It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No he did not.... what makes you claim he did?
Well at the end of the stop they admitted that it was properly stored, but they did hold me making me late for work. They said that my firewood for camping was suspicious and he evntually said people use stuff like that to throw off dogs. I'd say they kept me for at least half an hour and made me sit on my hood, eventually only citing me for speeding and not getting any dogs after he looked through the hatchback.
Basically, if police can’t bring a dog to the scene in the time it takes to run your tags and write a ticket, the use of the dog becomes constitutionally suspect. So if you’re pulled over and police threaten to call in the dogs, you are not required to consent to searches.
Following is a list of cases holding a lengthy detention reasonable while officers were waiting for a canine:
•United States v. Lebrun, 261 F.3d 731, 734 (8th Cir. 2001): 20 minutes waiting for drug dog was not deemed unreasonable;
•United States v. Orsolini, 300 F.3d 724, 730 (6th Cir. 2002): 35 minutes waiting for the canine unit to arrive was not deemed unreasonable;
•United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345, 354 (6th Cir. 2005): police had reasonable suspicion to detain suspect for 30–45 minutes to wait for the first drug-detection dog to arrive;
•United States v. Alpert, 816 F.2d 958 (4th Cir. 1987): upholding 50 minute detention; and
•United States v. White, 42 F.3d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1994): finding delay of one hour and 20 minutes for arrival of drug dog reasonable.
Please. And again please, do a little more research before you risk yourself or others on the advice you offer here.
and no you don't have a right to travel anywhere. Visit Area 51 the next time you want a stroll. Cities are allowed to place restrictions on the use of parks and the times of their usage.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
Whether we like it or not, cities' restrictions on park usage have been upheld in courts. From New York City:
cities place those restrictions illegally. they directly violate the 14th amendment:
§1-03 General Provisions
a.Hours of Operation1.Persons may enter and use the parks from 6:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. unless other open hours are posted at any park.
2.Whenever a threat to public health or safety exists in any park resulting from any natural cause, explosion, accident or any other cause, or by riot or unlawful assembly or activity, the Commissioner may close the park or any part thereof to the public for such duration as he deems necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the public.
3.No person shall enter or remain in any park without the permission of the Commissioner when such park is closed to the public.
Whether we like it or not, cities' restrictions on park usage have been upheld in courts.
How "American Jurisprudence" applies to this is beyond me.
One thing that you should consider is that the courts have allowed limits and restrictions to be placed on the Constitution. For example, you can't say anything you want, anywhere you want, whenever you want to.
Or, does the Constitution ban governments from restricting how and when parks are used.
The issue in this case is whether a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping in certain parks violates the First Amendment when applied to prohibit demonstrators from sleeping in Lafayette Park and the Mall in connection with a demonstration intended to call attention to the plight of the homeless.
We hold that it does not, and reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid, provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.
So, if the Supreme Court points out that the First Amendment is subject to restrictions, and that they have done so many times, why should fredom to travel get any greater protection?
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
"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.
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public hi ghways 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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 ." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
Ms. Port claims she is constitutionally entitled to this special status because she is not engaged in commercial travel. She relies principally upon quotations from Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 72 A.L.R. 604 (1930), and Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill.App. 94 (1904). Although the Thompson court declared the right to travel public highways an individual's "common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty," the court also noted that the exercise of such a common right may be regulated under the City's police power if in the interest of public safety and welfare. Thompson, 154 S.E. at 583. The City driver's license revocation ordinance at issue in Thompson was upheld except to the extent it granted broad discretion to the City's chief of police to revoke licenses. "The issuance and revocation of such [driving] permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare." Thompson, 154 S.E. at 583. (Emphasis added.)
"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262: "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”