Great, someone who’s been driving drunk so many times as to get convicted four times now want to be able to do so again. It appears that it’s going to happen, because the bill has other more attractive items within.

While driving without a license seems like a trivial offense, in most states a driver’s license is tied to insurance coverage which is not trivial, or it’s suspension is a punishment for serious offenses like DUI.

Disregard for the important things which are tied to licensing, displays a very selfish disregard for public welfare, and a “who cares what the rules are” attitude, which I’m afraid correlates highly with other reckless driving practices, and even encourages running after an accident.
I’m glad to hear that California is cracking down on this, and it seems like sobriety checkpoints dovetail nicely, since otherwise it’s very difficult to check license status without another offense.

Does this mean that people in this situation should be given more leeway with respect to complying with the law? Certainly, rich people have less need to steal things.

Sure, you can argue it’s immoral and illegal. But for many people, given the circumstances they find themselves in, the best choice remains to cross the border illegally and drive a car without a license or insurance.

You can’t expect people to make the most moral and legal choices when the results will be completely against their self intrest, and against the health and wealfare of their extended families, etc. Behavior often becomes a function of the environment we find ourselves in.

There is a strong tradition in this country not to interfere with people behaving normally even in the public space. The “sobriety checkpoints” seem to fail the typical “probable cause” requirement.

A fundemental premice of the US legal system is accepting the risk of criminals going free to protect the rights of innocent people.

One of the attractions is that people can easily drive without licenses.

JJ@11 “MikeOnBike is exactly on target. Someone who got a DUI and lost their license but is still driving is a risk. An illegal immigrant, in town only for the harvest season is not. As he pointed out, most illegal immigrants do everything they can to follow every law, because one mishap and they can be deported.”

Therefore, licenses should be abolished!

One way of avoiding the convicted-DUI-driving without a license is to enforce the license requirement for everybody, whether or not they happen to be drunk at the time.

“You assume that because I am ok with sobriety check points, red light cameras, photo radar, and primary seatbelt laws, that (somehow) I am also in favor of doing away entirely with the 4th Amendment. Not true.”

I never said any such thing. Eroding our 4th amendment rights is bad enough, and you stated you support this quite plainly.

“If you’re going to smear MADD you need to find a more credible source than Reason magazine and with its libertarian drivel and hatred of anything that smacks of regulation. One of Reason’s columnists actually opposes LaHood’s proposed texting-while-driving ban. Fringe.”

Can’t refute the facts, so you attack the source? Even resorting to name calling I see. One columnist you disagree with affects this column I am referring to how?

OK, fine. Let’s look at the Supreme Court. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/drivingissues/1103163004.html

“Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”

“Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. “That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving … is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion,” dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

“Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that “the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative.” And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.”

Also, I don’t need to smear MADD; MADD does that itself in its attempts to smear those that don’t agree with them:

“Opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught.”

Yes, MADD said that. They have since removed it from their main site page, but feel free to google the phrase and look at all the places it continues to be quoted - local MADD chapters and such.

“There are many arguments both for and against the use of roadblocks in our effort to reduce drunk driving. For example, many law enforcement officials and researchers believe that roving patrols are much more effective and are a better use of scarce resources. People of good will can and do disagree on such important matters.

“Unfortunately, MADD’s effort to discredit and marginalize those with whom it disagrees is unproductive and doesn‘t help us make the best decisions about how to reduce impaired and drunk driving, whether or not that involves police roadblocks.”

You might also include yourself in the “marginalizing those you disagree with” camp with that “fringe” comment of yours.

The NHTSA data that says in its own summation: “Analysis of fatal crash data indicated a reduction in alcohol-involved drivers in fatal
crashes on the order of 7% when compared to the rest of the United States. This reduction approached, but did not reach, statistical significance.”

However, making more sense: checkpoints only stop drivers at random, and keep police from roving patrols where they could actually find drivers exhibiting dangerous driving. If the police are at one place stopping everyone, there are obviously fewer police out actively patrolling.

You can align yourself with MADD if you like, but it’s not currently any organization I’d want to have anything to do with.

People like me? You don’t know me and you don’t know where I stand on the 4th Amendment. You assume that because I am ok with sobriety check points, red light cameras, photo radar, and primary seatbelt laws, that (somehow) I am also in favor of doing away entirely with the 4th Amendment. Not true.

If you’re going to smear MADD you need to find a more credible source than Reason magazine and with its libertarian drivel and hatred of anything that smacks of regulation. One of Reason’s columnists actually opposes LaHood’s proposed texting-while-driving ban. Fringe.

Your assertion that there is a causal relationship between DUI checkpoints and an increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths cannot be supported. Even if I grant you that alcohol-related traffic deaths have been inching up, that is to be expected as we drive more every year. The death rate of alcohol-related traffic deaths per 100 million VMT has been dropping since (at least) 1988. Sobriety checkpoints have only been around since the late 1980s. NHTSA makes this research easy to find if you don’t trust me.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.18e416bf1b09b6bbbf30811060008a0c/