DUI Checkpoint Blitz - HCPD

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

I'd rather just have everyone follow the law. I don't see how do many on here can condemn people for breaking one law but find it perfectly acceptable to have other people break the law merely because they dressed up in some costume.

---

Because the law being broken is DUI.

Of which, we allow 10,000 plus deaths a year solely due to DUI.

But, as is especially normal here, its OK to drive drunk.

Even if you kill someone.

[liskir]

Yes. Legal is NOT the same as lawful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

DUI checkpoints are legal in Hawaii. Do you really dispute that fact?

---

SECRET KNOWLEDGE - "NOT FOR US TO KNOW"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91qs9v-upWI

[rainyjim]

"If DUI checkpoints are against the law due to it being illegal search and seizure, then so is Green Harvest - on every front."

Definitely. Agreed.

[liskir]

If I'm not causing loss, harm, injury and if there's no corpus delecti, what gives anyone (regardless if in costume or not) the right to detain me? (check points, pulling me over, asking for ID, court, etc...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainshadow

This isn't about subversive chains shackling you; it's about trying to keep dumbasses off the road.

-- rainshadow

---

SECRET KNOWLEDGE - "NOT FOR US TO KNOW"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91qs9v-upWI

[Rob Tucker]

I find it hard to believe that DUI check points have not been before the courts on the issues raised here. Perhaps one of you might look into what the Hawaiian courts decided.

[Bullwinkle]

they slipped this in years ago:

Perhaps the best known—and most often litigated—application of implied consent involves laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated. Most states have legislation that subjects motorists suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs to blood, breath, or urine tests. These chemical tests can confirm the existence and the level of drugs or alcohol in a driver's body, and can be used as evidence against the driver. Pursuant to these state statutes, known as implied consent laws, anyone who drives on public roads or highways has, by that action, impliedly consented to such tests. Once stopped or arrested for suspicion of driving while impaired, a person must submit to a test or face revocation or suspension of his or her driver's license.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ed+consent

[PaulW]

" Legal is NOT the same as lawful."

law·ful
Adjective
Conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
Synonyms
legal - legitimate - rightful - licit - valid - just

[PaulW]

As I understand it, the Supreme Court (they get to interpret the Constitution, not you or I) ruled years ago that DUI Checkpoints are legal and constitutional. Some states have fought this via various means and some have been successful. Hawaii has chosen not to do so. Maybe they don't want unnecessary deaths on the road.

[liskir]

Killing someone IS causing loss, harm, injury, subjecting the killer to full liability. If there is no corpus delecti, there is no crime. Claiming inherent rights means exercising responsibility and assuming full liability. Why is this so difficult to understand? People in costumes don't have dominion over anyone unless there's evidence of a crime, which they must prove beyond a doubt, unless the victim CONSENTS to being a slave (i.e. U.S. citizen). Slaves have no rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw3-s172yA4 MARC STEVENS ADVENTURES IN LEGAL LAND

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

I'd rather just have everyone follow the law. I don't see how do many on here can condemn people for breaking one law but find it perfectly acceptable to have other people break the law merely because they dressed up in some costume.

---

Even if you kill someone.

---

SECRET KNOWLEDGE - "NOT FOR US TO KNOW"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91qs9v-upWI

[Rob Tucker]

While the issue runs close to the line of the 4th Amendment I rather quickly found that the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_chec...ted_States

Partial quote: "the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement."

And so it goes. It would seem that the State of Hawaii relies on that Supreme Court decision. Perhaps one of you would like to litigate it to the Roberts court and see if there is a different result.