"Hi, We're Here to Help"...Police Check points, thoughts?

[Whitey]

I have plenty of friends who are cops, I'm not an 'anti-cop" type of guy...but I don't like the idea of the police arbitrarily setting up "check points" regardless of who they think they may be helping. "Oh, we're making sure you're being safe and wearing your seatbelt...". Yeah, I wear it all the time, no need to check up on me...or to see what else I may be 'up to'.

We as citizens should not allow ourselves to be subject to being stopped and inspected...or searched.

But...I could be wrong, maybe there are people who like that sort of thing. Me? I stay out of law enforcements business by not breaking the law so I expect them to stay out of my business for being law abiding.

Just the way it's worded..."Kick Off a Click it or Ticket Campaign" ...as if it's a carnival or something.

http://smnewsnet.com/archives/300843/operation-border2border-kicks-off-click-it-or-ticket-campaign/

 

[b23hqb]

When it happens to me again, and I'm sure it will, I'll try the old "crack the window, pass out the DL and registration and let that suffice" thingy. See how that goes over.

 

[Roman]

The law has the right to protect you against yourself. I have no problem with it. Police/Community relations at it's finest.

 

[MMDad]

First, the Supreme Court has blessed these intrusions as constitutional, so there's a huge precedent to be overcome if we ever wanted to actively do something about it.

Second, a lot of people have no problem giving up their rights in the name of safety, and a lot feel that the government should have more influence in our lives. This may seem intrusive now, but just wait and see what's coming. Or look what's already here - isn't it great that the government, through the IRS, will have access to all of your medical records? Makes me feel all kinds of safe and secure.

 

[PsyOps]

First, the Supreme Court has blessed these intrusions as constitutional, so there's a huge precedent to be overcome if we ever wanted to actively do something about it.

Second, a lot of people have no problem giving up their rights in the name of safety, and a lot feel that the government should have more influence in our lives. This may seem intrusive now, but just wait and see what's coming. Or look what's already here - isn't it great that the government, through the IRS, will have access to all of your medical records? Makes me feel all kinds of safe and secure.

It only happens because we allow it to; because we elect people that make it happen. Like Larry keeps saying... the people are okay with it.

 

[glhs837]

The law has the right to protect you against yourself. I have no problem with it. Police/Community relations at it's finest.

Damn, they'll be right over to remove any gas cans you might have laying around, or sharp knives. And they should probably get the stove too. Where do you draw the line?

 

[MMDad]

It only happens because we allow it to; because we elect people that make it happen. Like Larry keeps saying... the people are okay with it.

Actually, it only happens because your generation allowed it to. My generation is stuck with it. Thanks.

 

[BernieP]

First, the Supreme Court has blessed these intrusions as constitutional, so there's a huge precedent to be overcome if we ever wanted to actively do something about it.

Second, a lot of people have no problem giving up their rights in the name of safety, and a lot feel that the government should have more influence in our lives. This may seem intrusive now, but just wait and see what's coming. Or look what's already here - isn't it great that the government, through the IRS, will have access to all of your medical records? Makes me feel all kinds of safe and secure.

Having this debate on another forum except it's in regards to gun control. How many ardent supporters of the second amendment are ok with signing away your other rights (like to self incrimination, unlawful search, right to face your accuser in a court of law, etc.)?
The framers at first set one ground rule that the government, the federal government had only the rights that were listed in the constitution, all other rights were reserved for the states and the people. But later came back with 10 amendments, The Bill of Rights, in which they iterate very specifically protections the people have from government. They felt so strongly about those 10 issues that it wasn't sufficient to let it stand under the "all other rights are reserved for the people".

 

[Whitey]

The law has the right to protect you against yourself.

Is that in the Bill of Rights?

 

[glhs837]

The law has the right to protect you against yourself.

Is that in the Bill of Rights?

Kinda riffing on that theme, does the govt have rights, or just responsibilities?

 

[snake]

In my opinion, it's no different than searching your house. They can ask to search your house but without warrants they have no right to. As far as driving on the road, they have every right to inspect you are wearing your seatbelt and driving is legitimately a privilege, but that does not mean they have the right to search and inspect your vehicle (your property) without reasonable suspicion or a warrant. It's an overreach. Don't they have better things to do.

Why don't they spend more time dealing with the buses and giant semi's that run everyone off the road or the people using shoulders and turn lanes to jump ahead of traffic in intersections.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

In my opinion, it's no different than searching your house. They can ask to search your house but without warrants they have no right to. As far as driving on the road, they have every right to inspect you are wearing your seatbelt and driving is legitimately a privilege, but that does not mean they have the right to search and inspect your vehicle (your property) without reasonable suspicion or a warrant. It's an overreach.

Why don't they spend more time dealing with the buses and giant semi's that run everyone off the road or the people using shoulders and turn lanes to jump ahead of traffic in intersections.

My understanding; though it may be incorrect; is, police on patrol can stop you if the observe 'erratic behavior;' a broad-stroke term that probably includes, speeding, driving too slow; obvious indicators like inability to 'keep it between the lines.' They can also stop you for inspection infractions; taillight out; or; something that doesn't happen around here all that often; failure to signal or properly signal a lane change. Once you're pulled over; whether you actually did fail to signal etc., if "odd behavior;" another broad-stroke term; and left to interpretation by the officer; is observed your person and your vehicle can be searched; and God help you if there's the smell of pot in the car. If you're not wearing a seat belt after you get stopped; that's an automatic ticket. "I stopped you because your brake light is out; oh, and you're not wearing a seatbelt' = two tickets.

There are other factors that could trigger a search and thus be deemed "probable cause" also. "Well, I see an empty beer bottle behind the passenger seat; step out of the car please."

 

[BernieP]

God help you if you are carrying a large sum of cash. That can be seized even if you are not charged with a crime.
Which is why Rand Paul is filibustering the vote on the Patriot Act.

The latest practice that has drawn the ire of the ACLU is the license plate scanning.

In the mean time, have the every caught the thieves that broke into the Tackle Box and made off with the weapons?

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

I may be unusual, but I get stopped at seat belt and sobriety checkpoints in a couple or three different states several times a year and I have never been asked to allow a search of my car/truck or submit to a person search.

Just lucky I guess. But I've only been driving 45, wait 46, years.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

God help you if you are carrying a large sum of cash. That can be seized even if you are not charged with a crime.
Which is why Rand Paul is filibustering the vote on the Patriot Act.

The latest practice that has drawn the ire of the ACLU is the license plate scanning.

In the mean time, have the every caught the thieves that broke into the Tackle Box and made off with the weapons?

Are you serious?!! Well, what is 'a large sum of cash'? Stacks of bills? A briefcase? Or a couple Grand in your wallet? And how can that be seized regardless of being charged with a crime or not? That sounds like out-and-out robbery.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

I may be unusual, but I get stopped at seat belt and sobriety checkpoints in a couple or three different states several times a year and I have never been asked to allow a search of my car/truck or submit to a person search.

Just lucky I guess. But I've only been driving 45, wait 46, years.

Well, you probably don't wreak of beer or pot. Those are usually the first two "reasons" cops have for searching you/your vehicle.

 

[Smith]

Second, a lot of people have no problem giving up their rights in the name of safety, and a lot feel that the government should have more influence in our lives.

Exactly! Those who will sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

 

[Smith]

Are you serious?!! Well, what is 'a large sum of cash'? Stacks of bills? A briefcase? Or a couple Grand in your wallet? And how can that be seized regardless of being charged with a crime or not? That sounds like out-and-out robbery.

Google civil forfeiture and you'll see that it's happening more than we would think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/institu...ions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a-crime/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/richland-mississippi-civil-asset-forfeiture_n_7312988.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

I close the left-leaning sources to show it's not a right-wing conspiracy either.

 

[Stew]

Old buddy had a couple of cold ones after work and ran into a sobriety checkpoint on the way home. Ended up with a DUI, license got suspended, lost his job cause he couldn't drive, car got repossessed cause he lost his job and couldn't make the payments and his wife left him cause he had no money. High price to pay for a couple of Budweisers.

 

[Roman]

Old buddy had a couple of cold ones after work and ran into a sobriety checkpoint on the way home. Ended up with a DUI, license got suspended, lost his job cause he couldn't drive, car got repossessed cause he lost his job and couldn't make the payments and his wife left him cause he had no money. High price to pay for a couple of Budweisers.

It seems like he was charged with more than a DUI. This might also have not been his first DWI too. His wife left him? she was probably going to leave anyway.