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.

 

4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched Without Consent. Is This Legal?

page: 13
88
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere

Originally posted by bloodreviara
reply to post by nightstalker78
 


Well im so very glad you see it that way but as i mentioned in my
post this was the supreme court, they ruled on it, i did not say i
had a desire to drive under the influence of anything, what the
supreme court ruled was that drug check points, IE where they
stop you and search your car with no probable cause are flat
out illegal, if you got a problem with that ruling then hire a lawyer
and go argue it with them, its the only way to change it as they
seem to think it infringes on our rights, i actually do agree with
them with my whole heart though, i am not going to have my car searched
for no reason, its a waste of their time and mine, the age old if
your not guilty then you have nothing to hide excuse is one that
has been used to justify untold atrocities and i simply and
realistically cannot agree.
edit on 7-7-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)


Call the Book of World Records...

This has to be the World's longest sentence.


LOL Maybe a Canadian. They never use sentences.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by whyamIhere
 



Some History teacher needs to be hung for treason.


Ah yes, why I keep warning everyone about these constitutional extremists. This is why I associate some people with the Taliban. Quite similar.



I wasn't being serious...

"Lighten up Francis"...



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Sorry buddy, it was the supreme court, not a state constitution. And the 14th amendment has nothing to do with traffic stops. Perhaps you should actually do a bit more research.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 



Sorry buddy, it was the supreme court, not a state constitution. And the 14th amendment has nothing to do with traffic stops. Perhaps you should actually do a bit more research.

the supreme court can't rule that the 4th or 14th amendments are unconstitutional.

the 14th amendment prevents states from passing laws OR enforcing laws that violate a person's rights that are established in the federal constitution.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I live in a small town in Arizona. I know several people who have been stopped and searched walking after dark. My friend was walking to the store for cigarettes at 10:30pm. Police stopped him, said there had been a robbery in the area and did a pat down. They found nothing and let him go. This seems to be standard procedure now.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


What this all boils down to is;

Driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

Most cops are control freaks. IF... he would have rolled down the window as asked by the officer, he would have been waved on.

The guy who made the video was exercising his rights, and we should all commend him for having the guts, he made an excellent point.

Be sure to note; The cops found his camera running, they did not confiscate it or delete the footage, the cop in the window made a public asshole of himself and i am sure he has seen the video by now.

Happy Birthday to America because in a true police state, we would have never seen this video.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Again since you are too dense to grasp this:

Being pulled over is not a violation of the 4th or 14th amendment or any right for that matter. The supreme court of the united States ruled that driving is a privilege, not a right. Therefore in most states, ones who have not specifically said "hey, police, you can't do that", are totally within their legal right to pull you over at any time for any reason, including and not limited to "because they felt like it". The sooner you realize this the less foolish you will look concerning federal judiciary matters.
edit on 7-7-2013 by raifordko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kimsie
 



Driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

errrr.....no.


"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

the right to travel is not a privilege, it can only be taken away through due process.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 



Being pulled over is not a violation of the 4th or 14th amendment or any right for that matter. The supreme court of the united States ruled that driving is a privilege, not a right.

yes, driving IS a privilege; traveling is a right. driving is defined as using a motor vehicle for commercial purposes, and commerce can be regulated. traveling is the use of a motor vehicle for personal leisure to go where one wants at their inclination on public property.

furthermore:


Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.


edit on 7-7-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by kimsie
 



Driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

errrr.....no.


"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

the right to travel is not a privilege, it can only be taken away through due process.


Thank you so much Bob, with all respect;
Is it a Right for a drunken 12 year old to drive an 18 wheeler ?

The hypothetical question is; where should we draw the line?

When one does not complying with the control freaks demand to roll down the window?

Yes Bob, you are correct in context.
/end Quote.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Again, you aren't getting it. You see that little caveat "unless by due process of the law" at then end there? Well guess what buddy, the law allows it. So yeah, you can cry and moan all you want, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA disagrees with you. They have already ruled that if the state allows it YOU CAN BE PULLED OVER AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IF CONDUCTED PROPERLY.

en.wikipedia.org...

The supreme court trumps you hard.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kimsie
 


Your quote actually proves my point. You just don't get it.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kimsie
 



Is it a Right for a drunken 12 year old to drive an 18 wheeler ? The hypothetical question is; where should we draw the line?

the line is quite clearly drawn in the constitutional law i quoted above. the right to travel is virtually unlimited, unless the expression of that right by a person interferes with another's rights. a drunk person traveling in a motor vehicle is a danger to others, and interferes with their rights. this is why driving drunk is illegal.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 



Again, you aren't getting it. You see that little caveat "unless by due process of the law" at then end there? Well guess what buddy, the law allows it. So yeah, you can cry and moan all you want, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA disagrees with you. They have already ruled that if the state allows it YOU CAN BE PULLED OVER AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IF CONDUCTED PROPERLY. en.wikipedia.org... The supreme court trumps you hard.

nope! i completely understand, which is why i know you're wrong.

this is where the 14th amendment comes in, along with the other rulings and constitutional laws i quoted. the state cannot pass or enforce a law that deprives people of their rights. the right to travel, in this instance.

due process of law refers to removing a particular person's rights based on evidence that they have committed a crime warranting the forfeiture of their rights.

from your source:


While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

it is an unconstitutional infringement of a right, which brings up my previous assertion that the supreme court cannot rule a constitutional right unconstitutional.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko
reply to post by kimsie
 


Your quote actually proves my point. You just don't get it.


I get it Raiford. the video is a wondeful example of America in 2013, BUT if he would have rolled down the window When The Control Freak asked him to, he would have been waved thru the checkpoint.

There would have been no video of a friendly cop waving an innocent guy thru a checkpoint on ATS.

GET MY POINT?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimsie

Originally posted by raifordko
reply to post by kimsie
 


Your quote actually proves my point. You just don't get it.


I get it Raiford. the video is a wondeful example of America in 2013, BUT if he would have rolled down the window When The Control Freak asked him to, he would have been waved thru the checkpoint.

There would have been no video of a friendly cop waving an innocent guy thru a checkpoint on ATS.

GET MY POINT?





Sorry, I typed that wrong, that should have read "He just doesn't get it". I totally 100% agree with you.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
So want a bunch of drunks out driving all crazy threatening the lives of your families?
Maybe some of you would feel different if you had a friend or family member killed by a drunk driver.
edit on 7-7-2013 by knightrider078 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2013 by knightrider078 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


See, and this proves that you don't understand. Again, you are butting heads with the supreme court here, they are right and you are wrong. Nobody's right to travel is being infringed. Their PRIVILEGE to drive is being inconvenienced...that's it.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lada2000
I don't live in United States, but reading things like this on the Internet gives me the impression that America isn't quite the "Land of the Free" that the U.S. prides itself with being.

Am I right in thinking this way? Is America less free than - say - some European countries are?


No, the fact that there is a video shows how free we are.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
There are all kinds of little tricks they use to try to get around your rights.

One such trick is the "pat down."

While they can not legally search you without consent or a warrant, they do have the right to "pat you down" for weapons, for purposes of their own safety. What this means, is they're allowed to, much as the name implies, pat the surface areas of your body to feel for a weapon.

Now it just so happens that during this procedure, if a cop "feels something" which they deem might be illegal contraband, they will ask you "what's this?" And if your answer is not satisfactory they will reach into your pocket themselves to see. I believe they are basing this on the notion of "probable cause." Once they feel something that could be contraband, they think they have the right to find out.


In reality, they don't even always follow this protocol. I've seen them forgo the pat-down and simply begin a search of the citizen's person.


And while it shouldn't be done this way, they will even sometimes do this during a stop, when they have no reason to do so. (If a person is in their vehicle, and you do not have to speak face to face, IMHO you should not be allowed to pat them down.) I have personally been subjected to this. I was leaving an area that was known for certain types of activity. I was pulled over, and after being asked what I was doing in the area (a question which you legally do not have to answer-- but which I answered anyway, as I'm always respectful, polite, and non-confrontational as possible) I was immediately asked to step out of my vehicle. I was patted down, and the cop even looked inside my cigarette pack, etc, hoping to find contraband (he found none.)




top topics



 
88
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join