Thread: Sobriety check points and the 4th amendment

Are you sure this is the argument you want to make, when your whole position is "a judge said it's constitutional so it's true"?

You, almost literally, have the right to drive NOTHING, because you not have the right to a car or other personal property.

Yes it is.


Driving drunk does not meet the requirements for assault. The two are fundamentally different. A guy that fires a gun into a crowd is doing it with a "criminal mind" (see: mens rea). A guy drinking and driving isn't necessarily doing it to be faggot, and therefore his frame of mind can only be determined retrospectively (if he hits someone, then he was irresponsible; if he makes it home safe, then he was adequately compensating for his impairment).

Also, it should be noted that if there was no intent to do harm or cause apprehension, it isn't assault, either.



gg. thx4playing. go fuck yourself.

No it's not.

If you don't do anything illegal in the process of evading the checkpoint (say by either making an illegal u-turn, or cutting through a parking lot), then they shouldn't pursue you. If they do, you'd be right to take offense to it, but that's an entirely different matter - that isn't inherent in checkpoint procedure.

And the comparison to home ownership is absurd. If you want to pursue it further, I can explain why, or we can call it a straw man and leave it at that.

Not even just that. You can catch a DUI at .01 if the cop thinks you're impaired.

It's unreasonable because it assumes guilt and that's not how the justice system works.

So is living in a home

AND, it's the judge who decides constitutionality who's saying it's unconstitutional, not just "a judge".

Great. Therefore, you must think that driving at a certain hour constitutes reasonable suspicion?