• 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.

Is this check point "legal"?

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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?feature=player_embedded&v=wzoFrEyI6XY#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 a moderator:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

cce1302

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
265
Location
South Bend, Indiana, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
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
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

cce1302

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
265
Location
South Bend, Indiana, USA
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.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

cce1302

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
265
Location
South Bend, Indiana, USA
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?
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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?feature=player_embedded&v=wzoFrEyI6XY#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.
 
Top