In reading Carleen's post, I have to admit that at first I was skeptical. I initially was fretting over whether or not the idea is good. I can only imagine how irritating it would be for sober drivers to go through the random checks, and additionally believe that sobriety checkpoints seem somewhat overbearing in a very "Big Brother" sort of way. Scott Henson couldn't have said it better.
That said, he did. Carleen's blog links to this page. In Henson's review of the issue, he points out some key things about the bill which subsequently reduced my hesitations. Carona's bill essentially states that each security checkpoint:
- must be random
- could not be a repeat location within 12 months
- would be safe from unreasonable search/seizure (NO proof of ID or Insurance would be required unless there were probable cause) ((**I think this gets a little hairy because officers discretion is different**))
- (check on the previous bullet) each encounter must be video recorded for 'quality assurance'
- cities with populations exceeding 500,000
- counties with populations exceeding 250,000
- permanent revocation of second time drunk driving offenders
- requirement of an ankle monitor for 60 days for first time offenders
No comments:
Post a Comment