DUI? Lose Your Rights

[Nbadan]

Nov 15, 2:42 AM EST
Senator from New Port Richey proposes pink DUI plates


CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) -- A Republican senator wants a law to require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence.

Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the plate to read "DUI."

"Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice."

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

...and then we can get yellow ones for the Jews

I wonder if W and Laura would have to comply?

[Useruser666]

Nov 15, 2:42 AM EST
Senator from New Port Richey proposes pink DUI plates



...and then we can get yellow ones for the Jews

I wonder if W and Laura would have to comply?

Is being wasted a racial or religious group? Life, liberty and the pursuit of getting hammered?

[Spurminator]

Stiffer punishments are fine, but I think the permanence of something like this is silly and unnecessary. You also risk creating a "badge of honor" for some people, particularly college students. I think it could do more harm than good.

[Murphy]

whats worse? taking a DUI's rights away or the DUI subject taking an innocent family's life away??? Besides, probation officers can go into the house of the person on probation whenever they want and do a search with no probable cause, whats the difference?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Is being wasted a racial or religious group? Life, liberty and the pursuit of getting hammered?


being left alone by the fucking pigs is a right, however

[ChumpDumper]

These guys don't get it.

Take away their fucking cars. That'll get their attention.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yep. Drunken driving is nothing. Just like jaywalking. Yep.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The best thing to do would be to take away their driver licenses

[SpursWoman]

The best thing to do would be to take away their driver licenses

When has that ever stopped anyone? If they'll drive drunk, I seriously doubt they'd have a problem driving without a license.

[Oh, Gee!!]

When has that ever stopped anyone? If they'll drive drunk, I seriously doubt they'd have a problem driving without a license.


I'm sure it stops plenty of people

[hussker]

So. like, if you are nailed driving home after two BIG communion sips at church, is that ok? (Just asking for a guy I know, ya know...)

[Guru of Nothing]

When has that ever stopped anyone? If they'll drive drunk, I seriously doubt they'd have a problem driving without a license.

Will pink plates stop them?

[gtownspur]

Not if they but a shaggin wagon. Colors won't matter then.

[ChumpDumper]

Would the prospect of pink plates encourage gays or Mary Kay salespeople to drive drunk?

[gtownspur]

^:lol At best it'd be a metro thing.

[Extra Stout]

Nov 15, 2:42 AM EST
Senator from New Port Richey proposes pink DUI plates



...and then we can get yellow ones for the Jews

I wonder if W and Laura would have to comply?
Is this the new thing for Democrats? Advocacy politics for drunk drivers?

What's next, are you going to speak out for rapists and child molesters?

Will you have a "Friend of NAMBLA" bumper sticker next to your pink license plate?

[SpursWoman]

I'm sure it stops plenty of people


There is such thing as a responsible, law abiding drunk driver? They get busted and then learn the error of their ways? Maybe a few...but I don't think it's a huge deterrant. I've known too many people that have not been affected by a loss of or suspended license. Unless they get pulled over, who's going to know, right? How many people are driving around without insurance right now? That's illegal as well.

The best pink plates would do is make less people want to borrow your car. :lol

[SWC Bonfire]

Heaven forbid that they actually teach people driving skills and ways to stay awake in driver's ed/defensive driving.

Some people are addicts and alcoholics and aren't going to stop driving drunk just because they were told not to by MADD or a public service announcement.

Driving while intoxicated is not right, and is rightfully against the law. But I think we would have a lot less accidents and fatalities if people are actually instructed in ways of keeping awake and alert and more advanced accident avoidance during driver training. I worked for Schlumberger right out of college, my job involved driving great distances across the California desert, sometimes after being up for 30, 40 even 50 hours at a time (52 hrs is my record). Their driver training was excellent, and they mentioned that a lot of the research in accidents was studying the body shutting down, reducing temperature and brain activity and going to sleep at certain times of the day within the normal body cycle, the circadian rythym. Add a depressant to that, and now you know why so many accidents occur around 12-2 PM. It is actually the worst possible time that a bar could close and "send home" it's occupants.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's really simple. If you drive under the influence, you spend 2 years getting ass-raped. No exceptions. That would be a good start.

[xrayzebra]

:drunk They say half of all accidents are caused by drunk/drinking drivers. I say lets get the sober one's off the road and reduce accidents by half.

[ChumpDumper]

Take away their cars -- those fucks need to be sentenced to a lifetime of taking the bus.

[SWC Bonfire]

Take away their cars -- those fucks need to be sentenced to a lifetime of taking the bus.

Millions drive without insurance, but I'm sure that drunk drivers wouldn't dare driving without a license/if they took their car away.

[SWC Bonfire]

I think that everyone agrees that enforcement of current DWI laws is difficult at best and a drop in the bucket compared to the number of actual intoxicated drivers.

The problem isn't that drivers are drinking, it's that they are getting in accidents and killing people because of their gross neglegence. Do we want to continue to further criminalize the cause or try to prevent the after effects? I personally don't give a shit if someone is an alcoholic but somehow maintains responsible driving habits when drunk. I do give a shit when a dumbass who can't handle their liquor kills me, my family, or some of my friends. Or even when a sober person falls asleep at the wheel. A lot of people fall asleep when driving. Is it illegal to pass out? That'll sure keep sleepy people from driving, the bastards.

[Spurminator]

Mandatory breathilizers in every car.

[SpursWoman]

Mandatory breathilizers in every car.



I actually don't think that's that bad of an idea ... :drunk :lol

[Useruser666]

Mandatory breathilizers in every car.

That's a point, but the plates are only targeted to people who have already broken the law. It's not that much different than probation, house arrest, or court orderd counseling. I believe they already have stickers somewhere in the US that people convicted of DUI have to have on their vehicles.

[Spurminator]

But the plates won't deter anyone. What's the punishment? Angry glares from people driving past you?

I don't really see the breathilizer as a punishment for non-drunk drivers... Inconvenience? Slightly, maybe. But worth it in the overall scheme of things. Sometimes you have to make preventative measures for the gretaer good, like metal detectors at the airport. I didn't do anything wrong, but I still have to remove my shoes, belt and keys and stand in line just like everyone else.


Oh, and if your buddy breathes into it for you and you're caught, you both go to prison for two years.

[SWC Bonfire]

Because all the electronic stuff on cars nowadays are so reliable, and certainly you won't have any problems with the brethalyzer being bypassed or the ignition circuit not activating correctly.

Tow truck companies would love it, I guess.

[SpursWoman]

Spoil sport. :)

[Mr. Peabody]

Mandatory breathilizers in every car.

As soon as that happens, methods of bypassing the breathalyzer system will be seen all over the internet. The only people that will be inconvenienced are those who aren't driving drunk to begin with.
________
Ana_Sofia cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Ana_Sofia)

[SWC Bonfire]

As soon as that happens, methods of bypassing the breathalyzer system will be seen all over the internet. The only people that will be inconvenienced are those who aren't driving drunk to begin with.

Exactly. Like taking guns away from law-abiding people vs. trying to prevent people from doing stupid things with guns.

[Spurminator]

Because all the electronic stuff on cars nowadays are so reliable, and certainly you won't have any problems with the brethalyzer being bypassed or the ignition circuit not activating correctly.


So get it fixed just like any other car problem.


The only people that will be inconvenienced are those who aren't driving drunk to begin with.

I disagree. Some people would figure out a way to bypass the system just like anything else, but most people will just learn to deal with it. Cops check your license and registration every time they pull you over, now they would also check to make sure your breathalyzer is activated. If it's not, you get fined. If it's not, and you're drunk, prison.

[Extra Stout]

We also need an electronic interlock with the ignition that confirms your cell phone is off.

We also need one that reads your brain waves and determines if you've had enough sleep.

We also need one that monitors your bladder and forces you to pee before you leave.

We also need one in pickups called the "Redneckalyzer" that keeps hyperaggressive rednecks from tailgating everybody so they can go 120 in their jacked-up dualie F-350s.

[MannyIsGod]

The funny thing is, I know many of you have commited DUI but were not caught and are being self rigtheous as fuck in this thread.

[Useruser666]

I NEVER have commited DUI Manny and I'm not being self righteous. But that doesn't mean the plates are a bad idea. Dan went off the deep end with his intial comments as usual. I don't see how the plate idea would infringe on anyone's rights.

[SpursWoman]

The funny thing is, I know many of you have commited DUI but were not caught and are being self rigtheous as fuck in this thread.


If I sounded "self-righteous as fuck" it wasn't intentional....I know how fucking lucky I've been in my very misguided youth to be able live to tell about it....and that I've never injured anyone else. But that doesn't make it right....just because I did it and got away with it.

My oldest child is about 5 years off from getting behind the wheel of a car. My outlook has changed considerably. :spin

[Oh, Gee!!]

Mandatory breathilizers in every car.


what if you're being chased by Jason or Freddy Krueger and you can't start your car because you drank a beer? Then what? You die is what

[MannyIsGod]

Well, Chris, they eliminate due process. They subject you to searches without probable cause. Gee, I wonder.

Shit, bring back the Scarlet A! Maybe we can just brand criminals as well.

[Mr. Peabody]

what if you're being chased by Jason or Freddy Krueger and you can't start your car because you drank a beer? Then what? You die is what

You die, but only in your sleep and if you're sleeping you shouldn't be driving because it's as bad as driving drunk.
________
Park Royal 2 Condominium (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[gtownspur]

^^WHile i agree with you 100 percent. DUI is not to be taken lightly. And you should respect people who want to make the roads safer. It's not like they're advocating unmanned drones to patrol low income neighborhoods.

[SpursWoman]

Well, Chris, they eliminate due process. They subject you to searches without probable cause. Gee, I wonder.

Shit, bring back the Scarlet A! Maybe we can just brand criminals as well.


So you think it's bad for people to know if sex offenders live in their neighborhood because it brands them with a big, fat "M"!?

[Mr. Peabody]

This reminds me of those instances where judges make an offender put out a sign in their front yard identifying themselves as an offender. Those cases are usually struck down by the appellate courts.



Warning Sign Does Not Constitute Proper Probation Term

As a term of a probation order imposed in respect of a sexual offence, a Tennessee trial judge ordered the accused to place a 4-by-8 foot sign in his front yard stating "Warning, all children. Wayne Burden is an admitted and convicted child molester. Parents beware". The criminal law statute pursuant to which the probation was ordered listed a number of possible terms, and included a residual provision permitting any other conditions reasonably related to the purpose of the offender's sentence and not unduly restrictive of the offender's liberty. On appeal, the court concluded that the condition imposed was not authorized by the statute either expressly or implicitly. It did not fit with the kinds of terms enumerated in the statute, which relate to conventional societal duties such as productive employment. The court termed the condition "novel" and "somewhat bizarre", and concluded that it had no relationship to the primary goal of probation, the offender's rehabilitation. State (Tennessee) v. Burden, 59 Cr.L. 1275, Tenn. Sup. Ct., May 28, 1996.
________
Lashay cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Lashay)

[SpursWoman]

How is that any different from offenders being put on "the list" that everyone has access to? Why is that information still available to the public?

[Mr. Peabody]

How is that any different from offenders being put on "the list" that everyone has access to? Why is that information still available to the public?

There is a difference between making information available to the public and forcing someone to place a sign in their yard detailing their problems.
________
korean girl Cams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/asian-girls/)

[Spurminator]

So everybody's concerned enough about Drunk Driving to suggest taking away cars and licenses after the fact, or giving the convicted some stupid pink license plate that they can laugh about with their buddies at the bar... but nobody wants to take two seconds to breathe into a tube before starting their car?

Maybe drunk driving isn't that much of a problem after all.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So everybody's concerned enough about Drunk Driving to suggest taking away cars and licenses after the fact, or giving the convicted some stupid pink license plate that they can laugh about with their buddies at the bar... but nobody wants to take two seconds to breathe into a tube before starting their car?

Maybe drunk driving isn't that much of a problem after all.

all we need is another reason for car companies to charge us even more when they'd be required to install breathalyzers in new vehicles.
Salesman: Ok, that's $500 extra for undercoating, $2000 for extended warranty, $600 for scoth-guarding, $3000 for breathalyzer.....

[ChumpDumper]

And it would be relatively easy to circumvent. I simply think seizing the car might be a decent deterrent and punishment.

[Spurminator]

I think a combination of both would be ideal. Punishment only happens after it's too late. And I don't think it would be that great a deterrent except for people who are already caught.

People simply don't believe they will get caught.

[Spurminator]

all we need is another reason for car companies to charge us even more when they'd be required to install breathalyzers in new vehicles.

Well I don't like to have to pay for vehicle registration and an emissions test every year (or auto insurance, actually), but that's the law.

[MannyIsGod]

How is that any different from offenders being put on "the list" that everyone has access to? Why is that information still available to the public?
The list is public. You're making already public information yet public again. Convictions aren't private, so the sex offenders list is simply a publication of already public information.

This is putting a license plate on a car and subjecting someone to a loss of due process for the conviction of one crime. That is bullshit. Not to mention it doesn't stop them from driving another car and it subjects people to the loss of due process if they have to drive that vehicle and weren't convicted of shit.

Spurminator is right on with the solution being involved with a breathalyzer that is required to start the vehicle.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well I don't like to have to pay for vehicle registration and an emissions test every year (or auto insurance, actually), but that's the law.

why not tack on more expenses, right? :rolleyes

[Spurminator]

If you truly believe drunk driving is a problem and you're serious about finding a solution, there may actually be some personal sacrifice that goes along with it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If you truly believe drunk driving is a problem and you're serious about finding a solution, there may actually be some personal sacrifice that goes along with it.


like not drinking and driving? going to jail if I do? paying fines? getting my license revoked? these all seem like sacrifices to me.

[Spurminator]

like not drinking and driving? going to jail if I do? paying fines? getting my license revoked? these all seem like sacrifices to me.

Then you seem to be satisfied with the current system, so I'm not really addressing you.

[Useruser666]

Well, Chris, they eliminate due process. They subject you to searches without probable cause. Gee, I wonder.

Shit, bring back the Scarlet A! Maybe we can just brand criminals as well.

Well Manny, is probation an elimination of due process? The plates don't automatically convict anyone of anything. The idea behind the plates is not to just randomly search anyone at any time. It is not that different than checking up on a parolee and making sure they are holding a job. If you've driven under the influence and get caught you should face the consequences. It's house arrest on wheels. I don't blame people that have been busted for DUI not wanting to have a special plate and risk being hasseled by the cops. But guess what? That's their own fault that got them into that situation. Maybe the plates can be only a temporary thing.

[Mr. Peabody]

Well Manny, is probation an elimination of due process? The plates don't automatically convict anyone of anything. The idea behind the plates is not to just randomly search anyone at any time. It is not that different than checking up on a parolee and making sure they are holding a job. If you've driven under the influence and get caught you should face the consequences. It's house arrest on wheels. I don't blame people that have been busted for DUI not wanting to have a special plate and risk being hasseled by the cops. But guess what? That's their own fault that got them into that situation. Maybe the plates can be only a temporary thing.

What purpose does it serve other than to alert the cops that they need to pull the driver over?

Making sure a parolee has a job is part of rehabilitating the parolee and getting them to be a productive member of society. The license plate idea has no purpose other than the embarrassment and harassment of the offender.

[Useruser666]

What purpose does it serve other than to alert the cops that they need to pull the driver over?

Making sure a parolee has a job is part of rehabilitating the parolee and getting them to be a productive member of society. The license plate idea has no purpose other than the embarrassment and harassment of the offender.

So reporting to employers that you're a con is not the same thing? Or how about having to report to a parole officer all the time? Maybe the plates are a just another form of guiding someone away from driving while intoxicated? DUI is a crime which has a lot of unique circumstances which make standard punishments inneffective.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So reporting to employers that you're a con is not the same thing? Or how about having to report to a parole officer all the time? Maybe the plates are a just another form of guiding someone away from driving while intoxicated? DUI is a crime which has a lot of unique circumstances which make standard punishments inneffective.

Employers are not the government. What's at issue is how much can the government intrude into our lives. The point of law is to embarass DUI drivers and to make it easier for cops to circumvent notions of due process and criminal procedure. It's anti-american.

[Useruser666]

Spurm, I doubt the breathilizers would be effective and keeping people from committing DUI. People would bypass them, every car would have to be retro fitted, and it still doesn't guaranty that the person behind the wheel is sober. I think the plates don't really cover first timers either, but may serve as a deterent to habitual offenders. Part of the problem is that there is no shame in drinking while driving. It's all cool, everyone does it, I can handle it. Those are all the common things people say and convince themselves of all the time. There should be shame in risking other peoples lives. That's the bottom line.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Spurm, I doubt the breathilizers would be effective and keeping people from committing DUI. People would bypass them, every car would have to be retro fitted, and it still doesn't guaranty that the person behind the wheel is sober. I think the plates don't really cover first timers either, but may serve as a deterent to habitual offenders. Part of the problem is that there is no shame in drinking while driving. It's all cool, everyone does it, I can handle it. Those are all the common things people say and convince themselves of all the time. There should be shame in risking other peoples lives. That's the bottom line.


being arrested, booked, convicted, force to pay fines or do time is plenty shameful. What's next? bringing back the pillory

[Useruser666]

Employers are not the government. What's at issue is how much can the government intrude into our lives. The point of law is to embarass DUI drivers and to make it easier for cops to circumvent notions of due process and criminal procedure. It's anti-american.

I don't get your argument. If the government is the police, and police have probable cause to pull over a person with a pink licsence plate because they have been convicted of DUI in the past, then how is this not similar to a parole officer checking up on a parolee to make sure they are employed and living at the address stated at their release? How is different than notifying an employer that a worker is an ex con?

This is not an issue of just randomly searching everyone for drugs or DUI. This is making it possible for cops to search those who have already been CONVICTED of DUI.

[Useruser666]

being arrested, booked, convicted, force to pay fines or do time is plenty shameful. What's next? bringing back the pillory

Does any of that stop people from driving drunk again and again? No. More measures need to be examined then. The only person who's right's could possibly be infringed upon are those who committed the crime.

[Mr. Peabody]

What's next? bringing back the pillory

Do you even know what it is to be pilloried? There are many pnuishments worse than the pillory.

[Mr. Peabody]

Does any of that stop people from driving drunk again and again? No. More measures need to be examined then. The only person who's right's could possibly be infringed upon are those who committed the crime.

They still have rights though. Just because you are convicted of a crime doesn't mean that the government can trample on your rights.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't get your argument. If the government is the police, and police have probable cause to pull over a person with a pink licsence plate because they have been convicted of DUI in the past, then how is this not similar to a parole officer checking up on a parolee to make sure they are employed and living at the address stated at their release? How is different than notifying an employer that a worker is an ex con?

This is not an issue of just randomly searching everyone for drugs or DUI. This is making it possible for cops to search those who have already been CONVICTED of DUI.


past convictions alone do not equal (or give rise to) probable cause. please tell me you're not a cop.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Does any of that stop people from driving drunk again and again? No. More measures need to be examined then. The only person who's right's could possibly be infringed upon are those who committed the crime.


The punishments become more severe the more times a person is convicted of DUI.

[Mr. Peabody]

please tell me you're not a cop.

You have to tell me if you are or it's entrapment.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You have to tell me if you are or it's entrapment.


I thought the undercover cop was a prostitute, your Honor.

[SpursWoman]

Sorry, criminals lose certain rights....or has that whole thing about incarcerated persons not being able to vote changed? What about ankle monitors and house arrest? Are their rights being violated?

NO. They are under probation. When under probation you lose certain rights because you fucked up and need to show that you have/are rehabilitated. Having a pink plate would allow a spot-check, so to speak....like drug offenders can be subjected to random drug tests while on probation/parole. If they were to do anything like that, the only way it would make sense would be to be used only during a temporary probationary period.

[Mr. Peabody]

Sorry, criminals lose certain rights....or has that whole thing about incarcerated persons not being able to vote changed? What about ankle monitors and house arrest? Are their rights being violated?

NO. They are under probation. When under probation you lose certain rights because you fucked up and need to show that you have/are rehabilitated. Having a pink plate would allow a spot-check, so to speak....like drug offenders can be subjected to random drug tests while on probation/parole. If they were to do anything like that, the only way it would make sense would be to be used only during a temporary probationary period.

Yes, criminals do lose certain rights, but the right to due process is not one of them.

Also, these "spot checks" are very dangerous. What happens if someone else is driving the offender's car and is pulled over for a spot check, which reveals that they are carrying an ounce of marijuana? Now what? At least the drug tests are individualized, these "spot checks" could be performed on anyone unfortunate enough to drive the offender's car.

[SpursWoman]

Yes, criminals do lose certain rights, but the right to due process is not one of them.

Also, these "spot checks" are very dangerous. What happens if someone else is driving the offender's car and is pulled over for a spot check, which reveals that they are carrying an ounce of marijuana? Now what? At least the drug tests are individualized, these "spot checks" could be performed on anyone unfortunate enough to drive the offender's car.


If someone is stupid enough to drive a car with pink plates carrying an OZ, then they are just stupid and deserve what they get. :lol

If someone borrows a car with a breathalyzer attached, they'd have to blow in it, too, for it to start. *shrugs*

I understand your point, though. There are too many flaws for that kind of *system* to work.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Sorry, criminals lose certain rights....or has that whole thing about incarcerated persons not being able to vote changed? What about ankle monitors and house arrest? Are their rights being violated?

NO. They are under probation. When under probation you lose certain rights because you fucked up and need to show that you have/are rehabilitated. Having a pink plate would allow a spot-check, so to speak....like drug offenders can be subjected to random drug tests while on probation/parole. If they were to do anything like that, the only way it would make sense would be to be used only during a temporary probationary period.


all of those things go thru the probation/parole department. Convicts on parole/probation are subject to the intrusions you listed in lieu of prison time. If they fuck up parole/probation they are sent to prison based on the underlying conviction and not the new activity that led to the revocation. Also, the parole/probation period is limited in time generally, and once it's over the government cannot intrude into the convict's personal life without good reason to do so.

Police stops with out probable cause are different because they would lead possibly to new convictions for new crimes without adequate procedural safeguards.

[Mr. Peabody]

Also, the parole/probation period is limited in time generally, and once it's over the government cannot intrude into the convict's personal life without good reason to do so.



I guess you have never heard of double secret probation.

[Spurminator]

We can throw all sorts of creative punishments out there, but the fundamental problem is that punishment comes after the fact. We can increase punishment, but then we risk over-punishment.

To truly curb Drunk Drivers, we're going to have to seriously look at options for either stopping drunks from driving in the first place or keeping people from getting that drunk in the first place.


My personal opinion on DD is that there may not really be anything we can or should do about it. People who drive drunk and get in fatal accidents, more often than not, didn't just do so because they were intoxicated. It's because they're intoxicated and they're stupid/careless drivers. Frankly, if they weren't driving drunk they'd probably find some other way to accidentally kill someone.

I'd like a law that gives me permission to run stupid drivers off the road.

[SpursWoman]

all of those things go thru the probation/parole department

Right...as a colored plate system should as well. Offenders who commit ANY crime while on parole will get sent back to prison...not just one similar to their original offense. So if someone gets randomly pulled over with pink plates, wasn't drunk but had a big smoking hooka pipe riding shot gun, I'm assuming the same rules would apply.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I guess you have never heard of double secret probation.


lousy Dean!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Right...as a colored plate system should as well. Offenders who commit ANY crime while on parole will get sent back to prison...not just one similar to their original offense. So if someone gets randomly pulled over with pink plates, wasn't drunk but had a big smoking hooka pipe riding shot gun, I'm assuming the same rules would apply.


so we should have colored license plates for people on parole or probation? What if they served their entire sentence and not subject to parole?

[Useruser666]

so we should have colored license plates for people on parole or probation? What if they served their entire sentence and not subject to parole?

Then make the plates only mandatory for the term of their probation. Come one think ahead for once. These plates have nothing to do with due process. These are the basics of due process:

# Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
# Right to be present at the trial
# Right to an impartial jury
# Right to be heard in one's own defense
# Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
# Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
# Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
# Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated



In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all? Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.

That is the only part of due process that even remotely relates to what you are saying. The plates don't presume guilt as much as they are symbols of already having committed the crime.

Again, this plate idea does nothing to prevent someone from drinking and driving. That is something that is very difficult to simply stop cold. Many different things need to be done in conjunction with one another to curtail this from happening over and over. Education is the first step.

[SWC Bonfire]

We can throw all sorts of creative punishments out there, but the fundamental problem is that punishment comes after the fact. We can increase punishment, but then we risk over-punishment.

To truly curb Drunk Drivers, we're going to have to seriously look at options for either stopping drunks from driving in the first place or keeping people from getting that drunk in the first place.


My personal opinion on DD is that there may not really be anything we can or should do about it. People who drive drunk and get in fatal accidents, more often than not, didn't just do so because they were intoxicated. It's because they're intoxicated and they're stupid/careless drivers. Frankly, if they weren't driving drunk they'd probably find some other way to accidentally kill someone.

I'd like a law that gives me permission to run stupid drivers off the road.



Or shoot them on the spot. They like giving names to laws like this to emphasize the human tragedy that caused their ratification, how about Darwin's Law?

[Oh, Gee!!]

These plates have nothing to do with due process. These are the basics of due process:

# Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
# Right to be present at the trial
# Right to an impartial jury
# Right to be heard in one's own defense
# Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior

That is the only part of due process that even remotely relates to what you are saying. The plates don't presume guilt as much as they are symbols of already having committed the crime.

This list is an accurate reflection of procedural due process (requirements
that the government must abide by before depriving citizens of their freedom or property).

However, the courts have also carved out of the 5th and 14th amendments the notion of fundamental fairness, or substantive due process. Essentially, a state law cannot treat citizens unfairly or arbitrarily. Publicly shaming DUI convicts and making it possible for them to be arrested in the future for new DUI charges without probable cause (but simply for having a pink license plate) is unfair.

[Useruser666]

This list is an accurate reflection of procedural due process (requirements
that the government must abide by before depriving citizens of their freedom or property).

However, the courts have also carved out of the 5th and 14th amendments the notion of fundamental fairness, or substantive due process. Essentially, a state law cannot treat citizens unfairly or arbitrarily. Publicly shaming DUI convicts and making it possible for them to be arrested in the future for new DUI charges without probable cause (but simply for having a pink license plate) is unfair.

Is it unfair that a parolee must maintain their employement to meet the terms of their probation? Is it unfair for breathilizers that are already in use to start vehicles fair? I mean, people might see the breathilizer and that would shame them. I guess my point is this, the plates only go on people who already have committed the act, not just have it applied to a random group of people. Are people in prison or house arrest wrongfully shamed by the limits set upon them by their sentences? I don't think that is unusual or cruel in any way.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Is it unfair that a parolee must maintain their employement to meet the terms of their probation? Is it unfair for breathilizers that are already in use to start vehicles fair? I mean, people might see the breathilizer and that would shame them. I guess my point is this, the plates only go on people who already have committed the act, not just have it applied to a random group of people. Are people in prison or house arrest wrongfully shamed by the limits set upon them by their sentences? I don't think that is unusual or cruel in any way.

None of those things are unfair if they are conditions of parole or probation. What is unfair about the law is that it gives the police the power to pull persons over for DUI without probable cause. Past convictions alone do not give rise to probable cause. This is a basic tenet of the constitution (the US and the TX): no search or seizure without probable cause.

[SpursWoman]

None of those things are unfair if they are conditions of parole or probation.


Isn't this what it's about though? As a condition of parole/probation?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Isn't this what it's about though? As a condition of parole/probation?


In part. The unfair part is giving police power to stop people with the pink plates without probable cause. That should never be part of parole/probation

[Useruser666]

None of those things are unfair if they are conditions of parole or probation. What is unfair about the law is that it gives the police the power to pull persons over for DUI without probable cause. Past convictions alone do not give rise to probable cause. This is a basic tenet of the constitution (the US and the TX): no search or seizure without probable cause.

I think you are missunderstanding me. Is it not possible to have conditions placed on a probationed person that may keep them from consuming alcohol? Has someone who has been busted for illegal drug use never been ordered to seek both councilling and random drug testing? I think of these plates as nothing more than an extention of this.

Something else to think about, is driving a vehicle a protected right?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think you are missunderstanding me. Is it not possible to have conditions placed on a probationed person that may keep them from consuming alcohol? Has someone who has been busted for illegal drug use never been ordered to seek both councilling and random drug testing? I think of these plates as nothing more than an extention of this.

Something else to think about, is driving a vehicle a protected right?

I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. The part that is unfair is giving the police the power to stop people without probable cause. That violates the constitution. Drug testing, counseling, reporting to a parole officer are all fine if related to parole. Giving police power that extends beyond the constitution is not okay.

It doesn't matter if driving is a fundamental right. The fundamental right that would be violated is a person's right to be safe from search/seizure without probable cause.

[Useruser666]

I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. The part that is unfair is giving the police the power to stop people without probable cause. That violates the constitution. Drug testing, counseling, reporting to a parole officer are all fine if related to parole. Giving police power that extends beyond the constitution is not okay.

It doesn't matter if driving is a fundamental right. The fundamental right that would be violated is a person's right to be safe from search/seizure without probable cause.

Here are the two things that I think your missing.

1. I'm saying the plates are part of a parole/sentence.

2. Driving a car is not a fundemental right. If you have been convicted of DUI and don't want to get pulled over, don't drive.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Here are the two things that I think your missing.

1. I'm saying the plates are part of a parole/sentence.

2. Driving a car is not a fundemental right. If you have been convicted of DUI and don't want to get pulled over, don't drive.


here's what you're missing

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver." EQUALS not constitutional.

fucking nazi

[SpursWoman]

here's what you're missing

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver." EQUALS not constitutional.


How is that different from a parole officer stopping by a parolee's house requiring him to piss in a cup? Because they are perfectly within their bounds to do so.

[Guru of Nothing]

Why not put the burden on places of business that sell alcohol. I don't mean in a lawsuit kind of way after the fact, but more along the lines that anyone who consumes alcohol in a restaurant or a bar has to blow into a breathalyzer. Through the use of securtity guards and cameras, it would be easy enough to notify law enforcement if an intoxicated person drove away from the premise in an intoxicated state. Do something similar at convenience stores to deter intoxicated people from making beer runs too.

Pass the cost on to the consumers, it's really quite simple.

Also, for those not too concerned with individual rights, have law enforcement set up stops along major thoroughfares late Saturday night/early Sunday morning.

[SpursWoman]

Also, for those not too concerned with individual rights, have law enforcement set up stops along major thoroughfares late Saturday night/early Sunday morning.


I give up, you guys are all right. They should abolish all forms of probation, parole and punishment so THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME and put the safety of the public in danger won't get their feelings hurt, get embarrassed, or have their ability to function in society questioned, even though they've already shown the proclivity to not really GAF.

[Oh, Gee!!]

eh, go suck a lemon.

[SWC Bonfire]

I give up, you guys are all right. They should abolish all forms of probation, parole and punishment so THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME and put the safety of the public in danger won't get their feelings hurt, get embarrassed, or have their ability to function in society questioned, even though they've already shown the proclivity to not really GAF.

No, they should just hang quite a few of them. :lol

[Useruser666]

here's what you're missing

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver." EQUALS not constitutional.

fucking nazi

Oh I see name calling now. The cop does have probable cause, because the person is a convicted drunk driver. A convicted drunk driver with a car is not that far off from an ex con with a pistol.

My opinion is that you lose the right to drive un molested by police the minute you are convicted of DUI.

[SpursWoman]

eh, go suck a lemon.

Only if it's after a shot of good tequila and before I go get behind the wheel of a car. At least I know I'll have plenty of people championing my rights.

[SWC Bonfire]

Only if it's after a shot of good tequila and before I go get behind the wheel of a car. At least I know I'll have plenty of people championing my rights.

Remind me never to get in an argument with SW. I feel sorry for User, remember, silence is the best option, brother! :lol

[SpursWoman]

He knows exactly how to shut me up....at least until I can figure out how to escape the latest hold.









:nerd

[Marklar MM]

Impound a drunk drivers car, and give them a major fine to get it out.

[Oh, Gee!!]

put simply, Spurswoman and User666 are completely and utterly ignorant on matters of law.

[SpursWoman]

put simply, Spurswoman and User666 are completely and utterly ignorant on matters of law.


I know more than I ever cared to, thanks.


Put simply, next time you get busted for DUI, you don't want everyone to point at your pink license plate and laugh.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I know more than I ever cared to, thanks.


Put simply, next time you get busted for DUI, you don't want everyone to point at your pink license plate and laugh.


you're an attorney? a judge?

[Useruser666]

put simply, Spurswoman and User666 are completely and utterly ignorant on matters of law.

No, I just don't agree with you.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, I just don't agree with you.


you're an attorney as well? No, you two are cops. No wonder you're both foaming at the mouths at the possibility of circumventing the probable cause requirement for arrests

[SWC Bonfire]

you're an attorney as well? No, you two are cops. No wonder you're both foaming at the mouths at the possibility of circumventing the probable cause requirement for arrests

I don't think that they're attorneys or judges, but it's pretty obvious what you're NOT.

Are you The Writer, by chance? :lol

[SpursWoman]

you're an attorney as well? No, you two are cops. No wonder you're both foaming at the mouths at the possibility of circumventing the probable cause requirement for arrests


No I'm thinking this as a consequence of a crime already committed.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No I'm thinking this as a consequence of a crime already committed.


Oh, I see. You commit a crime once so you're fair game for the cops to stop you whenever they please.

You should move to Cuba.

[SpursWoman]

you're an attorney? a judge?


I've had a very colorful, close up and personal education in matters such as these via the perpetual fuck-ups of my ex-husband, thanks. I'm very much aware of what the laws and rights are for people on probation, parole and those otherwise being closely monitored.

I didn't *get it* from google.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I've had a very colorful, close up and personal education in matters such as these via the perpetual fuck-ups of my ex-husband, thanks. I'm very much aware of what the laws and rights are for people on probation, parole and those otherwise being closely monitored.

I didn't *get it* from google.

I see. You knew somebody who has been on parole, so now you're an expert on probable cause and substantive due process.

[SpursWoman]

Oh, I see. You commit a crime once so you're fair game for the cops to stop you whenever they please.

You should move to Cuba.


Do you feel the same way about people on parole or probation being monitored? Because it'd be the same fucking thing. :lol

[SpursWoman]

I see. You knew somebody who has been on parole, so now you're an expert on probable cause and substantive due process.

No, I know that they are basically at the mercy of the state until they've completed their time...whether it's probation, parole or whatever. They aren't due Due Process for shit until that time is up.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Do you feel the same way about people on parole or probation being monitored? Because it'd be the same fucking thing. :lol


You ever wonder if the cops doing this aren't overstepping the bounds of what's legal for them to do? Oh no, cops never cut corners.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, I know that they are basically at the mercy of the state until they've completed their time...whether it's probation, parole or whatever. They aren't due Due Process for shit until that time is up.


You ever wonder if that's fair?

[SpursWoman]

You ever wonder if the cops doing this aren't overstepping the bounds of what's legal for them to do? Oh no, cops never cut corners.


I don't believe I've ever said that they haven't or wouldn't. I just don't look at it any differently than what a *criminal* on probation for any other crime would be subject to.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't believe I've ever said that they haven't or wouldn't. I just don't look at it any differently than what a *criminal* on probation for any other crime would be subject to.


the only "real" issue I have with the proposed law is the language about cops stopping without PC. I don't know about you, but I think cops have enough power as it is.

Edit: and I aplogize for calling your boyfriend a nazi and for telling you to eat a lemon

[SpursWoman]

You ever wonder if that's fair?


Yes and no....but to be totally fair you'd probably have to do away with probation or parole all together. Which would mean automatic jail time for everyone that breaks the law...with set sentences across the board for whatever crime.

If you put someone on probation in lieu of prison, how are they receiving any punishment at all other than the fines that go with it if they aren't held accountable for that time? What would be the point? Same thing of letting people out of jail early on parole....even though they will be required to give up a few rights for a period of time, I think if you ask any of them it would beat the hell out of being locked up.

[Useruser666]

the only "real" issue I have with the proposed law is the language about cops stopping without PC. I don't know about you, but I think cops have enough power as it is.

I better qualify my answer first with, "I'm not an attorney". I don't think it's unfair to subject people convicted of DUI to random stops. Maybe this can be set for a certain period of time or something but that is in the details. I'm not advocating police just pulling anyone over at random, but due to the circumstances of the crime, the plate theory should at least be looked at thoroughly.

[xrayzebra]

Impound a drunk drivers car, and give them a major fine to get it out.

That exist right now. Get picked-up for DWI and see how much it cost to get the car off the lot.

[Nbadan]

Looks like the pink plates are catchy...

Bills would identify sex offenders by auto plates
Pink tags on cars for five years after prison release
By Shaheen Samavati
Dayton Daily News


COLUMBUS | Two state lawmakers are pushing legislation that would require Ohio's most serious sex offenders to have pink identifying license plates for at least five years after their release from prison.

"A distinctive license plate would warn parents and children of the potential threat posed by sexual offenders," said Sen. Kevin Coughlin, R-Cuyahoga Falls.

Legislation by Rep. Michael DeBose, D-Cleveland, to require the license plates has stalled in a House committee. On Wednesday, Coughlin introduced an identical, companion bill in the Senate, which could give the issue a second chance. DeBose said pink was chosen because it stands out and is not easily camouflaged, though color isn't important.

The legislation would make it mandatory for courts to order the most serious sexual offenders, such as habitual child molesters, to use the license plates for a minimum of five years after their release from prison.

Dayton Daily News (http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1117pinkplates.html)

If the plates for pedophiles and drunks are both pink. How will people be able tell if the car belongs to a priest or a Bush?

[DarkReign]

Yeah...ok.

MADD started in Michigan. MADD is a multi-million (maybe billion now) special interest organization dedicated to making drunk driving a death-penalty eligible crime (For the children!).

You want to reduce drunk-driving? Do you reeeeeeally want to?

Make MADD, with all their money spent on greedy politicians, make them spend all that money on a US taxi system.

Think about that. If MADD reeeeeeally wanted to prevent drunk-driving, they would provide an alternative to get home. But that isnt what they are about.

They dont want to provide the bar-going people of this country a safe way to get home, they want to criminalize them and demonize them. They want revenge for all the tragedies caused by the evil-doers who drink and drive.

Its a scam. And whichever talking head from Washington proposed this dipshit idea can be counted as one of the many who have been paid by MADD to "raise awareness" or what the fuck ever it is those ninny, house wifes do.

MADD sux. Give people a cheap means to get home from the bar/party/etc. If the MADD Taxi was in place in your state, then raise the punishment based on the sound logic that the State and all its residents provided you the means to get home cheaply and safely. You chose not to accept this helping hand and therefore shall suffer greater consequences.

Simple. Cheap too. But, you see, thats too easy. This isnt about prevention, it about punishment and revenge. Just goes to show that if youre righteousness enough and mad enough, you can bend the wills of the weak to your calling if youre committed. Fuck MADD. They are the most coniving losers ever to come out of Michigan.

[SpursWoman]

spend all that money on a US taxi system.

:tu

I'd support it .... if included in the fare they came and got you the next morning to go pick up your car. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

Looks like the pink plates are catchy...

Bills would identify sex offenders by auto plates
Pink tags on cars for five years after prison release
By Shaheen Samavati
Dayton Daily News



Dayton Daily News (http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1117pinkplates.html)

If the plates for pedophiles and drunks are both pink. How will people be able tell if the car belongs to a priest or a Bush?

The bumper stickers on the Bush car would be upside down.

http://www.truckerphoto.com/Bush%20with%20upside%20down%20book.jpg

[Nbadan]

http://www.cagle.com/working/051116/combs.jpg

[Useruser666]

So the cartoon you posted is pro-plate?