It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 15
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by rblewis6

Sorry about your loss, but what has that got to do with this? Harassing and illegally searching people they know aren't drunk. Most people that are up to no good turn around when they see 6 cop cars on both sides of the road with cones and lights going.

DUI checkpoints, illegal searches, phony dog checks, forced blood tests, body cavity searches, losing rights and violating that constitution you are taking so likely are all ALREADY in effect and none of them stopped what happened to your loved one. Do you suggest we lose more rights?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but these things are already extreme and what happened to you proves that they aren't effective. It's not about serving the people or protecting them. It's about filling up prisons and making money from tickets.
edit on 7-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by nightstalker78

Get back to me when you learn to actually address an issue and not
a persons lack of grammatical ability, my grammar may be lacking
but it does not mean what i said is not true.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by nightstalker78

You could read his post fine. Did you not have a worthy response?
Do you think checkpoints for illegal searches is justifiable?

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

You still don't get it. Nobody is being denied the right to travel so says the supreme court. So you can post as many definitions as you want of the right to travel, the supreme court does not view a traffic stop/checkpoint as denying your right to travel. I suppose a draw bridge is infringing on your rights too? An INCONVENIENCE is not restraint.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by links234
I lost track of the thread but I wanted to talk about your point specifically.

A lot of people seem to treat acts like the one in the video acceptable. If 'we' confront the officers at these checkpoints, the 'government' will get the point and leave us alone. Or something like that.

It's not the frontline officers who are in charge of this. It's akin to getting angry at a checkout clerk for a store policy. The minimum wage employee doesn't tell the CEO how to run the shop. The LEO's on the street don't tell the captain how to run the station.

The men in the video were deputies, meaning this young man could easily contact his sherrif (whom he votes for) and discuss this. He could contact his county board, his state reps, his city council. Doing this to the officers on the street is ineffective to the overall objective.

As I said I find it alarming that a professional doesn’t know everything he should know dealing with his profession. My take way from your post, in a blunt way, is to say it is just a dumb cop, why should we expect him to react as he should when a person exercises their rights.

Cops have the ability and authority to totally ruin your life just by you exercising your rights….

I have no doubts that the driver set everything up ahead of time. He planned to go to that DUI check point well armed with what is his right, and more importantly, what is his right not to do. I do not see a problem with this. If EVERY check point had people that went to these check points with only the one intension to test their rights why is that wrong?

I had a cop pull me over for doing 5 over the speed limit. I knew it was within his power to do whatever he felt like doing to me. He walked up to my car and told me everything was being videoed and recorded. Now, knowing I was in the wrong and he had me by the gonads I would not push my rights, but he was very respectful and even after seeing I had targets he asked me if I had any guns in the car. I told him no and that was the end of it, but he could have pushed it and asked to search. In that case I would let him, because I know that I would either get off with a warning or walk away with a handful of tickets, all based what he felt like doing. Even though he most likely knew he had the power to push a search he didn’t, and I respect him for that.

With these DUI setups where people go to them armed I find that the cops disappoint me in the vast majority of cases.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
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.

One of my posts stated on one checkpoint they stopped 1700 cars and got 2 DUIs. Is that a good number to justify stopping 1700 cars? Would searching 1700 houses to find two people doing something illegal also be justified?

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by raifordko

You do have a right against unlawful search and seizure. So if you are being denied the right to travel because you don't consent to an unlawful search then you are held there until you give up one right for the other.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 05:10 AM

edit on 8-7-2013 by ReligionFan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:49 AM

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

There is a subtle change in approach...

'Did you break the law?'
'Are you breaking the law?'

With the first one, you are suspected of being in some violation. In the second, there is the search to acquire that suspicion.
In the first, you are a suspect. In the second, merely a person of interest... like anyone else, but whom could become a suspect now like everyone else.

In sum, everyone is presumed a potential violator. The dog search is to look for a reason to take the next step. Prior to this, just driving down the road did not warrant such an approach.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:37 AM
This thread is a mess, If I was really paranoid I would swear there are derailers and disinfo running rampant ...

If it is a DUI checkpoint fine, we have all been through them but then why wasn't he asked if he had been drinking? Why wasn't he asked for his registration and his proof of insurance? Was he ever even asked?

So, only rolling down your window 6 or so inches is suddenly a crime? BS, The LEO could had ascertained if the driver was impaired and all requested documentaion could had been submitted through the window.

By the submission of the two LEO's close to the end of the video, the K-9's "hit" was questionable and the alleged "suspect" was innocent. Without question they knowingly and admittedly are violating this citizens rights. To argue otherwise is just plain hardheadedness.

Some of you are obviously living in the wrong decade, in the wrong country ...

Wenn Sie nichts haben sich zu verstecken, haben Sie nichts sich zu fürchten.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:15 AM

Complete and total BS.
reply to post by HauntWok

I can apply that sentence to everything you have written.

You are smug and arrogant and a danger to my Republic.

You now have my attention....

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

That's what you people don't seem to grasp. A checkpoint is perfectly legal and does not infringe on you rights. You can try and say it does all you want, but the supreme court (who rules on matters pertaining to the constitution) has already said it doesn't so you have zero argument there and you never will unless the supreme court reverses their decision.

Since those stops are pefectly legal, an officer can find probable cause during the stop. That could be the smell of alchohol or a k-9 triggering.

So was the guy in the video exercising his rights? Kind of in that he recorded the incident, but he was extremely confused on the extent if his rights under the law.

Edit: also, many people in this thread don't seem to understand what a ruling from the supreme court of the united states means. They are the end all be all for matters pertaining to the constitution. They are supposed to be there to stop the executive branch of government from infringing on your rights via legal action.

How do you change this? Leave your state. Move to a state that doesn't allow them. Here is the list again:

Just for the record, I am a libertarian, and I find them a gross over reach of law enforcement and I see it as a sign of a growing nanny state. That doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly legal. The people in Texas are doing it right. Vote who you want into the senate/house, make sure your governor aligns with your political views, and make sure you fight every chance you can for your state constitution to be iron clad.
edit on 8-7-2013 by raifordko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

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.

I think you've actually stopped responding because your legal knowledge on the issue is the equivalent of trying to play football in quicksand. You are quoting law definitions which do NOT apply to the situation so says the supreme court. If you don't like it, become active in your community to have constitutionalists voted into office on a local, state and federal level. Vote for constitutionalists for president and speak with your feet by moving to a state who lives and breaths the constitution of the USA with their actions.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:34 PM
The sarcasm from the officer about "He knows the constitution" and "He's innocent" seems to be lost an most people in this thread as well. They are laughing at the kid because they know what they are doing is legal, whether we agree with it or not does not change that fact.

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by raifordko

According to this defense attorney what they did is not legal,

Kalbaugh claims that his rights were violated at the stop, and Decatur Criminal Defense Attorney Brian White agrees.

"You cannot be required to exit the vehicle or perform any test without some reasonable suspicion," White said. From what he saw of the video, White believes officers did not have reasonable suspicion on which to ask Kalbaugh to step out of his vehicle.

"His speech is appropriate and not slurred. He is not coorperating, but he is doing so politely and asking intelligent questions," White said.

"Even if you are asked to perform the tests you don't have to, and my advice to anyone would always be don't do them... A well informed citizen is in far better shape whenever you have a police encounter," White said

What Attorneys are Saying About the July 4th Search at the DUI Check Point

You can say the Deputies were being sarcastic but the fact of the matter is Kalbaugh was allowed to leave and received no citations, so he was innocent and he did know the Constitution. What you think is a joke is no laughing matter.

I have no interest in debating about whether DUI roadblocks are legal or not, They are there and we must deal with them, the thread asked us "Drug Dogs, Searched Without Consent. Is This Legal?" and according this lawyer the answer is no. No it is not ...

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by Tazkven

That article quotes a lawyer licensed to practice law in Alabama. This incident occured in TN. Laws vary from state to state. He also has an extremely low peer rating, which means he is a #ty lawyer.

Edit: so it seems whoever wrote that article probably just kept talking to lawyers until they found one who agreed with what they wanted the article to convey.
edit on 8-7-2013 by raifordko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:06 PM
reply to post by raifordko

I guess Rodney King was resisting arrest too

Look the SC said checkpoints for DUI are ok however police got an inch and now take a foot so cop suckers like you that probably have a I have nothing to hide attitude will continue to allow private citizens travelling to where ever be harrassed by police asking and forcing things down their throats that are out of bounds you can argue all you want but no matter what DUI checkpoints do NOT prevent, deter, or stop DUI or vehicular homicide its just not realistic to think otherwise

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by Brotherman

Man, I couldn't help but laugh at you.

Like I said previously, I think checkpoints of any kind violate the original intent of the constitution. I am a libertarian. Move to a state who agrees with the constitution like Texas.

That doesn't change the fact that everything the officer did in the original video was legal in TN.

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by raifordko

In texas they check your vagina for POT apparently

Constitutional Law surpasses state law in any state as far as I know, but has it ever dawned on you that constitution or not you were born with rights therefore you shouldnt need a piece of paper anyways to tell you about this as a libertarian I hope you have read this

The Law by Frederic Ba...

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:31 AM
maybe you gave them consent when you applied for a licence?

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in