Originally Posted by r.payton@att.net

As an aside-Florida's governor just cancelled Mandatory Drug tests for Welfare Recipients as a Supreme Court Judge weighed in saying the law would/could be declared unconstitutional . she argues that ALL urine tests should be confidential as opposed to the information and results being shipped to LEO and government agencies .(which is the norm ) . She further stated the policy of Testing for jobs may be declared unconstitutional as well . The pendulum has begun to swing back to more individual rights and away from intrusion . Problem is-the damage has been done for generations as once you get on a 'list' you are on there for life .

I was against that from the start, but for a different reason. I was wondering who would pay for the tests. I'm sure it would have fallen on taxpayers.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

These stops have been around for years, someone must have challenged the constitutionality by now, right? Since there are still DUI checkpoints it would seem that the courts ruled these are constitutional. What about these rulings do you disagree with Quinn?

I think the 4th amendment makes them unconsitutional. As far as judges upholding the decision, that's apples and oranges. It all depends on who is sitting in the judges seat. We all know that the constitution is a concrete document, yet there are differing opinions on how to "interpret" it. There shouldn't be any interpretation, IMO. If it says you have to have reasonable cause to detain someone, then dammit, you have to have reasonable cause. For some reason people have become okay with limiting their freedoms for "so called" safety. It is exactly what Benjamin Franklin said would destroy our freedoms. (Or was it Jefferson?)

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

But what is 'reasonable' is up to interpretation.

What is the reasoning that these judges give when they OK DUI checkpoints that you disagree with?

Reasonable means that you fit the profile of a person they are already looking for. Reasonable would be seeing a woman bleeding on the street with a stab wound and then seeing a guy with blood on his pants. Come on, you know what reasonable is. Stopping every single person who drives down a road is not reasonable. It is facist.

I know you don't agree with stopping every mexican looking person and demanding ID, so why would you agree with this?

Originally Posted by Spider

Not jesting at all. There have been times when I've had a little to drink and probably could still drive better than 90% of the people on the road, and my blood alcohol was probably well below the legal limit, but I just didn't want to chance it. Either way, I do believe that random stops have a tremendous deterrent effect.

So, in all honesty, you are saying that if cops were just doing their regular patrol, you would drive drunk? That doesn't seem reasonable.