no right to DNA privacy

[SmarterthanYou]

You can refuse a breathalyzer, but you get a worse penalty than if you had just had consented to it and tested positive. DNA is never collected.

that wasn't the point of my OP. I wanted to put people in the mindset that drawing blood would be considered a violation of the 4th amendment before springing the DUI checkpoint scenario. It was a trap for hypocrisy.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

no refusal weekends could become a nation mainstay. is everyone still ok with being forced to surrender your own blood?

 

[uscitizen]

I was forced to surrender blood. It was drawn with bullets and mortar fragments in Nam. I was drafted. What is wrong with all you wussies?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I was forced to surrender blood. It was drawn with bullets and mortar fragments in Nam. I was drafted. What is wrong with all you wussies?

1) what branch drafted you

2) sorry you were drafted. The USSC shafted you.

3) it's not about being wussy, but you know this, unless you think standing up about your constitutional rights is wussy and if thats the case, then you didn't surrender enough blood in Nam.

 

[uscitizen]

1) what branch drafted you

2) sorry you were drafted. The USSC shafted you.

3) it's not about being wussy, but you know this, unless you think standing up about your constitutional rights is wussy and if thats the case, then you didn't surrender enough blood in Nam.

If I believed strong enough about Constitutional rights I would not have allowed them to draft me.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If I believed strong enough about Constitutional rights I would not have allowed them to draft me.

then why didn't you stay in Nam if you don't believe strongly in your own rights?

and what branch drafted you?

 

[uscitizen]

Army.

You go to Nam if you want to, Bush seemed to like it over there now, but not back when he was in the National Guard.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Army.

You go to Nam if you want to, Bush seemed to like it over there now, but not back when he was in the National Guard.

My uncle was drafted in to the Marines for Nam. His injuries are what gave me my middle name. My hats off to you sir, for serving.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

My uncle was drafted in to the Marines for Nam. His injuries are what gave me my middle name. My hats off to you sir, for serving.

Your Uncle injured his "Than"?

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah than is a strange middle name.

 

[Epicurus]

Your Uncle injured his "Than"?

Actually lol'd.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Your Uncle injured his "Than"?

 

[Thorn]

If I can return to the thread topic for just a moment -- I believe that this is such an important issue, and it pains me to think that so many people are complacent about government invasions into their persons and privacy. I don't think it's paranoid to be concerned about this.

Someone said something about DUI checkpoints. I thought that this had been made illegal years ago; are such routines still carried out? What about probable cause? Here they seem to get around that by nailing you for speeding -- a couple of Xmas eves ago we were returning home from a small party, early in the evening (say 7 or so). We were stopped on the highway for going 71 in a 70 mph zone. My husband had set the speed on cruise; if his is like mine it does creep up and down a couple of miles per hour depending on the road, wind, etc., but not more than that. We were both pretty sure that this had been the "acceptable" version of a checkpoint. Luckily because of the hour and our apparent sobriety we weren't inconvenienced by further procedures and didn't get a ticket.

DNA collection and spurious random drug testing are further incursions that shouldn't be permitted.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If I can return to the thread topic for just a moment -- I believe that this is such an important issue, and it pains me to think that so many people are complacent about government invasions into their persons and privacy. I don't think it's paranoid to be concerned about this.

Someone said something about DUI checkpoints. I thought that this had been made illegal years ago; are such routines still carried out? What about probable cause? Here they seem to get around that by nailing you for speeding -- a couple of Xmas eves ago we were returning home from a small party, early in the evening (say 7 or so). We were stopped on the highway for going 71 in a 70 mph zone. My husband had set the speed on cruise; if his is like mine it does creep up and down a couple of miles per hour depending on the road, wind, etc., but not more than that. We were both pretty sure that this had been the "acceptable" version of a checkpoint. Luckily because of the hour and our apparent sobriety we weren't inconvenienced by further procedures and didn't get a ticket.

DNA collection and spurious random drug testing are further incursions that shouldn't be permitted.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."

The relevant part of the decision that should send chills down everyones spine, save for the authoritarians here, was the US Supreme court stating that although sobriety checkpoints do indeed intrude upon the 4th Amendment rights of Americans, the intrusion is slight in favor of the states interest to prevent drunken driving.

 

[Thorn]

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."

The relevant part of the decision that should send chills down everyones spine, save for the authoritarians here, was the US Supreme court stating that although sobriety checkpoints do indeed intrude upon the 4th Amendment rights of Americans, the intrusion is slight in favor of the states interest to prevent drunken driving.

It is chilling -- I'd love to see the figures on that, if they're even recorded. Of x number of stops and checks, how many people are found to be dui? Presumably these things are carried out during times if high probability, such as holidays and late weekend nights. What does the cost/benefit work out to be? Does it really prevent drunk driving? Is there a way to determine this reasonably? How does this compare, say, to stopping people for "probable cause" -- because they're driving erratically, for instance? Is it more or less effective? My guess is that checkpoints are a huge waste of resources.

Then again, if it were to save a loved one from death or injury because of a drunk driver I might be less appalled.

 

[uscitizen]

It is chilling -- I'd love to see the figures on that, if they're even recorded. Of x number of stops and checks, how many people are found to be dui? Presumably these things are carried out during times if high probability, such as holidays and late weekend nights. What does the cost/benefit work out to be? Does it really prevent drunk driving? Is there a way to determine this reasonably? How does this compare, say, to stopping people for "probable cause" -- because they're driving erratically, for instance? Is it more or less effective? My guess is that checkpoints are a huge waste of resources.

Then again, if it were to save a loved one from death or injury because of a drunk driver I might be less appalled.

Yes you see both sides of it.