Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Is this check point "legal"?

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Is this check point "legal"?

    I put "legal" in quotation marks because there are moral, ethical, and constitutional legalities versus government kourt (sic) "legalities" where the ethics and common sense is not necessarily a defense.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...rEyI6XY#at=168

    I hope this is too invasive even for current "legal" standards.

    The enemy appear to be looking for "illegal" drugs in addition to "drunk" drivers.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-16-2013 at 08:37 AM. Reason: Edited "stasi" from title
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Angry

    "Papers please"

    Isn't this how most dictatorships start? By getting the average citizen used to check points and illegal searches.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    But I was legally drunk, what's the problem?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260
    If you consent, it is.

    Was anybody open carrying?
    Last edited by cce1302; 07-31-2013 at 08:58 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by cce1302 View Post
    If you consent, it is.

    Was anybody open carrying?
    It didn't look like the cops were giving anyone a choice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    What was the cost to the tax payers for all those LEO to detain and harass innocent citizens?

    Clearly these stop and detain check points are approved by the local city council and mayor. The citizens of that town should be bombarding the mayors office with complaints.

    These revenue generating check points are nothing more then highway robbery by local LEA.

    CCJ

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    It didn't look like the cops were giving anyone a choice.
    One can turn around if they wish and vacate the area....Jesus gives me the ability to make choices ..

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    It didn't look like the cops were giving anyone a choice.
    There's always a choice. It starts with the words, "Why am I being detained?" followed by, "I do not consent to a search" and "Am I free to go?" as well as a nice letter from my lawyer, if necessary.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by cce1302 View Post
    There's always a choice. It starts with the words, "Why am I being detained?" followed by, "I do not consent to a search" and "Am I free to go?" as well as a nice letter from my lawyer, if necessary.
    All well and good but someone that is going to be raped can protest all they want and even file a complaint later getting the lawyers involved. The fact remains the person will still be raped.

    Once you are in the web of orange cones it is hard to turn around, my experience is that they are set up as to take someone by suprise making it hard for a person to elude the trap. I have seen them on one way streets before with no outlet or side streets blocked.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    One can turn around if they wish and vacate the area....Jesus gives me the ability to make choices ..
    Good luck. If they see you do it, there will be fun for all.

  11. #11
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    One can turn around if they wish and vacate the area....Jesus gives me the ability to make choices ..
    This is where they get to play with their tazors...stop resisting...stop resisting.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    All well and good but someone that is going to be raped can protest all they want and even file a complaint later getting the lawyers involved. The fact remains the person will still be raped.

    Once you are in the web of orange cones it is hard to turn around, my experience is that they are set up as to take someone by suprise making it hard for a person to elude the trap. I have seen them on one way streets before with no outlet or side streets blocked.
    What does rape have to do with anything?

    If my lawyer gets involved, it isn't a complaint, it's a lawsuit.

    It doesn't matter what they're doing with cones. If they search without a warrant and without my consent, that's a constitutional violation.

    As I put in my first post on this thread, if the driver consents to a search, then the search is legal.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Is this stasi check point "legal"?
    Roadblock. Roadblock is the term for these things.

    When government invents a soft-sounding name for something, you automatically know its a violation of rights.

    Also, they wouldn't change the name if they didn't think people might object. The name change was an automatic confession that the cops are up to no good.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    One nice thing about living in the state of WA is that our state constitution actually recognizes a right to privacy (the constitution nowhere mentions privacy, merely says that searches and seizures must be reasonable). Due to our state constitution, law enforcement power to search and seize is MUCH more limited in WA state vs. most othe states, and that includes DUI checkpoints which are unconstitutional in my state.

    Otoh, my state has good (for law enforcement) interpretation of miranda rights. Considering that the reading of miranda rights upon custodial interrogation was invented by the SCOTUS, I prefer to work in a state that has a limited employment of miranda requirements (the federal standard) vs. a state like Hawaii which requires miranda under a "focus " standard, where even if you are talking to the person on the phone, if they are the focus, you need to mirandize them

    Anyway, for those choosing what state to live in, there are very substantial differences in privacy and search and seizure amongst the states. I recommend WA to those that want to live in a state that protects privacy, as well as has no income tax and a strong RKBA.

    Hawaii is a pretty 'liberal' state, but even HI allows dui checkpoints. WA does not

  15. #15
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by cce1302 View Post
    What does rape have to do with anything?

    If my lawyer gets involved, it isn't a complaint, it's a lawsuit.

    It doesn't matter what they're doing with cones. If they search without a warrant and without my consent, that's a constitutional violation.

    As I put in my first post on this thread, if the driver consents to a search, then the search is legal.
    You can have your lawsuits but the fact remains you will still be searched before you can get in touch with your lawyer...that is the point.

    I was using rape as an analogy...I won't get so deep next time.

    I think we both agree it is wrong and we can file complaints and law suits but the fact remain's it appears everyone was getting searched with or without consent.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    You can have your lawsuits but the fact remains you will still be searched before you can get in touch with your lawyer...that is the point.
    Maybe, maybe not. I see your point, but I disagree with what you claim are facts. The fact is that you don't know whether they will search me without my consent.
    I was using rape as an analogy...I won't get so deep next time.
    Thanks. Hyperbole detracts from your argument.
    I think we both agree it is wrong and we can file complaints and law suits but the fact remain's it appears everyone was getting searched with or without consent.
    Is it a fact, or does it appear to be that way?

    Words mean things, Doc.

    Did you even watch the video? it doesn't even give us enough information to say whether anybody consented to the search or not.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by cce1302 View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. I see your point, but I disagree with what you claim are facts. The fact is that you don't know whether they will search me without my consent. Thanks. Hyperbole detracts from your argument.

    Is it a fact, or does it appear to be that way?

    Words mean things, Doc.

    Did you even watch the video? it doesn't even give us enough information to say whether anybody consented to the search or not.
    Yes I watched it and from what I have seen is that EVERY vehicle was being directed into the parking lot. The signs and orange cones where many and the officers with their flash lights diverted everyone that traveled that road in that direction. It didn't appear that anyone got to go without a search or delay of some sort.

    I agree don't give consent; but do you really believe they won't come up with an excuse for your "Contempt of Cop" attitude?

    I also agree we can file a lawsuit or complain afterwords.

    I also have the option your chances of getting told to get out of the car increase when you stand up for your rights, depending on state and county of course.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Yes I watched it and from what I have seen is that EVERY vehicle was being directed into the parking lot. The signs and orange cones where many and the officers with their flash lights diverted everyone that traveled that road in that direction. It didn't appear that anyone got to go without a search or delay of some sort.
    It appeared that everyone consented to the search. That's what made the search legal.
    I agree don't give consent; but do you really believe they won't come up with an excuse for your "Contempt of Cop" attitude?
    What are you talking about? How can a police officer come up with an excuse for my actions? Are you trying to say that he'll claim that I was in "contempt of cop" and use that an excuse for his actions? In my experience that has not been the case. In many other cases, the cops who try that are rebutted by the recording.
    I also agree we can file a lawsuit or complain afterwords.
    I don't. I thought I made that clear when I said that if my lawyer sends a letter, it will be a lawsuit, not a complaint.
    I also have the option your chances of getting told to get out of the car increase when you stand up for your rights, depending on state and county of course.
    Your last sentence doesn't make sense...You have an option my chances of getting told?
    Are you trying to talk me into not standing up for the rights of the US citizen?

  19. #19
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by cce1302 View Post
    It appeared that everyone consented to the search. That's what made the search legal. What are you talking about? How can a police officer come up with an excuse for my actions? Are you trying to say that he'll claim that I was in "contempt of cop" and use that an excuse for his actions? In my experience that has not been the case. In many other cases, the cops who try that are rebutted by the recording. I don't. I thought I made that clear when I said that if my lawyer sends a letter, it will be a lawsuit, not a complaint.

    Your last sentence doesn't make sense...You have an option my chances of getting told?
    Are you trying to talk me into not standing up for the rights of the US citizen?
    Nope, I'm done talking to you. You just don't get it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I put "legal" in quotation marks because there are moral, ethical, and constitutional legalities versus government kourt (sic) "legalities" where the ethics and common sense is not necessarily a defense.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...rEyI6XY#at=168

    I hope this is too invasive even for current "legal" standards.

    The enemy appear to be looking for "illegal" drugs in addition to "drunk" drivers.
    It's ok because they weren't wearing their SS armbands.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Will you people please stop insulting the Stasi and SS by comparing them to Amerikan police.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-04-2013 at 11:48 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    73

    Avoidance is not illegal...

    There is no statute anywhere in the land that OBLIGATES one to go through a checkpoint/roadblock...!

  23. #23
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by idea(l)s View Post
    There is no statute anywhere in the land that OBLIGATES one to go through a checkpoint/roadblock...!
    Yup. But in Jefferson County, Missouri, if you approach a checkpoint and turn around, you will be the attention of a bunch of boys in blue. Nope, no cite, or proof. But I've seen it happen.
    Last edited by Griz; 08-09-2013 at 09:27 AM. Reason: accuracy

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Too true. I had a MSHP trooper tell me the same thing on a state road down near Steeleville when I asked what he would have done. I told him that making a 'U' turn is not unlawful on this road. A thousand yard stare appeared.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Griz View Post
    Yup. But in Jefferson County, Missouri, if you approach a checkpoint and turn around, you will be the attention of a bunch of boys in blue. Nope, no cite, or proof. But I've seen it happen.
    Many times, ofc's will set up checkpoints in areas where U turns are illegal, for obvious reasons, but of course in areas where they are not, a U turn is ok.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •