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.
So if I said to you - give the police power to check documents and in return you will enjoy a reduce potential to be killed or injured in an accident ( accepting that one was related to the other) you would not be willing to do so.
If you say that you would not be willing I guess your the guy I see driving without a seatbelt or on a motor cycle with no crash helmet.
You already have your rights eroded every year when new legislation is passed
This may be a surprise to you but I am a law abiding nurse practitioner - I wear my seatbelt 100% of the time, try to drive cautiously and have never been in any trouble. I also respect police officers as they came to my assistance many times when I was an emergency room nurse.
I don't agree with your theory of checking documents = reduced risk of accident.
I am torn on this issue. On the one hand I can see the validity of the arguement that such a check point is unconstitutional as it appears to violate the fourth ammendment:
"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."
However a quick look at the case law shows that:
"In the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68)."
So the question is was the checkpoint the OP discussed "justifiable"? That is the big question and where people tend to disagree.
I know you....your the one who likes to argue that everything is a gateway to the end of freedom. Today vehicle checkpoints where they only check your license and papers....tomorrow random anal cavity check while at work, in front of the whole company. Random bag checks at the airport turns into them kidnapping your children and water boarding them until you tell them were Osama Bin Laden is.
It's a vehicle checkpoint not a home invasion by the Gestapo. Would you rather know there was a child molester next door via a random police check or when your child has been raped and beaten by one? Would you rather have a drunk driver caught right down the rd from a local watering hole or when they find the vehicle in someones living room?
Let me know when they start doing random home checks from the Yellow pages. I will make sure to move my Meth Lab
No, I'm not that guy, promise. (Although you still might want to move that meth lab, since I hear they're major fire hazards.) It sounds like you're saying that you find the concept of random home checks to be a) implausible and b) objectionable. I agree with you on both counts.
However, I'm curious as to why you find them objectionable, since it appears to contradict your previous appeal to "make sure people are stopped from doing bad BEFORE they have a chance to do it." Sure, it's settled law these days that vehicle checkpoints are constitutional, but multiple court challenges and dissenting judicial opinions seem to demonstrate that, at the very least, it's far from a fringe viewpoint that vehicle checkpoints are contrary to the intent of the 4th amendment.
I am torn on this issue. On the one hand I can see the validity of the arguement that such a check point is unconstitutional as it appears to violate the fourth ammendment:
"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."
However a quick look at the case law shows that:
"In the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68)."
So the question is was the checkpoint the OP discussed "justifiable"? That is the big question and where people tend to disagree.
Exactly. As far as case law is concerned, it's settled: vehicle checkpoints are legal (er, except in the 11 states where they aren't). I just think it's bad case law.
I am torn on this issue. On the one hand I can see the validity of the arguement that such a check point is unconstitutional as it appears to violate the fourth ammendment:
"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."
However a quick look at the case law shows that:
"In the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68)."
So the question is was the checkpoint the OP discussed "justifiable"? That is the big question and where people tend to disagree.
I am usually the first person to say we need more privacy in this country, but I actually believe the checkpoints are justified. There are a lot of people driving around that shouldn't be, either they don't have a license or their cars are not insured or safety inspected. If it weren't for checkpoints, the only way to get these people off the road is to pull them over when they are caught performing a driving violation. I think it is preferable to be proactive and get them off the road before they make a mistake, and possibly a mistake that jeopardizes someone else's life.
Exactly. As far as case law is concerned, it's settled: vehicle checkpoints are legal (er, except in the 11 states where they aren't). I just think it's bad case law.
Perhaps the OP might want to research these 11 states and choose one of them as their new home state.
You know I can't really get to a place where I see a lawful checkpoint as an erosion of peoples liberty to live unimpeded by the police. The constitution goes a lot further to protect individuals here than in other countries , the UK being one.
In England a police officer does not need to have a reason to stop you and ask questions of you, neither does he/she need a reason to stop you when driving. The fact that you are driving a motor vehicle on a road is sufficient justification. Of course England does not require probable cause merely the lesser ' reasonable suspicion'.
we also fought a war to have the freedoms not available in england... (im just being argumentative)
It is a certified 100% infringement of your rights. Don't give me this crap...."if you don't have anything to hide why worry?" BS and more BS! This is the crap they do in communist countries, not here in the US.
If they are actually stopping people, asking for documents such as license, registration, insurance and so on, via roadblock style, I would suggest a few of you get together and hire an attorney. Press it to the state supreme courts and beyond. This crap always gets shut down once it gets outside the municipal levels.
Unless they have a detrimental, serious situation that might be a safety issue or other major law enforcement need to stop people at road blocks, thern it is unconstitutional and a clear violation of your civil rights.
They have been doing this in NC since I was a child. If you don't like it, you can move back to whatever state (MN?) you moved from.
Quote:
You let them do this and get away with it, next it will be door knocks and random searches of your home and body.
As I said, they've been doing this (VERY infrequently; I think it's happened to me <5 times in my whole life, including when I was in the car too young to drive) for many years, and somehow they still haven't gotten to that "door knock and random searches" part...I guess it's coming any day now?
But maybe you should've researched this before you moved here and called yourself "CarolinaCowboy".
(And BTW I am heavily Libertarian on most issues...but I'd rather random checks like this snare unlicensed and drunk drivers than get into a tizzy about having to slow down and show my license to someone. I'm far more worried about Bush's wiretaps recording my phone calls without my knowing it)
I think it is preferable to be proactive and get them off the road before they make a mistake, and possibly a mistake that jeopardizes someone else's life.
Again, refer to NH's state motto.
To infringe on personal liberty "for the greater good" is a communist mentality IMO.
To infringe on personal liberty "for the greater good" is a communist mentality IMO.
Is that how you feel when there's a red octagonal sign that "infringes on your liberty to drive past it without stopping"?
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.
(Although you still might want to move that meth lab, since I hear they're major fire hazards.) It sounds like you're saying that you find the concept of random home checks to be a) implausible and b) objectionable. I agree with you on both counts.
(im just being argumentative)
