Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!blenko
From: blenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Roadblocks
Message-ID: <7822@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Jul-84 16:41:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: rochester.7822
Posted: Fri Jul  6 16:41:24 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Jul-84 00:29:19 EDT
References: <2401@ihldt.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 47


> What we have to do to make the roadblocks legal is to remove the
> "probable cause" restriction on law enforcement officials.  That is,
> a police officer must be able to stop (in legal terms, "stop" =
> "arrest") anyone at all, with no reason to believe that the person
> has broken any law.

> This is one of the most important guarantees that the citizens of
> this country secured in the U.S. Constitution.  As much as I'd like
> to get the drunk drivers off our roads, I'm not willing to give this
> power to the government.  Please don't take your rights lightly; if
> you give them up now for the sake of one issue, you may find yourself
> wishing that you had them back.

I keep seeing this (apparent) confusion in articles, and I don't
really understand why.

There are rights which are guaranteed to individuals in the
consttitution, and there are privileges provided by local/state/federal
governments to the citizenry (not necessarily at large).

In both states in which I have held driver's licenses, the license
is extended as a privilege to those who are judged qualified. By
accepting the license, one undertakes particular responsibilities
for driving on the public highways.

Roadblocks are used in New York state, my current habitat.  As I
understand it, they simply slow the drivers and observe them as they
drive by in a single lane.  If an officer observes signs of
intoxication, the driver is pulled over.

	No one is arbitrarily stopped;

	No one is subjected to scrutiny they might otherwise be
	expected to (legally?) undergo;

	All the (licensed) drivers have undertaken an agreement with
	the (state) government to assume certain responsibilities
	for safety on the road. In some states this includes
	taking a breathalizer test if requested, or submitting to
	an equipment check if requested.

So I guess it seems to me that those who fail to destinguish between
their legal RIGHTS and the PRIVILEGES extended to them are in error.
If I'm mistaken, I'd be pleased to hear why.

	Tom