Me too, obviously :) I'm also not a noted lover of the Rehnquist court, so there is that too.
Cheers, Judah On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:50 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gotta say i agree with the dissent, on all points. > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > It was a classic "balancing" opinion where they weigh the interests of > the > > state versus the rights of the individual. The case in question seems to > be > > Michigan vs Sitz : > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz > > > > Rehnquist, in the majority, argued that, yes, it infringes on the 4th > > Amendments rights of individuals, however he felt that the interest the > > State has in reducing drunken driving outweighs the (in his mind) minimal > > invasion on privacy for the driver. > > > > Justice Brennan, in the dissent, said that the Constitution does not > > provide Rehnquist with the opportunity to make that distinction: "That > > stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is > an > > insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of > individualized > > suspicion" > > > > Rehnquist argued that the checkpoints were effective and necessary. > > Stevens, in the dissent, argued otherwise (and this speaks to Tim's > > point): "the > > findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by > > the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety > > checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." > > > > Court decided 6-3 to overturn the Michigan Supreme Court therefore and > hold > > that the interests of the State in conducting it's job of providing for > the > > safety of the people outweighs the incursion on the 4th Amendment rights > of > > individuals who are stopped at checkpoints. > > > > By the way, 10 states (including Oregon where I live), have decided that > > checkpoints are a violation of protections in their state constitution. > > > > Cheers, > > Judah > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:55 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > So why does the Supreme Court disagree?? I haven't read their ruling on > > why > > > they think checkpoints are legal. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that DUI is (and should be) a crime regardless of > > > whether > > > > there is an accident. Driving is a privilege and you've violated the > > > > compact you agreed to when getting your license if you drive under > the > > > > influence. > > > > > > > > I strongly disagree, however, with any legal fishing expeditions that > > try > > > > to find guilt without probable cause. That covers DUI checkpoints, > stop > > > and > > > > frisk, warrantless wiretapping...the list goes on and on. To me, it > is > > a > > > > fundamental tenant of our society. I understand that others feel > > > > differently. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Judah > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support basic rights. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think DUI checkpoints violate mine (or anyone else's) > rights. > > > > > > > > > > Still bothered by Tim's implication that it is not a crime to drive > > > under > > > > > the influence until/unless there is an accident. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365407 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
