I am ardent in MY support of all the amendments and the constitution as a whole .

however , there is no "right to drive a car on the public roads"
it is a privilege and it is a privilege which requires you to be subjected to spot checks for license , insurance , and whether or not you are legally under the influence of a substance which would impede your ability to drive safely ( NOT to protect you so much - even though it does - but to protect the persons around you )

If you do not like roadblock spot checks , the simple solution is to not drive .

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

I agree, it's a privilege. Tell me how a roadblock is not a direct violation of this:

Stopping me without probable cause, other than the fact that I am driving on a public road, and demanding that I answer questions, could be construed as an unreasonable search. Can a police officer stop you from walking down the sidewalk and demand that you prove you are not breaking the law? Of course not, unless they want to lose their job.

I agree, it is a "rule of the road," something that we must endure to retain the privilege of being able to drive. I just think that our police should have to work to catch criminals, not just through out the net and see what they find.

I know a lot of people who have strategies for beating the roadblocks, by the way. Mine was best: I lived three blocks from the main drag in Boise. I could, and did, walk (or stumble) home all the time.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Your reasonable expectation of privacy is lower than in your home for starters. Also, when you sign for your drivers' license you are agreeing to implied consent. The Supreme Court has also decided that as long as the stops are short and systematic our reasonable expectation of privacy does not cover them.

Now the effectiveness relative to other methods of stopping drunks is an entirely different matter.

Well, in that case a concerned citizen may call the police station, telling them that the word is out in such and such an establishment, so they can move their checkpoint.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I agree that it is a privilege, not a right, to drive a motor vehicle. The privilege is manifested in the driving licence. The road is (in most cases) owned, built and operated by the government (local, state, or federal). You may use it if you follow the rules of the owner.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I guess it could be, but it's not. The only people I know who would consider it that would be people who drive drunk...

A cop most certainly can stop you while you're walking down the street...

Where I live, check points are advertised. You can find out where a check point will be before you ever leave the house. You can call the police and ask them, and they'll tell you.

As for your plan to beat them, yeah, you won't get a DUI. You could, though, be arrested for public intoxication...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

No, they can't. If they see you breaking some law, they can obviously stop you. They can't just stop you for no reason.

You'd have to be causing some kind of disturbance, or be visibly intoxicated - as in falling down. I believe the laws vary by state.

Sure they can. They can't arrest you for no reason, but they can sure as Hell stop you and question you...

I believe it was you who said you'd "stumbled"...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Depends on who does the interpretation, correct. Are you insinuating that the only people who care about constitutional rights are criminals, or are you assaulting my character? Because either conclusion is asinine.

Not for no reason, they can't. Well maybe in the police state that is southern california, but here we don't take kindly to being harassed by police.

Wrong again, and thank you for playing. They may ticket you for public intoxication, but you really have to work at it. But it is not the kind of offense they arrest for, unless you try to run from them, or try to resist, in which case they are not arresting you for public intoxication, now, are they? Look, I just think it's funny that with some proponents of the 2nd Amendment, the other Amendments don't seem to matter. I take the position that they are all equally important, and I am quite serious about them.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Question you about what? This isn't some communist country where they can just stop you and ask for your "papers". Police must have some reason for stopping you.

No, I just joined this thread - but I don't think "stumbling" is illegal.

How is it a violation of the 4th amendment?

Apologies if it wasn't you. But "stumbling home" would certainly give a cop reason to think that, perhaps, someone is drunk. A cop would be well within the bounds of duty to stop such a person...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I would point out that it's you, and not me, that reached those conclusions...

How is it "harrassment"?

When I was stationed in South Carolina, a guy who worked for me was drunk, and sitting in the passenger set of a car that had been pulled over. The cop ordered him out of the car. As soon as his second foot hit the ground, he was arrested for being drunk in public.

Well, good for you.

You've yet to demonstrate how check points are a violation of the 4th amendment. And why have you failed to do that? Because it's not, that's why...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

If the police are going to stop you just for walking down the street, they'd damn well better have probable cause.

I don't see where stopping someone and asking some questions is "unreasonable". Further, you've failed, miserably I might add, to demonstrate how it is...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Any time a public official can stop you for no reason when you are going about your business in a peaceful, legal manner, it is harassment.

I was not talking about South Carolina, was I? Here, you just get a ticket.

You have a right to be secure in your person and papers against unreasonable searches. While I agree that driving is a privilege, and that you agree to the "rules of the road," one of which being that a Law Enforcement Officer can pull you over for any reason, I think that they violate a basic tenet of the Fourth Amendment, as the LEO in question can demand identification and insurance documentation (papers). I don't gripe, because driving is a privilege.

Now, by your reasoning, the only people who care about the Fifth Amendment are people who are up to no good. Criminals are the only ones who can incriminate themselves, right?

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).