Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

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

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
It seems to me that if they are checking for DUI, which I personally think is a complete affront/pre-crime violation of civil rights as it is, then they should not be able to check for everything else under the sun, drug dogs, etc. At that point it's simply a gestapo checkpoint looking for dirt on every single citizen that happens by which is clearly a violation of more than one Constitutional right. Not that anyone gives a flip about the Constitution anymore, though.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 



I wasn't being serious...


The only reason you said this was because someone called you out on this extremist viewpoint, and now your backtracking trying to save face instead of being exposed for the fundamentalist ideology that the TEA Party represents in this country.


"Lighten up Francis"...


I'm sorry, hanging a human being is somehow funny to you? Obsolete antique means of corporal punishment is something that you find humorous? Treason is clearly defined in the United States Constitution;


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


www.archives.gov...

Maybe it's something that the TEA Party (especially those who wish to violently overthrow our Constitutionally elected representatives) should re-read.

Failure on the part of an educator to properly instruct pupils (to your rigorous standards) does not in any way qualify for the very serious charge of Treason.

And it certainly is in no way shape or form a joke.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 



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.

nope. the supreme court does not have the authority to remove an individual's constitutional rights without due process. due process is the act of taking a person to court and having them tried for an offense, THEN saying "because of the nature of the offense, this individual's right to personal freedom of movement will be removed and they will be jailed for x amount of time". exercising a right cannot be converted into an offense.

i've already established that driving and traveling are different matters. driving is commerce, traveling is a right. i hope it is obvious to everyone reading this how you choose to ignore these things.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



i've already established that driving and traveling are different matters. driving is commerce, traveling is a right. i hope it is obvious to everyone reading this how you choose to ignore these things.


The Freeman argument never really holds up in court. It's a BS theory, and it doesn't hold water, and I don't recommend that anyone try and use it for any traffic violation as it will more than likely get you a harsher sentence.

Operating a motor vehicle is not a constitutional right, as motor vehicles were not around when the constitution was written.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   


...as motor vehicles were not around when the constitution was written.


That explains why my personal phone calls and email are not private and I should not expect a warrant to be needed for the government to listen to or read them.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



i've already established that driving and traveling are different matters. driving is commerce, traveling is a right. i hope it is obvious to everyone reading this how you choose to ignore these things.


The Freeman argument never really holds up in court. It's a BS theory, and it doesn't hold water, and I don't recommend that anyone try and use it for any traffic violation as it will more than likely get you a harsher sentence.

Operating a motor vehicle is not a constitutional right, as motor vehicles were not around when the constitution was written.

here's some constitutional law for you to review.


"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

it is a right established in the constitution. and the definition of "motor vehicle":


Motor Vehicle : 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6) Motor vehic le. - The term " motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways..." 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or p roperty for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I believe that there still has to be reasonable suspicion for a search of the vehicle.

If there wasn't reasonable suspicion, then he should sue the police deparment for violation of his rights.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


If you can actually find me the Library of Congress link for that BS, then post it, cause I looked it up and I got everything from ATS to Alex Jones links.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


If you can actually find me the Library of Congress link for that BS, then post it, cause I looked it up and I got everything from ATS to Alex Jones links.

your disbelief has no effect on the veracity of the law.
the united states code definition of motor vehicle can be found here:
www.law.cornell.edu...

"Am. Jur." is american jurisprudence, an encyclopedia. it's referencing the court case ruling Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. feel free to get the encyclopedia and look it up.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


www.lawfulpath.com...

Their you go all you really had to look for was this little tid bit "II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135"



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


No, I will not accept anything but something from Thomas.gov on the matter. No third party websites. If it's not on file with the library of congress it doesn't exist. I am not talking about a set of definitions I am talking about the actual law stating that you can operate a motor vehicle in this country without a licence.
edit on 7-7-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
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)


I do not think anyone wants drunk people driving.

What the majority of people who differ in opinion from you are arguing boils down to two things, either A: checkpoints are unconstitutional, or B: checkpoints do not help in stopping drunk driving.

I appreciate your appeal to emotion, and I have had friends killed in drunk driving accidents. I still see no need to waste the police's time or resources on checkpoints.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 



No, I will not accept anything but something from Thomas.gov on the matter.

i told you how to find it. go look it up. you can pay for it online if you want to. it's a privately owned encyclopedia, it will set you back about $10,000 if you wish to buy them.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Its in a book thats like lots of pages long, it would look like one of these

American Jurisprudence

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

This is saying the book is American Jurisprudaence 1st volume Constitutional Law (topic) in Section 329 paragraph 1135 and all that was in reference to what he was talking about in regards to locomotion being fundamental in civil liberties and rights to an individual which as I have shown was used in cases like:

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
Heres a discussion about it
edit on 7-7-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

reply to post by Brotherman
 


Yea, that's what I thought. Complete and total BS.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Yea, that's what I thought. Complete and total BS.

yes, of course. an oft-cited (in court cases) passage from a renowned american legal encyclopedia regarding the right to travel is BS


i'm not going to respond anymore to this thread, and i encourage others to do the same. there is so much truth on this single page that i hope it doesn't roll over to the next page, but if it does i suppose i'll have to just requote everything.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 
Tell you what, why don't you go ahead and let one of your family members die in the name of constitutional rights. I lost my 13 year old nephew 53 weeks ago because some neophyte 26 year old got blasted at a graduation party and drove on the freeway with enough alcohol in her blood to sanitize a hospital. You go on quoting your constitutional rights, and take comfort in that while you watch a family member die in your arms.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rblewis6
 


I'm terribly sorry about your loss and can understand your anger, I really am. I do want to say that what makes you think a DUI checkpoint would have prevented this tragedy? It is also in my understanding that DUI checkpoints are not to be permitted on "the freeway" and even if that isn't completely accurate (depends on state/ local law) one still has to be Drunk first, Then THEY HAVE TO DRIVE, Then get stopped at a checkpoint. It still does nothing to prevent this from happening. I am truly sorry for your loss and mean you no disrespect but rather just wanted to point out that checkpoints do very little if anything to prevent vehicular homicide and DUI.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rblewis6
reply to post by jude11
 
Tell you what, why don't you go ahead and let one of your family members die in the name of constitutional rights. I lost my 13 year old nephew 53 weeks ago because some neophyte 26 year old got blasted at a graduation party and drove on the freeway with enough alcohol in her blood to sanitize a hospital. You go on quoting your constitutional rights, and take comfort in that while you watch a family member die in your arms.



You are distraught and rightly so. It sucks to lose a loved one.

Wouldn't you have rather had more cops patrolling the freeway that night?
Checkpoints do not stop drunk drivers. They do not even deter them. As you have sadly found out. My empathy for your loss.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I like that the cop says "he knows that he's perfectly innocent and he knows the constitution." If the cops know that, and they know that what they are doing is wrong then WHY are they doing it? Why don't they just let him go. If they want to take advantage of dumb people let them, but as soon as someone questions it they should let them go.





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join