If random stops are unconstitutional then sholdn't they be illegal in all cases?
No DUI checkpoints. Abstinence only education. State run
liquor stores. That's it. I'm moving.
RE: PaganCan I help you pack?!
Sounds like the Utah GOP are still mad that Killpack got busted for a DUI and
are trying to make it harder to have politicians get busted for DUI's. If the
supreme court says they are legal then according to the constitution they are
legal- that's kind of how the constitution works.
Sounds good to me. We don't need cops snooping around our cars looking for
opportunities to cite the driver and occupants.
THANK my lucky stars that people are waking up to the abuse of power that is
going on. Pagen you can move to Logan, cops will pull you over for putting your
hair up at a traffic light and tell you your being a bad example to your
daughter. Law after law, things have gotten out of control. I'm
glad that our elected officials are doing something about it. I just don't want
to continue to down the road to a gestopo Utah.
It does seem a bit ironical that the State of Utah wants to be in the business
of selling you what is used to get you drunk, but wants to wash its hands of the
responsibility of keeping those that are drunk off the roads. Or
perhaps another way to look at it, The state wants to know that you
bought something, but doesn't want to be any part of what you do with it once
you buy it.If the justification for this holds true, and it really
is based on constitutionality of pre-emptive searches, then check points at
concerts, the airports, or anywhere people must go through a scanner is equally
unconstitutional. I expect all the scanners to be yanked from the airport soon
as well. Unless you actually hi-jack a plane, feel free to travel on board
with what ever you like. In many ways, I can see this argument.
Unless you commit a crime, you should have to worry. But I also see the value
in status quo of getting those off the roads who could harm others due to
compromised judgement. Driving, it is not a right.
re: open minded,The Deseret News reported: "Killpack, 41, was
pulled over near 700 East and 3300 South about 12:15 a.m. after a member of the
Utah Highway Patrol's DUI squad noticed a vehicle "with a poor driving
pattern," said UHP Sgt. Jeff Nigbur. The vehicle was stopped in the parking
lot of the Supersonic Car Wash."How does his arrest relate to
DUI checkpoints?The 4th Amendment protects us against checkpoints.
Law officers are required to obtain a warrant to search us or our property.
Before that search warrant can be issued, there has to be probable cause.How can anyone say that there is "probable cause" to stop
every vehicle that passes a checkpoint? What is the "probable cause"?
Was EVERY driver seen drinking? Was EVERY driver seen leaving a bar? Did EVERY
driver throw out a can or a bottle? EVERY DRIVER? Our freedom is
too precious to allow improper searching.
@ Utah Blue DevilPlease oh please end the Gestapo airport searches,
it is the worst system anywhere. Its demeaning its inhumane its
unconstitutional its looking for a needle in a stack of needles. Its nazi
Germany. A much better idea, require that all law abiding Americans
carry a sidearm.
Glad to see the state govt. is doing something about unreasonable searches. Now
if only we could put a stop to the TSA.
Search and siezure laws are different for vehicles and their occupants. Nothing
unconstitutional about DUI check points. I guess Butterfield hasn't heard of
Implied Consent?Pagan, don't leave. I won't have anyone to give a
hard time if you do.
DeltaFoxtrot 8:34 a.m. Feb. 24, 2012, The Republican party had a
majority in the Senate and House and a Repbulican President when the TSA was
created. They belong to the same political party that dominates Utah
leadership and lawmakers. If you are upset with the TSA, don't vote
Republian. Oh, please! 4:06 p.m. Feb. 23, 2012, I
realize some may salivate at the prospect of me leaving Utah... but
you must realize this new thing call the 'internet' is availible in more places
than just Utah, right? Right?
It is interesting that we seem care more about wildlife and invasive species
such as zebra mussels on boat propellers than the many innocent human lives that
will no longer be saved because of this law change. Very sad, all because it is
wrapped up in the blanket of freedom. Could it also be because more of the
legislators are drinking and driving? Or, is perhaps because it is such an
inconvenience to be delayed in our road raged state and how dare they violate my
rights by asking me if I was safe to drive. Illegal search and seizure?
Really? Perhaps it's just not fair for those that choose to violate the law and
drink and drive. Sad day.
It was a tool we used and it did help us keep drunk drivers off the road. I work
in the law enforcement field for over 28 years in the south and it didn't stop
it, but it sure helped. I believe that if this law is pass in the senate that
they will be sorry they did away with the DUI checkpoint, I hope that these
people in the state lawmaker that none of their family ever get hurt from a
drunk driver, because you are the one taking tool away from the State Police and
the local Law enforcement officers to dotheir job. I am all for DUI checkpoints.
Butterfield is either ignorant or purposefully ignoring facts, truths and
statisitics. NHTSA research has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that DUI
checkpoints are the most effective tool against drunk driving. When used often
and effectively they can lower DUI deaths by up to 25 percent. Saturation
patrols are great for arresting drunks. Checkpoints are great for saving lives.
Which is Butterfield more interested in?
Making people stay in there houses or wear sumo suits would save lives but that
doesn't mean we should do it.