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.
I thought the locations were required to be announced and publicized before hand.
Only DUI checkpoints are announced & publicized because they last for more than a few hours, but nothing else has to be announced as it is random and short scheduled.
Only DUI checkpoints are announced & publicized because they last for more than a few hours, but nothing else has to be announced as it is random and short scheduled.
I see how the duration would matter as far as admissibility of evidence. I suppose that it might be different if they only cite for something they can see from outside the car.
When you applied for a driver's license with the state, you had to agree to the state's right to enforce traffic laws & any other law associated with public safety & driving. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.
If law enforcement can plainly see if you're wearing a seatbelt as you drive by, and has no need to stop & look inside the car to see it, then it's a stretch to consider that an unreasonable search, since no search was ever conducted.
If law enforcement can plainly see if you're wearing a seatbelt as you drive by, and has no need to stop & look inside the car to see it, then it's a stretch to consider that an unreasonable search, since no search was ever conducted.
Legally it's still considered a search, but one that's been carved out as an exception by the courts.
When you applied for a driver's license with the state, you had to agree to the state's right to enforce traffic laws & any other law associated with public safety & driving. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.
If law enforcement can plainly see if you're wearing a seatbelt as you drive by, and has no need to stop & look inside the car to see it, then it's a stretch to consider that an unreasonable search, since no search was ever conducted.
When you applied for a driver's license with the state, you had to agree to the state's right to enforce traffic laws & any other law associated with public safety & driving. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.
If law enforcement can plainly see if you're wearing a seatbelt as you drive by, and has no need to stop & look inside the car to see it, then it's a stretch to consider that an unreasonable search, since no search was ever conducted.
Well this is the sticky point. The article claimed that they were looking in to cars as well as checking licenses. That is stretching the limit of what is allowed at checkpoints. That "you agreed to this when you got your license" argument only goes so far, and courts have ruled that check points are for specific vehicle safety issues only. They are not fishing expeditions to go after drugs, outstanding warrants, etc. If they were simply looking at people seat belts I still wouldn't like it but it is at least within the parameters of how they're suppose to be operating.
When you applied for a driver's license with the state, you had to agree to the state's right to enforce traffic laws & any other law associated with public safety & driving. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.
Once upon a time this was true. But since the state has made other modes of transportation illegal in specific locations - such as walking - in order to exercise your constitutionally guaranteed right to assembly and association, driving is now a right and not a privilege. For example, if you reside on the east side of I-79 in Cranberry Township off of PA-228, and wish to attend a political rally on the west side of I-79, your only option is to drive as walking across specific intersections of PA-228 is prohibited.
Once upon a time this was true. But since the state has made other modes of transportation illegal in specific locations - such as walking - in order to exercise your constitutionally guaranteed right to assembly and association, driving is now a right and not a privilege.
Is that an actual argument people have used successfully or is it like when somebody comes up with a theory that explains why he doesn't have to pay income taxes? I mean, it isn't as if you have a right to have somebody provide the means by which you might make it to an assembly if you are disabled or something.
Is that an actual argument people have used successfully or is it like when somebody comes up with a theory that explains why he doesn't have to pay income taxes? I mean, it isn't as if you have a right to have somebody provide the means by which you might make it to an assembly if you are disabled or something.
Yea I'm pretty sure you cannot jump in your car without a license, registration or plates & be ok so long as you tell the cop it was the only way you could get to the demonstration; at least under no case law I have heard of
Once upon a time this was true. But since the state has made other modes of transportation illegal in specific locations - such as walking - in order to exercise your constitutionally guaranteed right to assembly and association, driving is now a right and not a privilege. For example, if you reside on the east side of I-79 in Cranberry Township off of PA-228, and wish to attend a political rally on the west side of I-79, your only option is to drive as walking across specific intersections of PA-228 is prohibited.
No, driving is not now a right. It's still a privilege subject to suspension if you accumulate too many points in violations. The state giveth, and the state taketh away if they want. Get caught driving without a license in PA & see what happens.
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.