Posted on 01/09/2003 11:23:50 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In last year's mega-hit movie "Minority Report," starring Tom Cruise in a mid-21st-century sci-fi thriller, D.C. police identify persons who have not yet committed a crime, but who, based on premonition evidence are going to commit a crime, and then swoop in and arrest these pre-criminals before they can carry out their dastardly deeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Unfortunately, most people are so used to the concept of police administering a breathalyzer test that they do not realize the difference between driving and other situations - so they submit voluntarily, and lose their 4th A rights in the process.
The absurdity of their argument is that it is also illegal to consume alcoholic beverages in public places under Virginia law. So under their reading of bars as public places, everyone in the bar is therefore breaking the law.
I have a feeling the first judge who is assigned this case is gonna rip some of Fairfax's County's finest a new orifice...
Are they drunk or is it that they just act that way?
Somehow I doubt that the bars frequented by police officers in our fine county are subject to this sort of scrutiny.
An enterprising news outfit could pull together some very entertaining footage by sending a film crew into a few local cop bars with cameras rolling, to ask some bombed off-duty officers whether bar patrons should be subject to undercover stings...
Whose job is it to call off the brown shirts? BTW, the few cops I know are booze hounds themselves.
As a staunch supporter of the WOD, he obviously believes that getting drugs off the streets prevents crime even though those taking drugs commit no "real" time while consuming them...same scenario, same effect, same purpose.
EBUCK
That "other loser" happens to be Dick Armey, last seen killing off Operation TIPS. Both Barr and Armey were instrumental in preventing national ID cards and Know Your Customer. What have YOU done to protect liberty?
--- crickets ---
You are in no position to be calling those two honorable men losers. However, I can think of plenty of applicable names for you...
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
(No longer relevant - see: Deconstructing the Second Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(No longer relevant - see: War on the Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(No longer relevant - see: Seizure Fever: The War on Property Rights
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
(No longer relevant - see: Is This man's case worth suspending the United States Constitution?
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Exactly. Cops can demand a breathalyzer test to a suspected drunk driver without a warrant under implied consent. That does NOT apply to someone in a bar, and I've dug all around the Virginia code and have not found out where a .08 level is the determinant for public intoxication - instead, it is the level where someone is considered too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. If the cops demand that a bar patron submit to a breathalyzer, they should demand that the cops obtain a search warrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.