Man flees DUI checkpoint; passenger dies

I watched a young man flee a DUI checkpoint on the Country Club Plaza about 1:15 a.m. today and crash into another car and a lightpole. His passenger died.
I watched rescuers pull the still-living driver from the Pontiac G6 that had been travelling an estimated 70 mph when the collisions occurred.
The car they'd bounced off of, a red Saturn, sat a couple hundred feet away with a badly crumpled driver's side. I saw at least two ambulances on the scene; officers said later the Saturn driver was taken to the hospital too.
I saw these things while observing the DUI checkpoint at 46th Terrace and J.C. Nichols Parkway, a joint operation of KC police and the Missouri Highway Patrol, with a motorcycle assist from the county sheriff's office.
I was standing across the street from the checkpoint about 1:15 a.m., listening to Sgt. Roger Hill talk to complaining passengers who'd been left standing in the 38-degree cold while their drinking drivers were being checked for sobriety.
Suddenly I heard tires squealing and turned. I saw an officer start to take off after the Pontiac, which was disappearing over the hill. Then there was the loud crunch of crumpling metal. I heard an officer say, "He's involved."
I spoke with two officers the driver had narrowly missed when he turned around after already entering the checkpoint. As we spoke, an observer from the county prosecutor's office rode up and jumped out of a fire batt chief's car.
"A prosecutor shouldn't have to see sh*t like that!" he said excitedly. "They're splattered all over."
It's 3 a.m. Saturday. Updates to come.

Star story Saturday

Saturday, March 18, 2006:
Update 10:30 a.m. - It was the passenger, not driver, who died, police said this morning.
Update 11:15 a.m. - Jackson County multi-agency DUI results
Update 5:49 p.m. - Car was a Pontiac G6; fatally injured passenger was 18 years old

Sunday, March 19, 2006
Driver's decision to flee is deadly (Star story)

Monday, March 20, 2006:
It'll be a while before we get driver BAC: Update
St. Pat's organizer: What more can we do?

Comments

[joe]

WHAT THE HELL WERE THE COPS DOING...
AGAIN..THESE IDIOT STEROID MANIAC COPS
SHOULD HAVE LET THE CAR GO...LET THEM
OUT OF THE CHECKPOINT...DON'T PURSUS
THE KIDS IN THECAR...ITS OKAY...
LET THEM OUT OF THE BULLSH_T TRAP...
WHY ENDANGER 5 OR 6 PEOPLES LIVES TO
HAUL IN ONE POTENTIAL (WE DONT EVEN KNOW
IF THEY WERE DRUNK IN THE FIRST PLACE)
DRUNK.
THE COPS SHOULD LET THEM GO...THEY SHOULD
HAVE LET BE AND NOONE WOULD HAVE DIED
THAT NIGHT. ON ST. PATS DAY THERE ARE
THOUSANDS OF DRUNKS ON THE ROADS...
AGAIN THE COPS PURSUIT KILLS INNOCENT
PEOPLE....WHY DO THE IDIOT COPS CONTINUE
TO PURSUE PEOPLE IN CARS WHEN THEY KNOW
THAT PURSUIT CAN KILL PEOPLE...STOP THE
INSANITY!

[Joshua]

To the writer of the last message:
If you read the first post, you will note that that author stated they 'heard squealing tires' THEN they observed a police officer 'start' after them. At no time does it state the officer pursued them. It is standard practice at a checkpoint for officers to be assigned to attempt to stop drivers who avoid the checkpoint, as those drivers are usually wishing to hide something.
If the deceased driver had simply either stopped at the checkpoint or not driven if they were intoxicated, this tragedy probably would not have happened. The police officers only REACT to what the people they are dealing with do. Police Officers do not MAKE those people do what they do.
I am given the impression that the author of the last post does not feel that driving intoxicated is at all serious. Driving intoxicated IS attempted murder the instant an intoxicated driver starts the car. I have had friends killed by intoxicated drivers and hope the last author never has to experience that.
To all those reading these posts, please make wise choices when you go out with your friends, what you decide mayeffect thousands of people.

[duh]

Good riddence! It's nice to hear that Darwin's theory hasn't been completed repealed.

I am disturbed to hear anyone state that cops should let a potentialy intoxicated person go. I do enjoy going out with my friends and yes occasionally I do drink....

The difference is this, I do not drive if I am drinking, not only because of the potential consequences of dealing with a DUI, but because over the years I have seen many accidents with fatalities of people that were under the influence.

I do not agree with the first two opinions, this accident would have happened regardless due to the carelessnes of the driver. It is unfortunate, because not only has the young driver affected the lives of the families who's loved ones were killed.

He has affected his own life with the consequences he must face.

[Aerosquid]

i'm guessing the cops were upset that they didn't get to tazer the guy to death.

[Speedo]

Anyone who thinks it's okay to drive 70mph on the Plaza, while drunk, probably needs to get out of the gene pool. I think it's called "Thinning the herd."

[WSU Grad]

Why do police always get the finger pointed at them? I suppose they let them go and the suspects run up over a sidewalk and kill a group of 6 people! Then it's the cops fault for not trying to apprehend them!?! How ignorant. By the way, they announced their checkpoint...der.

Some cops are a-holes but without law enforcement this place would be a living Hades. Think about it.

[Eldon Painter]

What a terrible tragedy. I saw what was left of the cars early this morning after the crash. I'm not going to blame anyone, but the laws have changed over the years on drinking and driving and the cost of a DUI. Everyone knows that a drunk driver can kill, and recieve more time in jail, and have enormous fines than a street thug that kills someone. I can't say what was going through that young mans mind when he ran from the DUI checkpoint. Maybe going to jail,all of fines, and attorney fees scared him and he didn't make the right decision. We should all pray for his family.

[ciajoe]

Once again, pursuit policies will be a hot
topic of discussion due to this.

I can honestly say I am glad it wasnt my
family driving down the road falling victim
to a drunk driver.

I certainly don't agree with the comments
of whomever the individual was getting out
of the fire captains vehicle, and I don't
blame the officer who was doing his job
pursuing the vehicle either.

[jvinkc]

I suggest the author of the first comment gets a reality check (and grammar check). Any city allows free ride-alongs with the police for their residents. He can go tell them they are "idiot steriod maniacs" to their faces if he/she wants.

[Mel]

I don't believe in check points. I think that drunk drivers should be stopped and ticketed but only if they are doing something wrong. The laws on drinking and driving have gotten so stricked that a person can't even go out to dinner and have a couple drinks without having to worry about a DUI. I drove home last night at about 10 pm and could have have picked out at least 10 cars with intoxicated drivers. But no one was seeing them weave in and out of traffic because so many policeman were tied up stopping people that were not weaving in and out. Get rid of the check points and put the policeman on more streets. And yes I had 2 beers before driving last night.

[Robert WitbolsFeugen]

Why does society only enforce intoxication limits after the drunks drive an automobile? Most people who drink too much are dangerous long before they start driving.
As one blogger noted, it is fairly easy to spot a drunk why wait till he hides behind a tinted windshield? A few officers in the crowd trained to spot a drunk and call him a cab might be a solution.

[Jimmy conway]

Stop blaming police officers for doing their jobs. This kid had issues before he even got behind the wheel. Once again the parents have failed and raised another idiot that society has to babysit (not anymore). Watch the news last night, idiots punching women in Westport during parade, jumping on her car. Wake up people and police your children. Teach them to behave out in public and the police will not have to get involved. Start the draft.

[Scott R.]

Who here is just upset that they can not drink and drive?
OK Numero uno... the guy turned and fled the checkpoint. My first guess is he was going 70 about the time the cop went to chase him. Because if you read... you will see he made it 3 blocks before crashing. Not like it was a 15 mile chase.
Numero dos. Police shouldn't have to wait in the crowd to call people cabs. Being drunk at a bar is not illegal. Being stupid enough to get behind the wheel is. It is YOUR or your friends responsibility to make sure you do not drive. Not an officer. Take care of yourselves and don't expect someone else to do it for you.
Number 3. I know I switched gears witht he numbers. If your only deterrant for not drinking and driving is possibly going to jail then you need to seek help. If you are no longer worried about your safety, your passengers safeties, and everyone else you may ram your '78 oldsmobile into on any given friday, you have lost sight of the important things in life. Like breathing.

Whether the driver was drunk, had warrants, no DL, no insurance or had dope with him, he made the decision to turn and flee. It's the driver's fault. If they would have taken responsibility for their situation, nobody would have been killed, hurt or made to suffer from looking at the aftermath. Very selfish and cruel.

I've been through two check points in my life. I was the designated sober driver for my group of friends the first time. It was quick and painless for us, not so for the guy who came before us. He was being cuffed, but he did cooperate.

Second time, along with the usual ID check and "where have you been and where are you going" routine, a police dog was used. Lucky dog found and ate a couple of fries that were on the floorboard and then he alerted on something. I thought for a second that the police planted dope in my car. The something was a tennis ball he retrieved from under the passenger seat after being given a command. The officers laughed. I didn't.

I still agree with having check points. I wish there were check points done by every bar on a daily basis. Too many times I've been the one to have a weaving car on my bumper or the plastered person who is attracted to the oncoming, shiny headlights of my car and drifts into my lane.

[Ed]

Checkpoints are a guilty until proven innocent trap that infringe on basic constitutional rights of personal privacy. Yes I think you should be guilty of doing something before the cops can stop and interrogate you. Notice the fault was the driver, but it was caused by the reaction top a nazi checkpoint. Cops should inly stop those who are doing something wrong. Simple.

[thomas]

All those that blame the police for setting up checkpoints will be the first to complain when a drunk driver kills one of their family. Thru their sobs and grief, they will complain that the police should have set up checkpoints and taken the drunks off of the street.

It is real simple: Go have a good time, drink all you want, but don't drive. Why don't people get this?

[Zithromyicin]

Driving intoxicated IS attempted murder the instant an intoxicated driver starts the car.

No it isn't. Don't thin a word's meaning by trying to apply it where it doesn't.

Sorry about the loss of your friends.

[Demetri]

I saw that wreck happen last night, what a crazy horrible night. It was my brother's 21st bday on top of everything. I saw a fight and another girl got the living CRAP beat out of her, teeth were knocked out and she had blood everywhere. THEN I see that wreck happened. I pulled over to help but the cops were already there.

I started crying for the families and I felt so helpless.
My prayers to the families of those kids who died.

[Ron]

Check points do not help alleviat the problem of drunk driving. If the police were on the street more you could spot ten times the amt of people driving drunk than you could at a check point. Granted this kid was going to run anyway so dont try and blame the police on that. He most likely was doing something illegal

[M. Wano]

My husband and I were talking last night about the inability to simply call a cab or designate a sober driver when groups of people go out.

Why is it still so hard for people to think rationally about the consequenses of driving while intoxicated? There's absolutely no excuse for not being responsible enough to find a way to get yourself and your friends home.

You think the checkpoint was the cause of the crash? Think again. That person was already in the vehicle driving to wherever he'd planned to go. That wreck could have happened anywhere. Just so happened the driver ignored all of the announcments (or might not have rememberred the location of the checkpoint in their drunken stupor), became scared, and decided to floor it again. Do you think that he'd obeyed all traffic laws and driven responsibly up untill that point? Yeah, right.

Frankly, I'm glad for checkpoints. If you'll read the DUI results, you'll see all of the good those officers did last night. Just think of all of the people who got to spend a night in jail, sobering up, off of the streets that could have killed you, or your family, or your friends. And maybe because of that experience, they'll think twice next time about being responsible when they choose to go out and get drunk.

England out of Ireland!

If England would release our people, St Patrick's day would be a day of no liquor. NO DUI, no accidents, no deaths. Blame it on the English.

[Drunk]

You all know that the system is set up so that you can have these tickets dropped down to many lesser charges if you are willing to pay up & increase your fine. This gives money for additional law enforcement. Didn't need to end this way. Driver should have just faced the music & cleaned up his mess later.

Maybe he can still get off for Failure to Yield (to a lightpole).

[Lightpole]

The law can be twisted in many ways. Even around a lightpole. The key is that you have to make it to court alive.

[E.P.]

Please, their are devistated family members that could read what some of you insensitive people are writing about their loved ones. "failure to yield a lightpole, making it to court alive. I hope an accident like this doesn't happen to you or any of your family members, but if it does, accept that their are people like yourself ready to bash you.

As a bartender in Westport who is the first to refuse service to someone who is intoxicated (and it most certainly is illegal to serve an intoxicated person - the writer below who said it is not illegal to be drunk in a bar is only partially right: that drunken person is going to leave the bar and it IS illegal to be drunk in public, not just to drive in that condition), I can say I'm glad the police are out there at the checkpoints. It's absurd to think this accident was in any way their fault - to the contrary, it is exactly what they were trying to prevent.

I drive through that intersection every day on my way to and every night on my way home from work. I missed that tragedy by about five minutes.

And I don't drink at work, so I was driving sober, in case you wondered.

I'd love for people to grow up and realize that St. Pat's, New Year's and other such holidays are not great excuses to drink themselves into violent rages and oblivious stupors in public. It would make my job easier and I wouldn't have to see people who've been beaten up and women who've had men assault them and urinate on them in the streets of Westport coming in to my place and cleaning themselves up.

As an aside, I also noticed on the news that the car that was wrapped around the light pole had dealer tags on it. There may be more to this story.

Thank a cop next time you see one. I always do.

[Harry Paratestes]

This is far to many civil rights violations! These checkpoints are no different than the Gestapo. "As long as the [Gestapo/Police] ... carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."

[Gary]

So go ahead and call me insensitive, but if it saves someone’s life, then so-be-it. There are a number of tragedies here. First, why do we have to change a day of honor to a St. into a drunken stupor? Where is it that St. Patrick ever drank green beer and got drunk? The Irish should be ashamed - I am Irish and I am ashamed we let this feast day get totally out of hand. Second, I never left anything to the imagination about my feelings and the consequences that would most certainly occure, concerning underage drinking and especially drinking and driving to my daughter and her friends while they were growing up. Now grown, they will be the first to tell you that it was a very good move on my part and kept them out of awkward situations. Parents need to be “Parents” first, let your children choose their own best friends. Most “parents” find they are in fact their children’s best friends. Third - there is ignorance and there is stupid. Ignorance can be corrected by education. Stupid is rarely changeable. So to “Stupid” who was to cowardly to leave a name. If you think you live in a Gestapo police state, I suggest you move to Iran and see what it is like. If you can read, then try a history book, look up Hitler and read about the tactics of what the Gestapo. If you can’t read, then just listen to main stream media nightly news, believe every word they say and remain stupid for the remainder of your life.

[sup]

Gary,

The "Stupid" you are referring to is actually a 12 year old boy from Colorado Springs. (see this report: Danny the Crime Scene spoofer)

He has posted over 300 comments with 160 names, so it's a safe bet that most of these "Cops are Evil" comments come from him.

[Harry Paratestes]

I am not that person... I'm your next door neighbor and I work with you. I must be stupid because I don't think like you... Look up the history of the Gestapo. It was just like the FBI until people with unscrupulous behaveor came to power.
I know without a shadow of a doubt I now more about history than you Gary... Why don't you try think for yourself or you'll be goose stepp'n down Main St. saying it's for the good of the people.

I love the police. That doesn't mean I'm okay with being searched without cause.

Hopefully the driver and passengers weren't black and the officer white. That way we won't have to hear that it was racially motivated or they were stopping them only because they were black.

Harry,

I'm glad you "now" a lot about history. Too bad you don't know how to spell "know". Ha.

[Harry Paratestes]

Typos happen... I missed an ing too. If you are going to correct posts get all the mistakes on all the posts.

[Bitch]

Probably was a young black male. they always make these mistakes. it is just thier nature.

[W!]

Greg, glad to see you finally did a ride along in the "big city" instead of hitting these suburban agencies. I was working last night and heard the crash over the radio. Just to clarify something that might not be clear from the article or the original post. This guy was NOT being chased when he wrecked. There were officers that were going to try to chase him - but they hadn't even pulled out yet when the guy t-boned an innocent motorist.

The driver of the vehicle was pinned across the dead body of his passenger for quite a while.

To the person that said something about "if these officers would have been driving around looking for DUI's". Maybe Greg could verify this - but there was also what is called a "Wolfpack" last night in conjunction with the checkpoint - where there were many officers out driving around whose sole job was to look for an pull over drunk drivers. These arrests were then taken to the checkpoint and processed. So... there WAS additional officers looking for drunks all over the area (and not just Kansas City... there were many area agencies involved).

[Brad]

W!, thanks for the info. There aren't too many of these posts that have something to say besides "checkpoints/cops/red light cameras/government/slippery slope bad" or "die drunk die!".

What a dipsh*t statement that DUI checkpoints compare to the Gestapo. They came for the bad drivers and I did nothing, they came for the slobbering drunks and I did nothing...when they came for me, no one was left. You are an ass, wrap yourself around a pole.

[blockquote]

Police checkpoints,,,Ain't it great to be Free?

St. Patrick's Day was fine until all the black people started showing up. You didn't see any white people running around with guns on the news. Nobody fought or robbed, everyone just drank and had fun.

[signal]

The whole DUI scenario, which really started in the early seventies, was the beginning of the erosion of our rights in this country.
As anyone over 50 knows, it was common place to have a beer while you drove around on weekends.
Then came the groups like MADD, which started pressure on politicians and now we are to the point of having roadblocks(like was common place in Nazi Germany).--And this country is following more in the Nazi nation model every day.
If you told someone back in the sixties that by the year 2000 the police would be able to pull you out of your cae, impound your car(and possibly confiscate to sell),
throw you in jail with without trial, with no guaranteed constitutional rights ie,,right to have an attorney present during questioning,,etc,,they would have laughed in your face.
Now two beers and you are legally drunk.How did we allow this country to come to this?
It's not fair to the millions of people who have driven intoxicated for years without an accident, to be punished for the few that can not control their actions.
I would rather live in a country where the citizens did'nt fear it's own government and accept what is known in government language as "collateral damage", than to live as a subject of a George Orwellian nightmare.
Link to a DUI blog that questions the legal issues relating to our fading constitutional rights-- www.duiblog.com

"Why does society only enforce intoxication limits after the drunks drive an automobile? Most people who drink too much are dangerous long before they start driving.
As one blogger noted, it is fairly easy to spot a drunk why wait till he hides behind a tinted windshield? A few officers in the crowd trained to spot a drunk and call him a cab might be a solution".

This is another great quote. Have an officer spot a drunk and call him a cab. How about the officer spot a drunk and change his diaper or wipe his a$%! How about being responsible for your own actions. What a joke! This site is a joke. Good luck with future blogs because this is a waste.

[Art Chick]

To the writer who calls themselves "bitch", I thought we were talking about DUI, etc. here, and not the "nature of young black males". Why don't you hook up with the klan and write about something relevant with them, like... who's trailer's gettin' hauled away for nonpayment, or who bought the most lighter fluid at the store today.
Fer God's sake, grow up or leave, you BIGOT.

[Harry Paratestes]

I think it's great that so many with no logical argument to back their side use the insult route. Wrap myself around a pole? I'll die some day and so will you but it won't be because I was drinking and driving... I do n't do that. My basic argument is and always will be... "I'm not okay with being searched without cause." "Ever..."

Signal! Great site! www.duiblog.com

[duh]

FACT: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in 1990. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states. The U.S. Supreme Court decision held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint.

FICTION: Slippery Slope. In today's litigious society, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Any erosion of rights is an uphill battle, not a downward slide.

[W!]

Signal - you talk about the 1950's as the turning point. My (now deceased) grandfather was a teen in the mid 1950's. One Sunday afternoon him and his brother were slobbering drunk and got behind the wheel of a pickup truck and proceeded to hit and kill a man walking along the side of the road. They were in a rural area, and knew the right people - and ended up with little or no punishment. I didn't find out about this until my grandfather was diagnosed with cancer - and dying.

I am not only ashamed of what he did - and will always have that in the back of my mind when I think of him... but I feel that the story only goes to show how the treatment of drunk drivers in the past was incredibly inadequate. Should he have been locked up for years.... maybe.... he turned out to be a life-long alcoholic, and brought a lot of pain on many of my other family members.

We as a society have learned over the years what a toll drunk driving takes on society. People try to excuse the behavior by hiding behind "privacy rights", or "personal choices", but the simple fact is that people who drink and drive are much more likely to cause an accident. There is NO STATISTIC ANYWHERE that shows the contrary.

And to those that say "I can't even have two beers and drive". Nothing could be farther from the truth (this is one of those myths proposed by those anti-drunk-driving-law folks). The AVERAGE person needs quite a bit more than "two beers" to be legally intoxicated. Most people need 4 or 5 servings of alcohol within an hour to reach intoxication levels. The funny thing is - so many people think that "two beers" is the magic number - that about 99% of the people pulled over will respond that they have had "two beers" when asked. Watch a few episodes of Cops sometimes..... people who can't even stand up will claim that they have only had "two beers".

Anyway - the point is.... there are so many options available to people out there.... that there should be NO REASON for anyone to drive drunk. Why is it so tough to have a "designated driver"? Why is it so tough to stop drinking a few hours before you have to drive home? Why is it so tough to call a cab..... you just spent $80 on drinks... you can't spend $20 more to potentially save a life? Why can't you take one of these busses that our tax dollars are paying for?

Why is it so difficult for people to BE RESPONSIBLE? The common arguement for lowering the drinking age - or legalizing drugs is that people should be able to make their own choice. Well.... over 17,000 people died in alcohol related crashes in 2003. In 2002, over 1.5 million people were arrested for DUI in America. It is obvious that (some) people cannot be responsible and make good choices.

Was the checkpoint fatality the only alcohol related one that night? Or maybe one of 2 or 3 ? Once again our finest earning their money. They had roac blocks, chase crews, and still couldn't that right. What a waste of resources and what an incredible infringement on our rights. I can't believe so many people dismiss what they are doing with the road blocks. Make no mistake, our forefathers who gave so much for all of us to have our many freedoms are looking down in disgust at how we have let them rot away.

[signal]

And so W, I should be punished for your grandfathers actions? I should quietly stand by and watch as my GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are slowly pecked away? What about the inconvenience created to all the rest those drivers in those stops who had'nt had anything to drink?
You probably also are'nt concerned about having to give a drug test either are you?
You have allowed yourself to be so conditioned that you have become a lemming.
And now ,we have gotten to the point where we are subjected to warrantless searches.
Your phony city is a prime example of what is wrong with America today.
Kansas City has so much racial prejudice, as is witnessed in this thread, and for christs sake you can't even buy a bong in a hundred miles.
He,he,,sorry, to get derailed.
What I was trying to express,was, when they started the fierce drunk driving campaigns, in the early seventies, it went hand in hand with the beginnings of the Drug War.
And that was where they started the war against our consitutional rights.
(And remember, Bush had at least one DUI, Cheney has had at least two, and Laura Bush committed vehicular homicide)

[W!]

First, as a Police Department member, I can be asked to submit to a drug test at any time with no warning. That is a condition of my employment (as it should be of any citizen who has a job or receives any form of government assistance). As a citizen who drives my vehicle down the street - being stopped for 5 minutes once every four or five years (I've been driving for 15 years now and have been through a checkpoint 3 times) is not an inconvenience if it takes even ONE drunk off the street who could potentially injure myself or a loved one. The price of living in a "free" society is that we all have to pay for the mistakes of others. Laws are basically not much more than a way to prevent people from making the same mistakes as others (at least most of the more controversial laws are). You - as a citizen of this country have chosen to abide by the laws and rules that we ALL live under. When you chose to drive a vehicle - you are accepting the rules that go along with the PRIVLEDGE of driving. If you can't or don't want to follow those rules - then you shouldn't be driving.

The problem with much of society is that many folks want to use any individual topic as a way to spout off on all of their grievances. Look at your last post Signal. You use the DUI topic - to discuss: drug laws, warrantless searches, racial inequality, purchasing narcotics paraphernalia.... and of course Bush, and Cheney.

This is a common tactic made by people that are losing an arguement or don't have a valid point to make...... throw up 5 other issues to muddy the water.

What is the REAL reason you don't like DUI laws? Are you a habitual drunk driver? Are you a drug addict or alcoholic? A person with nothing to hide has nothing to fear. The questions you asked - about drug testing or "warrantless" searches do NOT scare me becausse I have nothing to hide. I have given up many of the rights that the average citizen has just so I may be a member of Law Enforcement. I don't do it for money or fame - I do it for the pride it gives me at the end of the night that I might have made a difference. What sort of difference have YOU made today?

[Harry Paratestes]

W! Thank you for the service.

You have a bias when it comes to a warrentless search. You go to work and take pirde in what you do... All the respect! What about those who abuse their power? You need to look no further than the local news for an illustration of this. Abuse of power is just one example of why a warrent is required for searches.

W!, you made a choice to give up certain rights, must others have not. You say if you are doing nothing wrong than you have nothing to hide. It's not your right to decide for other if this is true.