No refusal dui check points in tn.

[Oh Shoot]

Negative. I don't think the gov should have any right to search me before going on an airplane. I had no problem when airport security was private, as airlines are private. If a private entity wants to search me before entering their establishment that is their call to make. The government doing it is called a violation of my rights.

 

I'll mull that over, but my initial thought is that it is a further example of semantics. Though I agree that private entities are largely not bound by the same proscriptions as the government, flying is a case of a captive audience. You may have choices of airlines, but not realistically much choice of the airport, and in this case if it were unconstitutional for the government to search you, seems it would be same for a private security force.

 

Than again, private "security" searches you to a certain extent just at sporting events and concerts. As I say, I'll mull that over.

 

- OS

[npgunner]

Edit: double post Edited September 5, 2013 by npgunner

[tnguy]

I'll mull that over, but my initial thought is that it is a further example of semantics. Though I agree that private entities are largely not bound by the same proscriptions as the government, flying is a case of a captive audience. You may have choices of airlines, but not realistically much choice of the airport, and in this case if it were unconstitutional for the government to search you, seems it would be same for a private security force.

 

Than again, private "security" searches you to a certain extent just at sporting events and concerts. As I say, I'll mull that over.

 

- OS

 

You might want to bear in mind that it /is/ possible to fly without security checks. It is just certain kinds of flights that are regulated that way.

[TMF]

I'll mull that over, but my initial thought is that it is a further example of semantics. Though I agree that private entities are largely not bound by the same proscriptions as the government, flying is a case of a captive audience. You may have choices of airlines, but not realistically much choice of the airport, and in this case if it were unconstitutional for the government to search you, seems it would be same for a private security force.

 

Than again, private "security" searches you to a certain extent just at sporting events and concerts. As I say, I'll mull that over.

 

- OS

 

I don't see how it's semantics.  There is a big difference between a private entity enforcing their standards so that you may access a private service.  Yes, airports are the ones providing the security, but the airport should be nothing but a coop for the airlines; each paying their rent for terminal gates and providing appropriate security.  I don't even have an issue with there being an industry standard or the private security agency cooperating with the gov in terms of intelligence sharing for the sake of force protection.  The disconnect comes where Constitution comes in to play.  The gov is not supposed to be the gate keepers for going from one place to another.  That is some communist crap.

[JayC]

I going to go one further...  I think the security searches before 9/11 were just as unconstitutional as the searches they do today, but for a different reason.  The government was forcing all airlines to be part of a local security group, and that security group was directed by the government to search you...  So those security companies were acting as agents of the government when conducting those searches...

 

But the real reason this is evil, is by playing this private/public game the airlines had their security liability capped, if somebody got through screening it wasn't their fault it was the government mandated screeners and you can't sue the government.  The airlines loved this because it reduced their costs and allowed them to hide behind a single screening company that was mandated at every airport, and because most travelers didn't have the ability to pick between different airports (another government limitation that big business loves), you had a captive market.

 

We should give the airlines 100% individual control over security in their terminals, and in the air. Let them be 100% responsible and liable for their security.  Some airlines would cater to the security minded traveler offering extra 'security theater' to put their mind at easy...  while some would be party airlines where you received almost no security screening and charged less money (or maybe today more since a lot of travelers might view fewer hassles as a value add).

 

Get the government out of capping liability for big business, let those businesses stand on their own 2 feet with the rest of us...  The local nightclub does get special 'security' provided free of charge... why should multinational corporations to run airlines?

 

I'll mull that over, but my initial thought is that it is a further example of semantics. Though I agree that private entities are largely not bound by the same proscriptions as the government, flying is a case of a captive audience. You may have choices of airlines, but not realistically much choice of the airport, and in this case if it were unconstitutional for the government to search you, seems it would be same for a private security force.

 

Than again, private "security" searches you to a certain extent just at sporting events and concerts. As I say, I'll mull that over.

 

- OS

 

[RobertNashville]

You say that, yet you counter arguments of folks who say they are not constitutional by saying the SCOTUS already ruled on it, suggesting that the benchmark for what is or isn't constitutional is the SCOTUS opinion.

The only people who would think that either haven't actually read what I said or they simply didn't care what I said and just wanted to put words in my mouth so they could argue about it.  Anyone who has ever read more than a handfull of my posts in on this forum would know that the chance of me considering SCOTUS "infallible" is about as great as a herd of flying horses being discovered on some remote Greek island.

[TMF]

The only people who would think that either haven't actually read what I said or they simply didn't care what I said and just wanted to put words in my mouth so they could argue about it. Anyone who has ever read more than a handfull of my posts in on this forum would know that the chance of me considering SCOTUS "infallible" is about as great as a herd of flying horses being discovered on some remote Greek island.

K, then why bring up that the SCOTUS has ruled on it when someone says its unconstitutional? Seems like any normal person would interpret that as an argument you're making in favor of the SCOTUS and against us below average folk who interpret the Constitution literally rather than figuratively.

[sigmtnman]

I'll mull that over, but my initial thought is that it is a further example of semantics. Though I agree that private entities are largely not bound by the same proscriptions as the government, flying is a case of a captive audience. You may have choices of airlines, but not realistically much choice of the airport, and in this case if it were unconstitutional for the government to search you, seems it would be same for a private security force.

 

Than again, private "security" searches you to a certain extent just at sporting events and concerts. As I say, I'll mull that over.

 

- OS

 

It would be the same, if they were going around the countryside searching people, but he was referring to a contractual agreement between two private individuals.  You are allowed to give up your rights if you want and arguably that is what you would doif and when you bought a ticket to ride on one of the airlines assuming they require private security screening.

 

 

 

On another note, all of the laws and legal books deal with semantics.

Edited September 5, 2013 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

K, then why bring up that the SCOTUS has ruled on it when someone says its unconstitutional? Seems like any normal person would interpret that as an argument you're making in favor of the SCOTUS and against us below average folk who interpret the Constitution literally rather than figuratively.

It seems to me that any normal person, when discussing DUI checkpoints, might bring up that decision for the same reason that, when discussing the second amendment with someone, a normal person might bring up the SCOTUS decisions that found that the secondment amendment right to keep and bare arms is and individual right. In other words, because the fact that SCOTUS had ruled on the issue being discussed is relevant to the discussion.

 

Are we only supposed to bring up SCOTUS decisions that everyone here agrees with?

 

I know many people think the SCOTUS decision was wrong; including three SCOTUS justices; but I think it was a correct decision. As is often pointed out, the 4th amendment doesn't forbid all searches and seizures, only "unreasonable" ones and the infringement (seizure) caused by these checkpoints is so slight that I don't believe these "seizures" are unreasonable under the 4th, especially given the numerous requirements that have to be met for a DUI checkpoint to operate legally.

Edited September 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

It seems to me that any normal person might bring up that decision for the same reason that, when discussing the second amendment with someone, a normal person might bring up the SCOTUS decisions that found that the secondment amendment right to keep and bare arms is and individual right. In other words, because the fact that SCOTUS had ruled on the issue being discussed is relevant to the discussion.

Are we only supposed to bring up SCOTUS decisions that everyone here agrees with?

Never mind. You're doing that thing again where you're being impossible.

[npgunner]

It seems to me that any normal person, when discussing DUI checkpoints, might bring up that decision for the same reason that, when discussing the second amendment with someone, a normal person might bring up the SCOTUS decisions that found that the secondment amendment right to keep and bare arms is and individual right. In other words, because the fact that SCOTUS had ruled on the issue being discussed is relevant to the discussion.

Are we only supposed to bring up SCOTUS decisions that everyone here agrees with?

I know many people think the SCOTUS decision was wrong; including three SCOTUS justices; but I think it was a correct decision. As is often pointed out, the 4th amendment doesn't forbid all searches and seizures, only "unreasonable" ones and the infringement (seizure) caused by these checkpoints is so slight that I don't believe these "seizures" are unreasonable under the 4th, especially given the numerous requirements that have to be met for a DUI checkpoint to operate legally.

I guess that's really where the disagreement lies. You and others think it's reasonable. I and others do not agree. We are unlikely to change your opinion. You are unlikely to change our opinion.

We just wish you weren't wrong ...

[RobertNashville]

I guess that's really where the disagreement lies. You and others think it's reasonable. I and others do not agree. We are unlikely to change your opinion. You are unlikely to change our opinion.

We just wish you weren't wrong ...

I wish the same for you and the others...

[tnguy]

I guess that's really where the disagreement lies. You and others think it's reasonable. I and others do not agree. We are unlikely to change your opinion. You are unlikely to change our opinion.

We just wish you weren't wrong ...

 

My thought is that rather than try to change opinion, the idea is to get your point across. Then, at some point in the future, as happened for me, it can all come together and the opinion changes anyway.

 

A big part of the problem with modern politics is that people refuse to see each others points. A disagreement about the conclusion is thought to invalidate the whole of the other persons argument, leading to an inability to break things down point-by-point and no way to find common ground. I think your summary focuses on the salient point though there are others. Let's break it down some:

 

1)Are DUI checkpoints "right" in general? I think we can agree to disagree here (If everyone saw things my way, the constitution would not be needed). Some people will think that it's worth inconveniencing a few to keep these drunk drivers off the road. Personally, I'm not real happy with citizens stopping other citizens without direct cause. One thing I love about the US was it was founded as a nation of equals. This kind of thing goes against that and releases undue power to the government. Recheck those Peelian Principles I posted earlier. Also playing into this is that the statistics that lend support (or not) to this seems to have some issues. This is where MADD is a problem because their hysteria tends to preclude a rational discussion of the topic.

 

2)Is it constitutional? Calls to authority aside, this seems to rest on your definition of "unreasonable". I guess if you feel it's OK for citizens acting under authority of the government to stop and interrogate other citizens going about their lawful business because they /might/ be committing a crime, you could find that acceptable. Hard to see why they bothered with the 4th if that's the case though.

 

2b)Implied consent. The government does not get to write laws (ignoring the fact that they do so) weaseling their way out of the constitution. Not legal ones anyway. If you can't see where such things lead, there's not much hope for you.

 

3)DUI. I don't think there's many here that think DUI shouldn't be prosecuted as such but it is an argument that I have heard before. For the purposes of this thread can we stipulate that driving under the influence is a crime that deserves punishment according to the laws currently on the books (BAC levels and such are for another discussion)?

Edited September 5, 2013 by tnguy

[tnguy]

Where's the delete button?

Edited September 5, 2013 by tnguy

[TMF]

My thought is that rather than try to change opinion, the idea is to get your point across. Then, at some point in the future, as happened for me, it can all come together and the opinion changes anyway.

A big part of the problem with modern politics is that people refuse to see each others points. A disagreement about the conclusion is thought to invalidate the whole of the other persons argument, leading to an inability to break things down point-by-point and no way to find common ground. I think your summary focuses on the salient point though there are others. Let's break it down some:

1)Are DUI checkpoints "right" in general? I think we can agree to disagree here (If everyone saw things my way, the constitution would not be needed). Some people will think that it's worth inconveniencing a few to keep these drunk drivers off the road. Personally, I'm not real happy with citizens stopping other citizens without direct cause. One thing I love about the US was it was founded as a nation of equals. This kind of thing goes against that and releases undue power to the government. Recheck those Peelian Principles I posted earlier. Also playing into this is that the statistics that lend support (or not) to this seems to have some issues. This is where MADD is a problem because their hysteria tends to preclude a rational discussion of the topic.

2)Is it constitutional? Calls to authority aside, this seems to rest on your definition of "unreasonable". I guess if you feel it's OK for citizens acting under authority of the government to stop and interrogate other citizens going about their lawful business because they /might/ be committing a crime, you could find that acceptable. Hard to see why they bothered with the 4th if that's the case though.

2b)Implied consent. The government does not get to write laws (ignoring the fact that they do so) weaseling their way out of the constitution. Not legal ones anyway. If you can't see where such things lead, there's not much hope for you.

3)DUI. I don't think there's many here that think DUI shouldn't be prosecuted as such but it is an argument that I have heard before. For the purposes of this thread can we stipulate that driving under the influence is a crime that deserves punishment according to the laws currently on the books (BAC levels and such are for another discussion)?

I'm with just about everything except for a couple. First, I grew up in and around MADD, as my mom was PR for them for a number of years. They aren't all mad cows.

The other is the implied consent. I don't believe that it should be a punishable crime for not consenting, but I do believe it is okay and within the boundaries of the constitution to revoke a person's license if they do not consent to a breathalyzer when suspected of drunk driving. It's an odd thing, since if an officer has PC to believe you're drunk he has the right to search. I believe a breathalyzer is in the same realm as a legal search. Of course, how do you force someone to blow if they don't wanna? Maybe that could be an obstruction charge? I dunno, I'm not a legal expert, but I do think of you have given a cop PC to believe you're drunk driving he is within his authority to demand a breathalyzer. I can't think of a solid argument against that logic, but perhaps you have one?

Now, making someone submit to a breathalyzer who is not given PC; as in just for the hell of it... I'm not cool with that at all. That is violating the 4th.

[tnhawk]

When check points stop producing results, they will cease.

The legal enforcement system doesn't provide protection in my neighborhood because they don't catch and convict enough violators to make it profitable to the courts.

Edited September 5, 2013 by tnhawk

[tnguy]

The other is the implied consent. I don't believe that it should be a punishable crime for not consenting, but I do believe it is okay and within the boundaries of the constitution to revoke a person's license if they do not consent to a breathalyzer when suspected of drunk driving. It's an odd thing, since if an officer has PC to believe you're drunk he has the right to search. I believe a breathalyzer is in the same realm as a legal search. Of course, how do you force someone to blow if they don't wanna? Maybe that could be an obstruction charge? I dunno, I'm not a legal expert, but I do think of you have given a cop PC to believe you're drunk driving he is within his authority to demand a breathalyzer. I can't think of a solid argument against that logic, but perhaps you have one?
 

 

I'm with you, I do believe. A breathalyzer is a valid part of an investigation. There's should be no "implied consent" about it though.

[TMF]

I'm with you, I do believe. A breathalyzer is a valid part of an investigation. There's should be no "implied consent" about it though.

That's the tricky part though. If a breathalyzer is a legitimate investigative tool when drunk driving is suspected, how do you force them to blow? What if they refuse?

[tnguy]

Couldn't that be said for fingerprints, DNA swabs and other things for other crimes? Or is the issue that that may be damaged by being delayed by the need for a warrant? (If that's the case. I'm not that familiar with that area of the law)

Edited September 7, 2013 by tnguy

[npgunner]

That's the tricky part though. If a breathalyzer is a legitimate investigative tool when drunk driving is suspected, how do you force them to blow? What if they refuse?

I think that's why they passed the bit about the no refusal for blood draw if you've been arrested. They arrest you, get a "warrant," take you to hospital, then run a blood test to check your alcohol level.

[sigmtnman]

That's the tricky part though. If a breathalyzer is a legitimate investigative tool when drunk driving is suspected, how do you force them to blow? What if they refuse?

 

If there were a victim with actual damages it could be forced on them.

[sigmtnman]

Couldn't that be said for fingerprints, DNA swabs and other things for other crimes? Or is the issue that that may be damaged by being delayed by the need for a warrant? (If that's the case. I'm not that familiar with that area of the law)

 

Those crimes have actual and identifiable victims.

[TMF]

If there were a victim with actual damages it could be forced on them.

Drunk driving is illegal. When you are observed breaking the law the cops have PC to investigate and search. There doesn't need to be a victim.

[DaveS]

Negative. I don't think the gov should have any right to search me before going on an airplane. I had no problem when airport security was private, as airlines are private. If a private entity wants to search me before entering their establishment that is their call to make. The government doing it is called a violation of my rights.

I think they do. Considering the fact that I want to arrive at "point B" in one piece, I think the Government has every right in the world to make sure that "you" do nothing to interfere with that. Apparently airlines and private security failed miserably at security, wouldn't you think?

 

DaveS

Edited September 7, 2013 by DaveS

[npgunner]

[quote name="DaveS" post="1028641" timestamp="1378586809"] I think they do. Considering the fact that I want to arrive at "point B" in one piece, I think the Government has every right in the world to make sure that "you" do nothing to interfere with that. Apparently airlines and private security failed miserably at security, wouldn't you think? DaveS[/quote] With this logic why not have TSA stationed in everyone's back yard and they can do a full blown cavity search and sobriety check before anyone gets in a car. Since after all, I just want to get to "point B" in one piece and the .gov should be allowed to do anything to ensure that. Edited September 7, 2013 by npgunner