NOw they want to violate your rights on private property.

[Cobrabill]

DUI deputies may be posted in drive-thrus
Operation WULF (Would U Like Fries) to sniff out impaired
Drunken drivers with the late-night munchies soon could get more than just a burger and fries at the drive-through window.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department's new anti-drunken driving campaign - called Operation Would U Like Fries, or Operation WULF - hopes to put undercover deputies inside 24-hour fast-food restaurants to spot impaired drivers placing their orders, said Sgt. Doug Hanna, DUI unit supervisor.



http://www.azstarnet.com/

[VRM]

Since when does anybody have the right to drive drunk?

[Cobrabill]

They don't.But they do have a right to the 4th amendment provides for.

[VRM]

You can be pulled over without proof of being drunk.
They would still have to give them a sobriety test.

[VRM]

Bill,
You almost posted your edit after my response. Just as a warning - the mods frown on that sort of thing.

You originally asked where is the proof, and that is the reason for my response above.
Steve

[fsstnotch]

this is one I have no problem with.....

If it keeps some idiot drunk driver from killing someone... all the better!

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

They don't.But they do have a right to the 4th amendment provides for.

True, but the 4th states 'unreasonable searches and seizures'. I think most courts would find it reasonable to pull someone over for bad driving or slurred speech at a drive-through.

Steve

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by VRM

You can be pulled over without proof of being drunk.
They would still have to give them a sobriety test.

WITH probable cause.On PUBLIC property.

Originally Posted by VRM

Bill,
You almost posted your edit after my response. Just as a warning - the mods frown on that sort of thing.
You originally asked where is the proof, and that is the reason for my response above.
Steve

I'll edit what i want,when i want and where i want-got it?
You still have given no proof

Originally Posted by fsstnotch

this is one I have no problem with.....

If it keeps some idiot drunk driver from killing someone... all the better!

Then you are a communist.

Originally Posted by VRM

True, but the 4th states 'unreasonable searches and seizures'. I think most courts would find it reasonable to pull someone over for bad driving or slurred speech at a drive-through.
Steve

Really?ANd sitting in a drive thru just how can you tell the difference between someone who has been drinking,someone on the verge of a diabetic "incident".Or someone who has been on a train for 18 hours straight and has been up 28 hours?

Who ever is this "Good" step forward.

And no the courts would not approve.There is NO probable cause to make the stop.Absolutely no evidence of alcohol consumption while at the drive thru.

ANd one more thing:If you were a business owner,would you want to be known in the community as helping the cops in a sting operation?

[SPF2245]

1) Most states allow for DUI arrests on PUBLIC property as long as this term applies, "public access". Meaning, if the general public has access to the property, it's fair play.
2) Reasonable suspicion allows an officer to make an investigative traffic stop to further probable cause, it's not always as clean if abused, but it works. Example, wandering in a travel lane without actually leaving the traffic lane (a violation) coupled with varied speed is enough to articualate a stop based off "reasonable suspicion", again, not all states/juristictions. And another LE observations of a driver (in a drive-thru for example) is another case supporting a stop. Most states stop abuse of this by stating the stop must be concluded when the grounds for the stop have been justified to stop "fishing expeditions. Example, a stop for a seat belt in some states does not allow for any other investigation unless something new pops up during the contact.
3) Is it really such a bad thing to get drunks off the road? What would you rather we do, wait for a traffic accident? No thanks, every chance LE gets to remove a drunk from the road, the better for everyone.

[blykins]

I think the only people that would have trouble with this are alcoholics and drunk drivers.

If an officer inside a restaurant spots someone who's smoked out or drunk and keeps them from killing somebody else on the road, I'm all for it.

I guess I'm a Communist too......

I love the use of (or misuse maybe) of logic on this site...

[blykins]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

I'll edit what i want,when i want and where i want-got it?

And BTW....I could care less when you edit your posts. However, there are moderators notes about going back and editing your post after someone has commented on it. Just giving you a heads up.

VRM was just being nice and was giving you a heads up as well.

Such a large chip on your shoulder.

[Ron61]

I agree that it is a good thing to get the drunks off the road and I wouldn't feel my rights were violated if I drank and then was stopped at a public drive through. They have the DUI stations they set up here every so often and the place they will be and the time is published for a week in advance. And every time they get from 3 to 10 who are to dumb to drive around that block and of course they want to claim their rights were violated. Thank goodness these irrational courts out here upheld that their rights weren't violated as they had a weeks notice that there was going to be a DUI check point there and they were on a public street or road.

Years ago when this state had normal laws, we used to hang out at the A. & W. root beer stands. Every new cop in town had to serve a month at the stand as a paper patrol and general enforcement officer. It served several good purposes. The new cop got the arrogance of I have a badge worn off, it stopped the racing through the parking area, and anyone who was drunk he held and called for a unit to come pick them up. Though back then, if they hadn't done anything but drive in drunk, instead of automatic jail it was normally a fine and take them home and have a friend drive their car.

Ron

[fsstnotch]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

WITH probable cause.On PUBLIC property.
Then you are a communist.

I'm a communist because i don't believe it to be within any constitutional boundary to kill an innocent human being because you made a poor judgement and drove drunk?

Ok... I'll be a communist, doesn't change the fact that you are still a TOOL!

Oh... and this is coming from a person who has had a DUI! I was 19 at the time. I grew up and my priorities changed. Maybe you ought to consider the same?

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

I'll edit what i want,when i want and where i want-got it?

...Then you are a communist.

I guess this is what happens when you post while drinking.

Shots taken at dissenting opinions are quite frowned upon here.

Too much negative potential energy here. Move on.