Vents: Random Acts of Venting!

[Palehorse]

Can I 65 get any more rough? I've got whiplash from traveling it south of Louisville. . .   

Then coming back up I was delayed 2 hours by a "drug checkpoint" on I 65. Jackbooted thugs with dogs lined up as you drove slowly by them. If a dog alerted you were pulled over a subjected to search.

Nice. . . 

[Exterminator]

Then coming back up I was delayed 2 hours by a "drug checkpoint" on I 65. Jackbooted thugs with dogs lined up as you drove slowly by them. If a dog alerted you were pulled over a subjected to search.

Was this in Indiana or still in Kentucky?  Apparently, they didn't get the word that the Supreme Court ruled that drug checkpoints are unconstitutional or they're attempting to circumvent that ruling by claiming that they're not really 'stopping' people.  Either way, it is an unlawful search and I'm sure that another constitutional challenge will ensue wherein our government will use our tax dollars to fight a battle in court aimed at circumventing our constitutional rights.  What a great country!

[Palehorse]

Was this in Indiana or still in Kentucky?  Apparently, they didn't get the word that the Supreme Court ruled that drug checkpoints are unconstitutional or they're attempting to circumvent that ruling by claiming that they're not really 'stopping' people.  Either way, it is an unlawful search and I'm sure that another constitutional challenge will ensue wherein our government will use our tax dollars to fight a battle in court aimed at circumventing our constitutional rights.  What a great country!

Kentucky, just north of Bowling Green. . .

[Exterminator]

Kentucky, just north of Bowling Green. . .

They probably didn't get the news yet...it's only been nine years.   

[Palehorse]

They probably didn't get the news yet...it's only been nine years.   

Apparently it takes awhile for the info to get through the "commonwealth". . . 

[Henry Hawk]

They probably didn't get the news yet...it's only been nine years.   

Apparently YOU have not got the news....U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible.......

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld properly conducted DUI checkpoints as constitutionally permissible.  The states' interests, the Court reasoned, in reducing drunk driving outweighed any constitutional concerns that roadblocks may violate.

Although the , U.S. Supreme Court gave sobriety checkpoints the OK , 10 state constitutions still found them to be impermissible.  That means they are not allowed and are never used in a small minority of states today (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).   In the vast majority of states, however, they are permitted and performed, though how they are conducted varies drastically from state to state.

[pariann]

Uh Henry....sobriety checkpoints are not the same as drug checkpoints, and they are addressed in the case law that Ex provided a link to.

[Palehorse]

And the bright orange signs they had placed onto the shoulder and median, (there were several), said specifically that this was a "Drug CheckPoint - ALL vehicles subject to search".

[Exterminator]

Uh Henry....sobriety checkpoints are not the same as drug checkpoints, and they are addressed in the case law that Ex provided a link to.

They can never pass up an opportunity to illustrate how uninformed they are; huh?  Wow...

[Henry Hawk]

They can never pass up an opportunity to illustrate how uninformed they are; huh?  Wow...

I apologize EX....I totally missed your link about drug checkpoints....I am uninformed about that...I assumed that drugs would fall under sobriety.....which I STILL do not understand the difference on that....

and hey, I have passed up SEVERAL opportunities to illustrate how uninformed I am....        ..I mean uh....

[Exterminator]

I apologize EX....I totally missed your link about drug checkpoints....I am uninformed about that...I assumed that drugs would fall under sobriety.....which I STILL do not understand the difference on that....

The issue isn't whether the people being stopped are on drugs but whether they have drugs in the car.  The court ruled that stopping people and searching them to look for evidence of a crime when none was outwardly present was paramount to the police knocking on your door and asking to come inside so they can look around for a reason to arrest you.

[Henry Hawk]

I guess there MUST be a fine line here then..............what is to stop police for having a sobriety check....and have dogs there with them.....IF a dog indicates drugs is present.....they THEN have reasonable cause for search and seizure......and personally, I see no difference...IF driving drunk or possessing illegal drugs....BOTH are against the law...this is only allowing the Police to expedite their job.

and, doing this at someones home WOULD be wrong...but driving is not a right, but a privilege....and IF someone does not want to jeopardize themselves, then they do NOT have to drive.

[pariann]

There are some that would disagree with you. Traveling the highways (interstate) is a right...but they tell you that you can't do it on foot.   You should read some of the stuff I've read challenging the legality of forcing the common person to have a license.  It seems the only people that SHOULD be required to have a license are those that travel the highways for profit.  ie: freight haulers.

[pariann]

And because I know someone is going to ask me....here's one link that provides the argument: http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

[Palehorse]

I guess there MUST be a fine line here then..............what is to stop police for having a sobriety check....and have dogs there with them.....IF a dog indicates drugs is present.....they THEN have reasonable cause for search and seizure......and personally, I see no difference...IF driving drunk or possessing illegal drugs....BOTH are against the law...this is only allowing the Police to expedite their job.

and, doing this at someones home WOULD be wrong...but driving is not a right, but a privilege....and IF someone does not want to jeopardize themselves, then they do NOT have to drive.

So the 2 hours of my life I'll never get back, spent in the bumper to bumper traffic created by these jack-booted thugs, is just collateral damage?

I understand they are trying to catch mules moving weed and powder up the interstates, but I wonder just how many folks they cite for "other" offenses, (IE Seat belts, equipment violations, firearms violations, child restraints, insurance, etc.), and what the effort to success ratio actually is for the "targeted" purpose of these exercises. . . Me thinks that the "commonwealth" is running low in general funds, so they trot out the signs and tack on 2 hours to everyone's travel times unnecessarily, all in the name of generating revenue over "other" offenses they "happen" to find, for the general fund.

Very inefficcient process when it comes to the "war on drugs", but I am betting that federal funding is paying for it because of the signs, and as a bonus the "commonwealth" gets to generate a lot of internal funding at the feds expense. They generate more actual drug busts during routine traffic stops for driving violations for crying out loud. We all read about them.

Personally, I think it is bull crap. Now we all have to plan, not only for the endless crops of orange cones and double fine speed zones that come with them, but also a few more hours for revenue generation disguised as the "war on drugs"! 

Wonder how soon we'll all need to carry 4 or 5 pieces of ID with us in order to go visit grandma in another state????

Oh, and Pari, driving is a "privilage, not a right. Nobody forces anyone to drive, and it is in the best interests of public safety to assure everyone driving knows how to do it, at least basically. It is why we have to be licensed. . . (In part anyway).  Same holds true concerning the restrictions surrounding pedestrians, slow moving vehicles, and motor driven cycles, bicycles, etc. on interstate highways; best interests of public safety.