Last paragraph:
"We do not want a police state," Colins wrote in his dissent. "It seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
To: CSM; VRing; JTN; Gabz; inneroutlaw; freepatriot32
To: elkfersupper
Love it love it love it.
Take cover from the incoming fireballs from DUI zealots.
3 posted on
09/01/2006 8:41:17 PM PDT by
relictele
To: elkfersupper
I'm glad to see this happen, The whole DUI issue is a gateway to destroy the rights and privacy of citizens. Tonight I was on the way home from dinner and got behind 7 police cars on the way to setting up a "Sobriety Checkpoint" where they stop everyone who comes down the road whether they have done anything wong or not.
Most likely the revenuers will not catch any drunk drivers, but the local operating budget of the police will be padded somewhat from tail lights being out, and tires not having enough tread. I recall hoping that the revenuers had to sit there through heavy rain that was happening in the area.
6 posted on
09/01/2006 8:59:45 PM PDT by
KoRn
To: elkfersupper
It's good to know there are still judges following the law..
7 posted on
09/01/2006 9:03:02 PM PDT by
Experiment 6-2-6
(Admn Mods: tiny, malicious things that glare and gibber from dark corners.They have pins and dolls..)
To: elkfersupper
This ruling surprises me for two reasons.
First, there are numerous rulings that if the officer begins to pursue someone, or observe an offense in his jurisdiction, then the officer can pursue the offender and make a stop outside of the jurisdiction.
Second, there was a ruling in the New Jersey state courts some years ago about jurisdiction. Some people might not like it, but when you think about it, it is absolute common sense.
In the case, a local police officer observed an offense outside of his town and stopped the car. The accused was convicted and appealled based on the fact that the offense did not happen in the officer's town, and the stop was not made in the officer's town, therefore the officer had no jurisdiction to make a stop.
The state argued that police officers in New Jersey are sworn to uphold the laws of the State of New Jersey. Since moving violations are part of the state laws, title 39, the court ruled that the officer was in fact upholding the laws of the State of New Jersey and was doing exactly what he was sworn to do.
And they are right. The oath and the laws authorizing police officers in new Jersey say nothing about the particluar town that swears the officer. If you're a cop in New Jersey, you're a cop in all of New Jersey. I wonder why other states have not followed this ruling.
10 posted on
09/01/2006 9:25:14 PM PDT by
sig226
(There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.)
To: elkfersupper
I don't know. I have mixed opinions on this one. Here is the simple fact: Most people pulled over for drunken driving are drunk. I was one of these people.
People who drink should not operate a vehicle for no less than 24 hours after their lips last touch a bottle. These are the rules I obey now.
Granted, far too much of DUI laws have been dictated by the neo-prohibitionist MADD. Nonetheless, I want to keep drunks off the road.
Go home. Grab a twelver and rent a movie or three from Blockbuster. Get F'ed-up in your home. Stay off the roads.
12 posted on
09/01/2006 9:48:04 PM PDT by
Drew68
To: elkfersupper
We already became a police state for the War on Drugs... then it was aimed at cigarettes... now at alcohol... when will it stop?
16 posted on
09/01/2006 10:40:17 PM PDT by
thoughtomator
(There is no "Islamofascism" - there is only Islam)
To: elkfersupper
Great decision by the judge.
19 posted on
09/02/2006 5:34:15 AM PDT by
Mrs.Nooseman
(Proud supporter of our Troops and President GW!!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson