Sobriety Checkpoint Bill

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

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....

imported post

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

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.

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.

imported post

Here is my letter.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d9hbdsz_21g6skz2gr

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).

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.

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?"

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.

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...

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

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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/2008/01/sobriety-checkpoints-and-fourth.html

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.

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.

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

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!