Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto
Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks
Message-ID: <755@burl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 10:14:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.755
Posted: Tue Jun 25 10:14:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 06:25:48 EDT
References: <979@homxa.UUCP>
Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 63
Xref: watmath net.legal:1788 net.auto:7150
Summary: 

In article <979@homxa.UUCP> gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes:
>What is the opinion on the net:
>
>	Is it "unlawful search and seizure" if you are stopped at a road
>	block and checked for DWI even though you were driving your car
>	properly (not too fast or slow or weaving or anything, just minding
>	your own business)?  Is it "uss" if they do the same thing to check
>	driver's license and registration?
>
>	If it is ok to do these things then why can't the police drive down 
>	the block and search every house or every third house for drugs, 
>	unregistered firearms, criminals, etc.?
>
No, it is now 'unlawful'.  Yes, I personally think it is unconstitutional.
Here is the 'logic' that they use here in North Carolina, where roadblocks
for 'license checks' are common:

You are required by law to have a valid driver's license when operating a
motor vehicle.  Your motor vehicle is very dangerous; you can't kill
someone by running them over with your house.  You are a potential menace
to society just by being behind the wheel.  Therefore, it is the state's
right to enforce this law (driver's license) with arbitrary checks.  NOW,
if you are stopped for this check and the officer has 'probable cause'
to think that you may be drinking or intoxicated from previous drinking,
s/he can pull you out of the car and give you any test up to and including
a breathalyzer.  I know one person who has had this happen twice and has
blown a .00 (or practically that) both times; he has no recourse against
the state for it.

As for not searching houses, etc., the argument above about motor vehicles
being dangerous to others is usually used.  But if we continue to sit
back and let this stuff happen; it is coming, believe me.  There are three
interrelated prevailing attitudes in this country that I am seeing:

a) There are no 'accidents'; everything is someone's fault and we MUST
   prevent anything like this from happening again, and
b) the only way to do this is to pass more laws and have more government
   agencies/policies/tax_dollars to enforce them, and
c) it matters not that most of these laws are unenforcable.

We recently had a driver of a military truck run off the road and plow
into a school bus.  The guy had been on duty for 12 hours, probably
partied the night before, and fell asleep at the wheel.  He had not
been driving for a solid 12 hours.  The first thing the news media and
state government leaped on was a proposal for new laws to prevent
truckers from driving more than, say, 10 hours out of 24.  Too bad for
them, they found that there is already one on the books and will have
to do their silly political posturing elsewhere.

Another case in point is the Walker spy case; the first thing the
Secretary of the Navy did was demand that 20% of civil service and
military clearances be IMMEDIATELY cancelled, and efforts made to
bring the number of cancellations up to 50%.  How much posturing can
you do?  Does anyone who has worked in any secure business anywhere
really believe that this will help or that more than a tiny handful
of the revocations will be top secret clearances?

I've raved enough.
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj