Ha ha. The only one that is ignorant is you. When you are using a privilege and not a right, you have to abide by the rules, plain and simple.

Furthermore, I think we can all agree that when there is abuse or rights violations going on, such as when the “Manassas 7″ were mistreated by the City of Manassas Police Dept, people showed up at the City Council meetings and voiced their displeasure.

You simply do not grasp at all do you? Exactly how long have you been in this area? If you have never come across a sticker check point, you simply have not been around here for too long, or have not been driving for many years.

You simply are reaching, you don’t mind restrictions on speech, or speed, but sure enough when it comes to public safety and drinking, well by gosh, we are having our rights trampled on.

You have to be kidding.

Again, what the Supreme Court said ten years ago may very be different then what they would say today. That being said, the fact drunk check points are still on going speaks very loudly to how weak of an argument it is that you have to point up a Surpreme Court ruling that gets zero respect. The fact the ACLU who does not need a reason to go after Government does not seem to have a problem with them is another sign your argument is weak and pretty much moot. You sign up to drive, you have to obey the rules, simple and to the point. If you do not want to, then do not drive.

Again, how is a drunk stop a search? I would think if a cop was next to you at a red light, and they looked into your car, that would qualify under your opinion as being an illegal search. Dang, our rights are being abused!!

Anne,

Of course I agree with you. But, by golly if we can prevent accidents and deaths by drunk drivers, we should not have check points, we should just wait for the accidents to happen and see if something can be done at that point.

The county used to check for valid county stickers about 15 days after they went into effect. Police would stand by a STOP sign on my street and check every vehicle that stopped. It was a “captive” audience. Haven’t seen this in years now. I guess it is too much trouble and it would mean that a citation would have to be issued for non-compliance. Heaven forbid that the law be inforced!

I think I finally understand why we can’t seem to figure each other out. It’s clearly because you haven’t the vaguest understanding that the rules you dearly love to repeat yourself about are not allowed to contravene our rights per the Constitution. (Or “rights”, as you so glibly put it, which provides great insight into your half of this discussion.) Why else can you not understand my displeasure at the Supreme Court putting safety before fundamental rights? Why else could you fail to contemplate that probable cause is wholly disregarded at sobriety checkpoints, despite the fact that I bring it up in every rebuttal I offer?

I don’t blame the police for any of this. I blame politicians who purchase a semblance of safety at the expense of liberty, and the police are unfortunately the face of the situation as the hand of the law. I also blame the Supreme Court, who validated that purchase and allowed it to continue into perpetuity. I doubt the Court will ever revisit the decision; as evidenced here, a pliant citizenry doesn’t much concern themselves with the liberty they have lost, provided it lets them feel safer.

I’ve never heard of or seen checkpoints for county or inspection stickers. That being said, I can’t speak to them, though I doubt they have ever had a constitutional review by the premier jurists in the country.

Considering that freedom of speech is generally exercised to more than just an audience of one, I’d hardly reason that restricting cell phone use and texting while driving is an abridgement of free speech rights, particularly when all you have to do if pull the wheel right and hit the brake to a stop, at which point you can hold your free speech conversation. The safety concern is much more obvious, since the great majority of automobile accidents occur due to driver distractions, like reading, texting and phoning. But again, I’ll close with deference to my core point, since you ignored it the first 6+ times I posted: There is no constitutionally-protected right to phone calls, while driving or otherwise. There is a constitutionally-protected right to probable cause before any government search and seizure, like a sobriety checkpoint.

I’ve driven by several checkpoints, never been stopped and I’m a cute chick at that and I think it has something to do with being law abiding and not weaving around the road.

Of course, I’ve noticed the DC metro area has some of the rudest drivers I’ve ever encountered. Turn signals don’t matter, cell phones must always be appended to heads, makeup must be applied while merging, and cars must be used as if weapons to muscle one’s way along through crosswalks. Don’t get me started on y’all damned southerners in winter. I guess the cops can probably tell the drunk from the sober, but I find it all to be a big headscratching exercise.

What is so hard to understand? You have rules to follow when you have a driver license and you drive, not some of the rules, not most of the rules, but all the rules. You are bound by the rules and regulations when you obtain the license. You must obey a police order(pull over to the side of the road) even in a non drunk check point, if the cop tells you to pull over, you better pull over, or you risk running afoul of the law. Just as the State the Police have a right to enforce speed limits, they have the right to conduct drunk check points.

What about the check points for county stickers and or inspection stickers? Is that an abuse of your “rights”? Or, are the police just doing their jobs?

Again, I go back to the fact the Supreme Court ruled at one time Slavery was legal. Just because one court held that opinion, does not mean that opinion stands for all time. Just as what the court said about check points.

Thanks for making my point from a professional perspective GTC…as I said, there must be another violation involved, such as DUI, before a passenger can be arrested for DIP. THAT’S why you have “designated drivers!”

If a cop pulls me over without probable cause, that’s a violation of my constitutional rights. No one here disputes that. But if they do the same thing with a checkpoint, somehow it’s not? Because the Supreme Court says so, what is obviously unconstitutional is now legally defensible. If a cop runs my plate while I sit at a red light, I haven’t been subjected to any seizure, only a public domain seach, which is fine. But if said cop pulls me over JUST to run my tag, without any probable cause, that’s the definition of seizure, and it’s unconstitutional. So the moment I have to stop for a checkpoint, I have been subjected to seizure, and without probable cause. That’s my argument, and you’ve been blithely ignoring it during this debate.

You still seem to think that I believe driving is a right. If you’ve actually read my posts, I readily concede that it is not. But the 4th amendment IS a right, and the rules of sobriety checkpoints - which I must abide in the course of operating a vehicle or risk arrest - clearly contravene that right, per the very opinions of the Supreme Court in MSP vs. Sitz which legalized that rule. So if I exercise my constitutional rights against defacto search and seizure and blow through the checkpoint, I’ll get arrested. If I exercise my rights, as granted in the Bill of Rights, I will get arrested. That’s what makes it unconstitutional.

You said the government has the responsibility to protect us from foreign powers. They also have the responsibility to respect our rights as framed in the Constitution. Rights that exist solely to protect citizens from their government. Taking those rights away for public safety is inexcusable. Only I can give up my rights, and only that government can take them away.

You still do not get it. When you obtain a drivers license, you agree to abide by all the rules that go along with driving. You agree the speed limit is not a right, but a law we must follow, so why do you get worked up over a check point? You also seem to not understand how often your plates and information is possibly checked by law enforcement. When you are stopped at a red light sitting in front of a police officer, it is very likely your plate will be run by that officer. Have your rights been violated?

The Supreme Court can and has changed their opinions on the same issue. You pointed to a supreme court ruling, I just counted that could change in the future.

Getting upset with immigration policy and abiding by rules of something that is not a right(driving) are two different things. The Governement has the responsibility to protect us from foreign powers.

That the Supreme Court issued its horrendous Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision regarding slavery only bolsters my point that they are capable of making wrong-headed decisions regarding our Constitutional freedoms. In that case, it was slaves on the receiving end of their error. In the Sitz case, it was anyone who drives in states that institute checkpoints. If you still don’t think we had a portion of our 4th amendment rights taken from us in that instance, I strongly urge you to read the majority and dissenting opinions in that case (linked above). Both parties acknowledge the breach. That you don’t still baffles me.

Again with the “free not to get a license” line. Hey, since you don’t like the US government’s handling and implementation of federal immigration laws and policies, you’re free to move to another country. But I doubt that you would or should. Don’t tell me that since my rights are violated, I’m free simply to excise that portion of my life if I don’t like it. That’s a lazy argument, and one that I’m frankly tired of responding to. Would you tell me to quit my job if I complained about my federal income tax rate too?