• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Entire family arrested at checkpoint in Nevada

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
An opinion designed to appear negative, but not supported by any facts.

If you have knowledge that these are illegal, please share the evidence with us and provide cites.

4th amendment ... he does not have to prove that they are illegal .. 4th amendment presumes that they are illegal until shown to be an exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Kinkead 570 N.W. 2d 97, 100

So one is going to have to prove to him that the roadblocks are legal. I'm not going to because I don't believe that they are.

Assuming no warrants have been issued for the searches ... a pretty good assumption....that's the burden on the poster .. to show that no warrants have been issued for the searches, a fact that I think has been established.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
4th amendment ... he does not have to prove that they are illegal .. 4th amendment presumes that they are illegal until shown to be an exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Kinkead 570 N.W. 2d 97, 100

So one is going to have to prove to him that the roadblocks are legal. I'm not going to because I don't believe that they are.

Assuming no warrants have been issued for the searches ... a pretty good assumption....that's the burden on the poster .. to show that no warrants have been issued for the searches, a fact that I think has been established.

Thanks for the defense, David.

However, such roadblocks are already recognized as an exception to the warrant clause--SCOTUS just invented it out of thin air. Using the reasonableness loophole in the Fourth Amendment. That is to say, the Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Of course, the on-going constitutional convention known as the US Supreme Court ruled such roadblocks "reasonable". The rest is, as they say, history.

The better defense would have been to ask the poster why he raised the non-sequitur about legality. I didn't say they were illegal; yet, he challenged me on that point. Even though legality had nothing whatsoever to do with sleazy terminology.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Thanks for the defense, David.

However, such roadblocks are already recognized as an exception to the warrant clause--SCOTUS just invented it out of thin air. Using the reasonableness loophole in the Fourth Amendment. That is to say, the Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Of course, the on-going constitutional convention known as the US Supreme Court ruled such roadblocks "reasonable". The rest is, as they say, history.

The better defense would have been to ask the poster why he raised the non-sequitur about legality. I didn't say they were illegal; yet, he challenged me on that point. Even though legality had nothing whatsoever to do with sleazy terminology.

Such roadblocks may be an exception; however, it goes by a case by case examination....there is no one case that would cover this particular roadblock and the arguments currently made in the thread have not convinced me. Its a difficult task for a poster to meet the burden under a 4th amendment examination as well. Almost impossible in such a venue as this forum is. As its the party that conducts the roadblock to show that its appropriate and that party is not posting to this thread. Such is the law's burden.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
I travel through this "bug stop" on a regular basis. Often they just wave you through. Other times they just ask if I'm carrying any firewood or produce. A simple "no" and I'm on my way.

I always thought that it was to prevent the spread of non-native insects that can destroy the agriculture. There's one of these, on 50, as you leave South Lake Tahoe, and another one on 6 as you go through Benton, on the way to Bishop. I've never been searched.

Maybe next time I'll start off with "I don't answer questions", then immediately follow it with "I don't consent to searches". Sometimes we answer questions, like when you check into a hotel. "How long will you be staying?" Answer with, "that's none of your business."
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
No invoking Godwin's law.

No.

NO.

NOOOOO!

Damn North Korean type checkpoints on American soil.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
The better defense would have been to ask the poster why he raised the non-sequitur about legality. I didn't say they were illegal; yet, he challenged me on that point. Even though legality had nothing whatsoever to do with sleazy terminology.

I also found that very peculiar. You don't like the terminology? Well prove they're illegal.... huh?
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,950
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I travel through this "bug stop" on a regular basis. Often they just wave you through. Other times they just ask if I'm carrying any firewood or produce. A simple "no" and I'm on my way.

I always thought that it was to prevent the spread of non-native insects that can destroy the agriculture. There's one of these, on 50, as you leave South Lake Tahoe, and another one on 6 as you go through Benton, on the way to Bishop. I've never been searched.

Maybe next time I'll start off with "I don't answer questions", then immediately follow it with "I don't consent to searches". Sometimes we answer questions, like when you check into a hotel. "How long will you be staying?" Answer with, "that's none of your business."
Apples and oranges.....
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I travel through this "bug stop" on a regular basis. Often they just wave you through. Other times they just ask if I'm carrying any firewood or produce. A simple "no" and I'm on my way.

I always thought that it was to prevent the spread of non-native insects that can destroy the agriculture. There's one of these, on 50, as you leave South Lake Tahoe, and another one on 6 as you go through Benton, on the way to Bishop. I've never been searched.

Maybe next time I'll start off with "I don't answer questions", then immediately follow it with "I don't consent to searches". Sometimes we answer questions, like when you check into a hotel. "How long will you be staying?" Answer with, "that's none of your business."

Usually they just wave me through, after 10-30 minutes in the line of cars mind you, but sometimes I get the question: "What's in the trailer?" Note that the question is not: "Do you have any fruit in the trailer?" as would be under their presumed authority.

I answer: "Not fruit."
 
Last edited:

Ron_O

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
109
Location
Las Vegas
SCOTUS has ruled that roadblocks such as this type of checkpoint are legal as long as there's a compelling interest beyond the normal duties of law enforcement (as outlined in the previous post case law). They would likely consider this legal under their reasoning, as they've done with previous cases such as inland border checkpoints and drunk driver checkpoints. They do occasionally seize fruit, wood, and plants that are entering the state. Common house plants can have heavy infestations.

Having said that, this type of thing drives me nuts. I've passed through the random inland border checkpoints on the interstates in Arizona and Texas many times. You are slowed to a stop in a long line of traffic, photographed from every angle possible, circled by sniffing dogs, have your vehicle looked into through the windows, and queried by armed personnel as to your citizenship, where you've been, and where you're going and why. It's Gestapo tactics in every way other than demanding your papers. I've seen the videos where people have had their windows broken out for refusing to allow a search or get out of their vehicles after refusing to answer questions (and read subsequent reports where they sued and won).

As I pass through these Commiefornia checkpoints, if stopped, I simply shake my head and say no before anyone even asks any questions. I haven't actually been asked for several years now, I'm just waved through. But that day will come again even though I avoid the Left State as much as possible. I expect my next response will not be unlike the one shown in the video.

My other half was infuriated as she overheard the video as I was watching it, and not for why you think. It's because she hates people who cause problems for the authorities and that's what she sees this as being. Heated discussion followed.

How far will SCOTUS legislate new code? That sliding scale seems to have no limitations. My argument with my other half was what if they wanted to search for drugs, or do a background check on you, or search for weapons, illegal firearm magazines, illegal pets, pornography on your computer, or any other type of thing that's deemed illegal in their state of which they can express a compelling need to keep you out of the state? Even insisting on your driver's license, registration, and insurance should be within their realm if you draw no lines as to the reasoning of their roadblocks.

Their alternative is that you simply turn around and go the other way rather than enter their state. The agent in the video told the family that they were welcome to enter the state but they couldn't bring their 'conveyance' (vehicle) with them. What *********. Her reasonable articulable suspicion for demanding a search? The way he was acting and the bugs on his vehicle. OMG.

And he was a resident of the state. They could have simply ran his plates, taken his photo, and mailed him a citation if that was their intent. Traffic stop cameras do it all the time and until recently they did the same on Arizona highways. They were going to let him be on his way after they wrote him a ticket and that makes no sense whatsoever. Would they do the same if they suspected that his vehicle was loaded with illicit drugs or smuggled weapons? I hardly think so. Total hypocrisy.

This can be viewed on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU0bru8SJdE

They have posted an update on their current status here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJCUuACCPAc
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
ron, thanks for following and posting the updated vid on the situation...i am personally awaiting their vid on the child welfare activities ...

ipse
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Thanks for the video links Ron_O.

Interstate commerce is the sole purview of the feds. And the people were not engaged in anything but traveling about the country, a right not a permission.

No charges filed. If the state had a case, they would have filed charges.

Be interesting to see any video of any member that goes through this clearly illegal roadblock. Recommend that person check the administrative search exception to the 4th amendment cases to become acquainted with what is associated with them.
 

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA
Case law

Couple of cases that I found around Ag Inspections and their constitutionality.

In summary, courts found them constitutional because they are an administrative function, and not primarily a criminal function. (Inspection versus a search)

Also, waiting for a warrant would not be practical in the circumstances and would "frustrate the purpose of these inspections".

USA v Schaffer 9th Circuit: warrantless administrative search, Sate of Hawaii

http://openjurist.org/461/f2d/856


California v Dickinson:

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/104/505.html

Arizona v Bailey:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1978519120Ariz399_1418.xml/STATE v. BAILEY
 

Liberty-or-Death

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
411
Location
23235
They are legal, until a majority of nine say it isn't. IMO anything called a constitution-free zone, or otherwise holds hostage one right (to travel) until you waive another right (to be secure in their persons and papers from illegal searches and seizures) is antithetical to the liberty our founders fought so hard for which to codify protections.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The scope of our decision is simply that the quarantine officers may stop motorists at the inspection stations and request to look into the trunk of the vehicle. This is in accord with United States v. Ortiz and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. If the motorist voluntarily opens the trunk of the vehicle, the quarantine officer may look therein

From Dikenson (sp) linked above by the nice poster.

These are not administrative searches at all. They are forced "consensual encounters". Anytime you agree to a search the 4th amendment is satisfied, unless its forced.

So as far as the 4th amendment is concerned, one does not have to allow them to search. Speaking of regular travelers and not commercial vehicles (not the subject of this thread).
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
I travel through this "bug stop" on a regular basis. Often they just wave you through. Other times they just ask if I'm carrying any firewood or produce. A simple "no" and I'm on my way.

I always thought that it was to prevent the spread of non-native insects that can destroy the agriculture. There's one of these, on 50, as you leave South Lake Tahoe, and another one on 6 as you go through Benton, on the way to Bishop. I've never been searched.

Maybe next time I'll start off with "I don't answer questions", then immediately follow it with "I don't consent to searches". Sometimes we answer questions, like when you check into a hotel. "How long will you be staying?" Answer with, "that's none of your business."

I can't tell but you seem to be putting sarcasm in you post. with the statement you would make to another private citizen.

but you need to ask if the government was asking, how long are you going to stay? would you want to tell them?
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
An opinion designed to appear negative, but not supported by any facts.

If you have knowledge that these are illegal, please share the evidence with us and provide cites.

Here is the cite you asked Citizen for. Link is below:
Roadblocks

NRS 484B.570  Administrative roadblock: Establishment; minimum requirements.

1.  The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, administrative roadblocks upon the highways of this State for any lawful purpose other than identifying the occupants of a vehicle or because of the existence of an emergency.

2.  To warn and protect the traveling public, administrative roadblocks established by police officers must meet the following requirements:

(a) The administrative roadblock must be established at a point on the highway clearly visible to approaching traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards in either direction.

(b) At the entrance to the administrative roadblock:

(1) A sign must be placed near the centerline of the highway displaying the word “Stop” in letters of sufficient size and luminosity to be readable at a distance of not less than 50 yards in the direction affected by the administrative roadblock, either in daytime or darkness.

(2) At least one red flashing or intermittent light, on and burning, must be placed at the side of the highway, clearly visible to the oncoming traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

(c) Warning signs must be placed at the side of the highway, containing any wording of sufficient size and luminosity to warn the oncoming traffic that a “police stop” lies ahead, and a burning beam light, flare or lantern must be placed near the signs to attract the attention of the traffic to the signs. The signs must be placed at a distance of not less than:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec570
 
Top