It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Identification CheckPoints for Drivers in E. Tennessee - Is a Police State Becoming 2012 Reality?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:02 PM
Hello ATS and the 'Social Issues and Civil Unrest' forum!

I don't like to start new threads without knowing which forum they should be authored in. However, this topic involves questions concerning proper police procedure, local laws, and possible modification of local/state/ or government laws. If there is a more proper forum mods, please send it over there and I will be grateful for that.

I had an appointment this morning. I stopped to get fuel and a cappuccino then decided to get a local news paper to help pass the time in the waiting room.

I was almost finished with the news paper when I decided to return to the 2nd page and check out recent local arrests, divorces, announcements.

Scanning over the page, I noticed an announcement that driver checkpoints would be conducted in the county on several future dates, the location as well as the begin and end time for the relative checkpoints.

Normally I wouldn't find this strange, since they do occur and, to the best of my knowledge, they are always announced to the public beforehand.

One thing I did find strange was the type of checkpoints will be conducted. In fact I have known of only one type of driver checkpoint, it is the sobriety checkpoints that are commonly scheduled across nearly any part of the USA.

There was also an announcement for the unfamiliar checkpoints, known as driver's license and insurance checkpoints.

I have just learned a bit more about them and apparently they are conducted in near identical fashion as a sobriety checkpoint, except the basic goal is to bust people with expired, revoked, or absent driver's license. In the area where I live it is not irregular for the police to take you straight to jail if they find you are operating a motor vehicle under any of the previous crimes (expired, revoked, or absent driver's license), during a routine traffic stop.

Although being arrested for committing the crime of driving while having legal issues with your driver's license, which is indeed a crime as defined by local laws, it does not seem legal for the police to stop random vehicles at will, simply to check that they have a driver's license and/or insurance.

What grounds are they using to halt your travel and demand to see your papers that the law requires you have, as well as keeping them on you at all times, even while not operating a vehicle on a public road. I believe there is also a law that can be implied on you, if you fail to produce identification upon request from a public service officer.

When did it become 'OK' to stop any and everyone one with out suspicion/probable cause?

Are the future driver's license checkpoints the product of recent laws that have been enacted and possibly implemented for one of the first times since being carved into 'The Stone Wall of Laws' which citizens must obey?

Are 'driver's license checkpoints' a common occurrence and I have simply never realized it?

I have most definitely heard of sobriety checkpoints, but I do not recall ever hearing of a 'Driver's License Checkpoint'

If this type of checkpoint is new, could it easily be a way for law enforcement/governments to implement other laws, in order to make more arrests and issue more citations and fines, as well as furthering the dominance and control of our friend, Mr. Government?

If it is not a new function of law enforcement, could it be that it is now being used more often in order for other new laws to be enforced against the general, unaware public?

Either way, this is absolutely a ridiculous, dominating, intimidating, and controlling way to saddle citizens with more fines and jail time, while simultaneously training citizens to be docile, unquestioning populations, that will swallow whatever the governments serve for dinner.

I won't go on much longer, I don't want this to turn into a rant against the systematic elimination of what little amount of true rights and freedoms we have left.

How can we continue to sit back and let anyone whittle away our rights and convert our neighborhoods into the definition of a police state?

I hope that it's illegal to conduct these driver's license checkpoints and that your failure to comply can't be a used as reason for officers to deem you suspicious or garner a probable cause labeling and subsequent search, arrest, or both.

It just seems very wrong to me at this point and I'd like to get your opinions on the use of driver's license checkpoints as a tool to implement new laws, gain greater control, and further brainwash the population at large into a deeper level of submission

The name of the local news paper here, where I first saw the announcements, is 'The Mountain Press'. I went to their website in order to find a link to use as sourcing material, but couldn't locate the exact announcement I am basing this thread off of. However, I was able to find a different local news paper offering the same announcement. The announcement is presented differently than the Mountain Press, but the information is, in large part, the same.

The difference being that the linked newspaper gives dates for only the 'Driver's License Checkpoints' and the other paper gives dates and times separately, identifying each checkpoint as either 'Sobriety Checkpoint' or 'Driver's License Checkpoint'

The next link is to the local newspaper that printed the schedule found online:

The Seymour Herald

This link shows a list of checkpoints scheduled, I believe it is current, but it may not be up to date:

CheckPoint Schedule for Tennessee
edit on 28-4-2012 by esteay812 because: tyops

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:30 PM
The truth is very simple:

They can do whatever they want to try and fish for criminals because they are cops. You don't have rights because driving is a "privilege" even though you paid for the car, pay the property taxes for it, and pay the taxes that keep the roads operating when you buy gasoline.

The bottom line is that municipalities are desperate for cash, so they're doing everything they can to try and scrounge out every little bitty bit of money that they can get. That's why they're doing it. Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant because they're cops and standing up for your rights will just get you hauled to jail and possibly evidence planted on you.
edit on 28-4-2012 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

Driving is a privilege and respecting other drivers and the rules/laws for operating motor vehicles must be observed, to maintain the safety of ourselves and other drivers.

The roads which we drive on are paid for with tax money and while I do not pay a tax that directly funds the salaries of officers, they are still public servants sworn to uphold safety and other rights belonging to the people of the community in which they police.

Citizens with the knowledge of what our police agencies are doing, who understand it is probably illegal and should be stopped if possible, but instead of doing anything, they sit back and say, 'Well, this is just how it is, like it or leave it'

This is exactly what they have been training and tricking us into believing, that we can not change it, so deal with it, as well as trying to convince us it is all the best thing for us.

We can not continue to allow ourselves to be subjected to such things. You and I both do not deserve to have our lifestyle governed, our intelligence controlled or our outlook and understanding manipulated. We do not, and we should not continue allowing it to happen and progress into a deeper, darker quality of life.

Your post has helped with proving my point in the OP.

The police do whatever they want to citizens. They make up bogus reasons for pulling over certain individuals who fit their idea of what a criminal looks like. They assert their authority in a way that is not at all what an average citizen would want to see from those pledged and paid to protect us from other 'real' criminals - the ones who rape, kill, and steal.

Not true of all officers, but there are large numbers of reports detailing criminal and/or moral misconduct by the police, individually and, in some cases, generally.

The focal point of the thread is not totally which police officers are corrupt or which ones abuse their authority, instead it is the implementation of Driver's License checkpoints - not sobriety checkpoints, but driver's license checkpoints.

While there are individual officers who conduct and manage these type of checkpoints, they are simply doing their job. The law makers and those who plan the checkpoints, as well as the checkpoints collectively are the primary focus and also what worries me more about the direction we are headed in as a society.

When the general population had been trained and forced into submission, so much so that only a very few rebels will stand up against the police state procedures that are bevcoming more and more common.

Those who realize that pulling someone over for no reason at all, other than to see if they have proper documentation, is a violation of basic privacy and can impede your shcedule for the day, when there is not a reason you deserve to be subjected to this type of privacy invasion.

The problem does not lie with the citizen, the problem and responsibility resides soley on the government to do the right thing. Pulling people over to check their papers is not the right way to do this.

There is a system in place that allows cars to be registered by the owners and the responsibility of who they allow to drive the vehicle goes to the car owner. It is not the governments responsibility to stop cars for the sole purpose Identification and license validity.

This should be completely illegal, since checkpoints like this are not designed to check only for legal license. They are designed to bring drivers into a confrantational setting with officers, where the officers will use their training to quickly take control of the situation my any means neccassary, all resulting in many more arrests for things that woud have never been a problem had the initial stop and investigation not occurred.

Yes, they do whatever they want to us, whenever and where ever they want to and that is also a bit of the point I am trying to show.

The control and invasiveness shown by the police force and the governing bodies is something that is unacceptable to for anyone who lives in a free country - though it is to be expected byt the citizens who live in a police/communist state.

I do hope the masses of the world will see what all our governments are doing to us and call for a revolution of some sort to put the majority in control of the majority, not the way we are governed now or the direction we are headed

sorry if there are tons of tyops, I am typing with a cast on my left hand/arm

edit on 28-4-2012 by esteay812 because: tyops

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:21 PM
I bought a box of Strike-Any-Where matches today and got asked for my ID. Some crap about Strike-Any-Where matches being any "controlled item". Strike on box matches=NO but Strike-Any-Where matches=YES. A "comtrolled item", just what is that all about?
So a check point does not surprise me in the least.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by fixer1967

I don't really know what that could mean, unless the matches are deemed to be very dangerous... hmm, on second though, the matches have red phosphorous?

If they did, it is possible that they are being monitored for who buys them and the quantity, because I believe Crystal Methamphetamine can be made using red phosphorous as one of the key ingredients... and no, I have never made any, just remember hearing about a big bust several hours away, where they found massive amounts of red phosphorous and other commonly used ingredients...

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by esteay812



• You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
• You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
• If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
• You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
• Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.


• Do stay calm and be polite.
• Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
• Do not lie or give false documents.
• Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
• Do remember the details of the encounter.
• Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.

This information is not intended as legal advice.
This brochure is available in English and Spanish /
Esta tarjeta también se puede obtener en inglés y español.
Produced by the American Civil Liberties Union 6

We rely on the police to keep us safe and treat us all fairly, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. This card provides tips for interacting with police and understanding your rights. Note: some state laws may vary. Separate rules apply at checkpoints and when entering the U.S. (including at airports).


Stay calm. Don’t run. Don’t argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.

Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.

You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.

You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may “pat down” your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.


Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.

Upon request, show police your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance

If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.

Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.


posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by azureskys


You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials.

You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country. (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)

If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you. If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.

Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.


If the police or immigration agents come to your home, you do not have to let them in unless they have certain kinds of warrants.

Ask the officer to slip the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window so you can inspect it. A search warrant allows police to enter the address listed on the warrant, but officers can only search the areas and for the items listed.

An arrest warrant allows police to enter the home of the person listed on the warrant if they believe the person is inside.
A warrant of removal/deportation (ICE warrant) does not allow officers to enter a home without consent.

Even if officers have a warrant, you have the right to remain silent. If you choose to speak to the officers, step outside and close the door.


If an FBI agent comes to your home or workplace, you do not have to answer any questions. Tell the agent you want to speak to a lawyer first.

If you are asked to meet with FBI agents for an interview, you have the right to say you do not want to be interviewed. If you agree to an interview, have a lawyer present. You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering, and can say that you will only answer questions on a specific topic.

If an FBI agent comes to your home or workplace, you do not have to answer any questions. Tell the agent you want to speak to a lawyer first.

If you are asked to meet with FBI agents for an interview, you have the right to say you do not want to be interviewed. If you agree to an interview, have a lawyer present.

You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering, and can say that you will only answer questions on a specific topic.


Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.
Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don’t give any explanations or excuses. If you can’t pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don’t say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.
You have the right to make a local phone call.

The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.

Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.
Special considerations for non-citizens:
• Ask your lawyer about the effect of a criminal conviction or plea on your immigration status.
• Don’t discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
• While you are in jail, an immigration agent may visit you. Do not answer questions or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
• Read all papers fully. If you do not understand or cannot read the papers, tell the officer you need an interpreter.


posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by esteay812

Over 40% of US police stations are financed via highway robbery(Civil Asset Seizure), it isn't hard to realize what is going on. No different then when Nobles used their Knights to terrorize the peasantry. This is the price Americans paid when we disbanded the local militia's.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by azureskys

You have the right to a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one for you. If you do not have a lawyer, ask for a list of free or low-cost legal services.

You have the right to contact your consulate or have an officer inform the consulate of your arrest.
Tell the ICE agent you wish to remain silent. Do not discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
Do not sign anything, such as a voluntary departure or stipulated removal, without talking to a lawyer. If you sign, you may be giving up your opportunity to try to stay in the U.S.
Remember your immigration number (“A” number) and give it to your family. It will help family members locate you.
Keep a copy of your immigration documents with someone you trust.
Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don’t physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers’ badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency’s internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
Call your local ACLU or visit

edit on 29-4-2012 by azureskys because: remove mistake

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:31 AM
reply to post by azureskys

If you're stopped for questioning and remain silent, they'll arrest you on a trumped up charge. We don't have rights anymore. The best thing that you can do if you want to stand up for your rights is to make the prison sentence worth your while.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:55 AM
... And if that piss's you off, wait til you come across a checkpoint w/ Military helping.. **helping** out the locals....

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:17 AM

I understand your concerns about the legality of traffic stops. In fact, your argument that such checkpoints are invalid is one I've never heard before. Lots of food for thought.

Here's my thoughts: Since the location and time were announced ahead of time, I would think driving to the checkpoint would imply consent. After all, you could have chosen a different route.

I personally have no problem with sobriety, license, and insurance checks. Uninsured drivers raise the cost of insurance for everyone. If a person is driving with a revoked license or UTI, then that person needs to face the consequences of their actions.

One last question: if you are stopped at a checkpoint and refuse permission to search your car, would that be grounds for probable cause?

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by esteay812

A Sobriety Checkpoint. I used to live in Northern Indiana, and the police there did this all the time. They are looking for drunk drivers, that's all. The ones I have gone though, if the cops recognise you as a non drinker, that will wave you though.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:50 AM
This past weekend a nearby township had an announcement of checkpoints for "Texting / Cellphoning Drivers"
as well as "Zombie Motorists"...there was no explanation of what the indications are of a Zombie Motorist.
I thought it more than a coincidence that several major freeway entrances/ exits were undergoing road work at the same time diverting more traffic towards the checkpoints I presumed since the actual locations were not given!!

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:51 AM
I am going to copy and paste one of the two dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS decision that allowed DUI checkpoints. This will help you make your decision on whether or not your rights are being violated in a checkpoint for a drivers license.It looks as if I cannot past the entire opinion, therefore will copy paste the first few paragraphs and link everyone to the case.

Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

Today, the Court rejects a Fourth Amendment challenge to a sobriety checkpoint policy in which police stop all cars and inspect all drivers for signs of intoxication without any individualized suspicion that a specific driver is intoxicated. The Court does so by balancing

"the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped."

Ante at 496 U. S. 455. For the reasons stated by JUSTICE STEVENS in Parts I and II of his dissenting opinion, I agree that the Court misapplies that test by undervaluing the nature of the intrusion and exaggerating the law enforcement need to use the roadblocks to prevent drunken driving. See also United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 428 U. S. 567 (1976) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). I write separately to express a few additional points.

The majority opinion creates the impression that the Court generally engages in a balancing test in order to determine

Page 496 U. S. 457

the constitutionality of all seizures, or at least those "dealing with police stops of motorists on public highways." Ante at 496 U. S. 450. This is not the case. In most cases, the police must possess probable cause for a seizure to be judged reasonable. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 442 U. S. 209 (1979). Only when a seizure is "substantially less intrusive," id. at 442 U. S. 210, than a typical arrest is the general rule replaced by a balancing test. I agree with the Court that the initial stop of a car at a roadblock under the Michigan State Police sobriety checkpoint policy is sufficiently less intrusive than an arrest so that the reasonableness of the seizure may be judged, not by the presence of probable cause, but by balancing

"the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty."

Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 443 U. S. 51 (1979). But one searches the majority opinion in vain for any acknowledgment that the reason for employing the balancing test is that the seizure is minimally intrusive.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by esteay812

Hi OP... Thank you for this post. I wonder the same thing...

Have to say this too though... don't you think it's kind of stupid to post WHEN they will be conducting these sobriety/check point tests? Hey, at least they give everyone a heads up to NOT be drunk on those days... or run their drugs then, etc.... Know what I mean? It's all crazy.

I agree with your post. It seems to be getting worse and worse these days...Definitely getting Police state'ish and it's all about the control and money. But I feel the people are 'waking up' and we are not without hope. We just have to stay strong and fight the good fight...keep persevering...

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:37 AM
They've been doing these kind of check points in my area for quite a few years. Interesting story in my local paper this morning, though. A guy was stopped at a city check point where the police were looking to see if drivers had the 10 dollar city registration sitcker. Subsequently, the cops smelled marijuana, searched the guy's car, found some pot, scales, baggies, did a sobriety test. He was arrested and charged with intent to sell as well as DUI. His case was just tossed out because the check points for city stickers was ruled illegal. They did not concern safety issues.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by esteay812

I can't speak to Tennessee laws or practice, but they've been doing this in parts of California for many years. I moved from the state about 6 years ago, but prior to that they use to run a license, insurance and registration checkpoint regularly near my home, which backed up traffic and was always a headache. They even had a line of tow trucks on a residential street a block over ready and waiting to tow away vehicles.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by smyleegrl

The problem that I have with these checkpoints is not that they are conducted, with intentions of arresting true criminals. I am more concerned that these checkpoints only pronounce their intentions as such, while the real purpose of the checkpoints are to garner as many arrests as possible.

Stopping people to observe them and the contents in their possession is a way to establish reason for suspicion. This seems like entrapment and it could be a illegal to use the information gained after the stop as a means to establish a charge of guilt.

The legal checkpoints seem to act as a tool used to incriminate those who otherwise would not have been analyzed without the use of the checkpoint.

I do not mean to sound as if I am standing up for the criminals. I am really trying to stand up for the rights of every citizen and mostly the innocent ones who should not have to be bothered with tactics such as the checkpoints.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by azureskys

Thank you for your post. The information you gave is great to have. I saw a video a while back where a man stood his ground at a checkpoint and, knowing his rights and the laws, he was forced to be released without further investigation or invasion.

I wish everyone not only had the knowledge to act in the manner as this man, but that everyone would also have the guts to go through the actions here did, while being unsure of how the confrontation could end.

An uneducated public and a trap combined, make for a very high rate of criminal charges & arrests, regardless the legality in which the original stop was based on.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in