From: Jim Yanik
Subject: Re: Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks - Big Brother at his best!
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 01:40:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Friends of Lummox
References: <3E16A0FA.F0D9DFBE@sympatico.ca> <5jwR9.94251$hK4.firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 01:40:19 +0000 (UTC)
"Michael Painter" wrote in
> "Jim Yanik" wrote in message
>> "Michael Painter" wrote in
>> So,one should give up Constitutionally protected rights,such as 4th
>> Amendment protections against unreasonable search and
>> seizure,personal privacy,like one does for DUI roadblocks?
> The location, date and time of DUI checks in California are posted in
> the paper. There is always an alternative route, usually well within
> sight of the checkpoint. You can stop and make a U-turn and they will
> not pursue you even if you it is illegal to do so.
> You don't have to go through them.
> They do not search or seize any property unless you are arrested for
> drunk driving.
In a free country,I should not have to 'go around them'. And you are
woefully misinformed about seizures these days.Did you know it's illegal in
Florida to have a secret compartment in your vehicle? How about people who
were stopped for minor traffic violations,*never charged of any crime*,yet
had substantial amounts of money confiscated without any evidence of
crime,and were forced to SUE to get their money back.(at cost to them).You
have your head in the sand,fellow. If I come over to your house,drop a few
marajuana seeds in your mailbox,and rat you out to the police,you will lose
your house.Same for your car.
>> "Then right of the people to be secure in their
>> persons,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches and
>> seizures,Shall not be violated,and no warrants shall issue,but upon
>> probable cause,supported by oath or affirmation,and particularly
>> describing the place to be searched,and the persons or things to be
> Which has nothing to do with the privlidge granted to you of driving
> on highways.
Sure does.You don't lose basic rights just because a certain mode of travel
> If you disagree take it up with the courts that have ruled you do
> *not* have a right to drive and that getting a license implies that
> you agree to abide by the rules of the license.
> Protecting people from drunks is no more illegal than protecting them
> from any other danger that the individual has no control over.
>> It should not matter what mode of travel one uses.If drug checkpoints
>> are unconstitutional,as was recently ruled by the USSC,then DUI
>> roadblocks are just as unconstitutional.
> Until there is a supreme court decision on this that is your opinion
> but is not law.
Law is supposed to be consistent.Folks like you are too ready to give up
rights for some supposed protection.
>> Jim Yanik,NRA member
>> remove X to contact me
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove X to contact me