Jered
Regular Member
imported post
I didn't vote for Patty Lance.
I didn't vote for Patty Lance.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Sobriety Checkpoint Bill
- Thread starter XD45PlusP
- Start date
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
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
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
eBratt
Regular Member
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.
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.
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?
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?
just_a_car
Regular Member
imported post
I'm very happy it didn't pass!
How'd the Bill that was in committee a few weeks ago on Higher Ed. do?...
I do agree on being more strict, but not on the jail time. Putting people in jail these days is just asking for them to be made into worse criminals, especially with the type of people that are committing DUI's. Do I know what will deter people from drinking and driving more than a fine and risk of jail time?... No, but if anyone did, we wouldn't have a problem, as it would already be on the law books and everyone would abide by the law.
You have to remember that, just as in gun laws, laws regarding drinking and driving will be broken no matter what the law is, due to criminals being defined as those that break the law. If they didn't think that thousands of dollars of fines/attorney costs and/or jail and suspension of their license is bad enough, then do you think adding a little more here and there is really going to stop anyone?
I'm very happy it didn't pass!
How'd the Bill that was in committee a few weeks ago on Higher Ed. do?...
I do agree on being more strict, but not on the jail time. Putting people in jail these days is just asking for them to be made into worse criminals, especially with the type of people that are committing DUI's. Do I know what will deter people from drinking and driving more than a fine and risk of jail time?... No, but if anyone did, we wouldn't have a problem, as it would already be on the law books and everyone would abide by the law.
You have to remember that, just as in gun laws, laws regarding drinking and driving will be broken no matter what the law is, due to criminals being defined as those that break the law. If they didn't think that thousands of dollars of fines/attorney costs and/or jail and suspension of their license is bad enough, then do you think adding a little more here and there is really going to stop anyone?
imported post
just_a_car wrote:
just_a_car
How about making drinking and driving a crime period? I mean no amount of alcohol. No (.08) I agree there will be those that break the law no matter what... But how do you become more strict, without making the penalties stricter? Besides the license suspensions, and fines.
As my previous post said, the legislature cut out the funding for Traffic/Drivers Ed. What do you think about my proposal to make it a Mandatory class for teens? Wouldn't this be considered a "Social Service" and at least the dems would like it? lol
As far as SB 6304 Allowing institutions of higher education to adopt rules regulating firearms on campus. I will check into that now.....
Thank You For Your Thoughts, and Actions
XD
just_a_car wrote:
just_a_car
How about making drinking and driving a crime period? I mean no amount of alcohol. No (.08) I agree there will be those that break the law no matter what... But how do you become more strict, without making the penalties stricter? Besides the license suspensions, and fines.
As my previous post said, the legislature cut out the funding for Traffic/Drivers Ed. What do you think about my proposal to make it a Mandatory class for teens? Wouldn't this be considered a "Social Service" and at least the dems would like it? lol
As far as SB 6304 Allowing institutions of higher education to adopt rules regulating firearms on campus. I will check into that now.....
Thank You For Your Thoughts, and Actions
XD
imported post
just_a_car wrote:
How'd the Bill that was in committee a few weeks ago on Higher Ed. do?...
just_a_car
All bills must be passed out of Committees by February 8th, (except House fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees) so there must be an Executive Session on the bill/s. It caneither pass, reject or take no action on the bill. Depending on the Votes of the committee members.
I assume they (Higher Education Committee Legislators) know how each one of them will vote, and make it known to each other, and discuss etc... before making a public vote on the record. I see no executive session planned for SB 6304 Crossing My Fingers.......
http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature/calendar/cutoff.htm
just_a_car wrote:
How'd the Bill that was in committee a few weeks ago on Higher Ed. do?...
just_a_car
All bills must be passed out of Committees by February 8th, (except House fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees) so there must be an Executive Session on the bill/s. It caneither pass, reject or take no action on the bill. Depending on the Votes of the committee members.
I assume they (Higher Education Committee Legislators) know how each one of them will vote, and make it known to each other, and discuss etc... before making a public vote on the record. I see no executive session planned for SB 6304 Crossing My Fingers.......
http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature/calendar/cutoff.htm
heresolong
Regular Member
imported post
XD45PlusP wrote:
XD45PlusP wrote:
Keep in mind that this is just a rule however. They can decide to revisit a bill at any time before the session ends and there is no legal requirement that a bill be heard in committee first. So any bill that they really want to pass can just be brought straight to the floor at any time.
Mainsail
Regular Member
imported post
They don’t need a sobriety checkpoint. On Stadium Way in Tacoma they are building a condo. The building is going to be so close to the street that they had to block some of it off to allow the construction. The lanes are curved and divided by about 30 yards of orange barrels; so to get through the construction you have to weave through a tight row of barrels. Not a weekend goes by that someone doesn’t plow into the barrels.
So there you go. Just set up a curvy row of barrels and watch for people who are too drunk to navigate their way through.
:lol:
They don’t need a sobriety checkpoint. On Stadium Way in Tacoma they are building a condo. The building is going to be so close to the street that they had to block some of it off to allow the construction. The lanes are curved and divided by about 30 yards of orange barrels; so to get through the construction you have to weave through a tight row of barrels. Not a weekend goes by that someone doesn’t plow into the barrels.
So there you go. Just set up a curvy row of barrels and watch for people who are too drunk to navigate their way through.
:lol:
Bill Starks
State Researcher
imported post
Be glad you're not in Florida right now.....
Police Swabbing Mouths During Traffic Stops In Serial Killer Hunt
http://www.local6.com/problemsolvers/15232197/detail.html
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Police officers in Daytona Beach are swabbing the mouths of motorists during traffic stops with special DNA kits in the hunt for an elusive serial killer, sources close to the investigation told Local 6.
Investigators said they believe the same man has killed four women execution style in the Daytona Beach area.
A profiler said the serial killer is likely clean cut and probably has a wife or girlfriend.
And, the Daytona Beach police Chief, Mike Chitwood, said detectives have the killer's DNA.
"Genetically, we know who he is," Chitwood said. "We have DNA evidence from the murder scenes -- so, we got that. That is never going to go away. And, sooner or later, we will match the DNA to the physical person and bring closure to everything that is going on."
Agents are using the DNA kits to collect as much DNA as possible during traffic stops and special operations in hopes on making a match.
Local 6 showed agents stopping a person of interest from Canada, who gave his DNA to officers on the street using the DNA kit.
The DNA kits are also being used in prostitution stings in the area.
Chitwood said over time, modern technology will lead to the killer.
"I can tell you that we are working really, really hard," Chitwood said. "I can tell you that there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes."
Anyone with information concerning the deaths is urged to call a new serial killer hotline at 888-619-5734.
Be glad you're not in Florida right now.....
Police Swabbing Mouths During Traffic Stops In Serial Killer Hunt
http://www.local6.com/problemsolvers/15232197/detail.html
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Police officers in Daytona Beach are swabbing the mouths of motorists during traffic stops with special DNA kits in the hunt for an elusive serial killer, sources close to the investigation told Local 6.
Investigators said they believe the same man has killed four women execution style in the Daytona Beach area.
A profiler said the serial killer is likely clean cut and probably has a wife or girlfriend.
And, the Daytona Beach police Chief, Mike Chitwood, said detectives have the killer's DNA.
"Genetically, we know who he is," Chitwood said. "We have DNA evidence from the murder scenes -- so, we got that. That is never going to go away. And, sooner or later, we will match the DNA to the physical person and bring closure to everything that is going on."
Agents are using the DNA kits to collect as much DNA as possible during traffic stops and special operations in hopes on making a match.
Local 6 showed agents stopping a person of interest from Canada, who gave his DNA to officers on the street using the DNA kit.
The DNA kits are also being used in prostitution stings in the area.
Chitwood said over time, modern technology will lead to the killer.
"I can tell you that we are working really, really hard," Chitwood said. "I can tell you that there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes."
Anyone with information concerning the deaths is urged to call a new serial killer hotline at 888-619-5734.
thewise1
Regular Member
imported post
M1Gunr wrote:
M1Gunr wrote:
Wow. I wonder what happens if you refuse - obviously guilty, right?
heresolong
Regular Member
imported post
thewise1 wrote:
thewise1 wrote:
I don't think they could force this issue without public cooperation. They would have to have a warrant that would specify that they had probable cause to believe that you were a suspect. The difference between this and alcohol tests is that it is generally written into law that getting a driver's license is an agreement to waive your privacy rights regarding alcohol testing. Since you don't have a right to a DL you have to agree to certain things in order to be issued one. However DNA testing is not, to the best of my knowledge, written into the requirements in any states.