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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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)
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!
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!
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...
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!
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...
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually you can and the Supreme Court has stated as much.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Originally posted by hawkiye
God help us all we are being destroyed by mindless stupid zombies...
Originally posted by hawkiyeWhere in the constitution is this supposed power to limit the means of travel delegated to the government?
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."
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.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Which is why they are going broke and been bailed out several times.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
A road block / check point is legal and valid.
Again, you're wrong:
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.
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.
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...
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.