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.

 

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

page: 9
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Masterjaden
I suppose you think that the TSA is legitimate and legal too???
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Not to get off topic, but the TSA is legal.
You have no legal “right” to fly, other means of transport are open to you. You additionally waive your rights via contract with the airlines when you get your ticket.

The difference is between what you CHOOSE to do and what the government FORCES you to do. That's where you end up with things that violate your Constitutional Rights.
Sometimes that line can be a very fine one, though.

For example, you have the right to move about the country, but Constitutionally that does not mean that you have the right to operate a motor vehicle or even to fly as a passenger on an aircraft. You can CHOOSE other methods of travel, so these are not rights, but choices (privileges).

See the difference?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


This is complete and utter BS! The constitution does not give the federal government any authority to restrict the means of the right to travel. We have an inherent right to travel by any means we desire. The BS that this is limited to non power forms of locomotion us just that BS! The right to travel is all inclusive! Nowhere does the constitution give the feral government any jurisdiction on it!

The Maxim of law that so many Americans are ignorant of is that the constitution is a restriction on the federal government not the people. What that means is if it is not in there THEY CAN'T DO IT! Read the 10th Amendment. Nothing gives the federal government the means to do about 90-95% of what they do. Lawyers and ignorant people have stolen our freedom and turned that maxim on its head by their ignorance apathy greed and lust for power.


edit on 6-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
This is complete and utter BS! The constitution does not give the federal government any authority to restrict the means of the right to travel. We have an inherent right to travel by any means we desire. The BS that this is limited to non power forms of locomotion us just that BS! The right to travel is all inclusive! Nowhere does the constitution give the feral government any jurisdiction on it!

The Maxim of law that so many Americans are ignorant of is that the constitution is a restriction on the federal government not the people. What that means is if it is not in there THEY CAN'T DO IT! Read the 10th Amendment. Nothing gives the federal government the means to do about 90-95% of what they do. Lawyers and ignorant people have stolen our freedom and turned that maxim on its head by their ignorance apathy greed and lust for power.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


You have that 100% backwards.
The Constitution does not GUARANTEE you any means of movement outside that which you can produce through your human body (walking, biking, etc), and traveling as a passenger in anothers conveyance. If you are traveling in anothers conveyance, then you are subject to the rules of that vehicles operator. So, for example, if the airlines does not want to accept you as a passenger because they don't like how you dressed, then they can legally do so. If they don't wish to accept you as a passenger because you didn't comply with their security screening.... Guess what... Again, its their plane, you agree to their terms when you purchase your ticket. Your rights to security screening are waived when you agree to the airlines “contract of carriage” terms at the time of your ticket purchase.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 6/6/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
This website is so left it is a joke.

This was a minor inconvenience to find a criminal. Handcuffing for say an hour to conduct a search isnt the end of the world.

Stop crying like babies and getting upset about everything.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
First off, there MUST be a valid legal reason to detain someone. You cannot set up a roadblock and legally detain everyone. That is a violation of peoples Fourth Amendment rights:


Actually you can and the Supreme Court has stated as much.



Originally posted by defcon5
So right off the bat, they were wrong in stopping all the traffic flow and preforming a “Terry Stop” on anyone in the area. They cannot have “reasonable suspicion” for all the drivers on a road. That is a dangerous and gross misinterpretation of the intent of the law. Why not just say that the police have “reasonable suspicion” against everyone at all times, and just set up permanent checkpoints?

Because that would be rediculous and you know it. They had information and to date it has not been completely released to the public yet so lets see what that info is / was. A check point in this situation is valid and the manner it was conducted was valid as well based on cuirrent case law.



Originally posted by defcon5
Also, even if they have “probable cause” if the detention goes an unreasonable amount of time its automatically considered an arrest:

So in this case, 10 to 15 minutes moved this man from a detain to an arrest.
This whole thing stinks of officers who were overwhelmed by the situation, and stepped outside of their legal rights. If it had been me, I'd be retaining a lawyer.

edit on 6/6/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


Again the supreme court has ruled that going beyond that time frame is not neccisarilly an arrest. Its incumbent on the officer to justify the his actions that resulted in the extended delay.

As far as a lawyer goes ive stated both sides have there pros and cons and will most likely require a judge to clarify the laws that allow situations like this.

However until we move beyond the consent part there is no violation.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Complete and utter bovine excrement! Being pulled out of the car and hand cuffed then asked if you consent to be searched is coercion by fear and intimidation pure and simple!


Your opinion aside were you present during the incident? What we do know is people stated they were asked for consent to search so until info to the contrary comes to light it was consentual.


Originally posted by hawkiye
That is the most ridiculous absurd BS I have ever heard! Yeah we don't know what he looks like and he is in a car at the intersection but we don't know what the car looks like either. Thats like having someone murdered in your nieghborhood and getting a tip the murderer is in one of the houses; we don't know which one or what he looks like and the cops simply going door to door and pulling each inhabitant out of their house handcuffing them and searching every house with supposed probable cause. let me just puke at such idiotic BS!

Please learn the law before commenting on this,. The Supreme Court has established guidelines when it comes to checkpoints, the types and what is and is not allowed.

Learn before you attack and dismiss..


Originally posted by hawkiye
Yeah so as a typical cop in your mind that justified violating the rights of the people in the other 18 cars... Sigh! And you wonder why cops get so much hate... Why don't we just do random house to house searches I am sure we could turn up a few criminals here and there on a regular basis. Hitler and Stalin would be proud of this mindset...

As opposed to the typivcal ignorance by people who dont understand the law, their rights, how they work and apply?

spare me the lecture and overly dramatic response.


Originally posted by hawkiye
Once the gestapo determined der papers vere in order you vere free to go... Wow how good of them to do so after violating their rights... Sigh!

When in doubt invoke the nazis.. typically ignorant..


Originally posted by hawkiye
Un-effing-believable! You are a real piece of work... Sigh!
Credible information my ass no description of the car or suspect so just stop everyone handcuff them all and then ask to search, nothing like a little fear and intimidation to get citizens to voluntarily comply...

My appologies for knowing the law and how it works. If you spent a little more time lerning and less time invoking nazi comparisons you might understand how this works..

As for the rest of your rant thatsyour issue not mine. I explained the why and how.. Its fine if you dont agree with it but you should take the time to learn and understand how it works before condemning an action you apprently know nothing about.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


TRavel within a state and across state lines is constitutionally guaranteed. The method of travel is not.

Again please do some esearch and learn the law and your rights and how they apply and are affected before making an accusation that is not true.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually you can and the Supreme Court has stated as much.

Not so sure this is correct.
Here in FL they just found that its even illegal for police to make an arrest for anything other then a DUI/DWI at a DUI checkpoint. The police were using these checkpoints as an excuse to make all sorts of arrests, now if the diver is not intoxicated, it does not matter if they have a car full of drugs, money, and weapons that are visible to the officer, they cannot be arrested for it. This was to put a stop to unconstitutional police use of checkpoints.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Because that would be rediculous and you know it. They had information and to date it has not been completely released to the public yet so lets see what that info is / was. A check point in this situation is valid and the manner it was conducted was valid as well based on cuirrent case law.

Its a short and slippery slope between what your saying is legal and ridicules here.
Traveling through an area where a crime was committed doesn't satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirements as listed above. The officer might have had a legal right to block the road, stop motorists, and ask a few questions, see if they could see anything in the cars or the peoples behavior to indicate reasonable suspicion, but they cannot just pull over, detain, and search everyone in an area because a crime was committed in that area.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again the supreme court has ruled that going beyond that time frame is not neccisarilly an arrest. Its incumbent on the officer to justify the his actions that resulted in the extended delay.

And I've shown case law that it has.
That is the problem with our legal system. These judges bend the rules to allow the police to justify bad arrests, and to allow the prosecution to proceed for financial reasons. They keep bending it, and bending it, until it no longer even resembles it's original intent. Next week the law will be something else so that this city can cover its financial rear end for this legal abuse.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 6/6/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElohimJD
Some ofthese replies are just out there.

I live off of Iliff and Buckley (less then 1 mile from this intersection) in Aurora CO. And I was just coming home from my Sabbath service when I approached the "scene" of this police stoppage.

At first I thought it was a DUI checkpoint, because they did have the cars lined up and were systematicaly checking each vehicle for the perp. I pulled over into the gas station parking lot to ask what was going on, an on-looker (who had just been released from police custody) told me, "the cops showed up and shut down the intersection, they announced to the vehicles there that a bank had just been robbed and they believe the criminal was a person at that intersection, they said to remain inside your vehicles and one by one your vehicles will be verified as not involved at which time you will be free to go about your day." The cops stood by their words and each car was free to go as they were verified as being not involved.

I saw no one handcuffed, but i arrived midway through the search, as the ones I saw with my own eyes being searched in my presence were not handcuffed while their cars were searched, I can only assume it was those against the search that might have been handcuffed, if the article has those facts. Just like in a DUI check point you have the right to refuse to blow, but that appears as suspicious behavior to one who has nothing to hide, therefore a refusal warrents further investigation.

No one was upset about this action and all appeared to be more concerned that the cops found the one guilty rather then having to help in a criminal investigation.

As for the gentleman from CO who misrepresents Coloradans I will just say helping the cops catch the bad guy, does not make one a sheep or weak minded, it makes them care more about justice then sueing the cops that are trying to stop a robber from continuing his run of victims.

I was there, no one was mad, therefore no "offense" was made, what if these Coloradans wanted to genuinely help catch a criminal and so they agreed to particiapate in the search for him, out of respect for the cops trying to put him away.

In this story the citizens of CO were the heros allowing for the police to catch a dangerous criminal, the cops are the good guys who made a great decision to catch the perp and the criminal is the criminal.

Logic and reason will help curb some of these replies.

God Bless,
edit on 5-6-2012 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2012 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)


You were there. No one was mad?

That's just ducky.

2 hours. Handcuffed.

Shalom? Not a guess, btw. Way to assimilate.

I pulled over at a gas station...

therefore no "offense" was made.

Piss poor damage control, pharisee. Bad for 'God' and bad for tptw. I understand, though. That's not my problem.
edit on 6-6-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



You have that 100% backwards. 
The Constitution does not GUARANTEE you any means of movement outside that which you can produce through your human body (walking, biking, etc), and traveling as a passenger in anothers conveyance.


Where in the constitution is this supposed power to limit the means of travel delegated to the government? As I said the constitution is a restriction on government not the people. The feral government can only do what what it is specifically delegated to do in the constitution and nothing more! That is its governing document and it now acts almost completely outside it's scope because of prevailing mindsets like yours... All other things are left to the states and THE PEOPLE via the 9th and 10 amendments. It also refers to other rights not mentioned in the bill of rights being left to the people hence the constitution does not grant or guarantee any right for they are inherent in the people and existed before the Constitution. It only purports to protect rights as government should. It restricts government from infringing on any rights including the right to travel and including rights not specifically mentioned in the bill of rights. It has no authority to infringe on my right to travel by any means of locomotion I desire!


If you are traveling in anothers conveyance, then you are subject to the rules of that vehicles operator. So, for example, if the airlines does not want to accept you as a passenger because they don't like how you dressed, then they can legally do so. If they don't wish to accept you as a passenger because you didn't comply with their security screening.... Guess what... Again, its their plane, you agree to their terms when you purchase your ticket. Your rights to security screening are waived when you agree to the airlines “contract of carriage” terms at the time of your ticket purchase. 


You are correct here about contracting with others for the mean by which you might travel, however the Airlines are no longer private business they have been illegally taken over by the feral government in the name of security and forced to implement these police state tactics therefore they are unlawful unconstitutional and the contract is not fully disclosed to the ticket buyer which makes it null and void... Which is why they are going broke and been bailed out several times. However they do not have these illegal screenings in so called private aircraft. You can rent a jet or plane and do not have to go through the normal non-sense you do if you take a so called commercial flight.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several
branches of government by certain laws, which, when they
transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render
unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion,
on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their
acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender
those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. Q.XIII

It is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. Thomas Paine First Principles of Government (1795)

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment]
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn
around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless
field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas
Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers,
its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas
Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

"It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary
to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any
body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own
powers... without restraint." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance
Bill, 1778.

In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

edit on 6-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LondonerBLV
This website is so left it is a joke.

This was a minor inconvenience to find a criminal. Handcuffing for say an hour to conduct a search isnt the end of the world.

Stop crying like babies and getting upset about everything.


There are a lot of leftists here but I'm not one of them and I totally disagree with you. Didn't you ever see the movie The Great Escape and the Nazi SS guys were on the train demanding to see people's papers? And they didn't even handcuff anybody, they just shot anyone who ran.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LondonerBLV
 


Funny, I mostly get accused of being a rightwinger. First time for everything I guess



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



My appologies for knowing the law and how it works. If you spent a little more time lerning and less time invoking nazi comparisons you might understand how this works..

As for the rest of your rant thatsyour issue not mine. I explained the why and how.. Its fine if you dont agree with it but you should take the time to learn and understand how it works before condemning an action you apprently know nothing about.


You're right things work like you describe because of thugs like you who enforce them on people and the ignorance of the people to their own history and the freedom bequeathed to them their forefathers fought and died for that they have squandered. I have little patience for the likes of people like you anymore and your BS. And yes i invoke the Nazis because that is what you are and don't even know it and will dismiss it just like the guards who marched the Jews into the gas chambers and ovens did and claimed they were innocent as they were just following orders.

I can guarantee you I know the law far better then you and any stinking LEO judge or attorney thugs! I know how things work as you describe and they are anything but lawful. Which is why you dismissed all of my responses to your police state mentality inspired BS because you are incapable of refuting the logic and history. You can argue with the founding fathers if like I quoted several of them in a previous post for they are where I get my information on the law and the constitution.

History will remember you as oppressors thugs and tyrants not the heroes you think you are! I am sick of people like you and the zombies who mindlessly support your thuggery and idiocy. I am sick of all the stupid people who know nothing of how this society was created and once free and great but now tolerates this kind of BS allows their women and children to be molested at airports, and detained unlawfully in the name of security who thinks it is ok to steal and extort money at the gun point and call it taxation etc etc. People literally finance their own slavery and Thug LEO's justify it... Stockholm syndrome...

God help us all we are being destroyed by mindless stupid zombies...



edit on 6-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Not so sure this is correct.
Here in FL they just found that its even illegal for police to make an arrest for anything other then a DUI/DWI at a DUI checkpoint. The police were using these checkpoints as an excuse to make all sorts of arrests, now if the diver is not intoxicated, it does not matter if they have a car full of drugs, money, and weapons that are visible to the officer, they cannot be arrested for it. This was to put a stop to unconstitutional police use of checkpoints.

Plain view exception comes to mind with regards to the comments on drugs etc. That cannot be curtailed as it would violate current federal supreme court case law on the subject. Arizona V. Gant is the latest Us Supreme Court ruling when it comes to searches of vehicles as an incident to arrest.

Secondly stopping an individual for speeding and discovering he has no proof of insurance is a matter of investigation and not pretextual. Stopping a person for speeding and discovering they are intoxicated is not pretextual. While I understand what you are stating I dont agree with the level you are taking it to in terms of taking action.


Originally posted by defcon5
Its a short and slippery slope between what your saying is legal and ridicules here.
Traveling through an area where a crime was committed doesn't satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirements as listed above. The officer might have had a legal right to block the road, stop motorists, and ask a few questions, see if they could see anything in the cars or the peoples behavior to indicate reasonable suspicion, but they cannot just pull over, detain, and search everyone in an area because a crime was committed in that area.

A road block / check point is legal and valid. As has been stated time and again and ignored time and again, the search of the vehicles were by consent. Until someone comes forward with a complaint / legal challenge it is what we have to go on and as much as the action pisses some people off, we cant simply ignore consent and assume its coercion.


Originally posted by defcon5
And I've shown case law that it has.
That is the problem with our legal system. These judges bend the rules to allow the police to justify bad arrests, and to allow the prosecution to proceed for financial reasons. They keep bending it, and bending it, until it no longer even resembles it's original intent. Next week the law will be something else so that this city can cover its financial rear end for this legal abuse.
edit on 6/6/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

The case law you cited is the exact same case law im citing. It established a time period for a routine traffic stop. By routine I mean normal stop with no issues present and either a verbal warning, written warning or citation issued. When something else enters the arena the time frame can be ignored however law enforcement must be able to support the reason for the extension and that reason must be valid.

IE Detaining a vehicle for over an hour waiting on a K9 unit to get to your location is not going to fly. In terms of what can or cannot be asked during the stop is dependant upon state laws. Some states prohibit an officer from conducting an investigation into an area not origionally associated with the stop. Even then though there are exceptions if it occurs during the routine actions of the stop.

Constantly saying police will abuse this or that does not make it so, nor does it make the laws that allow the police the lattitude invalid. I get people dont like this situation however not liking something and that something being lawful are in 2 completely different areas and we need to keep that in mind.

Until the consent portion is challenged by a person affected by the road block, the actions of law enforcement were valid and legal.

ETA - your mod command keeps screwing my posts up damn you lol..
edit on 6-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
God help us all we are being destroyed by mindless stupid zombies...


Ironic...

After reading your posts I was thinking the exact same thing.

Based on your response to date about TSA and travel I seriously doubt you know the law at all. As I stated feel free to research and learn and then come back and join in the adult conversation.

regards.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by hawkiyeWhere in the constitution is this supposed power to limit the means of travel delegated to the government?

Again, you're wrong:

In City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987): "Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."

You are only granted the right to move, the manner of that movement may be restricted by state laws, and rules of those you choose to travel with.

The problem is not so much what the Constitution does say, but rather what it doesn't. You cannot imply that it means you have the unfettered right to travel via any means you wish, nor to operate any type of vehicle you wish without restriction. What its simply says is that you can move about, not how you move about. States and private transportation companies are allowed to “fill in” additional rules that apply to travel, and operation of various forms of travel that are not inherent to you physically (again your physical movement: walking, biking, etc).

As long as you can move about via your human propulsion, the government has not infringed on your right to locomotion.


Originally posted by hawkiyeYou are correct here about contract with others for the mean by which you might travel, however the Airlines are no longer private business they have been illegally taken over by the feral government in the name of security and forced to implement these police state tactics therefore they are unlawful unconstitutional and the contract is not fully disclosed to the ticket buyer which makes it null and void.

Airlines in the US have been deregulated from the US government since the “Airline Deregulation Act"of 1978. Maybe your from a country that still has “government” airlines, such as Air Canada, or British Airways, but that no longer exists in the USA.

The FAA mandates security screening, the TSA merely makes it uniform from station to station. You agree to it via contract with the airlines. The airlines agrees to via contract with the FAA ( to have their operators license). Its all very legal or it wouldn't be happening, and again it all goes back to the fact that you have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to fly.


Originally posted by hawkiye
Which is why they are going broke and been bailed out several times.

I used to be a supervisor for an airlines, and the reason they go bankrupt has nothing to do with this. Running an airline is an extremely costly venture, and its very easy to lose money, especially when the gas prices go up. I'm not even going to attempt to list the overhead of running an airline, but believe me its very, very high. The biggest money loss that airlines take is flying passengers, an airline stands to make vastly greater profit from running freight, or mail. Some airlines will even leave passengers bags off, and take the financial hit for that, to ensure that all their cargo and mail make a heavy flight. Passengers consume more weight & space/cost then any other type cargo that an aircraft can carry. They additionally add extensively to the cost of operation because of the number of additional safety measures required to travel with passengers vs freight, strict schedules, and associated fines.


Originally posted by hawkiye
You can rent a jet or plane and do not have to go through the normal non-sense you do if you take a so called commercial flight.

It depends on the rule of the company that you charter a flight with. They can just as easily make you submit to a security screening, its within their legal right to do so.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArrythmianDreams
Not having a good description and making mass, sweeping detainments seems like a pretty good example of unreasonable search and seizure.

But, then, the precedent for such a thing has already been set with DUI checkpoints and the airports. It's time to get ready to flee, folks. We're heading into Nazi Germany very soon.


Well,

God Bless!



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Plain view exception comes to mind with regards to the comments on drugs etc. That cannot be curtailed as it would violate current federal supreme court case law on the subject. Arizona V. Gant is the latest Us Supreme Court ruling when it comes to searches of vehicles as an incident to arrest.

Doesn't matter, its only because of the DUI checkpoint that the officer is in a position to see anything that is in “plain sight”, and so several states are now passing laws that makes it illegal to arrest anyone for anything outside the “scope” of the DUI checkpoints intended purpose. You're being given the right to violate someone's rights because they waived them via contract with the DMV for their drivers license, but you are now going to start seeing limits on what you can site folks for because of that.

Though most LEO's don't see it, this is a good thing. Checkpoints have been a questionable violation of peoples Constitutional rights for awhile now, and finally their ability to arrest is being limited to the scope of their stated purpose, DUI's only.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Secondly stopping an individual for speeding and discovering he has no proof of insurance is a matter of investigation and not pretextual. Stopping a person for speeding and discovering they are intoxicated is not pretextual. While I understand what you are stating I dont agree with the level you are taking it to in terms of taking action.

I am talking about Checkpoints, not traffic stops. Checkpoints have a stated purpose, and that purpose is only legally permissible because of the contract between operator and government, that they will submit to a DUI check on demand. It does not apply for any other violation, and the officer would not be in a position to “see” any other infractions if not for the checkpoint, so those other infractions are now going to be “limited”.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
A road block / check point is legal and valid.

In my state they are only legal for DUI's, no other purpose, and are only so because the person with the operators license has agreed to allow them contractually with the DMV.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Again, you're wrong:


is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."



Ah no I am not wrong the supreme court agrees with me... read em and weep...

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.


You are only granted the right to move, the manner of that movement may be restricted by state laws, and rules of those you choose to travel with.


I am not granted anything. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS! This is the problem people believe their rights were granted by the constitution THEY WERE NOT! The right to travel, keep and bear arms, free speech etc. etc. existed long before the constitution was ever written. What is granted can be revoked. The bill of rights only illustrated some of the more important UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Do you understand what unalienable rights are? That means they cannot be alienated from you. They have always existed they are not revokable. A piece of paper cannot grant them and nor can it or any legislature revoke them! It is sad how many Americans are so ignorant of thier history founding principles and documents...


The problem is not so much what the Constitution does say, but rather what it doesn't. You cannot imply that it means you have the unfettered right to travel via any means you wish, nor to operate any type of vehicle you wish without restriction. What its simply says is that you can move about, not how you move about. States and private transportation companies are allowed to “fill in” additional rules that apply to travel, and operation of various forms of travel that are not inherent to you physically (again your physical movement: walking, biking, etc). As long as you can move about via your human propulsion, the government has not infringed on your right to locomotion. 


It doesn't say anything of the sort. Your complete lack of understanding here is the problem! yes it has infringed on my locomotion when it tries to restrict it. What the constitution does not say is very important for what ever it does not say means it has no authority or jurisdiction on those matters not mentioned in it! I wish Americans could get this through their thick skulls. Apparently you did not read the quotes from founding fathers I posted who had a hand in writing it. The fact that is does not say "how you move about" means it is left up to you how you move about. Read the damn 10th amendment over and over till it sinks in that anything not mentioned is left to the people to decide!!!

I am not implying anything I am stating fact for several hundred years of jurisprudence even back to English common law. That is the maxim of law that has been forgotten today and removed from the American mindset by attorneys and corrupt politicians. What you have wrong is believing that what is not said leaves the door open to all this infringement it does not THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RESTRICTED SPECIFCALLY TO WHAT IT IS DELEGATED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND NOTHING MORE! However your mindset is the prevailing mindset of most Americans unfortunately so the usurpation of our freedoms continues...


The FAA mandates security screening, the TSA merely makes it uniform from station to station. You agree to it via contract with the airlines. The airlines agrees to via contract with the FAA ( to have their operators license). Its all very legal or it wouldn't be happening, and again it all goes back to the fact that you have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to fly. 


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this amounts to a take over by coercion and force. Legal does not equal lawful. It is unconstitutional the feds have no constitutional authority to do any such thing! Such measures are a direct cause of decline in passengers causing financial problems as I show below.

continued in the next post...


edit on 6-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



I used to be a supervisor for an airlines, and the reason they go bankrupt has nothing to do with this.



The 9/11 attacks compounded financial troubles that the airline industry already was experiencing before the attacks. Share prices of airlines and airplane manufacturers plummeted after the attacks. Midway Airlines, already on the brink of bankruptcy, shut down operations almost immediately afterwards. Other airlines were threatened with bankruptcy, and tens of thousands of layoffs were announced in the week following the attacks. To help the industry, the federal government provided an aid package to the industry, including $10 billion in loan guarantees, along with $5 billion for short-term assistance en.wikipedia.org...



We provide evidence that the reduction in demand was an unintended consequence of baggage screening and not the result of contemporaneous price changes, airport-specific shocks, schedule changes, or other factors. This decline in air travel had a substantial cost. “Back-of-the- envelope” calculations indicate that the airline industry lost about $1.1 billion, eleven percent of the loss attributed to 9/11 directly. web.mit.edu...

edit on 6-6-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
It is all legal...in the guise of..."We are conducting an investigation". Thats all they need. Judges will agree with their rights to detain you.


Just remember that all Hitler did while in power was "legal" too. You can cram your "it is legal" mumbo jumbo up your ass as far as I'm concerned.




top topics



 
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join