Texans please read and act - Urgent

[GzrGldGeo]

May 5, 2009

Dear Fellow Texan,

I'm writing today to call your attention to SB 298 which has passed the
Senate 20-11 and is scheduled for a public hearing before the House
Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence tomorrow, May 6.

PLEASE CONTACT HOUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TODAY:

Chair: Rep. Pete Gallego, District: 74, (512) 463-0566, P.O. Box 2910,
Austin, TX 78768

Vice Chair: Rep. Wayne Christian, District: 9, (512) 463-0556, P.O. Box
2910, Austin, TX 78768

Rep. Allen Fletcher, District: 130, (512) 463-0661, P.O. Box 2910, Austin,
TX 78768

Rep. Terri Hodge, District: 100, (512) 463-0586, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX
78768

Rep. Carol Kent, District: 102, (512) 463-0454, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX
78768

Rep. Robert Miklos, District: 101, (512) 463-0464, P.O. Box 2910, Austin,
TX 78768

Rep. Joseph E. Moody, District: 78, (512) 463-0728, P.O. Box 2910, Austin,
TX 78768

Rep. Paula Pierson, District: 93, (512) 463-0562, P.O. Box 2910, Austin,
TX 78768

Rep. Debbie Riddle, District: 150, (512) 463-0572, P.O. Box 2910, Austin,
TX 78768

Rep. Allen Vaught, District: 107 (co-author of House companion bill HB
169), (512) 463-0244, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768

Rep. Hubert Vo, District: 149, (512) 463-0568, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX
78768

I urge opposition to SB 298 as a violation of the 4th amendment right to
unreasonable searches and seizures. SB 298 enables law enforcement
agencies in Texas to set up and operate sobriety checkpoints for the
purpose of identifying drunk drivers. There are more effective and less
invasive means of combating alcohol-related driving accidents.

Perhaps in an attempt to admit that this bill is bad policy, it has been
amended to apply only to large population centers, (counties with a
population in excess of 250,000). Further, it requires that vehicle
selection be "non-arbitrary" and that operator intrusion be minimal (a
rationalization, perhaps, that a "little" violation of individual liberty
is o.k.). Recall Franklin's admonition, "They who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor
safety."

Here is a synopsis of the bill from John Bush and the folks at TAG:

Sobriety checkpoints violate our unalienable right against unreasonable
seizures

The United States Supreme Court decision (Michigan Dept. of State Police
v. Stitz) states that while checkpoint stops constitute a 4th Amendment
"seizure," the seizure is not unreasonable because the "subjective
intrusion" to motorists is minor in light of the alleged effectiveness
of checkpoints in reducing drunk driving.1 We reject this lackadaisical
interpretation of the constitution and hold that an individual's right
to be left alone shall not be violated as a means of attempting to
reduce drunk driving.

Sobriety checkpoints have been conducted in other states in conjunction
with active duty military

On December 12, 2008 the California Highway Patrol, in conjunction with
the San Bernardino Sheriffs Dept and USMC military police, conducted a
sobriety checkpoint.2 This act was in direct violation of the 1878 Posse
Comitatus Act which bars military from engaging in civilian police
activity. By authorizing sobriety checkpoints in the state of Texas we
are opening the door for non-state agencies such as the Department of
Defense and/or the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to include
themselves in the execution of our State checkpoints.

There are more effective ways to combat alcohol related fatalities

According to a NHTSA study, there were 411 fewer alcohol related deaths
in 2004 than in 2003. It is worth noting that of the 411 fewer deaths,
394 of them were in the 11 states that did not operate checkpoints.3
These states are better able to utilize their resources and law
enforcement personnel in conducting more effective measures such as
saturation patrols. A 2003 FBI Law Enforcement memo comparing sobriety
checkpoints and saturation patrols stated that "Overall, measured in
arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective
method of apprehending offenders."4

1 Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

2 "CHP TO CONDUCT SOBRIETY/DRIVER LICENSE CHECKPOINT." Memo to
California Highway Patrol, CHP News, California. December, 10 2008

[2]http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/images/chp01.png

3 "Alcohol-Related Fatalities in 2004." Traffic Safety Facts: Crash
Stats, National Highway and Traffic Administration. August, 2005.

[3]http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809904.PDF

4 Greene, Jeffrey W. "Battling DUI: A Comparative Analysis of
Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
January 2003 Volume 72 Number 1

[4]http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/jan2003/jan03leb.htm

[FATboy05]

This is a huge load of crap!!

[Fubar]

Oh for the love of God...is it so bad to be stopped for 5 minutes for a quick check??....if it pulls one drunk asshole off the road that night, and saves a little girls life, maybe your little girl...isn't your 5 minutes worth it?? Give me a fuckin break....this is a load of crap.

I have a young girl getting to that age of cruising Friday nights with friends....and as far as I'm concerned, the more checks the better....fuck drunk drivers, and fuck people who think 5 minutes of their precious time is worth more then someones life taken at the hands of a drunk....

[GzrGldGeo]

I don't drive drunk. I have the right in this country not to be search unless there is reasonable cause. You give em an inch and they will take a mile. If we do this why don't we just piss on the rest of the constitution too. Why don't we just make all the guns illegal. I am sure someone's little girl has been shot with one. The answer is because it is our right to have a gun. Just like it is my right to drive down the road and unless I do something wrong should not be pulled over for shit.

My $.02

The Patriot Act took enough of my rights already. Like I say give em an inch and they will take a mile.

It is wrong.

[Fubar]

Just an FYI they don't search your vehicle, unless they have probably cause to search your vehicle...99% of DUI checks are how ya doing, don't smell booze or dope and ya move on, they know they are going to have thousands of vehicles go though..it just isn't worth there while to spend anymore time with one vehicle then they need too...
...I have been pulled over in them many many times in the last 12 years....this isn't about guns, or the patriot act or anything else...it is about getting drunks off the road before they kill someone period...and these programs work.

Now if this was just a random "they can pull any car over at any time" type of deal...that is something I would object too....but this is not like that....it's set up, put on the public radio, and every single person driving that road, will go though it....believe me if your not drinking you have nothing to worry about, but the guy behind you whose loaded will be off the road, and not running into your rear fender, crashing you through your windshield... at the next set off lights