Senate Bill 1018

[eriknemily]

This bill will have to go to a vote of the people if the legislature approves it. It will allow law enforcement agencies to establish roadblocks, in accordance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's guidelines, for the purpose of find persons who are driving under the influence of intoxicants.
What are your thoughts on this?
My first thought is great, get the drunks off of the road. But as I think on it more I don't want LE to have that much more power (as much as I respect them) and I don't want to have to deal with roadblocks. Less government power is better!

Read More

 

[ZachS]

I'm absolutely against it - the neo-prohibitionists at MADD have got these laws passed in dozens of states now. They allow officers to stop any driver, at any time, for any reason without probable cause.

I highly recommend that anybody on this board considering supporting such a law read the following article - it's long, but it shows how far courts are willing to go to erode our rights when they receive enough special interest pressure:

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

 

[eriknemily]

They allow officers to stop any driver, at any time, for any reason without probable cause.

That is what my underlying fear would be. I trust most cops. I know several of them. I don't trust all cops and generally don't like my privacy and freedom to be placed in the hand of others!

 

[jimwsea]

Another step closer to "papers, please".

 

[Chee-to]

I'm absolutely against it - the neo-prohibitionists at MADD have got these laws passed in dozens of states now. They allow officers to stop any driver, at any time, for any reason without probable cause.

I highly recommend that anybody on this board considering supporting such a law read the following article - it's long, but it shows how far courts are willing to go to erode our rights when they receive enough special interest pressure:

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

"The neo-prohibitionists at MADD?" These people don't care if you drink, drink till you puke if you want, just don't drive, or do you believe a prohibition against drunk driving is infringing on your rights ??......:huh:

 

[Jamie6.5]

IIRC the OSP was doing this around the holidays back in the late '70s or early '80s.
A lawyer type contested the law based on the no "random search" clause and won.
Maybe the laws have been rewritten to accommodate these, but I would think that would be you best defense if ticketed/arrested in one.
The first thing these do is toss probable cause out the window.

Just my 2cents.

 

[Redcap]

I'm absolutely against it - the neo-prohibitionists at MADD have got these laws passed in dozens of states now. They allow officers to stop any driver, at any time, for any reason without probable cause.

I highly recommend that anybody on this board considering supporting such a law read the following article - it's long, but it shows how far courts are willing to go to erode our rights when they receive enough special interest pressure:

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

I absolutely agree.

 

[soberups]

I guess I just disagree.

I see nowhere in the Consitution where one has the "right" to drive on a public highway. It is in fact a privelege, not a right, and it is and should be subject to reasonable levels of control and regulation.

If you choose to drive, you are expected to obey traffic regulations...and as a fellow user of the road I have every right to expect you to obey those regulations so that you dont hit me head on and kill me.

No one is saying you cant drink. No one is saying you cant drive. You just cant do both at the same time.

Right now, you can be pulled over for any reason the officer chooses to make up. If you drive a beater car, or have long hair, or you are black, you have a much greater probablility of being stopped. A checkpoint that requires everybody to stop seems much more fair to me.

 

[jordanvraptor]

I'm not doing anything wrong, but I don't like the government presuming I'm doing something wrong...

 

[ZachS]

"The neo-prohibitionists at MADD?" These people don't care if you drink, drink till you puke if you want, just don't drive, or do you believe a prohibition against drunk driving is infringing on your rights ??......:huh:

I don't have a problem with laws against drunk driving. I have a problem with people who disguise their crusade against alcohol as a fight against drunk driving. I also have a problem with courts that apply different constitutional standards to drunk driving than they do to other crimes.

 

[Cougfan2]

While I have no pity for drunk drivers and the mayhem they cause, this opens the door up for so many other illegal searches that I have a HUGE problem with it.

What if the police suspect there is drug activity in your neighborhood, but aren't sure of the address and just cordon off the whole block and do a house to house warrantless search? Think I'm being ridiculous? Think of the ghettos in Warsaw at the beginning of WWII searching for firearms or "subversive material". Think it can't happen here? Think again.

 

[kcarnold]

I agree once you start saying that the constitution is not relevant to one small thing it really isn't much of a stretch to apply that to other items. Since walking on a trail in in a forest on public land maintained by public money isn't a right they can now search you with out cause. The use of the public trail is a privilege not a right.

 

[Redcap]

I guess I just disagree.

I see nowhere in the Consitution where one has the "right" to drive on a public highway. It is in fact a privelege, not a right, and it is and should be subject to reasonable levels of control and regulation.

If you choose to drive, you are expected to obey traffic regulations...and as a fellow user of the road I have every right to expect you to obey those regulations so that you dont hit me head on and kill me.

No one is saying you cant drink. No one is saying you cant drive. You just cant do both at the same time.

Right now, you can be pulled over for any reason the officer chooses to make up. If you drive a beater car, or have long hair, or you are black, you have a much greater probablility of being stopped. A checkpoint that requires everybody to stop seems much more fair to me.

Do you not value your 4th Amendment right? The one against illegal search and seizure?

 

[rusobr2]

the WSP were doing this 30 yrs ago,(no ! thats not why i moved to oregon)and ended up with their butts in legal trouble-then again -i was a drinker at the time,so i was one of those opposed to the practice- of ramdom pullovers-but 30 yrs. ago there was'nt the ammount of people on the road that there is today, or pedestrians,and massive intersections-let alone the schools have tripled--believe me!! we don't need drunks on the road,but it also opens up the threat of getting a DUII--(for just having a beer with your lunch)trust me-- if you are not a drinker,you can smell a beer or alcoholic beverage at 10 ft. easy .oh ya-- you can pass the breathaliser , but you are still under the influence of intoxicants,and that is the way the law reads.at that point you are guilty, and now you have to begin the process of proving your innocense-let alone what happens to your ins. all DUII's have to be reported-
just my thoughts
steven

 

[rusobr2]

redcap-i don't think OSP is attacking our 4th amm. they don't have that right until we give it to them,and if for some reason your vehicle gets impounded ie: duii-no reg.-no ins. card-the said vehicle no longer belongs to you , and yes they can search it,and sieze whatever they want-also the law enforcement agencies have a little thing called --PROBABLE CAUSE-i'm just pointing these things out,as i do feel the way you do, when is enuff-enuff ??
steven

 

[jimwsea]

Do you not value your 4th Amendment right? The one against illegal search and seizure?

And the 5th Amendment right against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.

<broken link removed>

Note the use of the term "travel" which is our natural right, vs "drive" which is a RCW commercial term for those who carry passengers or cargo for profit.

 

[cbzdel]

Personally I am for it.. We do not have the right do drive on the roads its more a "perk" I was told this by a judge when I got a ticketed for wreckless driving when i was in highschool.

If they want to stop me and check my level of drunkenness great.. I dont drive drunk.. The plus to a road block is maybe the a$$hat behind will will get a ticket and go to jail.. It worth of few minutes of my time to help make the roads somewhat safer. Just removing one drunk driver from the road may save many lives.

 

[jimwsea]

We do not have the right do drive on the roads its more a "perk" I was told this by a judge when I got a ticketed for wreckless driving when i was in highschool.

The state takes the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO), the "birth certificate" for the car when the car came into port...before it is sold. Even though you buy the car new, the state has the MCO and is the legal owner. Now you have to "borrow" the car from the state, which assumes you are using it for commercial purposes. The commercial side makes you liable for the "driver's" license and adhering to the state's driving codes.

When you go into traffic court you are in a court that operates under commerce. The judge proceeded on the commercial side, therefore driving the state's car is a privilege dependent upon obeying all the codes.

What we all end up with is the "Certificate of Title" which means exactly what it says. It's a paper certificate that says there is a title somewhere, but it is not the actual title...the state has the actual title.

Go into a dealership to buy a car and ask for the MCO. If you ever did get it, you would actually be the owner of the car and free to travel, not a borrower/"driver".

 

[Chee-to]

I don't have a problem with laws against drunk driving. I have a problem with people who disguise their crusade against alcohol as a fight against drunk driving. I also have a problem with courts that apply different constitutional standards to drunk driving than they do to other crimes.

Please provide proof on your assertions, or is this just more of your opinionated conjecture ?...

 

[ZachS]

Please provide proof on your assertions, or is this just more of your opinionated conjecture ?...

Did you read the article I linked to?