Originally Posted by
MinnesotaFats
But here again is the problem. 1) drunk defined by who and when? Used to be .10, then .08, then .04....etc, and that's a state that doesn't apply equally to all as there are functioning alcoholics. Furthermore, like the gun control argument, a large portion of drunk drivers are repeat offenders. They will always drive illegally drunk, much as criminals will always have illegal guns. Just because someone had a dwi in their past is not an excuse for a cop to tail him and pull him over for suspicion. There must be an act to instigate the suspicion in the present time, what I'm saying is that the data used by the automatic system I described is not a present time reason to create suspicion, it's a crutch, and it's enabling LE to be overzealous in their prosecution of minor and non criminal crime- to some extent, padding their stats for the self motivating reasons previously disclosed here