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: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saabster5
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...


Yes here's where the confusion comes in you see it, right? The article is very unclear, maybe intentionally so, still atraffic stop is not a road block and either the reporter needs to go back to school and learn some vocabulary, or she's/he's mincing words intentionally. This is not looking so kosher as I thought when I first read, I don't know it doesn't really specify if every single person is going to be asked to do a breath test or if there'll be precedent, hmmmm.
Not enough information here as to what/who/and when they would ask you to do a breathalizer.
It does seem more shady now. As I was under the impression they would call out a judge at a traffic stop? So I thought maybe the judge is on call not literally standing by but "Standing by" in the sense that he's on call. Wow, no this doesn't sound kosher at all.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Those of you who wish to address this religious idiot Linda Unfried have a bit of a go at her:

email:
lunfried@hcso.tampa.fl.us

Her phone number at work is (813) 273-6233
(note, this is her work number at the Hillsborough County Sheriffs office, so if you are going to call, please make sure to take proper precautions. )



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Those of you who wish to address this religious idiot Linda Unfried have a bit of a go at her:

email:
lunfried@hcso.tampa.fl.us

Her phone number at work is (813) 273-6233
(note, this is her work number at the Hillsborough County Sheriffs office, so if you are going to call, please make sure to take proper precautions. )

Oh LORD, what does she do there? I think she is the one that's an investigator for the child protective services, OH JESUS...OH BOY.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


She's the religious freak who pushed these illegal check points.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Why are there still people living in Florida?

Phosphogypsum is heavily mined in Florida and it's too radioactive to use. So they piled it up in MASSIVE stacks around Florida to let the radioactivity vent off so it can be used in the products like potting soil they export.

(Ever wonder why bags of potting soil are radioactive....famous Government quote "its no more radioactive than a bag of potting soil")

Anyways one of these MASSIVE mountains of Phosphogypsum had the center of it sink into this massive sinkhole. It contaminates the water supply for Florida. The sinkhole was so massive that helicopters can fly inside the sinkhole. Cargill Fertilizer bought it all up for +$1 Billion when our economy was rocking but after it collapsed they lost their entire rear on the deal...Don't have any revenue and now nobody can afford to deal with the phosphogypsum pollution issue in Florida.

If you are mad about Florida's "no refusal" issue, why aren't you mad over the Phosphogypsum catastrophe in Florida? It turned your air radioactive, destroyed your water table, and completely decimated your State.

You should have the Right to drink and drive to counter what the State did to you all in Florida.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Sorry if I came across condescending ldy.
Wasn't my intention. As you may have intended it or not, one of the other problems that we're going through is the deceit that goes on in our media. Even locally, facts and statements are misconstrued and left for the "common' people to read and already have an opinion formed for them. Not gonna lump you into that category, you have already proven that you are not in their, but it is still easy to fall for these practices.

I mean would you really have been for this enhanced security if they would have actually printed in the manner that which many of the posters in this thread have stated? Like I said, the inebriated driving issue needs to be addressed, but not in a draconian tyrannical way that puts the entire populace at the mercy of a few individuals to decide if that person is capable of operating a vehicle or not.

Just because someone swerved or is chewing gum while driving shouldn't be reason to put them into a category of endangering lives. Sometimes there is more to the story than what is being observed, and while LEO's are highly trained in many areas of detection and whatnot, they still have the same problem that the ENTIRE population of humans have....and that is we all err.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Yes but I recognize that phone number do you know what exactly she does as her job there?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
The thing is, you can avoid the "breathalyzer" without legally "refusing to submit".

When the officers say you need to take a breathalyzer, you don't say "No - I refuse". Bad move, legally speaking, because by refusing, you are legally granting them probable cause to give you a breathalyzer.

What you should say is, "Am I being detained?". This puts the officer into a legal predicament, because in order to detain you, they MUST have probable cause. And they can't give you a breathalyzer without probably cause, UNLESS you submit voluntarily.

And that's what the checkpoint is all about - getting people ignorant of the law to volunteer.

So, if the officer says "Yes, you are being detained," and they detain you without probable cause, then anything they discover AFTER that (breathalyzer, etc.) can't be used against you in court because they didn't follow due process. Even so, if you are detained, DO NOT SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE, except that you going to "remain silent under the 5th amendment." At this point, if you are over the legal alcohol limit of driving, then you better have a good lawyer who can protect you based on the failure of due process, but if you SAY anything like "yes, I've had a few beers" then that could be used AGAINST you as "probable cause" to justify the breathalyzer.

That's why it's important to SHUT UP and keep you mouth shut during detainment. The officer will get upset and try to intimidate you, but you must stand firm and stay quiet, unless you ask, "Am I being arrested?" and if so, then respond with, "I'm not answering any questions without a lawyer present." And you better stick to that.

On the other hand, if the officer says, "No, you are not being detained," then they are legally acknowledging they have no authority to make you do anything more.

At which point, before you leave, you must confirm their decision is final by asking, "Am I free to go?". This puts the officer into another legal bind. If the officer says, "No, you are not free to go," they MUST have a legal reason to prevent you from going at which you return to the question, "Am I being detained." See above.

However, if the officer says, "Yes, you are free to go." Then you say nothing more, and simply leave.

They will do EVERYTHING they can to intimidate you, but if you follow those 2 simple questions, and only those 2 simple questions, then you you are legally protected because it's a checkpoint (no probable cause). Don't fall for any other tricks, questions, and don't EVER try to "reason" with them, because you will inevitably say something that will legally volunteer you to the probable cause.

Now, if the officer says "Yes you are being detained", then it would help you out in court extremely if you have the entire conversation recorded. It also helps to have a good lawyer who knows how the law works.
edit on 30-12-2010 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by saabster5
 


Correct and like I said the idea you have for the thing in the vehicle to breathe into and won't start your car if you're drunk is very good. I think though the biggest thing to address is who would cover the cost of putting them in? You know not all people can buy new cars, me being one, but I think we may be able to snowball the insurance co's to cover implementing these things, I mean after all, they've snowballed us for so long.

I didn't take your post as condesending.
I did read it in a way that gels with what I first stated in the thread, and because I have known someone killed by a drunk driver, that's why I read it that way, but that is definately because they left it really open to interpretation on so many levels. Wow. They are more double speaking than our politicians.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
One more thing to mark on my list of reasons to HATE Florida.

Ok why not just instant arrest?

What do they need a blood test for??

Why not have a judge there to make you TAKE the test? Why blood? It's BS!



So if they make you take a blood test and they find other things in there does that mean you are SOL on that too??

This is totaly invasion of personal space and ones personal body.


I know it's a deadly night on the roads but blood tests are a bit EXTREME!

Why not have services to drive people to and from for free? It would be cheaper than the costs for a lawyer and a judge!

Ahhh...well this would never affect me because I NEVER EVER drink and drive but many think they are impervious to it. If they do just arrest them, take away their DL for a year instantly no get out of jail free card.

There are so many other ways to go about this..oh well.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 




....So, does anybody really think that these herbs are going to go away? No, they will go underground, controlled by whom? Something else for the cop to check when he pulls you over, illegal bee pollen.....


Codex Alimentarious is part of that blasted food safety law so we just got similar laws here in the USA. They will be enacted in 2012. Pretty soon you could be arrested and spend time in jail for having Chamomile (a daisy) in your garden!

Unfortunately thanks to the Trojan horses called Organic Consumers Assoc. and Food & Water Watch, the general population was lulled into thinking this new law was about safety, instead of control of the food supply.

Maude Barlow a “no dog in this fight” Canadian, is a director of both. She has been handsomely rewarded for selling out the US consumer with an appointment as New Senior Advisor to the UN president on October 21, 2008. Given that Bill Clinton ratified the World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag that turned control of the food supply over to the international Food cartel masquerading as the IPC, It is not surprising that on February 18, 2008 “Hillary Clinton highlight[ed] a series of food safety proposals she would pursue as president.” (PRNewsChannel) / Washington, D.C www.prnewschannel.com...


Here is what the FDA said a few years ago before this blasted law was even on the table. That is why I KNOW where we are headed.

International Harmonization
FDA.gov

The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
Participation in Codex Alimentarius
Cosmetics International Activities
International Organizations and Standard-Setting Bodies
International Office of Epizootics
International Plant Protection Convention
World Health Organization
Food and Agricultural Organization
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Microbiological Risk Assessments
Pan American Health Organization
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development


Here is a listing of some of the people in the IPC, I am sure they have the consumers best interests in mind.



IPC: International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council
A look at the IPC membership will explain what interests it represents.

The Chairman is Robert Thompson, former Assistant Secretary US Department of Agriculture and former Presidential economic adviser.

Also included in the IPC are Bernard Auxenfans, former chairman Monsanto France;
Allen Andreas of ADM/Toepfer;
Andrew Burke, Bunge (US);
Dale Hathaway former USDA official and head IFPRI (US).
Other IPC members include Heinz Imhof, chairman of Syngenta (CH);
Rob Johnson of Cargill (US) and USDA Agriculture Policy Advisory Council;
Guy Legras (France) former EU Director General Agriculture,
as is Rolf Moehler of Germany.
Donald Nelson of Kraft Foods (US);
Joe O’Mara of USDA,
Hiroshi Shiraiwa of Mitsui & Co Japan;
Jim Starkey former US Trade Representative Assistant;
Hans Joehr, Nestle head of agriculture;
Jerry Steiner, Monsanto (US).
Members Emeritus include Ann Veneman, herself a board member of a Monsanto subsidiary company before she became US Secretary of Agriculture for George W. Bush in 2001.

In effect the IPC is run by US-based agribusiness giants including Cargill, Monsanto, Bunge, ADM, the very interests which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade.

ntrs.nasa.gov...


The actual author of the AoA of WTO was Daniel Amstutz, a former Vice President of Cargill Grain,



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Its ironic, you are allowed by law to drive a motor vehicle to an establishment that is allowed by law to sell you adult beverages. It is a a known fact that a lot of people out there drive home intoxicated. Bad idea, catch 22. The prohibition did not work well, and this way people have the right to their own judgement. Who pays? The poor souls who become crippled or perish at the hands of the drunk drivers. The drunk drivers can face the same fate. More so the loved ones left behind in a heap of sorrow and heart break. Too bad all gin mills don't offer taxi service. I'm thinking a group discounted taxi fee from home and back to home. Taxi drivers would benefit as would the establishments, imagine not having to worry about driving at all, no DUI's or tragedies either.......except one's own health due to the consequences of heavy binge drinking. Then there will be fines waiting for them when they are in need of a liver transplant....the wheels on the bus go round and round



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jymmyjaymes
 
Star on your last jymmy!

Several good points in there. One I would like to mention is the fact that an 18 year old apparently has enough sense to be trusted to vote, but is not old enough to legally drink( unless he is in the military, but then he is taking the risk of dying for his country).


edit on 30-12-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by saabster5
 





....ETA: Just thought about this as I reread my post. 5 years ago, Wyoming's legal limit was 0.12, and an open-container in the vehicle was also legal. Things have changed mighty quick.


OFF the wall comment:
In Massachusetts I know of a wedding carriage operator that got fined because of the open bottle of champagne the Bridal party had snuck into the carriage!

Carriage operators hate alcohol because it dissolves the dye in the lining of the hood and leaves stains all over the white carriage that can not be removed. People leave half empty bottles in the folded hood or on the floor.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Well the interlock device definitely wasn't my idea, haha. There are quite a few states out here in the Rocky Mtn region that require convicted drunk drivers to have them installed in their vehicles as a condition of their probation. At the cost of the taxpayer...jk, lol. The individual that was convicted has to pay for the install I believe.

As for putting it in the rest of the vehicles in America...ya, don't think it will happen anytime soon. Just like you, a new car definitely isn't on my things to buy in the foreseeable near future. The great thing about this nation, that it has had some clever ideas for some unique situations in the past. Is it possible that we, as a whole, can come to some agreement that doesn't have a negative affect on the entire population in today's day and age? I really don't know. I wish i could say that it was possible, but nowadays, I'm really pessimistic that the "people" will be able to enjoy the things we used to. Is it a more dangerous world than the one I lived in 10 years ago? I don't think so, but many are led to believe to the contrary.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
One more thing to mark on my list of reasons to HATE Florida.

Ok why not just instant arrest?

What do they need a blood test for??

Why not have a judge there to make you TAKE the test? Why blood? It's BS!



So if they make you take a blood test and they find other things in there does that mean you are SOL on that too??

This is totaly invasion of personal space and ones personal body.


I know it's a deadly night on the roads but blood tests are a bit EXTREME!

Why not have services to drive people to and from for free? It would be cheaper than the costs for a lawyer and a judge!

Ahhh...well this would never affect me because I NEVER EVER drink and drive but many think they are impervious to it. If they do just arrest them, take away their DL for a year instantly no get out of jail free card.

There are so many other ways to go about this..oh well.


There are several, here's one :
DDA
And our local radio station has a board which I can't seem to find now, but they do it every holiday people volunteer on their website to be designated drivers. And my friends know if they need me to, since I don't drink, they can always call me to pick them up, all for free, well maybe a little jerking their chain the next day about how silly they acted lol, just joking.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I find it interesting that so many of you are upset at the Florida plan, when this has been going on in Maui since the 90's! Probably before...

There's one road into Lahaina where the New Year's festivities (ie. bars) are and there's a checkpoint coming out of the town for those driving back to Kaanapali (for instance) and there is no way around it.

Drink and drive on the island when the checkpoints are up and they will catch you. Don't do it. Take a cab and stuff the outrage. Fact: drinking and driving KILLS people. Usually, the innocent one...


edit on 30-12-2010 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Checkpoints are common, having a Judge Dredd on scene to stab you and take your blood is not common! The checkpoints were bad enough, but adding a Judge and Phlebotomist to every checkpoint is surely crossing the line.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


www.pendleton.usmc.mil...

Sorry about the link, best I can do, but Californian's who have lived here any amount of time will confirm that you are correct, sir!

I, also, am California born and raised, 46ACE you are thinking of Camp Pendleton, which is an alien checkpoint, hauler scales search and seizure point and when ordered a DUI check point as well.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 





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


Boy you have that right!

I was just looking at the Patriot Act. There is one thing that is GLARINGLY obvious.


TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER
Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border

Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the northern border.

Sec. 402. Northern border personnel.

Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.

Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.

Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.

Subtitle B--Enhanced Immigration Provisions

Sec. 411. Definitions relating to terrorism.

Sec. 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review.

Sec. 413. Multilateral cooperation against terrorists.

Sec. 414. Visa integrity and security.

Sec. 415. Participation of Office of Homeland Security on Entry-Exit Task Force.

Sec. 416. Foreign student monitoring program.

Sec. 417. Machine readable passports.

Sec. 418. Prevention of consulate shopping.

Subtitle C--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of Terrorism
Sec. 421. Special immigrant status.

Sec. 422. Extension of filing or reentry deadlines.

Sec. 423. Humanitarian relief for certain surviving spouses and children.

Sec. 424. `Age-out' protection for children.

Sec. 425. Temporary administrative relief.

Sec. 426. Evidence of death, disability, or loss of employment.

Sec. 427. No benefits to terrorists or family members of terrorists.

Sec. 428. Definitions.

TITLE V--REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM
epic.org...


Notice anything MISSING folks??? How about the MEXICAN border??

The Secure Fence Act of 2006



This Act may be cited as the “Secure Fence Act of 2006”.

SEC. 2. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.

The Congress finds and declares the following:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following—

(1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and

(2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.

(b) OPERATIONAL CONTROL DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘operational control’’ means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made toward achieving and maintaining operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States in accordance with this section.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS IN BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF MEXICO.



Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended&mdsash;

(1) in the subsection heading by striking “NEAR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA”; and

(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

(“1”) “SECURITY FEATURES.—

“(A) REINFORCED FENCING.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors—

“(i) i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;

“(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;

“(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;

“(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and

“(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.

“(B) PRIORITY AREAS.—With respect to the border described—

“(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along such area by May 30, 2007, and that fence construction is completed by May 30, 2008; and”

“(ii)in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry is completed by December 31, 2008.

“(C) EXCEPTION.—If the topography of a specific area has an elevation grade that exceeds 10 percent, the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including the use of surveillance and barrier tools.”
news.findlaw.com...


So WHERE is the blasted FENCE??? We have a 22% unemployment rate so WHY aren't "Stimulus Funds" spent to employ Americans to build this fence? It has been 4 years. It doesn't take THAT long to put up a fence, Just ask the Aussies! Or better yet the phone company.

I just talked to this nice group who is watching our border for us (NonProfit Group) They have a lot of good information on how the US government is NOT doing their job as required by LAW!!!!

American Border Patrol



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join