Washington Votes

2008 House Bill 2771 (creating an administrative sobriety check point)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Patricia Lantz, (D-Gig Harbor) on January 16, 2008, to allow for the use of check points to check for drivers under the influence of alcohol. This act creates guidelines and provisions for the administration of check points, including obtaining warrants to conduct the check points and publication of check points.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on January 16, 2008.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Patricia Lantz, (D-Gig Harbor) on January 16, 2008. New Comment

1) Lawyers and attorneys - [by Anonymous Citizen on May 17, 2008]
. . . . . . . . . .
Reply New Comment

Line

2) What can God never see? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2008]
Hi!
Without taking into account the issue of establishing a stone by God, which he won't be able to pick up, how do you think, may be something in this world, what can God never see?
Reply New Comment

Line

3) WA Supreme Court [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
I hope the Washington Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision holding suspicionless searches unconstitutional in the context of random highschool drug testing will signal the death of this bill.

If it does not, whoever continues to support it will have some 'splaining to do.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) No More Rights For The People [by Anonymous Citizen on February 1, 2008]
If everyone that reads this would please listen to the interview with Aaron Russo (Google it), you will understand what is happening here and it's not good. Along with the now available rfid tag (vchip)for your drivers license in place of a passport for the Canadian border, I believe it will soon be mandatory in all drivers licenses. Please listen AAron Russo's interview.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) warrants? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2008]
If this passes, it should force the police to do the same for speed traps. They should have to get a warrant for an area that has a high rate of speeders, then post public notice that they will be doing a speed trap there.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Hmmm [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
I have one thing to say.. "Checkpoint Charlie, Papers please! I said let me see your papers, Now!"
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Unconstitutional Privacy Violation [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
Hey, you better read the WA State Constitution Queen GregWhore. This is an infringement on our already trampled rights you moron liberal pondscum. Driving maybe a priveledge, but Constitutional Rights are not. My Constitutional Rights, trump your priveledge anyday of the year. Get that through your liberal head. Where did you go to law school? Shall we also search every house in a bad neighborhood, cause they sell drugs in some houses? The WA Supreme court already ruled DUI checkpoints as Unconstitutional. These legislative clowns who keep trying to pass any Unconstitutional Bill should be thrown out of office!
Reply New Comment

Line

8) I Support It. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
Question? Have you ever been affected by a drunk driver? I lost friends and family members that were killed by DUI drivers! If your driving on the road legally then there will be no problems encountered! It's the DUI drivers that will be getting a courtesy transport to the police station! No one dies though! It's a no brainer! Driving is a priveledge not a right!
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Hit by a drunk driver [by Don't waste my money on February 4, 2008]
When I was 8 years old (many more years ago than I like to remember), I was hit by a drunk driver. We sued and lost because I was riding my bicycle on the sidewalk (figure that one out). With this in my past, one would think that I would favor this bill, but one would be wrong. The rights afforded us by God and affirmed to us by our constitution are far more important to me than my personal well-being. Some people believe that their personal well-being triumphs all other rights, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Life isn’t always fair and no one can guarantee that it will be (if you believe that it is or should be, good luck with that fantasy.)
If this state took a stronger stand against drunks or drug users (drivers or otherwise), then the incidences of DUI's would dramatically decrease. When a citizen, non-citizen or even a Supreme Court Justice can get off a DUI charge with nothing more than a hand slap (if even that) for a DUI (or multiple) offense(s) are we not in fact, just encouraging more of the same behavior? Driving under the influence (drugs or alcohol) is a very serious offense (in my opinion on par with attempted manslaughter) and should be treated the same. Speaking of which, do we stop everyone and check to make sure they are not about to commit manslaughter or murder? No, it would be absurd and we should not do that with drivers either, unless there is evidence to support it.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) bad logic [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2008]
by your "logic" it would be fine for the police to enter your home or stop you on the street and search you. Hey, if you're not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about right? Also, by the wording of the bill, they can issue a warrant for an area of land that is high risk for offenders. What if they do that for drug dealers? How would you like your neighborhood overrun by police searching everyone for drugs? It's about rights.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) trampled rights [by Anonymous Citizen on January 18, 2008]
The dems scream and holler about the Feds trampling on our rights in the Patriot
act, but it's apparently OK for the State of Washington to trample on our rights even more.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: