Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Voluntary government checkpoints spark backlash.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Voluntary government checkpoints spark backlash.

    "The tactic involves a subcontractor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that uses off-duty but uniformed police at voluntary roadside checkpoints where motorists are asked on their behavior behind the wheel. In some cases, workers at the checkpoints collect blood and saliva samples, in addition to breath samples. NHTSA has said previously that the surveys do not collect any DNA. Drivers are not charged at the checkpoints.

    In an era of rampant distrust of the federal government and in the wake of the Obama administration's National Security Agency surveillance scandal in which the agency has collected telephone calling records from millions of unsuspecting Americans, the checkpoints have come under intense criticism in several cities this year."

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...iving/4265633/

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...iidp=undefined

    "The NHTSA has conducted the surveys for more than 40 years, in cities across the USA and usually at roughly 10-year intervals. In many cases, off-duty, uniformed police officers randomly wave motorists over; they are then asked by workers for subcontractor Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation if they will participate in the voluntary survey. Drivers who decline are allowed to leave.

    However, the mere presence of uniformed officers gives the checkpoints an aura of authority, says Mary Catherine Roper, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. She is studying the issue there after motorists complained about a survey checkpoint last month in Reading.
    "We have a whole bunch of rules about when police can pull you over," she says. "It looks like an exercise of official authority when a cop pulls you over. People assume it's mandatory, and of course you're going to stop. That's a constitutional problem right there."

    http://www.freep.com/article/2014010...spark-backlash

    https://news.google.com/news?ned=us&...nG=Search+News
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-07-2014 at 02:01 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    A uniformed cop "standing in the middle of the road" pointing to a parking lot is always considered by the motoring public to be on-the job.

    ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THIS TO BE A COP DOING HIS JOB AND THAT THEY MUST STOP!!!

    The "check point" is a distraction from the real issue, a uniformed cop compelling a citizen to stop under the color of law and without RAS. Prosecute that cop and any cop that engages in such activities.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

    http://www.pire.org/index.asp

    Sponsors
    Sponsors, clients, and partners of Pacific Institute’s past and current work include federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as public and private universities and foundations.

    State and Local Agencies

    Akron, Ohio Health Department
    Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services Board of Cuyahoga County
    Applied County School Board
    Arizona Department of Transportation
    California Department of Motor Vehicles
    California Office of Traffic Safety
    California State Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs
    Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District; City of Charlotte; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
    City of Berkeley, California
    City of Hampton, Virginia
    Colorado Department of Education
    Colorado Department of Health and Human Services
    Colorado Foundation for Families and Children
    Commonwealth of Kentucky
    Community of Schools in Georgia
    Community Partnership of Santa Clara County
    Community Service Coalition of P.G. County
    Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
    County of Ventura (CA)
    Georgia Department of Human Resources
    Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice
    Jefferson County of Louisville, Kentucky Public Schools
    Maryland Highway Safety Office
    Maryland Transportation Authority
    Michigan Public Health Institute
    National Conference of State Legislatures
    Nebraska Department of Education
    Nevada Department of Human Resources
    North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
    Ohio Department of Human Services: Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services
    Prince George's County, Maryland Public Schools
    The Regents of the University of California
    Rochester Drug Treatment Court
    Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc.
    South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services
    Southern Maine Area Agency on Aging
    State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association
    State of Connecticut
    State of Maryland
    State of Nevada Department of Human Resources
    State of New Jersey Department of Transportation
    State of Wisconsin
    Tucson, Arizona Community Foundation
    Tucson Unified School District
    Washington Area Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
    Winston-Salem/Forsyth (NC) County Schools
    Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
    Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
    Wisconsin Department of Transportation
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    PIRE = CSPI = three or so lawyers with a website and a fax machine.

    Gun violence in our country may collectively cost us up to nearly $200 billion each year, according to a study based on 2010 data by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, an independent public safety research group used by the Centers for Disease Control and other government agencies. That’s pretty expensive.

    http://www.ahwatukee.com/opinion/art...a4bcf887a.html
    A bunch of liberals and "moderates" working to take more control of your life = less liberty.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    PIRE = CSPI = three or so lawyers with a website and a fax machine.

    A bunch of liberals and "moderates" working to take more control of your life = less liberty.
    Their news room at PIRE http://www.pire.org/subject.asp?cms=115

    Interesting "stuff" they have over there.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A uniformed cop "standing in the middle of the road" pointing to a parking lot is always considered by the motoring public to be on-the job.

    ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THIS TO BE A COP DOING HIS JOB AND THAT THEY MUST STOP!!!

    The "check point" is a distraction from the real issue, a uniformed cop compelling a citizen to stop under the color of law and without RAS. Prosecute that cop and any cop that engages in such activities.
    By most, yes. I see many uniformed policeman directing traffic at places like shopping malls. They are hired by the malls. I just ignore them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    By most, yes. I see many uniformed policeman directing traffic at places like shopping malls. They are hired by the malls. I just ignore them.
    Big difference between a cop at a shopping mall directing traffic and a uniformed cop standing on a public highway indicating YOU pull over there.......ignore one of those and what assurances do you have you won't get a fatal case of lead poisoning?
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    By most, yes. I see many uniformed policeman directing traffic at places like shopping malls. They are hired by the malls. I just ignore them.
    That wouldn't work out well in Georgia
    § 40-6-2 Obedience to authorized persons directing traffic
    No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer, firefighter, police volunteer authorized under Code Section 35-1-11, or school-crossing guard designated by a local law enforcement agency invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-07-2014 at 03:58 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    There's that presumption of lawfulness, a "lawful order."

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    That wouldn't work out well in Georgia.
    § 40-6-2Obedience to authorized persons directing traffic - No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer,
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    He has already threatened me with arrest for "disobeying a lawful order" to stay in my car during a hypothetical traffic arrest without warrant.
    There's that presumption of lawfulness again.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-07-2014 at 03:38 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    That wouldn't work out well in Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    There's that presumption of lawfulness again.
    True, but that's just one of the things that makes us a society. A uniformed, badged agent of the state, is presumed to be operating within the guidelines of the authority granted to him/her by the state. It's kinda what a badge IS.

    That said, Officer Friendly's "lawful orders or directions" are limited to those subjects within his purview. He has the authority to tell you that you must turn right, not left while directing traffic. He does not have the authority to tell you that you need to let your coffee cool more, even if you're drinking that coffee while driving (not recommended, of course.)

    The authority to order someone to remain in their car is an officer safety issue. Getting out of the car could be considered dangerous to the officer. Then again, remaining in your car could be considered dangerous if the nice officer wants you out.

    Being too nice to the officer is suspicious
    Being uncooperative to the officer is suspicious
    Being nervous is suspicious
    Failing to be nervous is suspicious
    Concealing a weapon is suspicious
    Openly carrying is suspicious
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-07-2014 at 04:14 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    I also look at these intrusive liberty stealing unconstitutional acts against the Citizenry as Thief..

    Ponder this for a second... the people making these unlawful stops and infringing on our liberties are also stealing a commodity from us.
    That commodity is "our time" time of which none of us have very much of.

    Caveat to this is that the violators and thieves are compensated for their time and ironically their compensation comes from the very folks whom they are stealing from. State agents acting under color of law getting compensated for their illegal actions...
    Getting compensated for stealing a citizens time and violate a citizens rights.

    Justice Louis D.Brandeis in Olmstead v United States declared the following..

    " They( the makers of the constitution) conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone-- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

    Another question I would pose regarding these Nazi roadblocks and the thief by deception practices of the agency's engaging thereof, where are the so called liberty protectors, IE, ACLU and civil rights groups etc?? Where are they?

    My .02

    Done venting.

    Thank you and best regards.

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The ACLU is there, but they are focusing on the DNA samples and not the unlawful detainment under the color of law by that thug cop who directed you to pull over.

    A cop, in uniform, pointing me to a parking lot is viewed by me as ordering me to pull off the road. Telling me afterwards that I had the option to not participate does not address whether or not I had the option to not stop.

    Prosecute every cop who participates in road blocks for a unlawful detainment without RAS.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Beats the pants off of going after -actual- dangerous criminals, eh?

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    SNIP A cop, in uniform, pointing me to a parking lot is viewed by me as ordering me to pull off the road. Telling me afterwards that I had the option to not participate does not address whether or not I had the option to not stop.

    Prosecute every cop who participates in road blocks for a unlawful detainment without RAS.
    +1

    Where is Union Pacific Rail Co vs Botsford? No right more carefully guarded...all individuals...control and possession of their own person...free from all restraint unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. What was the clear and unquestionable authority of law to temporarily seize these people?

    I know a fella who ran into something a little similar a few years ago. A woman was murdered. A few days or a week later, the cops set up a roadblock on the nearest larger street through her neighborhood. They were stopping every car and asking the driver if he or she had seen or heard anything unusual. At its core, the cops were involuntarily seizing people so they could ask their voluntary cooperation.

    As it turns out, I later came across a court case in another state that validated using a roadblock for almost an identical purpose.
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Beats the pants off of going after -actual- dangerous criminals, eh?
    The Income to Danger Faced ratio certainly skews in favor of standing around and eating donuts with your pals v. breaking down doors of suspected drug users.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post

    The authority to order someone to remain in their car is an officer safety issue. Getting out of the car could be considered dangerous to the officer. Then again, remaining in your car could be considered dangerous if the nice officer wants you out.
    In - out ????!!! Make up their minds ahhhhhh.

    I keep my insurance papers in my trunk ... they want to see them? I gotta get out !

    Of course remaining in my car could be dangerous, depending on what I had for dinner .... (a fart joke)

Posting Permissions

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