'No refusal' DUI checkpoints: Judges can Order Blood Tests on the Spot in 9 States

[harvey007]

Run time: 06:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBNVyb4d9tE   Posted on YouTube: January 03, 2011 By YouTube Member: Born2WinMai Views on YouTube: 303   Posted on DU: January 19, 2011 By DU Member: harvey007 Views on DU: 686

 

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Perhaps one day soon we'll have mandatory blood testing equipment in our homes

All networked to Central Authority.

When the buzzer goes off, we'll have to prick our fingers and submit to the analyzer, which will look for drugs, banned foods, and anything that might qualify as a pre-existing condition.

That info will be instantly relayed to C.A. as well as to our Designated Health Sustainers (D.H.S.) for processing, arrest, and cancellation of coverage.

I love Big Brother.

[midnight]

2. Let's please step back and uphold the constitution....

[villager]

3. people need to Twitter the routes of these "4th amendment busters" so no one drives

...through them...

[TheMadMonk]

4. Just WHAT THE FUCK is with the American fascination with

killing themselves and each other on the roads? And their pathological opposition to preventative measures.

Seatbelts, helmets, DUI, speeding, roadworthiness.

Exactly what in the constitution gives you the right to eject your grandchildren from a suddenly no longer moving vehicle?

Why should intoxicated drivers be permitted to play bagatelle with other vehicles and pedestrians, ONLY to be punished IF their behaviour results in actual injury or harm to others?

What gives you the right to put your personal "comfort" ahead of your family's finances? They're the ones who are going to be stuck with your medical bills once the insurance runs out.

[jjewell]

5. This...

"Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The 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 seized."

[villager]

6. Thanks. I'm starting to wonder WHAT THE FUCK the American fascination is

...with jettisoning constitutional protection against state intrusiveness.

[TheMadMonk]

7. So define for me unreasonable.

Seems to me that by flipping your argument around it's perfectly fine: to drive while intoxicated; to not keep your vehicle in good repair; To not buckle yourself or kiddies in; to put the feel of the wind in your hair ahead of personal safety and the saftey of other people's (probably your own bloody family's) finances. To do pretty much anything you damned well please UNTIL your own actions eventually come back to bite you on the arse, often with catastrophic results.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that the police have the powers to use any reasonable means at their disposal to determine the fitness of a vehicle or driver to be on the road AT ANY TIME THEY ARE ON THE ROAD. And to otherwise ensure that THE MOTORIST'S ACTIONS do not put OTHER PEOPLE'S lives and health at risk.


This isn't about constitutional rights. Nothing in the constitution covers either seatbelts or helmets nor the roadworthiness of vehicles. What this is about is a bloody childish determination not to be told what to do.