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.
cant speak too well for NJ but we got it here too, what i am seeing is not many drunks being arrested but huge numbers of illegals being arrested and the cars impounded, no registration no license no insurance. as to 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure drunk on a saturday night on a bar strip that is not unreasonable.
Except they aren't searching and seizing drunks leaving bars. They are searching and seizing individuals who happen to be driving with no indication they are doing anything wrong. That's what makes it a checkpoint.
There would be nothing wrong with them stopping every single person they saw leave a bar and drive their car - that would be probably cause (as flimsy as you get, but likely good enough). Instead they check a more random sample of vehicles making those no registration/etc offenses more common (and the real reason).
Except they aren't searching and seizing drunks leaving bars. They are searching and seizing individuals who happen to be driving with no indication they are doing anything wrong. That's what makes it a checkpoint.
There would be nothing wrong with them stopping every single person they saw leave a bar and drive their car - that would be probably cause (as flimsy as you get, but likely good enough). Instead they check a more random sample of vehicles making those no registration/etc offenses more common (and the real reason).
Oh and I'd bet me last dime someone in this thread would call that entrapment..cop just waiting for the patrons to leave.
Bottom line is unless you want to live in anarchy there has to be laws and you can't please everyone..there will be supporters and detractors of some laws
Oh and I'd bet me last dime someone in this thread would call that entrapment..cop just waiting for the patrons to leave.
Bottom line is unless you want to live in anarchy there has to be laws and you can't please everyone..there will be supporters and detractors of some laws
I agree we should follow the law – starting with the Constitution
I agree we should follow the law – starting with the Constitution
You just happen to interpret the Constitution differently then the Supreme Court. That's why we have them and like it or not they have the final say....it's not perfect in any way but I would take it hands down then say over the way China is run or G-D forbid Sharia law.
Oh and I'd bet me last dime someone in this thread would call that entrapment..cop just waiting for the patrons to leave.
That would clearly not be entrapment. Entrapment would be the police seeing you exit the bar and flag a taxi and telling "you look fine, go on drive home".
It would be the same as a speed trap, though with less probable cause given that the radar is better indication that someone was speeding than leaving a bar is an indication they are drunk.
Quote:
Bottom line is unless you want to live in anarchy there has to be laws and you can't please everyone..there will be supporters and detractors of some laws
Yes there are laws, but the highest one is the constitution. Ignoring it to please some people is worse than anarchy it's tyranny of the majority.
That would clearly not be entrapment. Entrapment would be the police seeing you exit the bar and flag a taxi and telling "you look fine, go on drive home".
It would be the same as a speed trap, though with less probable cause given that the radar is better indication that someone was speeding than leaving a bar is an indication they are drunk.
Yes there are laws, but the highest one is the constitution. Ignoring it to please some people is worse than anarchy it's tyranny of the majority.
and like it or not the Supreme Court has the final say in the way the constitution is interpreted when challenged
..they ruled the DWI roadside check points as not being in violation of the 4th amendment..so you all can talk about it until the moon turns blue..it is what it is
it seems some, not all, but some, have a problem with this because they were nailed in a road side stop, maybe not for DWI but for no license, no insurance, no registration etc etc which again stay with in the MV laws and you won't have a problem..this is the very LEAST of my worries a DWI checkpoint at the end of the summer..there are far more important issues right now to get my knickers in a twist
and like it or not the Supreme Court has the final say in the way the constitution is interpreted when challenged
..they ruled the DWI roadside check points as not being in violation of the 4th amendment..so you all can talk about it until the moon turns blue..it is what it is
I understand that. 3 judges disagreed so it's not that strange an opinion.
Clearly "papers please" checkpoints are not what the founders of the USA had in mind, that we've twisted things so much that it's perfectly acceptable is sad, then again the Federal Government has a "department of education" so clearly no one cares.
Have you read the that decision. Even the majority opinion states that DUI checkpoints are unreasonable seizures but the benefit outweighs the civil rights of the people.
and like it or not the Supreme Court has the final say in the way the constitution is interpreted when challenged
..they ruled the DWI roadside check points as not being in violation of the 4th amendment..so you all can talk about it until the moon turns blue..it is what it is
it seems some, not all, but some, have a problem with this because they were nailed in a road side stop, maybe not for DWI but for no license, no insurance, no registration etc etc which again stay with in the MV laws and you won't have a problem..this is the very LEAST of my worries a DWI checkpoint at the end of the summer..there are far more important issues right now to get my knickers in a twist
No one is disputing the Supreme Court outcome. However, what is there to interpret?
Quote:
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.
Where is the probable cause of random checkpoints?
I understand that. 3 judges disagreed so it's not that strange an opinion.
Clearly "papers please" checkpoints are not what the founders of the USA had in mind, that we've twisted things so much that it's perfectly acceptable is sad, then again the Federal Government has a "department of education" so clearly no one cares.
Have you read the that decision. Even the majority opinion states that DUI checkpoints are unreasonable seizures but the benefit outweighs the civil rights of the people.
look In theory I do agree but unfortunately the USA is not what it was when the constitution was written up...they didn't even have cars back then for this to be an issue
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.
