View Single Post
Old 02-04-12, 12:27 AM
  #12  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,355

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PaPa View Post
Yes, a spell check correction that 'I' didn't check. Thank you.
At least ya "blamed" the spell check instead of the "auto complete."

Originally Posted by PaPa View Post
Depends on state & local statutes. It's also IMO, beyond the scope of the original reason for this thread. 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.
True, for better or for worse a lot of things depend on state/local statutes. As was pointed out there is a better than good chance that the individual who was riding their bike after a night of drinking was probably weaving or was otherwise unsteady on their bike. How many crimes could have been prevented if law enforcement had paid just a little more attention to known criminals?

Originally Posted by PaPa View Post
Many citizens,... as do many state legislators question the legality of check points.
That is understandable, especially given how that they only seem to use them during certain times of the year. I think that they might be more effective if they were conducted more often then just during the "major holidays."

Originally Posted by PaPa View Post
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.

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.
I agree that making sure that laws don't infringe on constitutional rights is a tricky road. But hasn't someone who has been convicted of certain crimes been stripped of many of their constitutional rights?
Digital_Cowboy is offline