DUI? Lose Your Rights

[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 cons ution (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 cons ution (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 cons ution. Drug testing, counseling, reporting to a parole officer are all fine if related to parole. Giving police power that extends beyond the cons ution 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 cons ution. Drug testing, counseling, reporting to a parole officer are all fine if related to parole. Giving police power that extends beyond the cons ution 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 cons utional.

ing 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 cons utional.

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 secur y 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.

[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 cons utional.

ing 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!

[SpursWoman]

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

[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.