so, i assume by some of the responses, that in the new america, the population will feel be safe and sound and will not mind being stopped in their vehicle for no reason other than to check you out. speaking as a former law enforcement officer, when a cop pulls you over..the ticket is just a fine...they realy are interested in finding out if you are 'clean'....no warrents ect.
now for all of those who want to give up the freedoms of America, i'm sure you wouldn't/wont care when the pole-leaz set up 'crimminal check points' on the sidewalk......why stop there....why not to random check of people in state, city, county, federal owned buildings.....why not your house???because in your house is where you could/are doing the most unlawfull of things....this is only a natural progression of what you will let the pole-leaz do...in the name of saftey.. the govt likes to use the ..'we can't tell you anything..national saftey concerns of course..' it looks like you can soon add..'we stopped you in the name of safety....even though you were driving/walking fine and showed no signs of impairment...'...so what are the statistics on the number of vehicles on the road today vs the number of accident, drunk drivers.......the worst offenders for dui, are the pole-leaz themselves.......i've seen it may times....of course they are not on duty and they are cops so i guess that makes it ok.

AMERICA is not America any more.....land of the free, home of the brave ..is now land of the people who will give up there freedoms for precieved saftey and home of the uncaring.........................


[edit on 17-7-2004 by clearmind]

I didn’t say that I liked it, or that it was right, but simply that it happened to me. I agree that if you give LEOs an inch, they will take a mile. Having a police force that resorts to checkpoints does not make me feel safer. I would rather that they were smart enough to catch criminals without having to resort to screening the general driving public.

If it comes down to police on the sidewalk, I have no intention of stopping. But, I bet it will be a long time (hopefully) before we see that, should that ever happen.

Anyone who sticks up for this kind of behaviour is no longer an American and I would be happy to help raise money to send them to China or some other communist police state of their choice.

For those who think its ok to stop and search EVERYONE on a road for our "protection" how about this.....


What if they decide that to protect us they need to go door to door searching houses? Is this much different than random roadblocks? After all just think of how many drug dealers, thiefs, kiddie porn, illeagal guns etc that they could find.

Would that not make us safer?

I dont need to be that safe, and I dont think thats what our forefathers were thinking of when they started this nation.

They werent concerened with having the government protect them, like some scared 5 year old, from every bogie man they could think of, but with starting a country where you would be free to protect YOURSELF, even from THEM.

Hey, if you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem? I'm mean, you guys act as if our country was founded on freedom and being innocent until proven guilty.





ps-I'm being sarcastic.....

roxdog: If you can tell me which document associated with the founding of the United States of America contains the words "innocent until proven guilty", I'll give you a Scooby Snack.

Originally posted by Majic
roxdog: If you can tell me which document associated with the founding of the United States of America contains the words "innocent until proven guilty", I'll give you a Scooby Snack.

I dont know of any that state it that way but ...... They do have a clause about people being safe in there persons and homes I believe is how they put it.

Part of the reason we rebeled against Briton was them searching houses without probable cause and warrentless arrests, which to me makes it seem that part of their intent WAS a citizen was innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by Majic
For reference, here's the text of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Article [IV.] 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.

The keyword here is UNREASONABLE.

Is it therefore UNREASONABLE for the police to stop you, in your vehicle in random sting operations?

I say No, it isn't. Not when these surprise sting operations net a bunch of offenders: DUI, no license, no insurance, expired tag, speeders, etc...

It seems that many who responded did not actually read the article because everyone is talking DUI and searching for drunk drivers (which is bad enough), but this article clearly states:

"Police in Independence conducted a driver checkpoint on Thursday, but it wasn't to look for drunken drivers. For about an hour Thursday afternoon, officers stopped vehicles to make sure drivers had valid licenses."

That is just insane and I can't believe any American is OK with this?!? This is not freedome! "Papers please" - ring any bells? Not the libery bell I can tell you that. Give me liberty or give me death! Unless I've done something to cause the police to pull me over I have given them no probable cause - they are just playing big brother an looking for revenues. Next thing you know they'll be stoping you when your walking down the street asking for proof of citizenship.

To date, and to the best of my knowledge and sources, there has not been a single case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court asserting a right to drive a motor vehicle.

If this right does not exist, then it is reasonably left to the states to decide what their requirements are for motor vehicle licensing and inspection, including rules surrounding stopping and inspecting motor vehicles.

Does this mean I support "driver's license checkpoints"? No. As it happens, I do not support them.

However, that is my opinion, not a legal opinion.

Unless someone can present compelling evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that law enforcement authorities can pretty much pull you over for just about anything they want.

If this bothers you, then either find a provision in existing law barring it, or propose legislation to do so.

Whining about it will not change anything, except the opinions of others about your maturity.

The traffic cops here have technology which, in a couple of seconds, can tell them if you have outstanding fines.
If you do they arrest you there and then, and take you to holding cells. They have had women arrested with their children. The cops have taken flack for this, because they produce no warrant or proof of the said fines.

Wait a minute...so stopping a driver to see if they have a license ISNT ok?...Would you speak the same if an unlicensed driver killed your sister?...How bout if the guy who just jumped the border and is driving a construction vehicle crashes into your car...then takes off??...Thats fine...right?...Are you against stopping trucks because of terrorism?...O wait...yall forgot about WTC 1993...i understand...and we cant stop for DWI's?...Is that because yall do it or are you SURE that a Drunk ass wont kill a family member?...I love how people say theres never a cop around blah blah blah...but bitch when a cops being proactive instead of reactive...

We can make up a bunch of different scenario's of people getting stopped at road blocks. These road blocks are generally well thought out and planned in advance.

If you have a high concentration of citations issued for traffic violations in a certain area, speeders in a certain area etc..., a perfered route which drug dealers use, and the best one, conducting road blocks in neighborhoods which have the largest concentration of crime, is a good place to begin a road stop. The area to be checked isn't "at random". These specific target area's are proven time and time again, to be area's where active policing is needed.

Gone are the days where mere "police presence" was viewed as a deterrent. Criminals have become more sophisticated in the crimes they committ.

I have read posts in this thread about the police having traffic "citation quota's" to bring monies into the department.

The real argument against "quota's" is that they encourage racial/ethinic profiling.

Originally posted by clearmind
AMERICA is not America any more.....land of the free, home of the brave ..is now land of the people who will give up there freedoms for precieved saftey and home of the uncaring......................... [edit on 17-7-2004 by clearmind]

How are you justifying that as " percieve safety "? By taking off the roads drunks etc. How is that percieved? By that logic, the increased inspections at airports are also in this category. I agree that the level of security post 911 has increased. But that is simply in keeping with the times.

And please amplfy "the home of the uncaring"


[edit on 18-7-2004 by FredT]

It seems as though ignorance is the only thing prevailing in this thread. In Michigan, and probably all other states, driving is not a right. It is a privilege. Sobriety checkpoints have been around for a long time and have passed the tests of the court. Again, part of the argument is that driving is not a right.

Where ignorance prevails is when one attempts to extrapolate a roadway checkpoint with police or government officials conducting random searches of homes without cause or other off the wall improbable scenarios. Given the long standing history of the courts protecting, and sometimes even over protecting, rights, it is the height of ignorance to make that type of argument.

Originally posted by CommonSense
It seems as though ignorance is the only thing prevailing in this thread. In Michigan, and probably all other states, driving is not a right. It is a privilege. Sobriety checkpoints have been around for a long time and have passed the tests of the court. Again, part of the argument is that driving is not a right.

Where ignorance prevails is when one attempts to extrapolate a roadway checkpoint with police or government officials conducting random searches of homes without cause or other off the wall improbable scenarios. Given the long standing history of the courts protecting, and sometimes even over protecting, rights, it is the height of ignorance to make that type of argument.

I would actually say this is the most ignorant post on this thread so far (IMP). Did you see where I would help pay to send you to China? You ready? Driving is a right. The state is not God. Sorry.

[edit on 18-7-2004 by roxdog]

No roxdog, driving is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, it could be revoked.