Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2009, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,872 posts, read 8,090,819 times
Reputation: 2971

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
You patrol these forums giving absolutely hideous legal advice using bizarre, nonsensical, and just plain false legal reasoning to anyone willing to listen to your babbling foolishness. You don't know what you're talking about, so zip it. The constitutionality of roadblocks have been established for decades. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) and Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
Um no they haven't. For Texas see State v. Holt, you can also read Indianapolis v. Edmund.

Suspicion less search's/roadblocks/checkpoints are not looked upon favorable by the SCOTUS.

And as far as Michigan v. Sitz, I can't believe that someone will not challenge that ruling especially with CJ Rehnquist's now public use and abuse of prescription drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2009, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,138,905 times
Reputation: 29983
Quote:
Originally Posted by txgolfer130 View Post
Um no they haven't. For Texas see State v. Holt, you can also read Indianapolis v. Edmund.

Suspicion less search's/roadblocks/checkpoints are not looked upon favorable by the SCOTUS.

And as far as Michigan v. Sitz, I can't believe that someone will not challenge that ruling especially with CJ Rehnquist's now public use and abuse of prescription drugs.
1) In Holtz, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted Sitz to read that roadblocks are unconstitutional absent legislative authority and statewide guidelines. A bill to do just that had been winding its way through the Texas legislature, having already cleared the senate and been endorsed by the governor. If this bill never cleared the house, then one would indeed wonder where the authorization for this checkpoint came from. So did this law pass or not? I can't find any solid information one way or the other.

2) Edmond is distinguishable from Holz because the roadblock in question served a "general" law enforcement purpose (narcotics interdiction) unrelated to the method used; whereas vehicular checkpoints to ensure highway safety and legal operation of the vehicle are related to the method used. An analogy applicable to DUI enforcement would be law enforcement trying to prevent DUIs by stopping people walking down the street, because this method is not related to improving roadway safety. If this sounds like hair-splitting, well, it is. Lawyers are good at that. But, basically you are right that law enforcement can't erect roadblocks using any justification they feel like; and by not qualifying my response, I did make it sound like they are constitutional any time for any reason, so I will concede you that point. However, DUI compliance is a justification the courts will allow. Same with drivers license/insurance-compliance checkpoints. And these are the justifications law enforcement uses for, I would estimate, about 98% of all roadblocks. I'm not saying I agree with the legal reasoning the USSC has used to craft the "special needs exception" that allows these roadblocks ("well, we'll toss out 4th Amendment jurisprudence now and then when it's just plain too burdensome on law enforcement") -- in fact, I hate it -- but that's where the law stands for now.

3) I would love to see the legal precedent or even a convincing legal argument to establish the precedent that a judge's prior prescription pain-med addiction is grounds to challenge the constitutionality of a subsequent legal precedent. For that matter, I'd like to see the precedent or argument that an ongoing pain-med addiction while the case was argued and decided is grounds for challenge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2009, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Austin
2,522 posts, read 6,035,128 times
Reputation: 707
The main point is, police departments have instituted seat belt laws as a trojan horse to pull you over/search your vehicle. They essentially get a blank check to pull over and search any car, and have the law backing them up per the whole bill of rights thing.........I can't see how the US Supreme Court hasn't knocked that off the books.......just shy of planting evidence/drugs on an arrestee...illegal in letter AND spirit of the law.....

The 4th amendment prohibits using seat belt laws as a cover for pulling and searching cars at will..

try reading it again, and see what I mean.....the Founding Fathers would roll over it they knew..

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2009, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,138,905 times
Reputation: 29983
Police departments don't institute laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Texas
989 posts, read 2,497,762 times
Reputation: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by marylee54 View Post
Click it or Ticket!

I agree with the seat belt law 100%, however, I have a friend who refuses to wear one. Ok, that's her business as an adult, I guess, but what would be my liability if stopped and I'm drivving, she's the passenger and not wearing her seat belt? We've had arguments about this before
This nanny-state attitude infuriates me. If I don't want to wear a seatbelt and not endanger ANYONE but myself, that's my prerogative! We don't need laws protecting us from ourselves!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Texas
989 posts, read 2,497,762 times
Reputation: 698
Thanks for all the advice everyone. He was standing in front of my vehicle, my headlights were on so he couldn't see inside, and stopped me for no reason then after looking in and asking for my documents, saw lack of a seat belt. I am going to at least try to fight it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 11:31 AM
 
Location: The Village
1,621 posts, read 4,592,390 times
Reputation: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXIronHorse View Post
Thanks for all the advice everyone. He was standing in front of my vehicle, my headlights were on so he couldn't see inside, and stopped me for no reason then after looking in and asking for my documents, saw lack of a seat belt. I am going to at least try to fight it.
Have fun paying the extra money for court costs! I wish I had cash to throw away like that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,383,992 times
Reputation: 24740
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXIronHorse View Post
This nanny-state attitude infuriates me. If I don't want to wear a seatbelt and not endanger ANYONE but myself, that's my prerogative! We don't need laws protecting us from ourselves!
Okay, I HATE nanny states, but here's a question - do you have health insurance? If you do, and you are seriously injured as a result of not wearing your seatbelt, insurance rates, already abysmally high, go up for the rest of us. If you're not, we pay for your care with our taxes. If it were possible for you legally not to be treated in the event that you were injured in a car accident in which the seat belt would have prevented or considerably lessened those injuries, would you be on board with that, with taking SOLE responsibility for the consequences of your actions?

How about an accident in which you are not the only vehicle, and you are thrown from your seat so that you no longer have control of the vehicle, and someone else is seriously injured or dies as a result of that?

By all means, though, if you object to the seatbelt law, fight it in the appropriate ways, by trying to get enough people to agree with you and bring pressure on your legislators to change the law. However, if you know the law, and you deliberately violated it because "I don't like that law" (what would happen if we thought this was a hunky dory attitude for everyone, to only obey those laws that they liked? - think about it), and you got caught and you got a ticket, sorry, but you're whining and you're refusing to take personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions but trying to get out of them. That's pretty black and white.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Dripping Springs , TX
786 posts, read 2,761,099 times
Reputation: 238
I just find it amazing that states have to implement a law for something that should be common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, AR
1 posts, read 1,288 times
Reputation: 10
Default Is no seat belt probable cause?

Is this in fact true in Arkansas? I was recently stopped by an Arkansas State Trooper who said up front that was the reason he stopped me. (I had had my belt on and foolishly released it once I pulled over and stopped.) Which told me he could not have possibly told if I was wearing it or not to begin with, it just became convenient. (This Trooper has a rep for being a real TOOL anyway. So there was no way he was listening to the truth.) I'm a retired Army Officer, Missionary Baptist Minister and this is the FIRST TICKET I have ever received but none of that swayed this guy. What I'm trying to decide is whether I have any real chance in fighting the citation. Does anyone have any advise?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top