Skip to comments.New Federal Money for Highway Roadblocks and Seizures
Posted on 08/16/2005 5:58:08 PM PDT by elkfersupper
The "SAFETEA-LU" federal transportation funding measure signed into law last Wednesday provides millions of dollars for controversial enforcement measures including sobriety checkpoint roadblocks and now automobile seizures.
The law adds automobile impoundment and seizure to the list of acceptable "alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures" eligible for federal grant money, which amounted to $40 million in 2003. This allows states to fund driving under the influence (DUI)-related confiscation efforts entirely with federal tax dollars.
The DUI grant program began in 1988 as a result of lobbying by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The money is used to entice states to enact tough laws and conduct high-profile education campaigns against alcohol-impaired driving. In 1991, for example, the grants were used to compel states to reduce their legal intoxication standard from a blood alcohol level of 0.10 to 0.08.
Despite approval from the US Supreme Court, several state supreme courts including Michigan and Rhode Island have found drunk-driving roadblocks unconstitutional. An Albuquerque, New Mexico court recently found a DUI car seizure ordinance unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewspaper.com ...
Let me see if I can get this straight. The fedguv takes my money away at the point of a gun (if necessary), then sends it to my state and local governments, who then have an incentive to interfere with my right to travel, and then sniff around to find an excuse to confiscate my vehicle and other property.
Incidentally, it was the same mechanism that was used to mandate seat belts, .08 BAC for proof of intoxication, etc.
Whatever happened to Republicans being the party of small, limited federal government?
This time it really is Bush's Fault!
can they add a tobacco and cell phone amendment? As long as they're confiscating my stuff, I want as many as possible to go down with me.
"Whatever happened to Republicans being the party of small, limited federal government?"
Surely you jest.
I thought non-profits weren't supposed to "lobby".
Do not think for a moment that they intend to stop at 0.08; they will chip away, 0.075... 0.07, etc until you basically can't drive after any number of drinks, no matter how acceptable your condition.
You forgot the hamburger ordinance.
Forgot the sarcasm tag. Is this you?
You are sooo right. The evil hydrogenated trans-fat. Gotta a Big-Mac in your car, mister? Well it ain't your car no more. Hahahahah.
Where does it say you have a right to drive drunk?
It's actually that now. Maine proposed .04 this week.
no, that's not me, this is me:
Where does it say what "alcohol-impaired" is?
It appears to be whatever the LEO wants it to be.
Bookmarked. Very exhaustive. I've run across that before.
Its what ever YOUR LEGISLATURE says it is...
You Voted for these guys, go down and sit in their office till they pay attention, or run for office yourself.
MADD lied to my legislature and got 'em all girly and emotional.
They have time to show up every time the doors open. I don't. I have to work in order to provide tax dollars to those who want to enslave me and steal my property.
confiscation of automobiles for resale? now this has gone way too far! Travel documents in hand....... the Gestapo says these papers are NOT in order.
Surely this will get a court challenge...... but considering the courts allowing eminent domain confiscation I fear private property in America is going the way of the DoDo bird.
This is your fedguv bribing the states. There ain't gonna' be any court challenge that hasn't already taken place and gone (mostly) the wrong way.
Well, getting rid of drunken truckers is a fine objective. We will quickly, however, get a racial profiling complaint as Mexican trucks are stopped, trucks too dangerous to driven on US roads, or uninsured or carrying cargos of Fox's drugs or loads of illegal aliens, including muslim terrorists.