It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Petitioner was convicted of federal drug offenses based on evidence seized in January, 1971, when Border Patrol officers stopped his camper pickup at a traffic checkpoint on California Highway 86, about 36 air miles from the Mexican border. The officers first determined that petitioner was a United States citizen, then asked him to open the camper so that they could search for concealed aliens. When petitioner opened the door, one officer noticed a strong odor of marihuana. He entered the camper and discovered approximately 356 pounds of the drug. A subsequent search of the passenger compartment produced a number of benzedrine tablets.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitioner's conviction, rejecting his argument that the search was unlawful. 462 F.2d 347 (1972). A petition for certiorari was pending when we announced our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of roving patrols to search vehicles, with neither a warrant nor probable cause, at points removed from the border and its functional equivalents. We vacated the judgment in petitioner's case and remanded for reconsideration in light of Almeida-Sanchez. 413 U.S. 915 (1973).
The Court of Appeals reheard the case en banc and held, in a sharply divided opinion, that the principles of Almeida-Sanchez applied to searches conducted at traffic checkpoints, as well as searches conducted by roving patrols. The Court nevertheless affirmed petitioner's conviction, holding that Almeida-Sanchez would not be applied to invalidate searches that occurred prior to the date of that decision. 500 F.2d 960 (1974). We
.
(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.
Not as far as I know....No illegal Checkpoints over here luckily.If Americans don't oppose these Nazi style checkpoints soon they will be all over the states.The Border Patrol should be at the border and no where else!!
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Worse things going on in the UK.
Originally posted by 27jd
Originally posted by jd140
I don't sympathize for any criminal.
Like I said, you're probably a "criminal" too. If you tell me you've never broken the law, you will be the liar here.
I'm not going to read anymore to prove to myself you aren't lying so if you have a piece that says they arrest you then show it.
Rather than place the blame on his daughter, he paid $1,600 in fines, and was embarrassed recently when the arrest showed up in a background check while he was trying to rent a house. He was allowed to move in, but lamented of his new rap sheet: "It just sucks. Period."
Here ya go. Not that it will matter to you anyway, you've already made your bias clear, it just sucks that you are one of the people who are tasked with defending our constitution...you have no business there.
Thats the differance between a criminal and a man. A criminal makes excuses and a man takes responsibility.
Originally posted by jd140
Thats the differance between a criminal and a man. A criminal makes excuses and a man takes responsibility.
So either you are lying about being arrested or you are lying about what really happened to you. Either way you are a liar.
I have recieved one very hateful U2U that is severly against T&C already due to my opinion. I will not tolerate anymore. Consider this your warning.
Originally posted by JBA2848
That was decided in 1976 supreme court. So the argument that some new law is what got him in trouble is not true.
Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Annee
ONCE AGAIN, regular law enforcement CANNOT set up K9 checkpoints. It is NOT constitutional, and this "changing of the hands" provides a loophole to search EVERYBODY'S car who passes through. How is that NOT sinking in to your head? REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT OPERATE K9 CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL...REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT OPERATE K9 CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL...REGULAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT OPERATE K9 CHECKPOINTS BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Has it gotten in there yet?