Not at all. As far as constitutional right we already gave those up with the Patriot Act. Random sobriety checkpoints have been a great succes in Europe (even with zero-tolerance laws). In my opinion the State should allow to do this rather yesterday then today.

i think the peoples right to get home alive out weighs the inconvenience of a check point. myself i dont feel my rights would be violated anymore than having to produce my id when i use my credit card.

Finally something that Erv and I agree about. I would have wanted to add the following to my post originally.

How many people had their constitutional rights violated when they were hit by a drunk driver last year ? The deathrate was 266 .. but how high were the injury numbers ? Those random checkpoints are a must.

we cant smoke in a bar now so whats next, what we do in our car? our house? when does it end

Yes this would violate our constitutional rights, by gosh we allow the illegals in this country to do as they please and yet we treat our citizens like the GESTAPO and KGB, let's get a grip and go back to the good old USA

This has been proven totally ineffective. Drunks just drive around the checkpoints, people who see them call their drunken friends on their cell phone and tell them to go around. The more effective approach is to lessen the amount of time for cumulative offenses neccessary to get jail time. Four DUI's in ten years!? Come on!! How about after two in any amount of time, or even one?? This has been proven effective in other countries. Hassling everyone hoping to catch one idiot just makes people angry at the police, when in fact they are only doing as ordered. Gregoire is just trying to cover up the fact that she is a do-nothing knee-jerk pinhead. What has she accomplished? Anyone?

Maybe Todd and Linda would feel differently if they lost a loved one to a drunk driver. It's no inconvenience for me if it saves just one life.. but then I'm not hung up on "my rights". Go for it...I'm agreeable.

Did any of these people who think this is against their constitutional rights suddenly become complete idiots and forget that it has nothing to do with their rights or the constitution??? People, driving in this country and drinking in this country is not even a right... it is a privilege. It is definitely not right to be drinking and driving, period. I do not care what you do when you are at home, but once you get out into OUR public drunk and behind a wheel, you are putting everyones rights to be in public at risk.

So, if this is one extra thing that our government can do to help reduce the amount of drunk drivers on the streets, the better than having everyone complain on how much of an inconvenience it is to drive home now and get nothing done.

By the way Linda, nothing against you, but I am not sure where your statistic came from on this method being "totally ineffective", because it is completely naive for anyone to think this. Not only do the statistics say otherwise, but I personally have lived in many places where some city streets were so bad with drunk drivers and alcoholic related incidents, that they were not even safe enough to walk or ride a bike to work on. After just a couple of completely legal check points that are well communicated to the public in advance, not only cleaned up the issues on that street, but the neighborhoods around it too. It even cleaned up some of the crime on these streets.

All I have to say to this whole thing is "Go for it Chris G!" and to many of you Washingtonians who think this is against their constitutional rights, stop crying about it, read a book or the constitution and definitely stop driving after drinking alcohol.

Speaking of naive "Brandon"....

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

seems to me it does violate the constitution "brandon."

And perhaps you should "read a book or the constitution"

This is pretty much ineffective. Police will have to announce where the checkpoints will be (for now)and people going out drinking will make sure they avoid the checkpoints. Meanwhile people who have not committed any crimes and have the constitutional right to move freely without being subject to interrogation, will now be subject to interrogation, search & seizure if the police have probable cause to search you and your vehicle(and believe me, they always have probable cause if they want to). Lately, this state has been increasingly infringing upon our rights as AMERICAN CITIZENS. You people who are just fine with it need to wake up and smell the coffee before we all end up living in a police state. If the government of Washington had their way, I believe it would be. Think about some of the laws that have come into effect since Christine Gargoyle came into office. Most of which are unconstitutional. If this trend continues, I hate to think about what this state would be like in 10 years. By the way when they claim how many deaths there are each year due to alcohol, they are considering them alcohol related. That means there was "someone" drinking alcohol that was involved in the accident. It does not mean someone was intoxicated, or the person that actually caused the accident had even been drinking. If it was the other driver that maybe had one beer, it counts in the statistics. MADD will use as much ammunition as they can to try and get tougher laws passed. Everyone who drinks alcohol, should do so responsibly. Those who don't should suffer the consequences when they get caught. It is really a shame when someone loses a loved one due to some a-hole who decided to get really drunk and drive, absolutely. As long as there is alcohol and vehicles, there will be people drinking and driving. That is the plain truth of it. Checkpoints, if you really think about it, I mean really think about it, will do very little to stop the problem.

PS
The person who said we already gave up our constitutional rights with the Patriot Act and stated it so nonchalantly really scares me. He/she is a friggin' idiot.

Charles

The situation with drunk drivers is an extraordinary situation which calls for extraordinary efforts by our government. I certainly do support and endorse the sobriety checkpoints plan as I'm for anything that gets the drunk rednecks and illegal aliens off of the road. I don't think the plan goes far enough. All cities in Washington should be required to have them.

My dearest James... you are an idiot. I cannot stand when someone pulls any of the amendment cards like the 4th Amendment. All this is to people who pull these cards is an excuse for not changing their ways or minds to think smart and progressively towards modern issue like drinking and driving.

Comments like these always remind me of the last time I did jury duty and a hillbilly would not give up his knife for a few hours to do his duty as a citizen because of what he stated "It’s against the 2nd amendment for them to ask him for his knife."

Yes, I agree that this is a grey line pressing towards a small amount of the 4th amendment, but really… this issue does not even involve it. This would be an issue if they tried arrest you when you were parked in front of your house or bar and drinking in the car. Also remember, it is against the law to be publicly drunk, which when you get in your car and drive down a street, this is pretty public. This amendment was mostly created for invasion of privacy in the home, because cars were not really even around when it was created, so that is not a valid excuse.

Also, when there is a checkpoint, the police DO have a warrant (by a judge who feels compassionate about cleaning up that area) to be in that location and arrest any violators of drinking and driving if the person is dumb enough to go through it. Just like if they are dumb enough to get pulled over while being drunk driving down the street and putting the rest of us in danger. That is harmful to citizens who DO have a right to walk or drive down the street safely without having the risk of our lives being taken because some moron does not know where his drinking limit is.

Have you ever even gone through a sobriety checkpoint James? They do not invade your car. They do not even ask you to get out until they suspect anything. They voluntarily ask that you answer a simple question (that takes seconds to answer) which no one who is driving should have any problem answering unless they are violating a crime, like drinking and driving. That question is "Have you had anything to drink tonight?"

You forget again, it is a privilege to drive, NOT a right. When you are out in public, even if you are in your personal car, the police have a right to pull you over if they suspect anything that may be wrong with how your driving may impact the safety of others.

Also yes, there will be some people who will still be drunk & will avoid a checkpoint, but there are a huge amount of folks that will drive into it after drinking and not have a chance to pull out of it by turning. This will be because either they forgot the checkpoint is there and it will be too late to pull out, or they just do not pay attention to any of the road signs or news about these checkpoints taking place, maybe because they are drunk.

I never said previously that this was the only way to solve this issue. I think this is NOT the only solution, which is how most people are taking this whole thing. It is however a part of a huge solution to get these people to not drive after drinking and come up with another way to get around when drunk, like hey... call a Taxi to get home. Get smart.

I am old enough to remember when drinking and driving was no big deal, everyone did it. More than once, my Dad(loser) had to crawl into the house because he couldn't stand/walk, after driving home from his favorite bar. It's a miracle he was never in a serious accident. Thank God times have changed.
I have been through sobriety checkpoints in 2 other states, CA and OR. If you are sober, it will only take a few minutes, depending on how busy the road/checkpoint is at that time. If they catch other law breakers, WAY TO GO! My husband and I decided a long time ago to have a designated driver, and it really works. There is a sign outside of Beaverton, OR that says 'Drive to Arrive Alive'. Enough said.
Todd, Linda, James & Charles,
Do you realize that you are arguing in favor of people breaking the law? How would you feel if all the drunks drove down your street? You know, out front, where your kids are playing, or where you are crossing to get your mail, or where your parents are taking their daily walk, or where you are walking your dog? Doesn't sound like such a great idea anymore does it? Sure hope you don't live in my neighborhood.
I say more power to the Governor and all the cops who are trying to keep all of us and our roads safe. If drunk drivers want to kill themselves, they can stay home and do it there. If you have enough money to drink, you have enough for a cab. If you can't afford a cab, drink at home or get a DESIGNATED DRIVER.

Pulling the "amendment card" is no more of an excuse for those who do not want to change their ways or ways of thinking than using the argument of "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with being searched" is a validation of law enforcement infringing on the rights of others.

Look, no one here is arguing that people who drive drunk should be allowed to do so. The problem with sobriety checkpoints is that they rarely catch the drunk who is going to plow into someone. What it does is give the police the power to stop and search you and your vehicle at THIER convenience.

Sobriety checkpoints are a Band-Aid to the problem of drunk driving. The Legislators and law enforcement can't seem to get laws passed with a suitable punishment without violating basic rights that have been given to us, so they go this route and hope to get lucky. All the while they delay and hassle those who have not been drinking and who aren't doing anything that is against the law.

What we need is to get laws passed that have a real chance of keeping drunk drivers off of the road. The argument that you will hear from law makers is that they can't keep a drunk driver, who hasn't injured someone, in jail because they "could have killed someone". They can only go after longer sentences when they DO kill/injure someone.

And to those who say that checkpoints only take a couple of minutes: consider yourself lucky. YOu forget that one of the main reasons that they want checkpoints is to increase the fear that you may be caught. Another thing that the police like to do at checkpoints is claim "reasonable suspicion" and pull you over and search your car. Others in line who see someone being patted down and their car searched is also a good way of striking fear into people. I have witnessed people being invasively searched and it has happened to me. Each time, I/they were let go because there was nothing there. But it sure let the officers have some fun trashing everything in the car.

The police are there to write tickets and to arrest people. "To serve and protect" is just one of those catchy mission statements that make people feel good.

Brandon - Nobody said driving was a right... I believe everyone is referring to their constitutional right of not being randomly searched. Driving is a privlege, but privacy is a right.

I think this legislation is against your 1st and 4th ammendment rights as a law abiding citizen. We should never allow the government to intrude on your privacy of your home, car or self, without cause. Why should a judge make an order to grant law enforcement a checkpoint for drunk drivers? Judges are neutral on these positions and any position that the state wants to intrude on peoples privacy without cause and your state constitution supports it. I agree that if police have proable cause to pull someone over then they should, but not check points. Some of you should check our state constitution we as people have more rights then the federal constitution provides. The governor is wrong on infringing on peoples rights and taking them away. She needs to focus on how to make the roads safer and better for Americans, not taking people's rights away. The govenor should take into account of how to make the law stricter for drunk driver. We no now who to vote out in the upcoming election.

Kudos to Brando - you said it much better than I could have. We are so fortunate in the US to get to do so many things and have so many privileges. We are so spoiled that we forget that we are responsible to those who live around us for the actions we do. We need to grow up and realize drinking and driving kills? If you drink, designate a driver or take a cab. You will live to tell about it and so will those around you.