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.
"The courts" are free to explain how a checkpoint in the middle of nowhere, with both sides of the checkpoint calling for the same level of security, is reasonable, if they ever get around to it. They are also free to explain how this is any different from individual police officers pulling someone over without reason to suspect a crime while just out patrolling, again, if they ever get around to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom
I think I already mentioned that administrative searches are excepted from the 4th amendment so long as they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose (stop people from driving drunk and endangering the public).
Yes, we touched on this point in the other thread. I'll copy and paste my reply here:
...But if this were an administrative search predicated on general welfare and not a criminal investigatory search, seems to me they'd have to let those caught driving drunk or with drugs in the car go without penalty.
Quote:
...In other words, an administrative inspector may not use evidence of criminality discovered during the course of a valid administrative search to expand the scope of that administrative search into a search for criminal evidence. If the purpose behind an administrative search has been entirely fulfilled, any further search is a search to gather criminal evidence justifiable only upon obtaining a warrant based on criminal probable cause...
In the conversation that ensued this post, you told me your crim pro notes said that the lowest expectation for privacy applies to vehicles and pedestrians but didn't answer my question as to what these notes were based on. Further, I saw nothing from you to suggest that even this "lowest expectation" wasn't still enough to make otherwise unlawful stops and unreasonable searches constitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom
I might add, that the way in which DUI checkpoints operate is closely regulated (have to adhere to certain standards - i.e they can't single people out). But hey, nothing is stopping your state from outlawing them.
I want to see something by which The People can know they're not being singled out, stopped primarily because of the color of their skin, their sex or age, etc. An officer who pulls a Hispanic or African-American man over "just to chat" would be this questionable. Why wouldn't an officer at one of these checkpoints?
No so long as they do not ask for my license and registration or where I have been or what I have been doing. They can only ask if I have been drinking and force me to take a test if they suspect I am intoxicated.
No so long as they do not ask for my license and registration or where I have been or what I have been doing. They can only ask if I have been drinking and force me to take a test if they suspect I am intoxicated.
If that were the case, I'd be cool with them too, but that's never happened to me. It's been gestapo style. If your a certain race, drive a certain car, or fit a certain "profile" then they'll interrogate you, search your vehicle from the outside, and have been guilty of countless illegal searches.
If I was a huge drug dealer and not a business man I'd move all my drugs through middle aged and old white couples and white people ha ha
No so long as they do not ask for my license and registration or where I have been or what I have been doing. They can only ask if I have been drinking and force me to take a test if they suspect I am intoxicated.
Would it be ok if a police officer patrolling in his vehicle pulled you over to ask if you've been drinking, even if you hadn't given him reason to suspect you were?
No so long as they do not ask for my license and registration or where I have been or what I have been doing. They can only ask if I have been drinking and force me to take a test if they suspect I am intoxicated.
You make a choice and knowingly fly or cross the border.
You do not make the decision to stop at a checkpoint.
You make the decision to use the government built road. Makes me wonder how this would work if police set up a DUI stop on a road was built and maintained by a private company. That would be an interesting court case
You make the decision to use the government built road. Makes me wonder how this would work if police set up a DUI stop on a road was built and maintained by a private company. That would be an interesting court case
Publicly or privately owned, makes no difference. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
Publicly or privately owned, makes no difference. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
Agreed, but I'm living in the real world where judges and legislators change the law on the fly, without regard for the Constitution. It's "living and breathing" don't you know.
Agreed, but I'm living in the real world where judges and legislators change the law on the fly, without regard for the Constitution. It's "living and breathing" don't you know.
I think that's what we need to stop and target.
Many things are passed for special interest but the full ramifications for changes in the law aren't always thought through.
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.
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.
