Send Representative Todd smith an Email.
todd.smith@house.state.tx.us
Or Call him.
(512) 463-0522
Ask him if his Oath of office is violated by supporting Sobriety Checkpoint legislation which clearly violates the 4th amendment.
Broadcast on Fox 7 Austin on March 30, 2009
Duration : 0:2:59
[youtube DoqGDaG0C2c]
Add A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
MADD are fascists. …
MADD are fascists. Yes, checkpoints will reduce DUIs. Strip searching every single person every single time they leave their home would reduce crime as well. So would drugging everybody with sedatives, or giving everybody a lobotomy, monitoring every second of everybody’s public and private lives, or any number of equally outrageous, nazi-esque techniques.
@ed2276 You are …
@ed2276 You are absolutely correct!
the checkpoint …
the checkpoint doesnt prevent drunk driving- if they’d made it into a car and are driving on the road- its too late-more measures in treatment for alcoholism and education/ prevention should be taken- a law is simply a reactive measure and will never prevent such tragedies.
“And state Supreme …
“And state Supreme Courts of some States have ruled” Which is irrelevant because the Supreme Court of the US overrides any and every state court (in case you didn’t know).
Any state that choses to implement DUI checkpoints may. And when it is challenged and overturned in the state supreme court, they can appeal to the SCOTUS, where the SCOTUS will rule they are constitutional, and overturn the state court.
Now grow up.
And state Supreme …
And state Supreme Courts of some States have ruled that the State may not IMPLEMENT them because under the STATE constitution they are unconstitutional. So, Sitz is moot in those instances where the State Supreme courts have barred the implementation of such STATE law under the STATE constitution.
My argument is not based on lies at all. The SCOTUS ruled for the checkpoints in SITZ. Despite that ruling the MSC said such checkpoints are STILL unconstitutional under the STATE constitution. FACT!
Did the Michigan …
Did the Michigan Supreme court or did it not hold that sobriety checkpoints within the State of Michigan are unconstitutional under the Michigan State Constitution DESPITE the SCOTUS decision in Sitz?
Michigan could NOT implement them BECAUSE the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that under the Michigan State Constitution such stops ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
If Michigan were to try to implement them it would be under STATE, not Federal, law; under state law the MSC ruled they are unconstitutional.
And yet you are …
And yet you are continuing to play the intentionally obtuse card. You know, deliberate stupidity is just stupidity.
As Sitz has spelled out, the stops are constitutional if the states choose to implement them.
Since you are basing your argument on lies, it is obvious that you have no case. Have the self respect to stop lying about it. You aren’t fooling anyone.
The stops are constitutional. Period.
And you are wrong …
And you are wrong again. The stops are constitutional. Period. The laws of the individual states have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the stops.
The individual states may decide to implement them or not, but that does not affect the constitutional.
If Michigan were to implement them, then arguing against them claiming they are unconstitutional will fail because the SCOTUS has ruled that they are.
Once again, after …
Once again, after the U.S. Supreme Ct. spoke in Sitz the Michigan Supreme Ct. still held that such checkpoints are unconstitutional under Michigan law. Several other States, even after Sitz, ban the use of such checkpoints. So, it is readily apparent that despite Sitz, Sitz is not controlling on the States.
The Sitz case is a …
The Sitz case is a moot point, if you are trying to use it to justify the legality of DUI checkpoints in the States. It is not on point, and only applies to federal law. After the Sitz case the Michigan Supreme Ct. held that while the Sitz case was applicable to federal law enforcement it did NOT apply to the State with regard to State law. Under Michigan state law, those stops are still held unconstitutional and are not done. This is the case in other States, as well.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Also, Rep. Smith’s …
Also, Rep. Smith’s comment that the purpose of the checkpoints is to ensure that drunk drivers are prevented from getting into cars is idiotic. The only way that drunk drivers will be detected at checkpoints is if they ALREADY have gotten into cars, are driving, and pass through the checkpoint. What a moron!
I find it …
I find it unconscionable that the State of Texas would consent to violate the constitutional rights of people who had nothing to do with the tragic deaths of the children of the two women in the above story. The people who drove drunk and killed their children are the ones who should be, and were, punished.
To suggest that because someone killed my child I have the right to intrude into the lives and liberties of others who had nothing to do with those deaths is a travesty.
Thank you for …
Thank you for responding. I am familiar with that case and respect that the Supreme Court is the final determiner of Constitutionality but that does not mean I have to agree with them. I would prefer that the police not be allowed to stop motorists on public roads without probable cause. Many states have decreed that the space within one’s own personal vehicle is legally no different from their own home and I would like to see that applied nationwide but alas the Supreme Court has spoken.
Michigan Dept. of …
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
ruled that these …
ruled that these sobriety checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonable search.
Despite the cries of some very vocal (and ignorant) people, sobriety checkpoints do not violate the 4th amendment. So ruled by the Supreme Court (since our constitution defines them as the final arbiters of constitutionality, their ruling “makes it so”).
Like it or not. Such is it.
I am torn on this …
I am torn on this because somebody very close to me was badly injured by a drunk driver who legally should not have been on the road. On one hand I support measures to keep drunks from driving but on the other hand, criminals don’t obey the law (i.e. they will drive anyway) and I don’t like the idea of stomping on the Constitution in the name of feel-good legislation.
The numbers of dead …
The numbers of dead to a drunk driver are a bit slim. Also the numbers are from MADD a baised source. Where they will include any intoxication involved in a deadly accident as the fualt for the death. Try looking up how many kids a year are killed by water. Simple drownings are twice this number.
Why was this girl in the middle of the street 100f from a schoolbus? maybe she should of looked before crossing a street. If she did she might of been still alive.
Easily solvable. …
Easily solvable. Make the car keys actually keys. In addition to the buttons, if the person can fit the key into the hole (which isn’t a traditional, but a sort of maze-inside-the-keyhole keyhole), he/she has deserved the right to enter the car and drive. Unless the beer is stashed inside the car, BUT OH WAIT, YOU STILL HAVE TO PUT THE KEY INTO IGNITION TO DRIVE! So stop it with the checkpoints, we all know what they really are.
this is about money …
this is about money!!!
no to check points …
no to check points read the comstitution
I did not …
I did not understand Rep. Todd saying “this is about stopping drunk drivers from getting in a car and driving.”
Checkpoints are about checking drivers on the road.
There ARE better ways to prevent people from even getting in a car and driving. That CAN be done. But the police state is what all these people want, and we are already well on our way to that hideous state of existence.
good lookin out …
good lookin out Hanson
one dead is too …
one dead is too much, But. scare it is only another pretext for Police State.
Checkpoints? no doubt usa is becoming just another third world country, No doubt.
Texas should be …
Texas should be outraged.
Maybe we need to …
Maybe we need to walk the halls of the Texas legislature with T-Shirts.
T-Shirts with pictures of Police shooting the Constitution.