Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 Fluke 1/4/84; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!tron
From: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Roadblocks
Message-ID: <669@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 15:37:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax1.669
Posted: Mon Jun 25 15:37:59 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 03:31:37 EDT
References: <201@isrnix.UUCP>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Everett, WA
Lines: 25

Concerning the roadblocks-for-drunks;  we had them here in Seattle this
past Christmas but then the ACLU got into the act and eventually won a
restraining order (I'm pretty sure at least). 

It may be unconstitutional but can you think of better ways to curtail
drunk driving?  In Seattle they made a point of not ticketing anything
but drunks (no hassles about tailights etc.) and so the roadblocks were
only a minor nuisance if you were sober, in fact, traffic moved quickly
enough through them that a driver was given little warning in the way
of a traffic jam.

I guess my point is that if this is an unconstitutional act what do we
have to do to make it constitutional?  I feel very strongly about drunks
on the road-they don't belong.  I'm willing to undergo this limited
"illegal search and seizure" to accomplish that goal.

				DOWN, off the soapbox!
				Peter Barbee

   decvax-+-uw-beaver-+
   ihnp4--+   allegra-+
   ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron
		  sun-+
	      ssc-vax-+