Michigan Law
By carpenter5
@carpenter5 (6782)
United States
September 27, 2007 9:40pm CST
There is a law in Michigan that is being tested but the ACLU. I wanted to know what you thought about it, whether it was fair or should it be taken off the books.
The law allows police officers to give breath tests to non-drivers under the age of 21 if they suspect they've been drinking. They are the only state that allows this without a warrant.
Do you think this is a valid way to help prevent underage drinking, or a violation of their rights?
1 person likes this
6 responses
@irishmist (3814)
• United States
28 Sep 07
I think it would be a good thing. Anyone under 21 really should not be drinking. It shouldn't matter if they are non drivers or not.
2 people like this
@carpenter5 (6782)
• United States
1 Oct 07
They can't charge them with DUI because they're not driving. But the last time I checked in my town, public drunkenness and disturbing the peace were against the law too. The ACLU seems to have forgotten about the majority of the people. They are getting way out of hand, in my lowly opinion.
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
28 Sep 07
it might work who knows ?im sure the Anti Christian Lawyers Union (ACLU) will fight it
2 people like this
@carpenter5 (6782)
• United States
1 Oct 07
The law is already on the books. But the ACLU is trying to get it OFF. I disagree with most of what the ACLU does. They only care about your rights if they are anti-Christian, Anti-God or Anti-American.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
1 Oct 07
Well it could be that the non-driver was really the driver, and he switched with the non-drinker. I suspect that is the reason and I do not trust the ACLU for bringing this up --I gather that is the reason for your post.
The police are playing it safe. If the driver was smashed to the gills, they want to make sure that the non-driver in the car who may not be as drunk, takes over the wheel. Also I heard in the States, it is illegal for under twenty-ones to drink, so if they are boozing, the driver of the car, being older would be held responsible unless he first said to the officer that he found this kid drunk and was driving him home.
1 person likes this
@carpenter5 (6782)
• United States
1 Oct 07
The law is for those that are on the sidewalk. Public intoxication is what the law is under. Evidently, it's ok to drink underage (according to the ACLU) if you don't get behind the wheel of a car. The police need their support to keep these kids safe. The ACLU evidently doesn't care about our kids as a whole, just some rich man's kid that caught doing what he wasn't supposed to be doing.
@mrbranan (1012)
• United States
6 Oct 07
As a mother if my child is off with an older kid and the older kid is drinking I would want to know if my child was drinking also. If they are doing nothing wrong there shouldn't be a problem. If a child drinks at a young age they are more likely to develop a problem later in life. I would want to know if I needed to watch my child more closly to avoid this.
1 person likes this
@carpenter5 (6782)
• United States
15 Oct 07
I agree with you completely. I have 2 teenage girls and an almost 21 year old son. He moved out recently, but found out really quickly that life is not all rosy on the outside. His new room mates were into some things that he knew we wouldn't want him involved in. So now, he is living with my brother.
@palonghorn (5479)
• United States
1 Oct 07
First off the officer obviously has probable cause or a obvious reason for stopping the vehicle in the first place. As for it being fair, you bet, underage drinking is against the law, whether they are driving or not. Will it help prevent underage drinking, if it gets the point across to only a few then it's working, it won't however put an end to it. It's like drinking and driving, if they haven't been caught, then they are playing the odds, cause sooner or later they will. Will it stop it from happening, no. Is it a violation of their rights, no, they are doing something illegal.
1 person likes this
@carpenter5 (6782)
• United States
1 Oct 07
I agree. I don't understand how come people don't think the laws apply to them if they get caught breaking them?
That's like.."Oh I don't think it's right to steal from the grocery store, unless I get caught, then I had such a good reason, and you can't take away my right to feed my family."
Yes, I heard this statement from a real live theif.
@carpenter5 (6782)
• United States
8 Oct 07
this is so true. I love to read about World's dumbest criminals that don't ever think they'll get caught.
I get frustrated as an educator at parents who when their child is in trouble, just can't ever believe that little Johnny or Susie would ever do anything like that. It must have been someone else's idea and he just caught up in what she was doing. Please. These parents who are trying to sue, need to get a grip and realize that maybe their kids weren't so innocent. If they had nothing to hide, why are they throwing up such a fuss?
@palonghorn (5479)
• United States
2 Oct 07
Oh I've heard some good ones told to me by my boyfriend, a police officer. Just keep in mind the jails are over crowded with people who 'didn't do it'
1 person likes this
@crazed_moma (1054)
• United States
28 Sep 07
Since they are doing something illegal I don't think they can really b*tch..... Still at least they aren't driving and isn't that the whole point of sobriety check points?
2 people like this
