Not 1 but TWO!

[TPD]

Was anyone out to see any of these checkpoints? I was making a late night run to Wally World on Saturday night and didn't see anything...

We were driving 235 from Mechanicsville to California 10-10:30 Saturday night and assumed the checkpoint was finished because we saw numerous (5-6) police officers in action with traffic enforcement in that 20 mile stretch. But just to be on the safe side since we did have some adult beverages, we turned at chancellors to continue our trek via Rt 5 to the southern end of the county.

 

[This_person]

Actually the main body of the Constitution says all rights not given to the federal government are those of the people and the states.

Yep, in the tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

Every time they pull over a vehicle they are searching, with their eyes, with their nose.
When they request permission to physically search your vehicle you have the right to say no.
That puts the officer in a spot, if they have cause to issue you a ticket they will probably make sure to list every charge they can on the citation to maximize the penalty because you pissed them off. If they claim a reasonable suspicion of drugs in the vehicle they can threaten to detain you until a K-9 officer can get there. They then can use the dog to indicate if the vehicle has contraband. At which point they can search without your permission, but it means you are sitting there waiting for the dog and handler to show up.

Which I am against as well. You can not question a dog. You can question their training, but you cannot question a dog as a witness against you.

But, none of this is germane. The issue at hand is the stopping not for an accused violation of some traffic law, but simply for being on a certain road at a certain time. There's not even the claim of a smell, or suspicious driving, or anything else. It is being detained for the act of existing at a certain spot in space and time.

 

[Goldenhawk]

The issue at hand is the stopping not for an accused violation of some traffic law, but simply for being on a certain road at a certain time. There's not even the claim of a smell, or suspicious driving, or anything else. It is being detained for the act of existing at a certain spot in space and time.

That is exactly why the public is notified in advance of drunk driving checkpoints; it's a reaction to Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, which held that if the public has been notified of the potential for otherwise involuntary search, then any individual may willingly choose to avoid being in that place at that time, and thus NOT consent to the search.

Requirements for a DUI Checkpoint | FreeAdvice

Among other requirements for DUI checkpoints, law enforcement must indicate it is an official stop and they cannot hold drivers longer than is needed to check for sobriety.

criminal-law.freeadvice.com

 

[Goldenhawk]

Oh, and I think that there is a general assumption that if you don't like how your particular state carries out such roadblocks, you're also free to move to another state with different laws about roadblocks.

I'm not really sure why some people are so bothered by this, given its court-accepted legality within the laws of our land. In something like 35 years of driving, I may have been stopped at 2 roadblocks TOTAL, and each time I was simply asked if I'd been drinking, and was on my way in literally a minute or so. It's hardly a burden on the grand scale of my life, and I don't consider it an "unreasonable" measure. I am not particularly bothered by losing that 0.000004346% of my life, especially since it probably means I'm several percent less likely to come to a premature end of my life due to a drunk driver.

 

[Freefaller]

If I may ...


It is apparent that you do not understand how salaried positions function. They are not strictly 8 hour working shifts. If one has to work extra hours in the course of a day to finish assigned tasks, then one works those extra hours to finish those tasks as part of being salaried. In essence, if say for a homicide, if it takes 12 hours to investigate the scene and gather evidence, then that's how long the work day is. If a run of the mill day, 8 to 9 hours. A system such as this would allow, "law enforcement", to focus on the more serious and substantial crimes that occur. Instead of being lazy sitting around with a radar gun watching rush hour traffic while all are safely speeding and passing by, and picking out any one car to give a ticket. Maybe, instead, they will be looking for that ass of a driver weaving in an out of traffic, recklessly driving, speeding faster and passing the the rest, making it unsafe for everyone? Basically, with this system, the citizens won't be harassed to no end. With such a system, priorities would change with a focus on actual, society hurting, crimes. As it should be. What we have now is legalized theft squads that do nothing but feed the court system and fill the coffers of government.

Please excuse me but my god are you stupid!

 

[This_person]

Mr. Ms. Person, my Goodness, you should be one of them lawyers, judges, flaming activist or progressive journalists that knows lots of stuff!

We ALL should be informed citizens

 

[This_person]

That is exactly why the public is notified in advance of drunk driving checkpoints; it's a reaction to Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, which held that if the public has been notified of the potential for otherwise involuntary search, then any individual may willingly choose to avoid being in that place at that time, and thus NOT consent to the search.

Requirements for a DUI Checkpoint | FreeAdvice

Among other requirements for DUI checkpoints, law enforcement must indicate it is an official stop and they cannot hold drivers longer than is needed to check for sobriety.

criminal-law.freeadvice.com

Being told "we're going to violate your fourth amendment protections, usurping power we do not have" is not really a reasonable way to violate the constitution.

 

[This_person]

Oh, and I think that there is a general assumption that if you don't like how your particular state carries out such roadblocks, you're also free to move to another state with different laws about roadblocks.

That another state may not seek to violate the constitution is not an acceptable alternative to the state in which I live violating the constitution.

I'm not really sure why some people are so bothered by this, given its court-accepted legality within the laws of our land. In something like 35 years of driving, I may have been stopped at 2 roadblocks TOTAL, and each time I was simply asked if I'd been drinking, and was on my way in literally a minute or so. It's hardly a burden on the grand scale of my life, and I don't consider it an "unreasonable" measure. I am not particularly bothered by losing that 0.000004346% of my life, especially since it probably means I'm several percent less likely to come to a premature end of my life due to a drunk driver.

Because, every totalitarian expansion of government begins with "it's for your safety", not with the large-scale things.

The TSA is a perfect example of the growth of the problem - now you cannot enter into a contract with a private company and execute without going through a warrantless search and seizure process. And, folks like you will think that's ok because you are stating your "safety" is better than your freedom.

The constitution and I disagree.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

I'm not really sure why some people are so bothered by this, given its court-accepted legality within the laws of our land.

Because freedom and liberty loving people know when their rights are being usurped by politically appointed judges issuing decisions that clearly go against the Constitution and the reasons and intent it foments.

Courts do not decide anything. They talk, reporters write of them, in the third person to detract from the individual robe wearing liberty thieves. The courts real definition; Men, or women, wearing black robes, issuing decisions, (referring to States vs the People), that go against US Constitution and its intent of limited government and intrusion into People's lives.

 

[BernieP]

Oh, and I think that there is a general assumption that if you don't like how your particular state carries out such roadblocks, you're also free to move to another state with different laws about roadblocks.

I'm not really sure why some people are so bothered by this, given its court-accepted legality within the laws of our land. In something like 35 years of driving, I may have been stopped at 2 roadblocks TOTAL, and each time I was simply asked if I'd been drinking, and was on my way in literally a minute or so. It's hardly a burden on the grand scale of my life, and I don't consider it an "unreasonable" measure. I am not particularly bothered by losing that 0.000004346% of my life, especially since it probably means I'm several percent less likely to come to a premature end of my life due to a drunk driver.

Differing views on the Constitution. We make lots of laws that often border on being unconstitutional, the Patriot Act being one that is still being debated. For example, this portion of the Act has come up for discussion recently

Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It: Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.

We are now talking about how the Obama administration (Dept of Justice) obtained the FISA warrants to open a domestic intelligence operation against the Trump campaign in 2016. Like a grand jury, these court proceedings are one sided, the state goes in and swears they have good reason to perform electronic and other surveillance of a US citizen within the border of the United States. It's similar in nature to a Grand Jury. It's often said a half decent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury. Because the law gives all the power to the state. only the state presents evidence to the jury. The state can compel testimony and there is no defense attorney to cross examine the witness. The government uses the grand jury as an investigative tool, to gather evidence and compel testimony, which is on the record. This is what is used when the state does not have sufficient evidence, where a judge would throw out the charge before trial. Yes, you can plead the fifth, which your attorney would probably advise before you enter the courtroom, because they aren't allowed in there with you. But the judge can also be asked to compel you to talk or be held in contempt of court - which means you sit in a jail cell until you comply with the judge.

So there are a number of laws that walk a thin line. In the case of traffic stops, the courts have put the power of decision making in the officers hands. They have said that law enforcement has to be able to proceed based on their own discretion. So similar to the FISA court and Grand Jury, it allows the state to decide what is or is not unconstitutional.

This country fails to work if we allow the government to take away the rights that blood was shed to defend. Challenging the government, pushing back in these areas, is far less violent and deadly than another armed rebellion.

 

[Goldenhawk]

I hear you all, and I don't like the situation much either. But like it or not, our system of government is such that when a law has been enacted (legislative branch), is being enforced (executive branch), and has been found Constitutional by the Supreme Court (judicial branch), all three branches thus having agreed upon that course of action, it IS the law of the land. Anyone who rails against the unconstitutionality of a law simply because they personally disagree with such interpretation of the law is quixotically jousting against windmills.

There are definitely laws with which I personally disagree - for example the "right" to kill a 39-week fetus moments before it is born, simply for the mother's convenience. As much as I disagree with that situation, I cannot rightly claim it's unconstitutional simply because I happen to see the Constitution from a different light. It's settled law, with all three branches of government in agreement. But we have the option in such cases to change the law and the Constitution.

Whenever someone starts arguing "but it's unconstitutional" while simultaneously demonstrating a failure to understand the proper functioning of our legal system, I have a hard time giving much credence to their viewpoints because it just comes across as uninformed and opinionated.

 

[BernieP]

Here's the difference between abortion and other laws, like the Patriot Act or traffic stops. MONEY.
Planned Parenthood has poured millions of dollars into defending their billion dollar industry.
If not for the NRA and it's financial support, the 2nd Amendment would probably be tramped on as well.
Why do you think the focus now is on killing sponsorship of the NRA. Go after the companies that give the NRA money for the right to license their name as NRA life insurance, etc.
Our legal system is just that, legal, not justice. It's far to expensive for a normal person to engage in litigation against the government.
Because you will lose.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Whenever someone starts arguing "but it's unconstitutional" while simultaneously demonstrating a failure to understand the proper functioning of our legal system, I have a hard time giving much credence to their viewpoints because it just comes across as uninformed and opinionated.

Legal system? Must have missed that in American History and Civics. We have a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution being the supreme law of the land guaranteeing very State a Republican form of Government. I have yet to find the term, "Legal System", in the body if the Constitution anywhere. It appears you have succumbed to the propaganda of the MSM. There is a Judiciary, that supposed to apply laws as written. But that is it.

 

[This_person]

I hear you all, and I don't like the situation much either. But like it or not, our system of government is such that when a law has been enacted (legislative branch), is being enforced (executive branch), and has been found Constitutional by the Supreme Court (judicial branch), all three branches thus having agreed upon that course of action, it IS the law of the land. Anyone who rails against the unconstitutionality of a law simply because they personally disagree with such interpretation of the law is quixotically jousting against windmills.

There are definitely laws with which I personally disagree - for example the "right" to kill a 39-week fetus moments before it is born, simply for the mother's convenience. As much as I disagree with that situation, I cannot rightly claim it's unconstitutional simply because I happen to see the Constitution from a different light. It's settled law, with all three branches of government in agreement. But we have the option in such cases to change the law and the Constitution.

Whenever someone starts arguing "but it's unconstitutional" while simultaneously demonstrating a failure to understand the proper functioning of our legal system, I have a hard time giving much credence to their viewpoints because it just comes across as uninformed and opinionated.

It's not uninformed and opinionated to recognize the unconstitutionality of a law - even if SCOTUS has opined that it is constitutional.

Take Kelo, for example. Probably the worst opinion from SCOTUS in 40 years or more. Take Plessy, or Dred Scott. SCOTUS does not always get it right. NFIB v. Sebelius is up there with Kelo.

Of course it is the law, and many believe it needs to be obeyed as such. That does not make it acceptable to violate the constitution. I am for the rule of law, but I am also for fixing bad laws within the framework (the "system") currently established. Voicing opposition to bad laws, to bad rulings, is a great way to start that.

As for your abortion position, all three branches are NOT in agreement. We have given the judicial branch an umpire's role, a "final arbiter" role. That was never the intention, and is not their role.

 

[officeguy]

The lack of a press release touting how they arrested dozends of drunks leads me to believe that the ratio was even more dismal than during their prior boondoggles.

 

[BernieP]

[

The lack of a press release touting how they arrested dozends of drunks leads me to believe that the ratio was even more dismal than during their prior boondoggles.

I don't think they care about drunk driving arrests, that they didn't make any validates the theory that the checkpoints kept them off the road.
Might be an invalid theory, but it works for them.

What they will list is all the other arrests and tickets written.
Excuse me, but I believe I smell marijuana in that there car, mind if I take a look.
Well hello there, I believe we have a warrant with your name on it.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Mr. Ms. Person, my Goodness, you should be one of them lawyers, judges, flaming activist or progressive journalists that knows lots of stuff!

Better than having scarred and calloused knees from the continued and non-stop kneeling licking all those boots.

*Not implying you are of this mentality.

 

[LightRoasted]

[
I don't think they care about drunk driving arrests, that they didn't make any validates the theory that the checkpoints kept them off the road.
Might be an invalid theory, but it works for them.

Also what is also known as, propaganda.