If you have not been drinking do the test. If you have been drinking your butt should not be behind the wheel of a car. I can't believe the people on this thread giving advice on how to avoid doing the tests if you have been drinking. I am not going to point out names but I fail to see the reasoning here. Drunk drivers kill people! It is to ALL our best intrests to keep these idiots off OUR roads.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Police alcohol detector raises privacy question: who owns your breath?
- Thread starter KaMaKaZe
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I've no idea if you're refering to me, but I'll tell you this:
If I'm detained by the cops for whatever reason, my primary concern will not be the convienience with which the officer wants to conduct his investigation. It will be my staying out of jail.
I guess some believe that the DUI driver (or any other suspect) is guilty until proven innocent, and even then, he should probably still be locked up. Sad.
If I'm detained by the cops for whatever reason, my primary concern will not be the convienience with which the officer wants to conduct his investigation. It will be my staying out of jail.
I guess some believe that the DUI driver (or any other suspect) is guilty until proven innocent, and even then, he should probably still be locked up. Sad.
At what point will there be roadblocks whereby, you as a motorist, will be required to satisfy the requirements before allowed to pass through. Whatever those requirements might be.
What if you're stopped at a roadcheck, (same as roadblock, but sounds less intrusive doesn't it?) What are you being stopped, or detained for?
Lets' say it's to inspect to see if you're running some tires that have been recently recalled because they've been deemed unsafe.
And the government has decided that if you're running these tires, then you're a menace, and desrve to be dealt with in whatever manner necessary.
Just an example, but one I can actually believe might occur in our current political climate, where Civil Rights has no place in today's society.
Keeping in mind that the nature of those tires have already been determined in a Court of Law, and that same Court placed a gag order on the finding, thereby placing how many innocent people at risk of injury, or death?
But I might be considered a hazardous person because NOW they're dangerous, whereas before the truth leaked out, they weren't...
But, wait a minute, wasn't government part of the decision to place countless others in a deadly situation. How many people have died a as result of that gag order?
And, wait a minute, didn't government make some money off the sale of those tires to the public, even after the truth was revealed about they're safety concerns?
How long before every car has a breath-a-hol system in place, as mandated by Congress.
And what if oneday you're car has a defective system, and it won't run, even if you're three sheets to the wind?
That brings up another item here. How long before everyone is taking their car once a month to be inspected for certain unsafe conditions? Oh yeah, I can see it..
The inspection station person says, "You're going to have to replace you're entire exhaust system, because it's been showing signs of corrosion. We've impounded it until it's fixed. And it'll have to be fixed by the end of week. And if you can't get the car reapierd by then, it's confiscated, and sold to cover the fines and costs.
Thank You, and have a nice day."
------------------
"To control people you control the food, to control a nation you control the FUEL."
H. Kissenger
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 27, 2000).]
What if you're stopped at a roadcheck, (same as roadblock, but sounds less intrusive doesn't it?) What are you being stopped, or detained for?
Lets' say it's to inspect to see if you're running some tires that have been recently recalled because they've been deemed unsafe.
And the government has decided that if you're running these tires, then you're a menace, and desrve to be dealt with in whatever manner necessary.
Just an example, but one I can actually believe might occur in our current political climate, where Civil Rights has no place in today's society.
Keeping in mind that the nature of those tires have already been determined in a Court of Law, and that same Court placed a gag order on the finding, thereby placing how many innocent people at risk of injury, or death?
But I might be considered a hazardous person because NOW they're dangerous, whereas before the truth leaked out, they weren't...
But, wait a minute, wasn't government part of the decision to place countless others in a deadly situation. How many people have died a as result of that gag order?
And, wait a minute, didn't government make some money off the sale of those tires to the public, even after the truth was revealed about they're safety concerns?
How long before every car has a breath-a-hol system in place, as mandated by Congress.
And what if oneday you're car has a defective system, and it won't run, even if you're three sheets to the wind?
That brings up another item here. How long before everyone is taking their car once a month to be inspected for certain unsafe conditions? Oh yeah, I can see it..
The inspection station person says, "You're going to have to replace you're entire exhaust system, because it's been showing signs of corrosion. We've impounded it until it's fixed. And it'll have to be fixed by the end of week. And if you can't get the car reapierd by then, it's confiscated, and sold to cover the fines and costs.
Thank You, and have a nice day."
------------------
"To control people you control the food, to control a nation you control the FUEL."
H. Kissenger
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 27, 2000).]
Yes. All these attacks on the right to travel from here to there in an automobile are disturbing.
Yes, folks, driving a car is a right. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
(For the record, I do not think that detecting and prosecuting impaired drivers is an attack on the right to drive.)
Yes, folks, driving a car is a right. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
(For the record, I do not think that detecting and prosecuting impaired drivers is an attack on the right to drive.)
12-34,
Sorry I took the weekend off from TFL.
It relates because you voiced your opinion about the expansion of police search and seizure because they would be eliminating a problem that is perceived as incorrigible. The same argument is made about guns and proposed laws, why are we against trigger locks? I am against it because the only way to enforce the law is to either search your home when they need or new technology allows. They have resonable doubt you have a gun (those pesky non-existant FBI records used for auditing purposes), if it is not on your person when they arrive at the door, they have resonable doubt that it is in the house somewhere and it is time to search.
The original intent, as I read it, of this article placed light on new technology to assist in sobriety tests. I expanded that thought into other forms of interrogation. There is technology that is much more invasive than a breathalizer used to catch criminals in acts more potentially dangerous than driving at a threshold DUAI/DUI/DWI. Is it okay to start using technology to catching crooks or drunks for popular crime fights. All of this talk about slippery slopes in this forum, and yet you (as I read, forgive if I misread) are okay with this technique for it will help end an unpopular crime. Searches without warrants are searches without warrants. Let the cop knowingly use the probable cause statute when investigating, not involke it with everyone to make their jobs easier.
Sorry I took the weekend off from TFL.
It relates because you voiced your opinion about the expansion of police search and seizure because they would be eliminating a problem that is perceived as incorrigible. The same argument is made about guns and proposed laws, why are we against trigger locks? I am against it because the only way to enforce the law is to either search your home when they need or new technology allows. They have resonable doubt you have a gun (those pesky non-existant FBI records used for auditing purposes), if it is not on your person when they arrive at the door, they have resonable doubt that it is in the house somewhere and it is time to search.
The original intent, as I read it, of this article placed light on new technology to assist in sobriety tests. I expanded that thought into other forms of interrogation. There is technology that is much more invasive than a breathalizer used to catch criminals in acts more potentially dangerous than driving at a threshold DUAI/DUI/DWI. Is it okay to start using technology to catching crooks or drunks for popular crime fights. All of this talk about slippery slopes in this forum, and yet you (as I read, forgive if I misread) are okay with this technique for it will help end an unpopular crime. Searches without warrants are searches without warrants. Let the cop knowingly use the probable cause statute when investigating, not involke it with everyone to make their jobs easier.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.