06-28-2006, 11:41 AM
I'm not stating to be difficult, I'm actually curious on this one.
There was a question about the legality of Drunk Driving Checkpoints in Michigan (Sitz v Michigan). In the case the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that stopping folks via roadblock "just to check" was a violation of the fourth amendment (don't jump down my throat for making a statement that you think might be reaching - I'm outlining the case). The state prosecutor appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court - but the interesting thing is that while the US Supreme Court did reverse Michigan's ruling it did not do so on the grounds that it's justifiable to pull somebody over for a random legality check. The US Supreme Court determined that the roadblocks were held in exception to the fourth amendment:
These sentiments indicate, to me at least, that you really do need probable cause to pull somebody over but, in the instance of Michigan v Sitz, drunk driving is far too worthy a cause to bother with that kind of mumbo jumbo.
The relationship I'm curious about is the difference between a roadblock and pulling people over just for driving around. In neither isntance is there a specific reason to check the parties involved. It also indicates an end-state pursuit of justice rather than a process view.
There was a question about the legality of Drunk Driving Checkpoints in Michigan (Sitz v Michigan). In the case the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that stopping folks via roadblock "just to check" was a violation of the fourth amendment (don't jump down my throat for making a statement that you think might be reaching - I'm outlining the case). The state prosecutor appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court - but the interesting thing is that while the US Supreme Court did reverse Michigan's ruling it did not do so on the grounds that it's justifiable to pull somebody over for a random legality check. The US Supreme Court determined that the roadblocks were held in exception to the fourth amendment:
Court Notes Wrote:no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it.
More Wrote:the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight.
These sentiments indicate, to me at least, that you really do need probable cause to pull somebody over but, in the instance of Michigan v Sitz, drunk driving is far too worthy a cause to bother with that kind of mumbo jumbo.
The relationship I'm curious about is the difference between a roadblock and pulling people over just for driving around. In neither isntance is there a specific reason to check the parties involved. It also indicates an end-state pursuit of justice rather than a process view.
When it comes to Ryan Jenkins, the story ends with me putting him in the wall.
2009 Speed Triple | 2006 DR-Z400SM | 1999 CBR600F4 | 1998 Jeep Cherokee
-Ginger
2009 Speed Triple | 2006 DR-Z400SM | 1999 CBR600F4 | 1998 Jeep Cherokee
-Ginger