I do not see what is so difficult to grasp here. The 4th Amendment is a part of the Constitution of the United States of America. What Australia does to me on their soil has absolutely nothing to do with the laws of my native country. Frankly I am not sure why you're arguing this specific point, davo. Dennis' stance here is quite clear. ------------------ Just because I spent five years trying to get a hold of a hammer, I don't have to spend the rest of my life driving nails. I hate this hammer and I hate driving nails.
Last I checked, U.S. Customs did random checks on baggage in airports in YOUR country. So Kagy, if you come in from another country, customs doesn't inspect your baggage? That would be federal employees inspecting a U.S. Citizens' property without probable cause. ------------------ "I'll drop kick those f*ckin' dogs if they come anywhere near me." visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited August 25, 2000).]
No one is comparing Australia and America. Davo pointed out that they do random searches in THIS COUNTRY, AMERICA, which are no different than random breath tests, in his opinion. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about his simple argument. ------------------ "I'll drop kick those f*ckin' dogs if they come anywhere near me." visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited August 25, 2000).]
Looks pretty obvious as to what Dennis meant. Looks like it's pretty obvious what I meant, too: random breath tests are unconstitutional. If they pass the law, and the Supreme Courts says, "Okey Dokey", then I'll abide by it. ------------------ Just because I spent five years trying to get a hold of a hammer, I don't have to spend the rest of my life driving nails. I hate this hammer and I hate driving nails. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited August 25, 2000).]
Kagy, we all know what Dennis is arguing. What Davo, and now myself, is arguing is that customs in this country do random searches, which are not that much different than random breath tests to try and catch drunk drivers. The laws in Australia mean nothing to this argument. We're basing our argument over the laws in this country, something Dennis and yourself do care about. And BTW, where are your and Achebe's articles dammit! ------------------ "I'll drop kick those f*ckin' dogs if they come anywhere near me." visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited August 25, 2000).]
Lets think about that for a second...Why do customs people search the luggage of people entering the country. To keep contraband & illegal substances(drugs, bombs, and weapons would come under this category) from crossing the borders. That is what the border patrols and customs officers do. A random test in the middle of our great country is unconstitutional . To enter the country you must be searched( according to the law ) but once here and after becoming a citizen you are offered certain rights under the afore mentioned constitution. Searching someone entering the country would fall under the category of problable cause and thus the 4th ammendment would not be violated . However a person driving wildly would also fall under the category of probable cause and thus can be pulled over given a breath test. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust [This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited August 25, 2000).]
I said "I know it is against the 4th Ammedment, but how is it different from my Customs/baggage inspection example?" I think it is clear from that statement that I know random breath testing is against the 4th Ammendment - I am not arguing that point whatsoever. I am also NOT arguing that laws in another country, ie Australia, should have any impact in the USA. I said "However, I think that the real point here is that, while another countries law's do not directly impact the ones here, you can still certainly learn from them." The topic of this thread was discussing different penalties for drink driving. I suggested a method for reducing drink driving, which was random breath testing. Dennis countered this suggestion stating that it was a violation of the 4th Ammendment. I have no argument with this, but just because that is the current law doesn't mean that it is immediately disqualified from further discussion. I am merely suggesting an alternative that has worked elsewhere and is potentially worthy of consideration. The very first post in this thread discusses the possible introduction of a tougher penalty, which as far as I can tell is not currently law in most States. I am merely doing similar. My final point, as re-iterated by RM95, is regarding US Customs inspections. If a CITIZEN OF THE USA goes overseas and then returns to the USA, they could be subjected to a random luggage search IN THE USA, by a USA CUSTOMS OFFICIAL. That is a fact - I have seen it done on numerous occasions. I am simply asking how this is so different from random breath testing, and whether you guys see it as an "unreasonable search" or a violation of the 4th Ammendment. Brian, you said "What Australia does to me on their soil has absolutely nothing to do with the laws of my native country" I have never said that it does. I am confused as to what you are refering to. ------------------ Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
Dennis - just read you post after I had already sent mine. Now we are getting somewhere, proof that debating something long enough will yield progress . In Australia, random breath tests are conducted, almost without exception, late on a Friday and Saturday night, on roads surrounding popular nightlife areas - would that qualify as probable cause in your eyes? I'm guessing yes. I'm not quite sure whether I agree with you that simply traveling overseas is enough to justify probable cause, but I see your point. ------------------ Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
Well , I agree to a certain point since Police in this country get much more agressive after 2 am after the bars close. Comparing the custom laws to the 4th ammendment is like comparing apples and oranges since they are separate laws. I do not mean to imply that all people traveling overseas constitutes probable cause but due to the increase in terrorist activies around the world and the fact that most foreign countries have nothing but disdain toward America, it is necessary. Just like the police patroling after 2 am. I still do not agree with random stops but any kind of erratic driving behavior should be questioned and the driver challenged. Looking at other countries laws can be enlightening and helpful but not at the expense of the constitution. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
I see your point Dennis. I just don't think that being subjected to a random breathalizer test is really that big a deal if these random tests help keep people from driving drunk, thus saving lives. ------------------ "I'll drop kick those f*ckin' dogs if they come anywhere near me." visit www.swirve.com
Last I checked, the Fourth Amendment didn't make any exceptions for those things. If Australia wants to conduct unreasonable searches, then good on them. I could care less. If America wants to, it's unconstitutional and therefore a violation of my 4th Amendment rights-- unless legislation is passed which allows for such searches and the Supreme Court deems it constitutional. Which they've obviously done. All I am pointing out is that this part of Dennis' argument is exceptionally simple to comprehend, and that anyone who is feigning a lack of comprehension must be doing so intentionally. It's pointless to compare Australia and America, because they're not run by the same set of laws. ------------------ Just because I spent five years trying to get a hold of a hammer, I don't have to spend the rest of my life driving nails. I hate this hammer and I hate driving nails.
