Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Sobriety Checkpoint Bill

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    To All: I'm sorry this is not on Topic, about OC, but I couldn't let this pass.

    Here is the Bill. She is walking a Very fine line with this Unconstitutional Attack on The Peoples Rights....

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2771&year=2008

    This has beenreferred to the Judiciary Committee.

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/members.htm

    The TIME IS NOW, TO WRITE, CALL, AND SHOW UP FOR HEARINGS! We know what is right, and what is wrong..... We don't need the nanny telling us...

    Don't delay.

    XD45plusp


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Alright, I wrote to them. But this is still one fine law. It can solve almost everything! For instance:

    5 The legislature finds that cooking while
    6 under the influence of alcohol and drugs is a serious public health and
    7 safety problem. Numerous published studies have found that sobriety
    8 home inspections are effective in reducing injuries and deaths
    9 caused by drunk cooking . Studies have shown that injuries thought to
    10 involve alcohol dropped a median of twenty percent following
    11 implementation of sobriety home inspections . Sobriety home inspections are an
    12 integral part of antidrunk cooking enforcement in many states in the
    13 United States and many European countries.
    14 The purpose of this act is to authorize targeted home inspection
    15 programs to deter and detect persons cooking under the influence with
    16 a minimal intrusion on the privacy rights of all home occupants.

    It's for the children....


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Well, I wrote again. Hans and Liz are going to be tired of hearing from me if I'm not careful.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Pleased to report that Hans Dunshee is voting against this sobriety checkpoint thing. Judging by the difference in reply between this and my gun related ones, I suspect he's probably going to vote for gun control, but at least he's going to vote no on this, which makes me very pleased.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    From a perspective on why this is so important:

    20 years ago, the State Supreme Court ruled that "sobriety checkpoints" were unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 7 of the State Constitution, which is basically the state's version of the 4th amendment. The US Supreme Court wrongly ruled them legal under the 4th amendment, but the state Supreme's basically stated that Article 1, Section 7's protections are stronger. The case was Masiani v. City of Seattle.

    Sobriety checkpoints are essentially enforced detainment, where you're assumed guilty until proven innocent. Checkpoints also pump up officers to believe that they can do ANYTHING to gain compliance, which is not true. Bad encounters may incur over this.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post


  7. #7
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Maybe I am missing something, heresolong, but the study you quote in your article points out the effectivenss of the checkpoints, not their ineffectiveness (a 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes).
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    I had a discussion with someone on the bus to Tacoma the other day about these checkpoints. I said I would prefer liberty over safety if it meant the Gov't was going to force safety on me. He didn't have a response.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    eBratt wrote:
    Maybe I am missing something, heresolong, but the study you quote in your article points out the effectivenss of the checkpoints, not their ineffectiveness (a 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes).
    Well bugger. Good thing I haven't mailed the letter off yet. Glad you looked. The article I was reading was on Wikipedia and it incorrectly cited the study and I didn't check closely because I was dashing off the letter during a break at work. I will update. Thanks.

    Update: Here is the quote from Wikipedia that is not supported by a citation: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, after extensive field studies, concluded that "the number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWI arrests made by the checkpoint programs"

    Update update: Well I did some digging on their own website and apparently they aren't publicizing the fact, assuming it is a fact, that patrols are more effective than checkpoints. I am going to rewrite my letter and eliminate that argument, focusing instead of the constitutionality of the program and its interference in our privacy.

    BTW something interesting from the Tennessee program. Supposedly they surveyed the general population and got 90% positive feedback from telephone surveys and 100% positive from people going through the checkpoints. Sad, isn't it.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    I had a discussion with someone on the bus to Tacoma the other day about these checkpoints. I said I would prefer liberty over safety if it meant the Gov't was going to force safety on me. He didn't have a response.
    Discussion on liberty over safety jogged something for me.

    It occurs to me that it is really safety over safety. Liberty, in this context, is really just safety from the nasty edicts and violence of tyrants.

    Its more a matter of seeming safetyin the presentbeing aquired in trade for unsafety as the tyrants use the power resulting from the trade.

    Maybe the smart question to ask the liberty-traders is, "What will you do when the government decidesit can'tor doesn't want to really protect you anymore?"
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    What is the meaning of the word "administrative" in the context of a checkpoint?

    Its not like their checking to make sure the State spelled my name correctly on the driver's license or registration.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Wow, anyone else notice that the two sponsors of the bill are the Chair and Vice-Chair of the committee? That seems highly unethical for the sponsors of the bill to be in charge of the committe that has to evaluate the bill...
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  13. #13
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    I wrote in...here's the text of my message in case anyone is interested:

    I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of the judiciary committee regarding a bill that has been proposed and referred to your committee, HB 2771 for the creation of administrative sobriety checkpoints.

    Representative, the Washington state supreme court ruled on this matter 20 years ago and noted the intrusive nature of stops and the fact that there was no individual probable cause to warrant the detainment of people solely because they happen to be where the checkpoint is. While it may be insisted that this will only be a "minor inconvenience" for the greater good of society, I don't believe that a demanding the detainment and search of all people under threat of a gross misdemeanor a minor matter, however little inconvenience it is.

    The protection of Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington state constitution was put in place for a reason and the state supreme court upheld it for a reason. Our right to be left alone is one of our most sacred rights. Beef up police patrol around bars at their closing times. Increase penalties for drunk driving offenses. Station officers outside of bars to immediately pull over any drivers that were seen staggering to their vehicles. But leave law abiding citizens alone.

    Supreme Court Justice W. Brennan put it best when he said, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving. . . is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion."

    I look forward to hearing back from you regarding your views on the bill and your anticipated vote regarding it.

    Thank you for your time.

    Sincerely,
    Name
    City of Residence
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    eBratt wrote:
    Wow, anyone else notice that the two sponsors of the bill are the Chair and Vice-Chair of the committee? That seems highly unethical for the sponsors of the bill to be in charge of the committe that has to evaluate the bill...
    You mean you believe there is still ethics in any government body? I think you need to realize the majority of office holders are liars and cheats and don't care about morality, at least theirs, yours is another issue and they will gladly force their view of morality on you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Call me naive, but I still believe in the legislative process, at least to some degree. To believe that the legislative process is entirely beyond hope and is a lost cause is to say that our country is beyond hope and a lost cause and I am not ready to admit that yet.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  16. #16
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    I decided to write this matter up on my blog. Feel free to leave a comment there and if you think it is well written, feel free to forward the link to others.

    http://solemorality.webebratts.com/2...nd-fourth.html
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Are we really afraid this will go somewhere? The frigging legislature could fix the DUI problem by punishing the offenders when caught. They couldnt do that because they said they could not afford to build enough prisons to incarcerate the state's DUI offenders if they locked the ones up that got 4 DUIs in a 7 year period. If they would change the DUI laws to lock up the haitual offenders it would be better than random harrassment. The drunk that killed my sons girlfriend a couple years ago driving the wrong way on I-5 had 5 previous DUIs...one 3 weeks earlier. The judge gave him the max allowed by law....72 months. Look up what you can get for abusing or killing animals. Lock the criminals up and leave the rest of us alone is what they need to do.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    federal way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Here is what my representative, Mark Milosca from federal way had to say. By the way heresolong thanks for the form of letter!



    I very much agree with you on this.

    Mark

    -----Original Message-----
    From: jonnyjeeps@comcast.net [mailto:jonnyjeeps@comcast.net]
    Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:50 PM
    To: Miloscia, Rep. Mark
    Subject: HB 2771

    I am writing to express my opposition to HB 2771 which would allow the
    police to establish checkpoints for the purpose of catching drunk
    drivers. Twenty years ago the State Supreme Court ruled that this was a
    violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the state constitution. Although
    the Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoints are not a violation of the
    Fourth Amendment at a federal level, I believe that they are wrong on
    this. As a citizen of the United States, absent any evidence that I am
    committing a crime, there should be no reason for the state to embark on
    these fishing expeditions.


  19. #19
    Regular Member Bill45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    I think the check points are a good idea. But the lawsregulating drunk driving need to be enforced by the judges.

    In Idaho the son of a friend of mine got caught driving drunk, his first offence and got 30 days in jail 20 suspended. He is spending 10 days in county jail. If you get caught with3 dui's in (I think) 5 years you are sentenced to 1 year in the state pen.

    If Washington enforced the law perhapes fewer drunks would be on the road.

    Bill

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    federal way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Well I dont think your thinking about it at the depth that it requires.

    Its ok to say "Drunk Driving is Bad and people should be punished for it" but stopping all cars to have a chat with the drivers about his/her sobriety is the epitomie of SLIPPERY SLOPE!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    I didn't vote for Patty Lance.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    To All: I'm sorry this is not on Topic, about OC, but I couldn't let this pass.

    Here is the Bill. She is walking a Very fine line with this Unconstitutional Attack on The Peoples Rights....

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2771&year=2008

    This has beenreferred to the Judiciary Committee.

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/members.htm

    The TIME IS NOW, TO WRITE, CALL, AND SHOW UP FOR HEARINGS! We know what is right, and what is wrong..... We don't need the nanny telling us...

    Don't delay.

    XD45plusp
    HB 2771 has been Scheduled for public hearing in the House Committee on Judiciary January 30th at 1:30 PM

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Rep. Williams on the Judiciary Committee is in my district. Below is the email I sent him, it was CC'd to Rep. Hunt, and Senator Fraser, also of my district.

    Dear Mr. Williams,
    I would like to urge you to vote against HB 2771. Despite the good intentions of limiting drunk driving, such checkpoints are a gross violations of due process, privacy rights and probable cause. In the dubious interests of "safety" our rights and freedoms are being eroded away. Personally I would take my chances on the streets rather than have to endure such un-American activities as mandatory checkpoints for whatever reason. Drunk drivers today, "Show me your papers" tomorrow. Please vote against this bill and work towards finding a more meaningful and effective means of combating drunk driving that does not infringe on the liberty we all hold dear in this state and country.

    Thank you,
    Steve Coffman

  24. #24
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    I wrote to all of the members of the Judiciary committe and to my representatives. I have received two committee replies and one of my reps has replied.

    My Email:
    I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of the judiciary
    committee regarding a bill that has been proposed and referred to your
    committee, HB 2771 for the creation of administrative sobriety
    checkpoints.

    Representative, the Washington state supreme court ruled on this matter
    20 years ago and noted the intrusive nature of stops and the fact that
    there was no individual probable cause to warrant the detainment of
    people solely because they happen to be where the checkpoint is. While
    it may be insisted that this will only be a "minor inconvenience" for
    the greater good of society, I don't believe that demanding the
    detainment and search of all people under threat of a gross misdemeanor
    is a minor matter, however little inconvenience it is.

    The protection of Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington state
    constitution was put in place for a reason and the state supreme court
    upheld it for a reason. Our right to be left alone is one of our most
    sacred rights. Beef up police patrol around bars at their closing
    times. Increase penalties for drunk driving offenses. Station officers
    outside of bars to immediately pull over any drivers that were seen
    staggering to their vehicles. But leave law abiding citizens alone.

    Supreme Court Justice W. Brennan put it best when he said, "That
    stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving. . .
    is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of
    individualized suspicion."

    I look forward to hearing back from you regarding your views on the bill
    and your anticipated vote regarding it.

    Thank you for your time.

    Sincerely,
    Ethan Bratt


    The two reponses of the committee members were both opposed. Brendan Williams was quite strongly opposed while Steve Kirby simply indicated that he plans to vote against it.

    My representative expressed sympathy with my concerns and notes that if the bill does make it to the floor, it will most likely be greatly modified from its present form such that it will address my concerns (according to her). I'll write her again if it does make it to the floor.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    To All:

    Looks likeHB 2771

    Sobriety Checkpoint Bill DID NOT PASS OUT OF COMMITTEE

    Thanks to your letters, emails, and phone calls. The majority of the committee said Nooooooooooooo:celebrate

    Great Job Everyone. I wan't to stress that I am NOT against locking people up for DUI, but do it the right way, by catching them "Lawfully" without trampling on people's Constitutional Rights; and WA Const. Article I Section 7

    The answer is tougher penalties. I believe it should be 5 years Minimum license suspension, and 1 Year Minimum Sentence Of Jail Time first time, right off the bat, if convicted. Get tough on penalties, and I also propose bringing back funding for Traffic/Drivers Education, for teens, and make it a "Mandatory" class before getting your HS Diploma. Start teaching them at 15 about DUI, and Traffic laws.

    Wouldn't this be sensible?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •