Oakland DUI checkpoints discriminate - against those without licenses
The Oakland Tribune is reporting that Oakland police officers have stopped setting up DUI checkpoints. Why? Because local activists say they discriminate against those without licenses. (writer’s note - isn’t that against the law anyway?)
So what’s a politician to do to keep drunk drivers off the street?
First thing you do: enact some guidelines.
The new checkpoint guidelines, which are not final, may call for police to notify Latino community organizations of the time and location of coming checkpoints. The checkpoints will be held after the evening rush-hour commute and rotated throughout the city, officials said.
I believe in personal freedom - almost to a libertarian point. However, I can’t see why people who are knowingly breaking the law - driving without a license AND insurance - get a ‘free pass’ to keep on doing what they’re doing.
Maybe they would think differently if they had been personally affected by drunk drivers.
Tags: News and Media
November 4th, 2004 at 2:06 pm
I think burglar alarms discriminate against those who want to break into people’s homes. I’m starting a campaign. Please go to: www.localactivists4lobotomies.com and sign my petition.
November 4th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
Doesnt the 4th amendment come in to play here???????
November 4th, 2004 at 4:35 pm
Your argument might make more sense if we were talking about citizens and not *illegal immigrants*:
“the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.”
Whether one agrees with DUI checkpoints on the whole is not the issue. This central issue of the article specifically regards *illegal* immigrants, with *no license* and *no insurance*. Please explain how the 4th Ammendment applies.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
Lets see the Consitution is one of the most important documents for the US. The suspension of the Fourth amendment IMHO is scarier than “illegal ” immigrants being caught. Yes I do agree the Illegal alien issues need to be addressed. The concept/thought of suspending 4 amendment rights is by far scarier to me. Look up the Patriot Act and Patriot Act that Bush signed into law after 9/11 it will open your eyes.
November 5th, 2004 at 10:27 am
I appreciate your comment and certainly think we need to be very wary of the possibility of our government overstepping its bounds on Constitutional ammendments. I’m not saying I agree/disagree with DUI checkpoints as a whole - it’s a difficult question. But the 4th Ammendment does refer to “unreasonable” search. The DUI checkpoints I’ve been through merely check your license and “eyeball” you - which amounts to neither search nor seizure.
I’m still waiting for you to explain how the 4th Ammendment applies to this issue of illegal aliens without licenses. I maintain that the whole basis for this particular challenge to DUI checkpoints is absurd.
November 5th, 2004 at 5:37 pm
The 4th amendment deals with unreasonable search and seizure. I am looking at the DUI roadblocks as a whole. I am seeing for the forest and not the trees sorta speak. It is absurd that you will allow checkpoints to happen without a “This is strange” or not thinking this is different. It starts a slippery slope to the loss of freedoms in the US. WHat happens next loss of religion, police stop you for having a BIBlE in the vehicle. Look and read the papers and see what is going on in America. What happens when the police stop you and suspect you for drunk driving. BUT you have been working a double shift and your eyes are red, or you have allergies. TO me is also goes against the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I havent done anything wrong but I should NOT be subjected to a search and seizure because a few people have broken the law.The police are searching you when they look at your license , its called a cursory search, or multi-tasking if you will. It is absurd for me to think, that you dont think its a loss of personal freedom in America. It starts silently then it all comes down. Look at Rome, Russia, then USA?? THink on this before you respond.
November 12th, 2004 at 1:44 pm
Okay, I’ve thought on it… well, a little…
I understand your concern… but we can’t just stop police from doing their jobs. We’re not talking about an Orwellian 1984 here. They’re stopping people and asking for their license and giving them a quick look. You don’t get bent out of shape if someone asks for your library card, do you? And I would think, if police saw a suspicious individual around your house, you would want them to investigate and perform a “cursory search” of your property (outside the home) - even if you weren’t there. At least, I would. I still don’t know that I can agree that DUI roadblocks fall under the 4th Ammendment… but I’ll give you that it’s debatable. But you still haven’t shown me how this applies to illegal aliens without driver’s licenses and why this particular case should have any merit/part in the decision!
And regards the police stopping me for having a Bible, the Bible is not illegal. Drinking while driving is illegal. If it gets to the point where having a Bible is illegal - it had nothing to do with DUI roadblocks and everything to do with removal of Freedom of Religion and Speech. Which, by the way, could only come from the liberal attempt to completely remove the morals and beliefs of Christianity from our government and society based on a claim to a non-existent “Separation of Church and State” that doesn’t explicitly exist in the Constitution. If you’re going to claim a slippery slope argument… make sure we’re on the same slope.
Oh yeah, and if your eyes are red from allergy and irritation - the breathalizer will prove you innocent.
November 15th, 2004 at 7:18 pm
Have you heard of NEOCONS.
November 15th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
Scott, one more thing, I think this will help you understand why we don’t see eye to eye on so many issues. You see Scott, I am a HOMO-SEXual illegal alien. Seriously Scott, it seems to me that you’re fixated on homo sexuals and illegal aliens.
November 17th, 2004 at 2:22 pm
Neocons… Yeah, I’ve heard of them. I thought they were really cool when I was a kid because if you had all 5 of them, you could join them into the Neocon warrior “PredaKing”. Transformers were my favorite!
Or… maybe you were talking about neopets… No, I’m not so familiar with those - though I understand they were quite popular for a while.
Then again, maybe it’s just the loud whirring of the black helicopters or the secret messages of the Illuminati that are just drowning everything else out.
Truthfully… I don’t understand your point. Neoconservativism is a slippery term at best and I’m not sure if you’re calling me one or claiming to be one. Not that it matters since it has no relevance in the context of our discussion.
November 17th, 2004 at 2:28 pm
– “Seriously Scott, it seems to me that youre fixated on homo sexuals and illegal aliens.” –
I must be becoming a Democrat.