More tin badge thuggery.

[Merlin99]

You do know that it's not the cop who's taking your rights away, correct?

The cop is the interface between you and the government, you have to go through all of the steps.

 

[FreedomFan]

The cop is the interface between you and the government, you have to go through all of the steps.

I would say that the cop IS the government. They are the armed agents of State tyranny.

 

[Merlin99]

Are you seriously equating a simple traffic stop to searching peoples' homes?

Maybe you'll deign to enlighten us on why you think it's different.

 

[RPMDAD]

I would say that the cop IS the government. They are the armed agents of State tyranny.

FreedomFan, you have a strange view on life sir.

 

[FreedomFan]

FreedomFan, you have a strange view on life sir.

Well that is the great thing about a nation based on the individual. We are a nation of individuals, and as such each have our own views, thoughts, and opinions. There is no such thing as "popular opinion".

Ain't that great!

 

[GURPS]

Would you be okay with cops going house-to-house searching them, without a warrant ...

:didthatinboston:

 

[MMM_donuts]

The cop was fine until the punk started giving him a rash of ####. So in my mind that pretty much means the kids started the situation. I fail to see how the cop acted improperly.

Couldn't it also be argued that the kid was fine until the cop took offense to his response? The kid wasn't wrong, which is why he was allowed to go on his way. The cop acted emotionally by further inconveniencing the kid by subjecting him to searches without a real probable cause simply to punish him for not cooperating respectfully to the extent that the cop thinks he deserves. No?

Can any of us imagine what our lives would be without Police? Some of us might even be dead right now if there were no such thing as Cops.

No and yes. Cops should revered for all the good, hard work they do putting their lives and the lives of their families in jeopardy on a regular basis. That does not excuse the behavior of cops that behave inappropriately. In my opinion, failure to question their behavior when it is wrong only contributes to the problem of growing dishonesty of our law enforcement. If anything, fellow cops should be offended when they see cops behaving badly because it creates the illusion that you are all bad, all corrupt, and is nothing but divisive. Because of that, it becomes increasingly more difficult to know who isn't cooperating because they have something to hide and who doesn't cooperate because they fear the unintended consequences of law enforcement corruption.

 

[Roman]

Couldn't it also be argued that the kid was fine until the cop took offense to his response? The kid wasn't wrong, which is why he was allowed to go on his way. The cop acted emotionally by further inconveniencing the kid by subjecting him to searches without a real probable cause simply to punish him for not cooperating respectfully to the extent that the cop thinks he deserves. No?



No and yes. Cops should revered for all the good, hard work they do putting their lives and the lives of their families in jeopardy on a regular basis. That does not excuse the behavior of cops that behave inappropriately. In my opinion, failure to question their behavior when it is wrong only contributes to the problem of growing dishonesty of our law enforcement. If anything, fellow cops should be offended when they see cops behaving badly because it creates the illusion that you are all bad, all corrupt, and is nothing but divisive. Because of that, it becomes increasingly more difficult to know who isn't cooperating because they have something to hide and who doesn't cooperate because they fear the unintended consequences of law enforcement corruption.

Most Cops are good Cops. When one does wrong, it does look bad. There are good, and bad in all professions. Watching that video got my eye-brow up about what I would think the man was hiding something. Cops deal with the worst of the worst on a daily basis, so they deserve the respect that is due them. But not ALL of them. I wonder if the fact that I can see both sides of the coin, makes me a liberal? Maybe FreedomFan can answer that.

 

[FreedomFan]

Watching that video got my eye-brow up about what I would think the man was hiding something.

This right here is the problem.

You have zero evidence to think that the dude is hiding something other than the fact that he's not laying down in abject submission to authoritative commands.

Gut feelings and your "years of experience" don't count. Show me the evidence.

 

[Roman]

This right here is the problem.

You have zero evidence to think that the dude is hiding something other than the fact that he's not laying down in abject submission to authoritative commands.

Gut feelings and your "years of experience" don't count. Show me the evidence.

You're right FF. There is no evidence, but what would it hurt for the man to let them search if he had nothing to hide? I'd have no problem with it at all. My "years" of expirience were very few, because I didn't have the balls needed to be successful in that line of work. When I started to hate people, that's when I gave it up. Can you admit that it's a hard job, but that someone needs to do it? I forgot to say that the man was setting the Cops up, he had the cameras rolling.

 

[FreedomFan]

You're right FF. There is no evidence, but what would it hurt for the man to let them search if he had nothing to hide? I'd have no problem with it at all.

You are welcome to invite searches all you want.

I'm going to reverse your logic on you. If he has nothing to hide, what wrong with asserting his rights and refusing searches?

 

[Roman]

You are welcome to invite searches all you want.

I'm going to reverse your logic on you. If he has nothing to hide, what wrong with asserting his rights and refusing searches?

IMO, because he's being an #######, and he knew what he was doing from the git-go. He was filming this for kicks, and to see how far the Cops would take it. Unfortunately..Cops can't mind read, and every second counts, so in some people's opinion, the Cops were wrong, and the man was right. His actions were suspicious to me. I am entitled to my opinion, as are you.

 

[b23hqb]

You are welcome to invite searches all you want.

I'm going to reverse your logic on you. If he has nothing to hide, what wrong with asserting his rights and refusing searches?

Nothing at all wrong. His choice. Is it worth it for a skinny pretty boy to probably spend the night with Bubba in the county lock up?

 

[Rommey]

Stopping people from driving drunk is a GOOD reason ,so you think it's ok to drink and drive and kill others behind the wheel of a car?

No, where do I indicate that driving while impaired is OK?

But stopping people that are driving drunk is fine when they are stopping people that are driving drunk, not stopping everyone on the possibility of finding someone driving drunk. However, let's say they are just looking for impaired drivers...they are trained to spot the signs that lead them to believe someone might be under the influence (i.e., reasonable suspicion). Knowing where I've been or where I'm going is none of their business...they can ask, but I'm not obligated to answer. Me not answering is not an indication of impairment to drive.

 

[FreedomFan]

IMO, because he's being an #######

Well fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) being an ####### isn't against any law, nor is it unethical, nor is it immoral.

God bless America!

 

[itsrequired]

That kind of defeats the purpose of the checkpoint, don't you think?

The cop asks you to roll down your window so they can smell for booze and see your eyes. If they do not smell any and you are not glassy eyed, you are on your way within 30 seconds. If you do not cooperate, however...

The cop was fine until the punk started giving him a rash of ####. So in my mind that pretty much means the kids started the situation. I fail to see how the cop acted improperly.

The kid was level headed and calm through out? The cop got upset when he asked if he had to provide his age...which he did not. The kid, as far as I know did not commit any traffic offense, therefore should not have been subjected to any questioning or removal from his vehicle.

It is my opinion that the cop mishandled the situation. If he had probable cause to think the kid was drinking then so be it. If not, then the kid should have been able to go on his merry way.

 

[FreedomFan]

The kid was level headed and calm through out? The cop got upset when he asked if he had to provide his age...which he did not. The kid, as far as I know did not commit any traffic offense, therefore should not have been subjected to any questioning or removal from his vehicle.

It is my opinion that the cop mishandled the situation. If he had probable cause to think the kid was drinking then so be it. If not, then the kid should have been able to go on his merry way.

Required: Is it safe to assume you are of the belief that DUI "safety checks" are violations of the 4th Amendment?

 

[itsrequired]

Required: Is it safe to assume you are of the belief that DUI "safety checks" are violations of the 4th Amendment?

No, not at all. I think there was a 1996 case which challened them and the court determined if they are done properly there is no consitutional violation.

 

[GURPS]

No, not at all. I think there was a 1996 case which challened them and the court determined if they are done properly there is no consitutional violation.

you had me until this .....

Legality in the United States

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject himself to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. One other state (Alaska) does not use checkpoints even though it has not made them illegal.[12] Montana uses checkpoints frequently. [13]

 

[FreedomFan]

No, not at all. I think there was a 1996 case which challened them and the court determined if they are done properly there is no consitutional violation.

Well now I'm confused.

Earlier you said:

If he had probable cause to think the kid was drinking then so be it.

The thing with that case you cite (I think it was a case out of Michigan) is that DUI checkpoints are legal because they check everyone who passes through them. There doesn't need to be PC.

So even though I disagree with the finding, I believe the court is saying that there doesn't need to be probable cause, and that police have significant latitude to determine if someone is impaired.

Assuming my working knowledge isn't too far off, and assuming the cop wasn't satisfied that the kid wasn't impaired, on what basis should he have been sent on his way? If the purpose of the checkpoint is to determine if he is impaired, and the cop didn't accomplish that, can't he be held until a determination of sobriety is made?