• 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.

Kentucky Police Checkpoints

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
The reason Washington state does not have checkpoints is because of the Washington state constitution, Article 1 section 7.

I wish more lawyers would just argue using their own states constitution, maybe they would prevail more often. I do know the Checkpoints are illegal here in WA because of the STATE constitution, not the US Constitution.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
This was just after noon. They only asked to see my driver's license and I was on my way.

It's been a while since I have seen a check point. They're unconstitutional in Texas, but Illinois had plenty of them.

At first I thought it was an accident and I was almost ready to turn around since I was on the bike, now Im glad I didn't as they probably would have chased me down and wrote me a ticket on some made up charge of avoiding a police check point.

nothing against you FLB_78. IMO, un-warranted searches are unconstitutional through out the US. but government do them any way. if it is unconstitutional to search a house when no crime has been committed then it should be un-constitutional to search a person trying to find a crime. also IMO, these stops are just fund raisers any way
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
352
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
@Liberty: Could you please cite? I know you to be a very knowledgeable guy, but I was under the impression that KY was not a stop and identify state--meaning we do not even have to verbally ID ourselves unless we are operating a motor vehicle or the officer has RAS. I cannot find any KRS that would require one to verbally identify themselves at the officer's curiosity.

I think this is the KRS requiring an operator of a motor vehicle to produce a valid driver's license.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/186-00/510.PDF

The other part, about the need to verbally identify yourself to a peace officer... I couldn't find that in the KRS. I searched online, but I have trouble reading all of that legalese, and I have difficulty searching their database. I have an iPod app that was written by a Lexington police officer, and it supposedly makes it easy to search the KRS. Police officers use it when fillling out their reports. I'll try to check that.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I do know that in ky you do not have to identify yourself unless you are being detained for committing a crime, or a traffic violation I just wasn't sure on the dl at checkpoints, I figured you would have to but wasn't sure. Thanks for the help
 

KYKevin

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
323
Location
Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
I do know that in ky you do not have to identify yourself unless you are being detained for committing a crime, or a traffic violation I just wasn't sure on the dl at checkpoints, I figured you would have to but wasn't sure. Thanks for the help

I have only been through 3 in the last few years. But I have never been asked to produce i.d.
 

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
You can strike a small blow by refusing to use the government's spin terminology: checkpoint.

Always call them what they are: roadblock.

The government likes the word checkpoint because it sounds a little nicer and sounds "safe" and less invasive. But, just try running through one without stopping and see how quick the nature of the encounter changes.

Calling it a checkpoint is just more government spin. Just like interrogations. Police no longer have interrogations. Now, they have interviews. Ha! Interrogation.

Corrected re-post below
 
Last edited:

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
You can strike a small blow by refusing to use the government's spin terminology: checkpoint.

Always call them what they are: roadblock.

The government likes the word checkpoint because it sounds a little nicer and sounds "safe" and less invasive. But, just try running through one without stopping and see how quick the nature of the encounter changes.

Calling it a checkpoint is just more government spin. Just like interrogations. Police no longer have interrogations. Now, they have interviews. Ha! Interrogation.

Well, I DID run one of these "roadblocks" last year! *LOL* Like flb_78, I too thought it was a simple accident. A friend and I were coming back from an evening out to the movies and dinner. We were on a long straight away and in the distance I see one set of blue lights about a quarter mile ahead. I started slowing down to a safe coast speed till I could ascertain exactly what it was. As I got closer I couldn't make out anything except just a cruiser, no LEO were visible and therefore I assumed that they were over the side of the hill with a vehicle or doing something else. In EVERY roadblock I've ever encountered, a officer is on the road or to the side of the road and their flashlight is illuminating the roadway indicating they're there and checking ID. Not this night! I saw NO officer and so I just held a slow speed and went on, it was about then that I heard someone yell, "WHOOOOA". I just realized then that this was a roadblack I had apparently ran it.

This wasn't JUST any ordinary roadblack though, it was a DRUG roadblock! And I had just ran it, nearly! I won't go into all the details here, it would take far too long and no one wants to read all of it! *LOL*

I ended up getting a near strip search on the roadside. *LOL* But in light of the fact that I was wearing a black long drover coat, black tactical pants, and a black shirt; I apparently looking like a drug dealer or runner. *LOL* It's my standard style of dress though.

The KSP trooper was not any too happy but over the course of this encounter, he lightened up once he understood what had happened. Plus, I ended up getting to lecture a rookie KSP trooper as well for making the statement that I was obviously a drug user due to my style of dress. Even the senior trooper that was dealing with me got a massive laugh and seeing that this rookie was just making me upset, he ran him off and told him to stay out of it.

It was really funny as well when the senior KSP trooper started doing the field test for naroctics, I had this glint of a smile and he of course saw it and stopped the test to ask why I was smiling about, was I stoned? *LOL* I just looked him straight in the eyes and told him I wasn't and when he asked why, I just told him that I had worked in narcotics many years ago. Yes! I still got tested and enjoyed every second of it. *LOL* Luckily this night, I was NOT carrying.
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
352
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
...the senior KSP trooper started doing the field test for narcotics
You mean the Kentucky State Police stop people on the road, without any probable cause, and test them for illegal drug use? That sounds like a blatant violation of your rights, as described in the 4th and 5th amendments in our Bill of Rights. It's a violation of your right to be secure in your person and your effects, and it's a presumption of guilt.



Luckily this night, I was NOT carrying.
You weren't carrying firearms, drugs, or both? :)
 

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
You mean the Kentucky State Police stop people on the road, without any probable cause, and test them for illegal drug use? That sounds like a blatant violation of your rights, as described in the 4th and 5th amendments in our Bill of Rights. It's a violation of your right to be secure in your person and your effects, and it's a presumption of guilt.




You weren't carrying firearms, drugs, or both? :)

Hey Liberty, long time, no see. *LOL* I keep missing you at the Lexington gunshows, it seems. *LOL*

No, I meant I wasn't carrying my sidearm at the time, this was prior to my CCDW but my sidearm was in the car but they never asked to look inside or conduct a search. Had they asked though I would've refused though.

As for why I guess I got the 3rd degree in this situation, I did for all intents and purposes seem to "run the roadblack". I'm guessing that the senior troop assumed that I was high and trying to run it, though I was only doing about 30mph at the time he yelled for me to stop.

As I neared the roadblock, it looked asthough it was a KSP cruiser investigating an accident that was over the hill being that I didn't see any trooper or LEO on the roadway, as they usually are in roadblocks. It wasn't till I started to roll past that the senior trooper yelled for me to stop which I promptly did and he told me to pull off the road and get my DL.

Had I have been the trooper, I would've thought that I was either high or possibly drunk. For me it was simply a matter of professional courtesy. Once I explained what had happened and we talked for a few minutes he realized it was all a big misunderstanding and he was jovial after the fact. *LOL* I even got the chance to correct a rookie trooper for his reckless behavior.

I'd like to say that this is the ONLY time that something like this had happened but it's not! *LMBO* It's one of two times something like this has happened! *LOL* The other incident happened in Winchester, just off I-64 around 4 or 5 in the morning. *LOL* The next time we meet, I'll tell you all about and you'll laugh your a** off! I know I do every time I think back to it. *LOL*

BTW, will you be attending the Lexington show in September?
 
Last edited:

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
352
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
I was just kidding about the "firearms, drugs, or both". I knew what you meant. I was trying to be funny.

I was serious about my incredulity over the narcotics roadblock. It seems blatantly unconstitutional to stop every vehicle with an assumption of guilt, and at the officer's discretion, search vehicles for illicit drugs... and I don't care how much they whine about it being "for the children".

A lot of this sort of behavior is the direct result of the asset forfeiture laws. Police departments are increasingly funded by the property they seize, usually in the War On Drugs. They probably won't admit it, but officers are often promoted based on the property that's seized in their cases. Asset forfeiture laws establish bad incentives for the police by decreasing their role as peace officers and increasing their role as law enforcement officers, with an emphasis on taking people's property. It makes for sloppy police work, relying less on investigation and more on Let's Make A Deal. Here's a classic example. Arrest both parents and charge them. The prosecutor offers The Deal. The husband pleads guilty to a reduced charge, the police keep everything they confiscated, and the wife stays out of jail to take care of the kids. The alternative? They seized your assets so it's difficult to hire an attorney to defend yourself. Even if you can borrow money from friends or family, the prosecutor draws out your case over many months. The prosecution is paid (with your tax dollars and your seized property!) to be in court. Meanwhile, your attorney is charging you $200 per hour, you're in jail, and Child Protective Services is doing everything they can to place your children with foster parents. It's very hard to win that game once accused of a crime, regardless of your innocence or guilt. Justice? Yeah, sure. It hasn't happened to me... yet. The system seems just great, until it happens to you.



I did 17 political and gun rights gun shows in the run-up to the 2010 election. I only did one gun show for the 2011 election. I won't be doing any in the foreseeable future. Most people are there to look at guns, and the minority who care about gun rights are the same people I talked to before, and they already got it before talking to me about it. It's tiresome to hear gun owners say, "I'm going to buy a such & such, before they make it illegal." Or, "I hope they don't pass another ban." Or my all time favorite... the gun dealer who says, "I hope they pass another assault weapons ban. I made a million dollars when they passed the last one back in 1994."
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
they do not search for illegal drugs at these roadblocks, all they do is ask to see id, and that is it. If they was to search your vehicle without your permission that would most certainly be a violation of our constitution and the united states const. as well. If neone gets searched at one, its because they consented to it, or the law believes they are under the influence of some drugs and a dog alerts, or they can smell alcohol or such. otherwise you drive up, hand them your license and drive off.
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
352
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
If anyone gets searched at one, its because they consented to it, or the law believes they are under the influence of some drugs and a dog alerts, or they can smell alcohol or such. Otherwise you drive up, hand them your license and drive off.
Admittedly, I'm way more liberty minded than most and value individual liberties to a very great extent, but that still sounds to me like an interference with the right to travel freely ("Your papers please!") and a presumption of guilt (they force you to prove that you're innocent).

Drunk driving is bad. It's for the children. We're doing this to protect you from terrorists. Etc.
 
Top