Police on Old Fairgound Rd. yesterday....

Clif, you don't even know what the heck you are talking about. Wayne explained it quite literally. The goal of these checkpoints is not just drunk drivers, it is called interdiction.

Interdiction enables LEOs to not just get drunk drivers off the road, it is also a way to combat drugs and gangs (those guys aren't just usually waiting at their house to get picked up on a warrant). It has many uses, and the officers undergo training to perform these duties.

Furthermore, no - it is not "grouping all cops in one place". It is different agencies working together, in addition to the squads already on duty.

 

Gosh, it would really infringe on this guy's rights (and Clif's) if they happen to come across him at a checkpoint.

http://www.4042.com/4042forums/showpost.php?p=636602&postcount=70

 

Yes, Fred, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm driving down the road, minding my own business and get caught up in one of these check points. You call it interdiction, I call it illegal detainment.

You, Fred, may not care about your loss of rights but I do.

 

When you can absolutely and positively assure me that the leo's at the stops are corruption free, have never broken even the smallest law, never been excused by another officer from a ticket for their position, taken a free lunch, and have never used their position as an advantage ......... I'll stop willingly at every stop and submit myself to any unconstitutional request they may have.

Until then, they don't have the required morality or character to stand in judgement of others they 'trap' in their (IMO "unconstitutional") webs.

And ask yourself, why are your political representatives free from having to stop a checkpoints? A simple loop hole law they enjoy. While the rest of us endure the infringement of a bunch of paranoid woosies pursuing a threat free environment that will never occur.

 

It's not a loss of rights, you don't own the road. By that logic, automobile insurance is unconstitutional.

N/M - Wayne already explained that to you.

Clif, are you a sovereign citizen?

ddrdan, political representatives are not free from stopping at checkpoints. They are also not free from being pulled over for any infraction and getting ticketed or even locked up if they are under the influence.

I can't attest to the morality and character of every LEO, but I know this isn't NYPD Blue and there is not much of a good 'ole boys thin blue line thing going on in these parts. You watch too much TV. But yeah, I would have to say the ones I know around here are corruption-free. Human and fallible? Yes, just like you and I. But they take an oath to do this job, and the majority I am sure take that very seriously.

Ha, free lunch. The PD I know intimately isn't even supposed to accept a cup of coffee. The shop owners see it has having law enforcement visibility, keeping criminals away - esp on an overnight shift. But people like you see it as them using their badge for freebies. That is why the policy is set.

 

Whether or not I own the road (my taxes paid for it) has nothing to do with it. The right to liberty is unalienable. That means it can't be taken away just on someone's whim.

I tell you, Fred, I am a citizen if the US where we have this thing called the constitution. You ought to read it sometime, it's full of important things that tells you exactly what the government can't do. In this particular instance, the fourth amendment applies. It says, "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."

In other words, unless I'm suspected of breaking a law, the cops have no right to detain me while I'm in a public area (which includes the highways).

And, Fred, the cops may not be "supposed" to accept a free cup of coffee, but that doesn't mean they don't. I remember it was policy for the night shift at the mini-mart I used to work at to give the cops free coffee and donuts. It was a good policy since the cops were almost always around, we hardly ever got robbed.

 

Odd that your taxes paid for the Pentagon and Fort Bragg, but your right to liberty is violated should you try to access them without proper authority or permission. Just like using the public roads have similar restrictions, one of which is the requirement to show the dirver's license, registration, and proof if insurance when asked. The fact there are checkpoints which ask for these items does not make them unconstitutional according to the ruling of the USSC. The fact that is all that is requested unless and until there is some probable cause to check farther into the situation is all that matters concerning the rights you say are violated.

I suppose you believe your rights are violated by the TSA for asking to see ID and check your baggage prior to being allowed to fly?

You may believe it applies, but again the USSC has clearly indicated it does not because there is no search or seizure, but merely a request to produce the documentation required to legally use the roads.

There is no search, there is no seizure, there is no need for a warrant to ask for the license and other documents required in order to use the roads. To use the roads you have to agree to the documentation under the law.

No, it speaks only of search and seizure not being detained, which is different.

 

Nobody is taking away your right, as has been pointed out before. You are on a public roadway. The document they are asking to see is a privileged license issued by the state. Don't want to be stopped and asked for proof of license/registration? Call JCat.

Have you ever thought that the LEO is in essence upholding your 4th Amendment right, by ensuring you are safe and secure in your car without drunks on the road? Or maybe finding evidence to bust up a meth lab next door to your house?

It is perfectly legal in this state. And like car insurance and gay marriage, the laws vary from state to state. Do you want me to call a mover for you?

And really, who cares about coffee. It is not policy around here, it is up to the individual on duty. I know people who have accepted a free cup and people who have declined. Notice I use words like "supposed" and "most" to not paint with a broad brush.

I'm curious, does it take more time to get through a checkpoint if you are an ex-con? Is that the rub?

 

LOL,, ouch..

 

People have said so, but I have pointed out that they are taking away my right to drive down the road minding my own business.

The cops taking upholding my rights by taking them away???

As I said before, how would you feel if once a month the cops came to your door and started looking around? I mean, by doing so at the house down the street they found a meth lab, so it's ok. Just a few minutes out of your life to let them look around your house, right? Your not breaking any laws, so you shouldn't have a beef with it.

As I'm not an ex-con, I wouldn't know.

 

Wow...well done sista.

 

There is your error. You have no right to drive down public roads without being subject to showing the documents required in the checkpoint. That is why it is called a privilege and not a right.

I assume you are as upset by the proposal to require drug testing in order to receive welfare benefits which would be a search without probable cause and clearly unconstitutional.

 

The bottom line is it is unconstitutional. If you do not like the constitution then amend it. Even when SOTUS was ruled the Justice's admitted it was unconstitutional. Here is a quote from the ruling.

"Where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual's privacy expectations against the Government's interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant [p*450] or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context. "

The Justice's were wrong like they are in many cases. It is scary how quickly people want to throw away freedom.

 

Why not just not stop at next check point if no cars in front of you .. and if you do have to stop due to cars in front, then refuse to roll down window and drive off as you want (fast or snail). Then when you get pulled/detained for not cooperating, you can become like many of the other US citizens who think they shouldn't be "interrupted in life" and sue the state. You'd probably win partially due to all your "stated facts" ... that would save time debating on here and proving your point that you seem to want to prove.

Aside from drunkards, gangs, drugs etc, there are other reasons stops are done. Of course it doesn't sound like you would agree should you get stopped due to kidnapping, sex trafficking search for little kids, or even as small as maybe your car is similar to one that is being searched for thru traffic stop.

Just sayin ....

 

Regardless of how it is interpreted, I don't think drunk driving was a big concern when the Constitution was written.

Same for black helicoptors.

 

So you are against showing ID to vote, right? :roll: Ya' know one in a thousand drunk drivers versus um 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

Sherry

 

Camouflage for you, my darlin'. tee hee

Sherry

 

You talk a good game Palisade but you will stop for every police roadblock you come across and not run them through.

If a criminal was on the loose running through your neighborhood and the cops knocked on your door and wanted to look through your house to make sure he was hiding there, you would let them and not demand a search warrant.

So play tough on the message boards all you like. It's just .....playing....

 

I will stop only because I don't want to go to jail, not because I believe in them.

Your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy is that it is known that criminals set up meth labs in homes so the cops go door to door and search each house on a monthly basis.

If there were an escaped criminal in the area, that would be different. That stop I wouldn't complain about. But they aren't looking for a specific person. They are stopping everyone in the hope of finding someone who just might be drunk behind the wheel.

 

As long as I can remember, the "fuzz" has conducted license, registration, proof of insurance, inspection checks. So what is the big deal? Show your papers and move on. There is nothing new there.

On another note:

Rub-a-dub-dub?

As I recall, Clif admitted that he is an ex-con.