FHP announces daytime driver license, vehicle inspection checkpoints

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevinquisitor
 


well that is illegal.

Where is the warrant?

I guess that is no longer needed to just stop search people like the secret police asking for papers....

I hope they MAKE a reason for all this interference in our lives because we all know there is none.




posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
this is an exercise in conditioning. they want people used to checkpoints, traffic stops, and unlawful search and seizures.

i implore you, google "right to travel" and give these officers an education in law. i plan to record the session and charge the police officer who stops me with committing a felony and perjury. if i'm taken to jail, i will sue.

the felony comes from turning on their lights, signaling that there is an emergency when there isn't one, and perjury because they do not know the law that they swore to uphold. (as ignorance of the law is no excuse, and perjury is committed any time an oath is broken)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by Kevinquisitor
 


well that is illegal.

Where is the warrant?

I guess that is no longer needed to just stop search people like the secret police asking for papers....

I hope they MAKE a reason for all this interference in our lives because we all know there is none.




Just so you you know, they rely on people being in a hurry to leave, and being compliant. They ask for drivers license and proof of insurance. If you refuse, they pull you over to the side to be dealt with.

If, while asking for the info, they smell marijuana or alcohol, you just handed them probable cause.

Probable cause also comes in other ways, such as behaving erratically, or strangely, something out of the ordinary in the vehicle, etc. Etc.

When they have probable cause, they no longer need permission to inspect the vehicle or the driver.

When you refuse ID, a lot of road stops now have on site warrants that are pre-signed by judges in anticipation of problems. Some even actually have judges at the stops. When they have pre-signed warrants, they telephone the judge, and finish filling in the warrant with the information.

Some stops have gone so far as to have a judge and an RN so they can legally take blood at the stop to test for alcohol if you refuse to blow.

Exercising rights is not a bad thing, but be prepared for a potential legal battle if you really are doing something wrong. They are finding ways of dealing with it.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf10
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


and here is how you handle that. www.killsometime.com...
Maybe in the States...but up here in Ontario?

The police can stop any driver to determine if alcohol or drug testing is required. They may also do roadside spot checks. When stopped by the police, you may be told to blow into a machine that tests your breath for alcohol, a roadside screening device, or perform physical co-ordination tests. If you fail or refuse to provide a breath sample or to perform the physical co-ordination tests, you will be charged under the Criminal Code. www.mto.gov.on.ca...


...and truth be known, it has saved a lot of lives due to drunk driving and helped to create a societal change on the issue. But that's all the slack they are cut, even by the courts.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
Papers please.


CX.



"how to stand up for yourself"

by Pastor Anderson:




...but don't think you won't get beaten up and tased for it:




If that doesn't piss you off, it should



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevinquisitor
This is a pretty blatant attempt at increasing revenue for the Florida Highway Patrol, and an unnecessary invasion of privacy in my opinion. There is no other reason to conduct a vehicle inspection other than to be informed about what us everyday, hard working, law abiding citizens are up to.

There will be a non moving violation issued against you if your inspected parts of your vehicle are not considered road safe. In addition, there will be a search for contraband, and K-9 units dispatched if there is reasonable suspicion of holding or usage.

Just be aware of what is going on around you.

[url=http://www.abcactionnews.com//dpp/traffic/traffic_news/fhp-announces-daytime-driver-license-vehicle-inspection-checkpoints]www.abcactionnews.com[ /url]

(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 6-2-2013 by Kevinquisitor because: Attempting to fix link to full article


Hi Kevin, allow me to quote the headline and subtitle of a sweet little unearthing, dated September 10, you guessed it, 2001.

Full Page Headline reads:

WHY IS HE DRIVING?

Then, a full size blowup picture of citizen Scott R. Williams in his van, waving at the photographer, Brian Jackson, Chicago Sun Times. The nwo agent who authored the article is named lucio guerrero, newspaper employee.

The subtitle reads, quote: WE'RE PUTTING THE HEAT ON THOSE WHO TAKE TO THE STREETS ILLEGALLY

Which is a lot better, in terms of spelling, than the Sun Times flyer spread throughout the city a few years earlier sporting the words:



BABY RICHARD DECISIOIN (sic)

So, if a newspaper has the right to go around as first responder law enforcement agents, what do you think the next step will be.

Tune in Tomorrow, and watch as buildings fall down along with our rights.

To be fair, it may have been sulfur gas that crumbled the buildings, but I keep forgetting to write johnny mnemonic about his thoughts on this. Say, Johnny, I was sure wondering....maybe if we had simply fracked for those gases, deep below NYC, the dangerous gas would have been put to better use than for asbestos remediation?

edit on 6-2-2013 by davidmann because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-2-2013 by davidmann because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliophant
 


I'll take test run for martial law for 1000 alex.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
For all those questioning the legality of this particular style of check point...


Florida Laws:
FL Statutes - Title XXIII Chapter 316 State Uniform Traffic Control


316.072 Obedience to and effect of traffic laws.

(3) OBEDIENCE TO POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.--It is unlawful and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer, traffic crash investigation officer as described in s. 316.640, traffic infraction enforcement officer as described in s. 316.640, or member of the fire department at the scene of a fire, rescue operation, or other emergency. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, certified emergency medical technicians or paramedics may respond to the scene of emergencies and may provide emergency medical treatment on the scene and provide transport of patients in the performance of their duties for an emergency medical services provider licensed under chapter 401 and in accordance with any local emergency medical response protocols.

316.610 Safety of vehicle; inspection.

It is a violation of this chapter for any person to drive or move, or for the owner or his or her duly authorized representative to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved, on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property, or which does not contain those parts or is not at all times equipped with such lamps and other equipment in proper condition and adjustment as required in this chapter, or which is equipped in any manner in violation of this chapter, or for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required under this chapter.

(1) Any police officer may at any time, upon reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, or that its equipment is not in proper adjustment or repair, require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection and such test with reference thereto as may be appropriate.

(2) In the event the vehicle is found to be in unsafe condition or any required part or equipment is not present or is not in proper repair and adjustment, and the continued operation would probably present an unduly hazardous operating condition, the officer may require the vehicle to be immediately repaired or removed from use. However, if continuous operation would not present unduly hazardous operating conditions, that is, in the case of equipment defects such as tailpipes, mufflers, windshield wipers, marginally worn tires, the officer shall give written notice to require proper repair and adjustment of same within 48 hours, excluding Sunday.

Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XXIII Chapter 316 State Uniform Traffic Control

Then there is this...North Carolina, but a U.S. Supreme Court decision...


New U.S. Supreme Court Decision Approves "Informational" Checkpoint

By Julie A. Risher, Public Safety Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

A January decision of the U.S. Supreme Court sheds new light on the constitutionality of vehicle checkpoints, specifically "informational" checkpoints. This column reviews that case, Illinois v. Lidster, and vehicle checkpoints in general.

Driver's License Checkpoints

The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard prohibits officers from randomly stopping vehicles to check driver's licenses and registration.5 In Delaware v. Prouse, a patrolman stopped a vehicle without reasonable suspicion to check the driver's license and registration. He seized marijuana in plain view. Addressing the stop's constitutionality, the Court noted that the public interest in ensuing that motorists are licensed and cars are registered justified the checkpoint's slight intrusion on motorists. In Prouse, however, the officer had unbridled discretion regarding which cars to stop, making the checkpoint unconstitutional. By contrast, license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.

Source

The irony of it all, is the amount of loopholes in any legislation, from the local level all the way up to the federal level.

I personally have no worries with being stopped and will be out a little time and possibly minimally inconvenienced if that should occur. The one good thing going, is that they are not keeping this a secret and are blatantly announcing the locations of these check-points.

If there's a chance one is going to have issues, obviously, you should avoid the area. However, if you were to have a reason to worry, in most cases there is only one source to blame.
edit on 2/6/2013 by UberL33t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 



for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer, traffic crash investigation officer as described in s. 316.640, traffic infraction enforcement officer as described in s. 316.640, or member of the fire department at the scene of a fire, rescue operation, or other emergency.

first off, the legal definition of "person" is a corporate entity, an "artificial person" things like a birth certificate would fall under this. notice how the below court decisions use the word "citizen" NOT person.

secondly:


"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.



Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."


the statute that you posted is null and void.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Be that as it may.

However, I would like to say this, I do so hope that I am in front of you (or anyone for that matter) in traffic when/if one decides to attempt a tirade of what is or is not constitutional with this inspection stop the FHP is conducting.

Would you be so kind as to post your route and times of travel so that I can avoid the checkpoint that you may be stopped by at least?



All in jest friend, please consider that no offense was intended with the aforementioned.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 

you jest about a very serious matter. is a faster commute time worth all of your rights being taken away? in fact, YOU WILLINGLY SUBJECT YOURSELF TO THESE STATUTES.

they are voluntary. people complain about the country going to crap, but if it hinders their commute time, they'd rather the country sink.


people REALLY need to do some research into the actual definitions of legal words.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Kevinquisitor
 


This is not a new thing . People have been driving older and older vehicles now days and have put off vital repairs . This means brakes , steering and lights have not been taken care of . As cars age they become less safe if not kept up . As far as the drug dog I have no problem with that . If there is drugs in the car and you are doing them you are a safety hazard to everyone . Then there is the blinding head lights and inappropriate lights that are popping up now days , that are a safety hazard for oncoming traffic or blinding drivers from behind .
If this is a safety check fine but if they start inappropriate searches checking for legal weapons of cars driven by people not prohibited to posess them that is something else . You can look for Homeland Security to try to confinscate what they determine to be illegal and nobody will tell them no !


No doubt, I used to work part-time at the local auto parts store and I can't tell you how many idiots used to come in and buy compression fittings to fix their brake lines. I would ask them how they could when all it takes is the one time a little kid or dog runs out in front of their car and they slam on the brakes, guaranteed that fitting will let loose. Those are the kind of people on the roads these days.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



is a faster commute time worth all of your rights being taken away?


Isn't that just a tad extreme?

I MAY be inconvenienced (should I ever be affected by the area that is) to an announced FHP Driver's License and Vehicle Inspection checkpoint and by complying I have denounced "all" of my rights under the U.S. Constitution?

Have you thought of the bright side of what checkpoints like this could bring about in addition to what you've deemed the negative side of them are?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

If you are going to cite a court case, it would help if you knew what the court case was about and the ruling the court made rather than quoting a small passage from the opinion that you found on some "freeman" site.

In Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604 (1930), the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that a PORTION of the ordinance being challenged was unconstitutional. Two sentences added to the ordinance in a 1925 amendment were deemed arbitrary and unreasonable as they allowed the police chief to revoke a driver/operator permit if, IN HIS OPINION, the person had become unfit. The ordinance did not establish on what specific grounds the police chief could revoke the permit, leaving it arbitrary and vague.

The Court did not rule that all statutes governing the operation of private automobiles, including ones that established the need for such permits for private automobiles were unconstitutional. The opinion also said the ordinance prior to the 1925 amendment had been constitutional.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizures by law enforcement agents against private citizens. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 they are allowed, but up to the state because of the danger involved with DUIs. Apparently in Florida these inspection points are deemed the same.

Ten states do not allowed these checkpoints. Florida is not one of the ten. Locals should be lobbying for a change before it become statewide policy, especially if it does well in their eyes.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Florida is under martial law for a while now. It is a police state. I am glad I moved when the economy tanked. It was just getting worse and worse when I was there. They routinely go through parking lots and scan everyone's tag looking for out of state or out of date plates. Then they will follow that person when they leave the parking space and stop and search them. If you are from out of state you are fair game to the FHP. They treat any not new expensive car driving out of state person as a drug dealer or other criminal.

Florida is a bad state for anyone but the rich retired folks. Everyone else is treated like a servant or a criminal. Corporatism and corruption are rampant there.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
oh this is nothing new, i know of another group that did this all the time, hrm what were they called, gee its just on the tip of my toungue, oh yah thats right i remember from my HISTORY BOOKS


THEY WERE CALLED THE KGB, GASTAPO AND SS



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


"When they have probable cause, they no longer need permission to inspect the vehicle or the driver."


BINGO! you win the cupi doll


in fact, to the rest of you who are like me and would cause trouble, just save your self the time and aggravation, find out what roads they are doing it on and post huge bright flourcent signs down the roads leading up to the road checkpoints are on.

ILLEGAL NAZI CHECKPOINT AHEAD, HAVE PAPERS READY FOR NAZI SS OFFICERS.
PAPERS PLEASE!!

it will cost 2.50$ for poster board and marker and save you a whole lot of trouble.
edit on 6-2-2013 by ~widowmaker~ because: feerets



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



is a faster commute time worth all of your rights being taken away?


Isn't that just a tad extreme?

I MAY be inconvenienced (should I ever be affected by the area that is) to an announced FHP Driver's License and Vehicle Inspection checkpoint and by complying I have denounced "all" of my rights under the U.S. Constitution?

Have you thought of the bright side of what checkpoints like this could bring about in addition to what you've deemed the negative side of them are?

the bright side to "papers please?" there isn't one.

you literally toss your rights out the window if you submit to these checks. you know when an officer says "do you understand your rights?" in legal terms it means "do you submit to our jurisdiction?"

these checks are a direct violation of the constitution, and your rights contained within. they are voluntary, so you are consenting to your rights being violated.

these check points are unconstitutional and mark the start of preliminary conditioning. soon you'll see the TSA gain a huge amount of power, and the right to travel will be trampled on.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 



The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizures by law enforcement agents against private citizens. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 they are allowed, but up to the state because of the danger involved with DUIs. Apparently in Florida these inspection points are deemed the same.

you're correct on the supreme court ruling, but it only applies to drivers, not travelers, and furthermore if you have reclaimed ownership of your person (the legal persona created at birth and taken by the government to use as collateral against borrowing money from the fed, also known as a birth certificate) none of these statutes apply, only laws that stem directly from the constitution or "common law".





top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join