See 4th amendment

How is it an unreasonable search or seizure to prevent somebody placing everybody else in danger? As I keep saying, the Bill of Rights is not designed to absolutely protect a "Nation of one person only." Of course it is reasonable to protect the many from one tyrannical person who insists he/she has the right to put others in danger.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Where does that go? Being safe on the road is a privilege as well?

Confiscatory laws are harmful to everyone because they empower the current short-sighted stewards of the State to incrementally erode the Constitution in the name of the "greater good" thereby justifying the next set of short-sighted stewards to do the same.

That's just a slogan. For the 4th time: if one tyrannical person insists they have the "right" to run red lights, how will you protect the community from them? It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, so how about a solution that cannot be conveniently shot down by asserting it violates the constitution?

If the State can willfully violate the Constitution in the name of the "greater good" there is no line It cannot cross. That's the danger and why our rights must be protected and fought for regardless of one's personal position on a particular issue.

This is a circular slogan. Please see above. How can government protect "the people" as opposed to "the person" who apparently has widespread constitutional rights that your argument requires to overwhelm the rights of everybody else?

I have certain problems with jailing procedures do to a lack of conviction, but aside from those I feel there is justification for temporary incarceration pending investigation, arraignment and trial.

By your own debating mechanism, confiscating the freedom and pursuit of happiness "violates" the constitution. QED.