🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Nov 1998 22:43:08 GMT, Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@22.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>In <slrn75ab2v.fh.joel-garry@home.com> joel-garry@nospam.home.com (Joel
>Garry) writes:
>
>>>On the one hand, you want to not have limits on speed or rate of lane
>>>changes, because you don't think they are good indicators of lack of
>>>safety in driving.  On the other hand you also are not able to provide a
>>>good substitute for inclusion in the CVC.  I personally think we need
>>>either the one or the other.
>
>>There already are more than enough laws covering these issues....
>>When people start perceiving the laws as overly 
>>restrictive or overly arbitrary, their behavior changes in ways not intended
>>by the laws....
>
>I'm guessing that you believe that people would consider a law against
>an excessive rate of lane changes to be unreasonable.   My personal
>observation however is that the majority of people do not like to see
>other drivers weaving through traffic at a high rate and they feel
>unsafe, and get nervous, when this happens.
>
>The majority of people DO want to be able to safely go at a high speed
>when they can stay in one lane.  Thus I continue to believe that speed
>limits when not based on traffic engineering should be greatly relaxed,
>and replaced by laws against a high rate of lane changes.
>
>What's interesting is that you have been arguing against laws limiting
>the rate of lane changes without ever mentioning a specific number to
>which you object.  This indicates to me that you are opposed not just to
>unreasonable laws (setting the rate too low) but against any law at all.

Yes, that is correct.  The most important point is that laws need to solve
problems, not create them.  The X lane changes in Y time idea really only can
work for proportionally large X/Y, which is already covered by laws (reckless
driving).  It is counterproductive at lower levels, where a law would possibly 
be needed if it could be shown to help (which it hasn't).

>This is consistent with my previous observation that you want everything
>to be left to the subjective judgement of law enforcement officers.  In
>other words, you don't want "a country of laws, not men", you want a
>police state where the cop is judge and jury.

Well, that is the exact opposite of what I want.  I say laws, policies and
regulations need to be fair and just.  Privacy and rights need to be 
explicitly protected, and it needs to be acknowledged that everyone makes
mistakes, and justice requires a less deterministic set of rules.  This
"you crossed this line, you should be punished" crap doesn't belong in the
system for individuals - intent should be necessary for a criminal conviction.
 This "we are the law, we'll do whatever we can to catch 'bad guys'", where 
'bad guys' are ordinary citizens is crap too.

-------------------------------  Begin inclusion  --------------------------

Officer's fake drug checkpoint causes a stir with ACLU

  Plan was to follow cars that veered away



  By Jeff McDonald 
  STAFF WRITER 

  November 21, 1998 


  What may have seemed like a good idea at the time instead turned into a 
pesky fight with the
  American Civil Liberties Union and an embarrassing episode for the San 
Diego Police
  Department.

  According to the ACLU and the City Attorney's Office, a San Diego narcotics 
officer last
  year staged a fake narcotics stop and planned to follow drivers who avoided 
the checkpoint
  and search their cars for illegal drugs.

  "It was kind of an end-run around the Fourth Amendment," ACLU attorney Joni 
Halpern said
  yesterday. "Everyone had to drive through, or if they turned out they would 
be followed."

  Here's how the plan was supposed to work:

  A decoy patrol car was parked in Mission Gorge, just ahead of signs reading 
"Narcotics
  Checkpoint Ahead." Hidden police units followed anyone who turned to avoid 
passing
  through the checkpoint.

  Officers would then watch for a traffic violation, pull the car over and 
question the driver
  about consent to search the car. If no consent was given, the officers 
sought probable cause
  for a search.

  Short of that, they would bring in a drug-sniffing dog to circle the car.

  Courts have long held that drunken-driving checkpoints are legal, but that 
searching
  intermittent motorists for drugs is out of bounds, the ACLU said.

  "It's grossly unconstitutional," Halpern said. "Narcotic checkpoints are 
unconstitutional.
  They're broad, warrantless dragnets that affect all members of the public."

  The unidentified narcotics officer who conducted the sting later wrote up 
his plan in a policy
  recommendation to department supervisors, who rejected the idea as somewhat 
murky.

  A driver who witnessed the initial "narcotics checkpoint" contacted the 
ACLU, which soon
  requested documentation of the program from San Diego police administrators.

  Police officials refused the Public Records Act request for details about 
the checkpoint, and
  the ACLU earlier this year filed a lawsuit to force the department to turn 
over the
  information.

  The litigation was settled this week, with the Police Department turning 
over the requested
  paperwork and picking up legal bills.

  "Basically, they were lying to the public (by posting fake checkpoint 
signs)," Halpern said.
  "Even though they knew it wasn't real, how was the public to know?

  "It went beyond the boundaries of the Constitution."

  Deputy City Attorney James Chapin said the city fought the request for 
information based on
  the belief that the Police Department should not be forced to turn over 
details of its
  crime-fighting tactics.

  "The decision was made that there were potentially tactical measures that 
the Police
  Department is not required to release," said Chapin, who signed off on the 
settlement
  Wednesday.

  Chapin noted that there was never any department policy to follow drivers 
who avoid
  checkpoints and to find reasons to search their cars.

  "No stops were made unless there was reasonable cause to make the stop," he 
said. "There
  had to be a traffic violation."

  Still, when the officer approached his supervisors about considering such 
checkpoints as an
  ongoing policy, officials balked.

  "I agreed and the department agreed it was not something the department 
wanted to pursue
  as department policy," Chapin said. "They didn't feel comfortable with it."

  It is unclear if any arrests resulted from the sole checkpoint. The ACLU 
said results were
  not included in the information provided to them, and city officials 
contacted yesterday said
  they did not know.

  Halpern said the ACLU would consider further legal action if the Police 
Department
  persisted in such tactics. But police spokesman Dave Cohen said any new
  drug-enforcement tactics would be scrutinized.

  "We did this kind of a checkpoint once, and it has not been done since," 
Cohen said. "I don't
  know that it would never be done again, but if it were . . . we would make 
sure that all legal
  issues were addressed beforehand."



  Copyright 1998 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. 

--------------------------------  End Inclusion  ----------------------------

I generally agree with the ACLU, and would join them if they didn't support
Nazi's.

>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@spams.r.us.com>
>a2i communications, a quality ISP
>    "Any idiot can avoid automobile accidents that are his own fault.  It
>     takes skill to avoid accidents that are the *other* person's fault."

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.