Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ROADS SAFE act Alcohol Detectors in cars

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by jason860 View Post
    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...777338.html?dr


    Just wondering what LEO's think of this proposal. Personally, I like to enjoy some drinks from time to time. Obviously, when I am not going to be driving. However, is it an infringement of civil liberties and personal freedom? Most importantly, personal privacy? As Benjamin Franklin aptly phrased it, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    While I like the idea, I think it would probably be unconstitutional as it would probably be ruled a violation of your 4th amendment rights. Just like I need to establish reasonable suspicion before I can ask someone to blow in an Intoxilyzer 5000. (ok techinially implied consent says I don't but we all know what happens to the case if RS is not established first). Of course if it's CA they never seem to give a gee wizz about the constitution anyway.
    "Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

    Comment


    • #17
      It's a privacy issue and means more money I have to spend to maintain something that I'll never use. I am against it. The only people that need this are people already convicted of drunk driving. They're called interlocks and are already in use for such people. We don't need to put everyone in the same boat.

      Comment


      • #18
        If the guberment wanted to help stop DUIs they wouldn't let laywers and judges hog tie officers with hoops to jump through. It should not take me hours to work a DUI case. The courts should accept roadside intox test and not require field soberity testing with the associated 2 page report.
        Any views or opinions presented by this prenomen are solely those of a burlesque author and do not necessarily represent those of a LEA or caementum couturier.

        nom de plume

        This is the internet- take all information with a grain of salt. Such could be valid and true or could be typed just for playing devils advocate.

        Comment


        • #19
          I don't have an issue with it personally. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Until we stop having on average 24 deaths every day due to an alcohol-related crash, I'm willing to go the extra mile to stop it from happening.
          I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

          Comment


          • #20
            Its rediculous, just something else to waste money on. Same as the back up sensors mandatory by 2014. Will it save some lives? Probably. Could more lives be saved by spending the same money elsewhere? Yes. Will there still be a bajillion vehicles out there grandfathered in without this crap? Yes.

            A hardcore alcoholic who can afford a new car can afford to have it tampered with so that it starts anyway.
            I miss you, Dave.
            http://www.odmp.org/officer/20669-of...david-s.-moore

            Comment

            MR300x250 Tablet

            Collapse

            What's Going On

            Collapse

            There are currently 5705 users online. 326 members and 5379 guests.

            Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

            Welcome Ad

            Collapse
            Working...
            X