View Single Post
Old 02-03-12, 10:48 PM
  #11  
PaPa
Senior Member
 
PaPa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 494
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy View Post
I think that you mean probable not probably cause.
Yes, a spell check correction that 'I' didn't check. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy View Post
I also know that past bad acts aren't always admissible, but if I'm not mistaken they have been used to justify getting a search warrant.
Depends on state & local statutes. It's also IMO, beyond the scope of the original reason for this thread.
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy View Post
Also if a person is known to commit certain crimes then does it not make sense for law enforcement to pay extra attention to them?
Pay attention, yes, but not unlawfully stop & detain without probable cause. Following someone around like a mother hen does her chicks, borders harassment. I certainly wouldn't tolerate it.
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy View Post
An example would be when law enforcement sets up it's DUI checkpoints within close proximity to bars and restaurants. And no one questions the police setting up DUI checkpoints.
Many citizens,... as do many state legislators question the legality of check points.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_..._United_States

Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal.

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy View Post
Yes, I agree that we should do everything we can to get not only drunk drivers but incompetent drivers off of the road.
As a life-time non drinker/user, I would agree. But not when it infringes on constitutional rights of BOTH the innocent... and the guilty.

Last edited by PaPa; 02-03-12 at 11:03 PM.
PaPa is offline