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.

 

Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
"Those who would trade liberty for security will receive neither and deserve none."
- Benjamin Franklin

Think about it folks... This is NOT in anyone's best interest. Neither short-term nor long-term.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Your comments suggesting the OP is a racist, solidified you are unable to conjure up a constructive thought. Furthermore, those types of comments made by individuals much like yourself only show how little you know about the ways of things.

You have " painted " the picture for yourself as being a complete a## clown~

What you don't think all life is precious? Well then I would say that it's a sad, sad day.
But yes usually the snowflake retort is something said by racist blacks as I know firsthand so forgive me if I was wrong, it is just implied. whatever.
I really think that is the basis of this issue, that people beleive that the only thing precious is their freedom, they can't see the forest for the trees, that all life is precious, and that people that DO see this tend to act more responsibly. The sad fact is as proven here, we are few and far between. I sure hope that changes.
I said before, if more people knew when to be off the roads and took more personal responsibility it would not come to this. However this is not the case, therefore some action has to be taken some is better than none. Also I commented on some other ideas that others have posted as an alternative to the methods currently being used. There are some good ones.
Well here I will post from the officers website(oops couldn't find it had it earlier) well this one is channel ten news here in Tampa Bay of WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING TO CLARIFY:


It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.


okay so they haave already probable cause because they stopped you because you were doing something wrong!!!! BTW on the footnote, this is ONLY ONE COUNTY in ONE SINGLE STATE!!!!
Hardly news for alarm, it also happens to be where I live, hell I am not worried as I follow the laws so I would not even be stopped. You all are make it out to sound as if they're going around arbitrarily stopping and demanding breathalizers this simply is not the case if you read the ENTIRE ARTICLE:
source


edit on 30-12-2010 by ldyserenity because: couldnt find it though



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   


See this is where you're all jumping to conclusions, no one is going to be breathalized unless the officer smells alcohol


That statement is very frustrating. When will you people understand that every infringement is marketed as a "good thing" that only those having something to hide need fear? Have you never heard the quote - "first they came" - let me repost it for you:



They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

----
The statement was published in a 1955 book by Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, based on interviews he'd conducted in Germany several years earlier. The quotation was widely circulated by social activists in the United States in the late 1960s. Its exact origin is unclear, and at least one historian has incorrectly suggested that the text arose after Niemöller's death. Later research traced the text to several speeches given by Niemöller in 1946.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 





...That law was passed for one reason, and one reason only, for the insurance co's to have another loophole to NOT pay out to AMERICANS who PAID their outrageously disgusting premiums!!!!....


That blasted law as well as EPA and OSHA were all passed at about the same time - early seventies. If I put on my tin foil hat I come to the conclusion that the seatbelt law was the beginning of that long slippery slope we are now on . And yes I did protest all three laws.

If you want to my wild Donkey guess as to why The Powers That Be, all of a sudden in the early seventies, decided to trash the USA and the rest of Western civilization, read my Ultimate Conspiracy Theory but make sure you are wearing your Tin Foil Hat (beanie propeller optional)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   


okay so they haave already probable cause because they stopped you because you were doing something wrong!!!! BTW on the footnote, this is ONLY ONE COUNTY in ONE SINGLE STATE!!!!
Hardly news for alarm, it also happens to be where I live, hell I am not worried as I follow the laws so I would not even be stopped. You all are make it out to sound as if they're going around arbitrarily stopping and demanding breathalizers this simply is not the case if you read the ENTIRE ARTICLE:


I'll go ahead and post your response from 12/2012 when this has been rolled out state wide and across counties all over the country-

"So what? This has been going on in Florida for years and no one ever complained. Where were you then?"



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

okay so they haave already probable cause because they stopped you because you were doing something wrong!!!!


Explain probable cause in a road-block situation please. I would like to hear how stopping every vehicle on the roadway is equal to probable cause of drunk driving?

Road-blocks that I have seen setup in communities to deter drunk drunk drivers always do this:
1) A section of the town is designated a check-station.
2) All roads in the area are closed and vehicles are directed towards the check-station.
3) Vehicles that don't go to the check-station are pulled over and operators are put through DUI tests.
4) Vehicles that do go to the check-station have the operators put through the DUI tests.

ETA: Don't know why this part disappeared, but will repost my conclusion to this post.

So, should every driver just quit driving because there are a few drunk drivers out there? No, we need to find a more proactive way of curbing DUI's in the U.S., without destroying the privalidges and rights afforded by our constitution. Many individuals have given life for the ideals in that piece of paper. To feel safety in your "precious" life is pissing on all those individuals who would rather protect the integrity of the "whole" instead of a few.

Sorry for the rant. No one individual life is above any others in my opinion, and the way you push for the castigation of all individuals on the road besides your daughters is deplorable. I for one, am more "fearful" for my life by the hands of these young children with no maturity who are behind the wheel of a killing machine.

edit on 12/30/2010 by saabster5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saabster5
Road-blocks that I have seen setup in communities to deter drunk drunk drivers always do this:
1) A section of the town is designated a check-station.
2) All roads in the area are closed and vehicles are directed towards the check-station.
3) Vehicles that don't go to the check-station are pulled over and operators are put through DUI tests.
4) Vehicles that do go to the check-station have the operators put through the DUI tests.


They did it in my area too - except they said it was a training exercise. Those that tried to avoid the massive traffic jam by turning were chased down. We were chased down but luckily I lived on the street I turned on to. We only had to give proof of driver's license but they had no cause for stopping hundreds of cars - especially for "training".



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

This isnt about probable cause at a traffic stop, this is a POLICE CHECKPOINT.

I would refuse a breathalyzer no matter what at a police checkpoint, why should the cops have the ability to take my blood under force when I am sober and simply exercising my constitutional rights?

FYI, you would be stopped at a CHECKPOINT, as the original article I posted states.

On a serious note, if you cant have an intelligent debate, maybe you should find another hobby other than trying to debate adults.
edit on 30-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Forget the Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
(except under suspicion and detainment for National Security-the only reason needed and they'll use it whenever they want and off you go)...

...shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...
(except under suspicion and detainment for National Security-the only reason needed and they'll use it whenever they want and off you go)...

...supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
(you on the highway sitting and waiting for the warrant to come)

You might get some satisfaction to be heard...after you get out...if you do...from detention. If you try and prove they had no cause...the fact that you are combative, shows the court they did have cause.

We lost the benefits of this Amendment when they enacted the Patroit Act. This and about about half the rest of them.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


AT a traffic stop, ok I live in this county(Hillsborough), for one, it takes a whole lot to be stopped here, the only time I ever got stopped here was when my taillights were out, I know it seems like a small thing and why are they stopping me, what? Well think about this, someone could have rearended me, especially since I wasn't aware they were out and had not driven the car in days(It developed an electrical problem while sitting there, maybe) well that isn't the point, the point is that it was for my safety (it was an old cop, about 60 something) And he probably wanted to just make sure I was aware of the situation. He never asked me to do a breathalizer either. Anyway, I have hardly seen anybody pulled over here and in 3 years of driving here I was pulled over once. IN NJ I was pulled over thousands of times with no probable cause, see they passed a law up there that you need not have probable cause to pull someone over and they used it as a way to harass me. If anything NJ is the most facist state I know. The most abusive, as well. I guess it's just who you tend to have faith in. If this was going on in NJ yeah I would worry because of their own law that states they need no probable cause to pull you over, but here in Florida they still do. So nobody is having their rights trampled, not in the least bit. I am telling you I live here, you really, really have to be doing something wrong to get pulled, Probably why there's so many accidents here. There's actually less police on the roads here, too.
This is all my first hand knowledge you can keep painting the whole county as crooked and rights violators, but I can tell you firsthand this is not the case, in fact, I would venture to guess most of the drunk drivers will not even be stopped if they don't swerve or speed, they will not be stopped simple as that. There are certain places as I mentioned where things would be different, but here, this simply is not true. They are not ARBITRARILY pulling over people just to make them take a breath test!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


A friend of mine used to "train" his drug dog in bar parking lots on Friday and Saturday nights. He would toss the drug toy about and let the dog go look for it, but lo and behold, sometimes the dog was more attracted to other cars, and the "training" just so happened to result in record drug arrests and confiscations. How fortunate for him.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by ararisq
 

They are not ARBITRARILY pulling over people just to make them take a breath test!


Yes they are, that is the definition of a checkpoint. The same thing is happening at airports - there is no probable cause to search passengers - because that would be "profiling" - instead they treat everyone with disdain and disrespect.

We are not arguing whether this is country-wide - we are arguing that what is happening here in this instant is an egregious violation of our right to be secure in our persons as defined by the constitution. The government has no right to inject into or withdraw anything from our bodies regardless of cause. To do so on the side of a road because another citizen wants to put you through it as a show of force is an egregious violation. Do you not understand or does it make you feel safe seeing other people abused?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 





Daily, I see the highway patrol pull trucks over, and lift the hoods, and basically write tickets.....


Yes, one of those "troopers" in California pulled a trucker over and hit him with a high speed traffic ticket. He also hit the trucker with resisting arrest and verbally assaulting a police officer. All together this means the driver loses his job and probably his CDL and livelihood.

Just one problem, the trucker was video taping a driving lesson for a truck driver training course and the video showed he was driving below the speed limit. It also showed the verbal abuse the truck driver received from the cop instead of the other way around!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Ok...
Like another said, reading comprehension.
Traffic Stop....Judge on site....
that doesn't make sense. That would mean either every cop has a judge in the vehicle with him....or....its a checkstation/roadblock with 1 (one) judge at that location.
Hmm, which seems more plausible. 2,000 judges riding around with your police force....or 1 (one) judge at 1 (one) location.....
*disclaimer: not sure the county in question has 2,000 vehicles in their police force, nor have any idea the number of judges...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I think Florida need to be more worried about the 80 and 90 year old driving who cannot see in the daylight not to mention all doped up on pharma meds, before they need to reform DUI checkpoints forcing people to take blood test so they can fine and tax the hell out of you for a year.
Its all about $$$$$$


I have a handful of friends who got DUI's with a point .008 bac that is the equivalent of about 3 beers, driving home from the bar after drinking a few beers at 2am and blowing a .008 and getting a dui is a joke when more old people in Florida and cell phone users are injurying people in broad daylight.


The state has to get its revenue somehow and their are allot of rich people in this state, and I am sure the law enforcement know that. I still think the dui drinking limit should be .010 if your sloppy drunk driving your car I concur you should get a dui, but not when you had just a couple beers or glasses of wine etc. etc. Not to mention no refusal check points are again something against some kind of right we Americans have man..

If you think not, go out and get some fresh air, or get older.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by willie9696
Just don't drink and drive and I think you will be fine.


Ever heard of the 4th Amendment?

Protect your liberties, and I think you will be fine.


Driving is a privelage and not constintutioanlly gauranteed. When you get your drivers license you agreed to something called implied consent. If you want to invoke the 4th amednment we can, but you are not going to like the answer.

It is permissible for law enforcement officers to seize evidence if waiting for a warrant means the evidence could be destroyed. The evidence is seized and an emergency petition is made to the PA and a judge, which then allows the officers to physically remove and have it processed.

This is no different, and is not a 4th amendment violation based on Supreme Court case law, in addition to State laws concerning the agreement people make to get their drivers license.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I know that we are speaking of Police check-points here, but my reference to H.S. was just a point.

L.Enforcement these days need only to say "because" and bitch all you want...but youre going. There-in is the main problem.

As long as they can justify they had a general "suspicion" and need to protect the public, the judges and courts will support that in the name of "safety". To hell with 'probable cause"...they dont need it under this application.

This in the name of "protecting the public". There goes your rights. Oh you may get some satisfaction bitching...but afterwards.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Well I just kind of glanced through, it's still unclear because they say a traffic stop and checkpoint, this is contradictory, a checkpoint isn't a traffic stop, and a traffic stop isn't a checkpoint, a checkpoint is set up and executed, a traffic stop is when they pull you over for doing something wrong. Hmmm, maybe a intentional mincing of words? Either way I beleive that the only time they will ask for a breath test is when they have probable cause to ask, like they either A.) see open containers, B.)smell it on your breath, or C.) your chewing gum or mints which is always a flag to officers that you may be trying to cover something on your breath.
I don't totally agree with it, and yet I can't knock it either. I think there needs to be something done, and many other posters have had some ideas, maybe instead of bashing you should re-read or read for the first time my responses to the alternatives offered. Now I am trying to be adult and well, not go on the attack, so please have the same respect.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Bicent76
 


I agree with the 80 and 90 year old, and even 16 year old concerns. Like I said, I ride a motorcycle just about everyday, and sometimes I think the elderly are trying to kill me on purpose!

If the legislators just have to make new laws, why don't they require driver testing at every renewal? Instead of just mailing in a check, maybe we should prove we still know what we are doing? Maybe the tests should be a little more difficult than just staying in a lane and making successful turn?

I could support "some" new laws if they made sense.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I ride a bike as well, and have had more old people try to kill me then drunks on the road.




Go figure..

lol if you have time and really wanna see some scary stuff go to the local dmv and watch the old people get their licenses renewed taking the eye tests..


The bottumline here this is all about convictions so the state and local government can get more money outta the public. If anything DUI laws need to be reformed. Their are allot of victims out their who have lost everything for blowing a .008.. Hell in the old days if you got pulled over and smelled like you had been drinking the deputy would tell you to get home and maybe even follow you to make sure you got home... True story....
Back when the law was called peace officers.. Boy have they forgotten a good deal..
edit on 30-12-2010 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join