick "You have a responsibility to know..."...a novel thought to most of the populace...

[sjfcontrol]

...I totally agree...but the example remains...thousands of (gasp-even Texans) surrender their 4th amendment rights to get into a ballgame...or a concert...and we disarm to go into this place or that...we pick and choose what we'll get upset over...and all of us draw our personal lines in the sand...based on our life experiences/values...

You should know better than that! The "ballgame" is not a government agency. There is no 4th amendment (or any other amendment) involved in attending a ballgame, or any of the security measures they may implement. If you don't like their rules, your options are to not attend.

The constitution ONLY protects people's rights against GOVERNMENT transgressions -- not private individuals or companies.

...of course...but the example is to say that some of us squeal like a pig when the po-po wants to stop us to check our sobriety(which we don't even HAVE in Texas)...yet submit to a stranger's search so that we can see a ballgame or concert...if you don't like the govt's rules...find a state that's different or work through the legislature to change them...we always have choices...

And I see both of those as responsible reactions -- although insultingly worded. It makes sense to "squeal like a pig" when your actual rights are violated by an officer of the law, or other government official. You cannot just "decide not to attend" when being pulled over by an officer -- as you can if you don't like the game's security measures. Also, the relative punitive actions are dramatically different. If caught sneaking a beer into the ballgame, what's the worst punishment you could expect? Getting kicked out of the stadium (or denied entry). When the officer pulls you over there's practically no end to the possible trouble and expense he could cause for you.

Find a state that's different??? Seriously? I suppose if it's a Federal issue, you'd suggest the "pig squealer" find a different country?
Work thru the legislate to change them? That works, but only if you can find enough like-minded individuals to make the legislature take notice. How do you find such like-minded individuals? I squeal...

[olafpfj]

When did we change from thinking that it was preferable to risk letting a guilty man go free rather than convict an innocent man, to the other way around? How have we let our country, the supposed land of the free, turn into this never ending witch hunt for guilty lawbreakers where you have to prove your innocence?

I would much rather run the risk of a murderer, drunk driver, tax evader, moonshiner, jaywalker, or whatever getting off than run the risk of putting someone innocent behind bars.

I don't care how you slice it. Running rough shod over our civil rights to nab a few law breakers is never ok in my book. I don't like drunk drivers any more than the rest of you but that does not make random stops ok. If some drunk drives for 20 years and never hurts anyone and never gets the attention of law enforcement than good for you functional drunk, you've gotten away with it.

These kinds of fishing expeditions infuriate me and unfortunately I lack the ability to express myself as coherently and explicitly as others on this site.

Random DUI stops = tons of wrong and they should not be tolerated no matter how good the intention.

[speedsix]

...I totally agree...but the example remains...thousands of (gasp-even Texans) surrender their 4th amendment rights to get into a ballgame...or a concert...and we disarm to go into this place or that...we pick and choose what we'll get upset over...and all of us draw our personal lines in the sand...based on our life experiences/values...

You should know better than that! The "ballgame" is not a government agency. There is no 4th amendment (or any other amendment) involved in attending a ballgame, or any of the security measures they may implement. If you don't like their rules, your options are to not attend.

The constitution ONLY protects people's rights against GOVERNMENT transgressions -- not private individuals or companies.

...of course...but the example is to say that some of us squeal like a pig when the po-po wants to stop us to check our sobriety(which we don't even HAVE in Texas)...yet submit to a stranger's search so that we can see a ballgame or concert...if you don't like the govt's rules...find a state that's different or work through the legislature to change them...we always have choices...

And I see both of those as responsible reactions -- although insultingly worded. It makes sense to "squeal like a pig" when your actual rights are violated by an officer of the law, or other government official. You cannot just "decide not to attend" when being pulled over by an officer -- as you can if you don't like the game's security measures. Also, the relative punitive actions are dramatically different. If caught sneaking a beer into the ballgame, what's the worst punishment you could expect? Getting kicked out of the stadium (or denied entry). When the officer pulls you over there's practically no end to the possible trouble and expense he could cause for you.

Find a state that's different??? Seriously? I suppose if it's a Federal issue, you'd suggest the "pig squealer" find a different country?
Work thru the legislate to change them? That works, but only if you can find enough like-minded individuals to make the legislature take notice. How do you find such like-minded individuals? I squeal...

...my intent isn't to insult...but to point out the irony ...submit to a search for a football game or concert...but NOT submit to a DUI stop which, if you'd care to check statistics, does get dangerous people off the road...and save lives...that's why 30+ states have passed laws authorizing the police to make them...a lot of people want them...I'm one of them...I just happen to live in a state where they aren't permitted in the law...so perhaps you'd like to save your energy for the legal process should it come up for a vote in Texas in the future...instead of supposing what I'd suggest...
...if you happen to live in a DUI check state...your options are to submit peacefully to the check, resist vigorously and pay the penalty, work through the legislature to change the law...or move to where you won't have to undergo a DUI check...like Texas...

...I'm surprised you feel this way:
"...Work thru the legislate to change them? That works, but only if you can find enough like-minded individuals to make the legislature take notice. How do you find such like-minded individuals? I squeal...[/quote]"

...that's called representative government...freedom...the American way...most are glad to have an opportunity to work hard and change things they don't like...that's how we got CHL, MPA...it really does work...if enough people will quit griping about it and work at it...(see, I didn't say squeal this time)
...I'm not even trying to change anyone's mind...but I will say that the liberal tactic in argument is often to belittle and denigrate the person for holding a different opinion... like suggesting they're too willing to give up freedoms...and that's "easier" than arguing the worth of the point...and those that suggest that because I believe differently about DUI checks that that choice carries over to any other things...well, that's just trying to put words in my mouth and make me look bad because we disagree...

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws ... _laws.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[talltex]

speedsix said: "...that's called representative government...freedom...the American way...most are glad to have an opportunity to work hard and change things they don't like...that's how we got CHL, MPA...it really does work...if enough people will quit griping about it and work at it...(see, I didn't say squeal this time)
...I'm not even trying to change anyone's mind...but I will say that the liberal tactic in argument is often to belittle and denigrate the person for holding a different opinion... like suggesting they're too willing to give up freedoms...and that's "easier" than arguing the worth of the point...and those that suggest that because I believe differently about DUI checks that that choice carries over to any other things...well, that's just trying to put words in my mouth and make me look bad because we disagree..."


I wasn't commenting on your personal views one way or another...everyone is entitled to their opinion, period. My comments were directed only to the realities of the political process and how difficult it is to undo something after the fact. I have family members that are lobbyists in Austin, along with one that's a Judge, one a former State Representative, and one a former State Senator. The individual legislator's personal feelings have very little to do with any bill being passed or defeated...it is dependent on the position of the Party they belong to. If the majority party is in favor of a particular bill, that party's legislators WILL vote for it, or they will be punished by the party....same applies to a bill they DON'T want passed. "The Party" decided that CHL and MPA were in the best interest of the PARTY...that's why they were passed. Whether or not the power brokers in the Party are personally in favor of it or not is not a concern...it's just whether or not the party analysts think it is politically expedient and will help them in the next election cycle. Yes, those decisions are based on public opinion to some degree, but they don't simply rely on poll numbers, because they know the majority of the people will not bother to vote regardless of what they do. They are more interested in what the "politically active" constituents that contribute time and money to party efforts think, and how many PAC's (that contribute the majority of the campaign funds) are for or against that bill. You are certainly correct in saying "if enough people work at it" they can affect the outcome, but unfortunately, history has shown that rarely occurs.

[speedsix]

...other than the positive changes we've accomplished in the CHL realm, the last time I know of a bad law being repealed was the MC helmet law in about '99...but, no matter how much effort...it boils down to either obey it or change it...and what the majority does tells how the majority feels about it...really feels about it...not just says it feels...
...a lot of traffic laws are because of emotional experiences...mostly negative ones...most states that passed DUI checkpoint laws did so after a lot of lobbying by those groups/voting blocks who didn't stop till they got what they wanted...maybe too many who disagreed stayed home to watch tv instead of vote...I don't know...

...as to how difficult it is to get something through the state legislature...research Jessica's law...and follow Suzanna Hupp-Gratia's story...it can be done...but will take more than minimal effort...

...if it comes to a vote in Tx to allow DUI checkpoints at any point in time...I'm gonna work hard to help get it passed...so you guys who don't want it better not be caught nappin'!!!

[puma guy]

One issue I see with indiscriminate DUI check in Texas is the incredibly loose PI law and criteria. Not much recourse to prove innocence which is completely backwards from our justice system. Please don't interpret as my not wanting the ability for an LEO to be able to address PI. Just like interfering with a PO is abused at times so is PI. I know from personal experience among the PO's I had as friends back in the 60's and 70's and 80's. Out of frustration it can be used by a PO to address the idiot factor. I have to admit a couple of times I enjoyed watching the idiot go down. JMHO

[speedsix]

...you're hitting on a big reason why we refuse to let it be passed here...lack of trust in SOME LEOs to fairly enforce it...

...having been there, I know that DUI, like most laws, can be abused...I've sent more home in a cab than I've locked up, providing they hadn't hit anyone/anything and didn't wanna fight or marry me when I pulled 'em over...the bottom line for me is GET THEM OUT FROM BEHIND THE WHEEL...not saying everyone who's sipped a drink needs to be locked up...big difference...
...believe me, Texas LEOs have earned a much higher reputation for fairness and professionalism than where I worked...I've seen the law enforced...and also seen it "used on" someone...

[talltex]

...as to how difficult it is to get something through the state legislature...research Jessica's law...and follow Suzanna Hupp-Gratia's story...it can be done...but will take more than minimal effort...

...if it comes to a vote in Tx to allow DUI checkpoints at any point in time...I'm gonna work hard to help get it passed...so you guys who don't want it better not be caught nappin'!!!

I'm very familiar with Ms. Hupp's story, and without a doubt the tragic experience at Luby's in Killeen (where I lived in 67/68), and her numerous appearances and testimony before the legislature and media had a great deal of impact in promoting the right to carry legislation . It is also a prime example of the political process at work. It CAN be done when circumstances arise that capture everyone's attention and generate huge amounts of publicity that the party views as an opportunity to be taken advantage of. When Suzanna testified before Congress and described the horror she witnessed and the frustration at being unable to defend herself and helplessly watching her parents shot down in front of her, the political machinery kicked into high gear. They recognized immediately that she was "electable"...an intelligent, articulate, photogenic woman with a compelling story that resonated with the frustrations of many Texans. They recognized her potential as a candidate, and that the CHL agenda was a viable platform to build a successful campaign around. They quickly approached her about running for office on the Republican ticket, in a previously strong Democratic district, where the incumbent Democrat was stepping down. The strategy proved successful and she was elected to 5 consecutive terms, until she decided to not to run for a sixth term. Most assuredly Ms. Hupp did work very hard to get her message out to the public, but the political success came from the Party recognizing the potential and seizing the moment to put her in the right place at the right time. NOBODY runs for office above the county level, on either the Republican or Democratic ticket, without the consent and backing of that party's "powers that be".

As for your support of the DUI checkpoints, and your intention to work hard supporting any legislation legalizing them, well...that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. Now, if only we could eliminate the influence of the insurance lobby...which makes many, many millions from increased insurance rates (and who lobbyed for the "point" system, now in place, to allow them to "rate" more drivers), and the State...which will generate many,many millions in additional fines, court costs, and driver's license surcharges (also based on the "point system"), and put any such proposal on a statewide referendum, which would have to pass the scrutiny of the general public, BEFORE it was introduced on the floor as legislation...it might be a more level playing field.

[speedsix]

...it is what it is...those boys at Bunker Hill wanted to wait till the weekend so they could get paid Friday, too...but they did what they could with what they had when the situation arose...we have to do the same...or not...

[RoyGBiv]

When did we change from thinking that it was preferable to risk letting a guilty man go free rather than convict an innocent man, to the other way around? How have we let our country, the supposed land of the free, turn into this never ending witch hunt for guilty lawbreakers where you have to prove your innocence?

When the majority of us stopped thinking for ourselves and gobbled up what we're fed by media, advertising, TV and the internet. When we got too busy "getting ahead" (or just "keeping up") to share a meal and fellowship with our neighbors. When "doing something" became the standard, instead of "accomplishing something". When "git er done" was replaced with "getting by". When accountability and pride was replaced by "It's not my problem".

We are at an inflection point. I fear our country will be lost if we don't wake up by November.

[talltex]

...it is what it is...those boys at Bunker Hill wanted to wait till the weekend so they could get paid Friday, too...but they did what they could with what they had when the situation arose...we have to do the same...or not...

we're in agreement on that!