[The Walrus]

http://cryptome.org/bressi.htm

29 December 2002. Thanks to JG.

See related: http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm

Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:53:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Bressi <tbressi@seds.lpl.arizona.edu>
To: gnu@toad.com
Subject: Police checkpoint incident

John [Gilmore]

I thought I'd share with you a recent experience I had regarding
travelling & I.D.

Friday afternoon while travelling back to Tucson after working the day at
a remote site, I was detained/arrested at a police check point in the
Tohono O'odham Reservation - Pima County, Arizona. The check point was a
joint task force operation involving the Tohono O'odham police, U.S.
Customs, and INS/Border Patrol. Below appears my account of the events
that transpired.

I will be seeking a change of venue to Tucson for the upcoming court
appearances as well as mounting a vigorous defense regarding the charges
against me. State law clearly indicates that a valid police stop must be
premised on reasonable suspicion or probable cause of wrongdoing. Any
suggestions would be welcome.

It would appear that it is now unlawful in this country to travel home
from a days work without being properly cleared by the authorities that be.

Feel free to distribute this email as you see fit. Thanks and Happy
Holidays.

Terry Bressi
tbressi@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
1-520-808-2054
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 December 2002 - 1700: I came upon a police check point on Arizona Route
86 at mile marker 143 in the Tohono O'odham reservation - Pima County,
Arizona.

I called a coworker on a cell phone while waiting in backed up traffic &
informed him of the circumstances. He stayed on the line the entire time I
interacted with the enforcement officers up to the time I was forcibly
removed from the vehicle. My co-worker heard most of the conversation.

The road block was setup in such a place as to provide no prior warning as
to its presence and no ability to bypass it. Route 86 is the only viable
route back to Tucson from Kitt Peak & there is no shoulder along large
sections of the route which would allow an individual the opportunity to
turn around prior to entering the checkpoint.

Spotters were present along the side of the road some distance before the
checkpoint. Their purpose was not obvious until after coming upon the
roadblock.

I was travelling back to Tucson after working at a remote site.

A dozen or so enforcement vehicles were present along the side of the road
at the checkpoint.

Tohono O'odham police, U.S. Customs, & INS/Border Patrol Vehicles were
present along with several unmarked enforcement vehicles.

I was stopped by the officer in charge who worked for the Tohono O'odham
Police.

Upon request, the officer indicated the purpose of the checkpoint was
sobriety & license checks which seemed inconsistent with the presence of
U.S. Customs & INS law enforcement personnel.

Upon request, the officer provided his name but failed to provide photo
identification. The officer then requested my license. I requested to know
why he wanted it. The officer indicated everyone was being asked for their
license for identification purposes and to check for compliance with
traffic laws.

I requested to know if the stops being made were based upon individualized
probable cause of wrongdoing. He indicated there was no probable cause &
everyone was being treated the same.

Others officers were beginning to gather around my vehicle at this time -
including the U.S. Customs Agent.

The officer in charge asked me for my drivers license again. I asked him
if he had any reason to believe my drivers license wasn't in order or
whether or not he had probable cause to believe I was in violation of any
statute of the State.

He indicated he had no such belief but that I needed to provide my license
to him.

I indicated that I was uncomfortable providing my license given the
current set of circumstances. He then asked for my name which I provided
along with a contact name and number for my boss who could verify my
identity and purpose for being in the vehicle.

I then reiterated my request to know what law authorized him to stop me
without probable cause of wrongdoing and demand my identification papers.
No answer was forthcoming.

At some point during this conversation, a Tohono O'odham detective spoke
up and indicated that he could tell I hadn't been drinking because my eyes
were not bloodshot, I was communicating effectively, and exhibited no
signs of being impaired but that I still needed to provide a license. He
indicated this was an area known for drug smuggling and illegal immigrants
and consequently folks needed to be identified before they could go on.

Although having no jurisdiction over the subject matter at hand, the U.S.
Customs Agent forcefully entered the conversation and demanded that I
comply with the request along with some other commentary.

I asked the U.S. Customs Agent who had jurisdictional & operational
control over the check point. The officer in charge indicated at this time
that it was a joint task force consisting of the Tohono O'odham, U.S.
Customs, & INS.

I indicated the Supreme Court had made a distinction between check points
set up for public safety, i.e. sobriety check points, Vs law enforcement
checkpoints and that only the former met Constitutional muster when no
individualized probable cause is present. I then indicated the following:

Due to the presence of U.S. Customs and INS/Border Patrol Agents -
law enforcement as opposed to public safety was obviously a fundamental
aspect of the check point.

The detective indicated he was satisfied I had not been drinking & hence
any public safety aspect of the check point with regards to me
personally had been satisfied

A license check primarily serves a law enforcement function - not a public
safety issue - thus a mandatory license check relating to a 'public safety'
stop with no actual or perceived wrongdoing is onerous on my right to
travel unmolested on the public highways.

The officers present were clearly getting agitated at this point. The
officer in charge asked me to pull the vehicle over to the side of the
road. I asked him why and he replied they needed to ask me further
questions.

I asked if I was being detained. He clearly indicated I was NOT being
detained.

I indicated that if I was not being detained then it follows that I must
be free to leave.

At this point a different officer (Tohono O'odham K-9 unit) indicated he
had had enough of this and that I was to turn off the vehicle and exit the
car. A few of the officers present put their hands on their guns.

I slowly turned off the vehicle as commanded, removed the keys from the
ignition and placed the keys in full view on the dashboard. I then sat
very still in the front seat with my hands in full view for all to see.

The driver side door was opened, my seatbelt was unclipped by one of the
enforcement agents, and I was forcibly removed from the vehicle and laid
down on the pavement . My hands were placed behind my back and I was
handcuffed. I was then picked up under the armpits and dragged off the
road over to one of the police vehicles.

At no point was I informed whether or not I was under arrest, nor was I
read my miranda rights.

I was left on the ground for the next 30-40 minutes (time not exact). A
few times, the K-9 officer came over acting hostile & belligerent & made
several less than exemplary comments regarding myself. I heard the U.S.
Customs enforcer refer to me as a 'Peace Protester' & the K-9 officer
refer to me as a 'Green Freak'. While I like the color green - neither
reference was accurate or justified.

Early on, my wallet was taken from me and my drivers license removed from
the wallet presumably to run a check. At my request, the detective counted
the money in my wallet before walking off with it. It was returned with my
driver's license presumably after the check was complete and no further
reason to hold on to it was found.

During my time on the ground, I observed checkpoint operations. For the
first 40 minutes - vehicles were NOT stopped in any particular order or
pattern. Officers were clearly using their own judgment to determine which
vehicles were stopped and which were waved through. At times, several
vehicles in a row would be stopped followed by 10 or so vehicles allowed
to pass unmolested. This would be followed by stopping every second or
third vehicle and so on. After an hour or so, the procedure appeared to
become more repetitive with nearly every vehicle being stopped but the
first half of the operation was clearly arbitrary in nature. Everyone was
NOT treated the same from the inception of the operation.

While watching the vehicles being stopped, I also noticed enforcement
officers checking license plates against registrations along with
demanding that car drivers pop their trunks so they could be searched. The
purpose of such an action didn't appear related to sobriety checks but
rather the search for contraband material. Sometime during this time
frame, I observed one of the Tohono O'odham officers approach the Customs
enforcer and gesture at a vehicle that had just passed. The Customs
enforcer started running toward his vehicle. This made it clear that
information gathered by Tohono O'odham officers during the 'sobriety
checks' was being shared directly with federal enforcement agents
for law enforcement purposes.

As time went on, what appeared to be illegal immigrants were loaded into
an INS bus. These individuals were most likely identified by their failure
to have a drivers license - indicating the license check, for which I was
being detained, was being used to share information with the INS for
federal law enforcement purposes. Additionally I was informed later that
several hundred pounds of pot had been seized (probably through the trunk
searches being conducted by the enforcement officers at the check point.)

After some time had passed, the detective came over and informed me that a
citation was being drawn up & I would have the option of either signing it
and being released on scene or not signing it and being brought down to
the Pima County Jail in Ajo for processing. Upon his return, I opted not
to sign and was lead over to one of the Tohono O'odham vehicles to await
transport.

While waiting, I was informed my boss had been reached and that he was
heading down to the scene to recover the vehicle and I would be allowed to
talk with him at that time. Another hour passed before my boss and a
co-worker arrived from the University. I talked with them at length
regarding the situation and decided to sign the Arizona Traffic Ticket &
Complaint so I could leave and start preparing my defense.

After signing the complaint, we conversed with the detective and the
officer in charge. They indicated that while they have jurisdiction to
enforce State laws on the section of the highway nearest their
reservation, because I was not a citizen of the reservation my case would
be transferred to the jurisdiction of Pima County.

I asked if there would be a problem with recording the license plate
numbers and other marking of law enforcement vehicles present. The officer
in charge indicated that was fine at which point I proceeded to do exactly
that. The list appears below:

INS/Border Patrol:
H9739 J-25037
H9483 J-25581
E0703 J-26973
U1192 J22316 (Bus containing alleged illegal immigrants)

Tohono O'odham:
83251 G-415CB
75781 G-450CB
30939 G-874CZ (w/trailer - G-590CJ)
51420 G-135CE
92432 G-461CE
83254 G-413CB

Unmarked:
CA-52937 Blue Dodge 4x4
CA-50064 Silver Dodge 4x4
G-34 5DD White Crown Victoria
G-419DD White Ford Expedition
CB-88166 White Crown Victoria
CB-32748 White utility truck

Tow vehicles were on site a ways off as well as many vehicles that had
been forced to pull over for further questioning. There was a pile of
unopened containers of alcohol off to the side as well. At this point we
departed the scene.

I was cited with two class 2 misdeamenors - each of which carries a
maximum jail time of 4 months and a maximum monetary fine of $750.00:

* ARS 28-1595B - Operator fails/refuses to exhibit drivers' license

* ARS 28-622A - Failure to obey officer while directing traffic

It would appear that it is now unlawful to drive home from work these days
without getting proper clearance from the local authorities.

My initial court date has been set for January 3, 2003 at:

Pima County Justice Court JP#03
111 Lamina Ave.
Ajo, AZ 85321
520-387-7684

I will be seeking a change of venue to Tucson, Arizona if at all possible.

[Justin Moore]

ARS 28-1595B - Operator fails/refuses to exhibit drivers' license

In the absence of probable cause, is that even REMOTELY constitutional? I thought the Supremes ruled that there was no such thing as 'failure to ID'?

:cuss:

[Beren]

I wish the author well in his defense. It's great to see someone, when faced with a shining example of unconstitutional police behavior, having the courage to stand up and say "No."

[Steve in PA]

In PA........the driver is required to produce his drivers license upon demand by a police officer. PA VC1511(a)

[dinosaur]

Along with what Steve said, he was on a reservation. Maybe the rules are different?

[UnknownSailor]

Maybe so, but here's the rub. Reservations are almost a seperate and distinct country unto themselves, right?

So, why the Arizona infractions if the author of this is being charged by the reservation Police? Pima county isn't Tohono O'odham reservation.

[ojibweindian]

IIRC, the way it works is that the state and feds have to be invited by the tribal gov in order to do anything like this. I'm pretty sure that's the way it works in the Soo.

[Steve in PA]

True.....if he was on a reservation........who knows what laws are in effect?!?!?!? I can't answer to that one.

In PA......our check points (we've only done DUI) have to be posted and approved (a large number of DUI drivers are known to travel this route, etc). I would think that the powers that be had to do the same thing in AZ, and that would be the reason for the stop.Plus, there is no penalty, nor can we pursue anyone who does a u-turn (legal) before the CP. And we stop evry third car...or fifth......etc.

[Ledbetter]

Am I the only one here who would have just showed his drivers' license to the officer and wished him good luck in finding what he was looking for? :confused:

[AZTOY]

I live in Pima county and have gone though 100 of check point .
First thing i'm white and i have never had a border patrol officer ask for my drivers' license .I have seen border patrol ask Mexing people for there drivers' license or papers and the drivers' license is a way to prove you are Amercan.
The officer then requested my license. I requested to know
why he wanted it. The officer indicated everyone was being asked for their
license for identification purposes and to check for compliance with
traffic laws. The drivers' license is a way to prove you are Amercan.
The guy was being stupit and he will pay for it.

[Fair 'n Square]

From a non-lawyer standpoint, Walrus seems to have some good points. But I have no idea whether the points are valid. I'd like to know how this comes out.

The question in my mind is whether the INS, LEO's, etc., were following the law when they asked for the license in the circumstance presented. Does being on the reservation make any difference, does the purpose of the stops make a difference, etc.

But the law where I am says I must present my Concealed Carry Permit whenever stopped by a LEO for any reason. I'm sure I would do that. And if I did that, I'm sure I would present it with my drivers license.

[Atticus]

Ledbetter said: "Am I the only one here who would have just showed his drivers' license to the officer and wished him good luck in finding what he was looking for?"

No, you aren't. Why cooperate with the authorities and help them do a job that everyone wants done, when you can be a troublesome idiot instead?

[pax]

Ledbetter,

No, you're probably in the majority. ("The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population -- the intelligent ones or the fools? I think we can agree it's the fools, no matter where you go in this world, it's the fools that form the overwhelming majority." -- Henrik Ibsen)

Who cares if the people we hire to uphold the law, aren't even obeying the law? Just do what they say, let 'em get away with it, it'll all be fine...("All politics are based on the indifference of the majority." -- James Reston)

It would make the job of the law enforcement personnel much more difficult if we expected them to obey the law they have sworn to uphold. ("A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." -- Orson Welles)

So yeah, you're right. You shouldn't worry at all about what is happening to freedom in our country, or about whether the folks who have sworn to uphold the laws even obey the laws -- especially if the only law they are breaking is just the highest law in the land. ("Where do you stand on Bill of Rights enforcement?" -- L. Neil Smith)

pax

The ideal citizen of a tyrannical state is the man or woman who bows in silent obedience in exchange for the status of a well-cared for herd animal. -- Claire Wolfe

[riverdog]

We've got lots of border patrol checkpoints in SOCAL. There's one on 5N, one on 15N and another on 94W out in the sticks. This is an interesting stop in that it's on the way back from the range/club I shoot on/with. The only time I've been asked anything it had to do with what was in the back of my truck under the tonneau cover. When I told the BP agent, "rifles, ammunition and other stuff" he didn't seem the least surprised and just waved me by.

To answer Ledbetter's question: Sure, if they wanted to see ID, CDL whatever, no problem. Anything to make their job of catching illegals easier and less stressful.

[wQuay]

This guy knows his stuff and I hope he's acquitted. You tell 'em pax :banghead:

[rick_reno]

This fellow needs to fly more often., he'd be used to these sort of tactics.

[Gordon]

I would have immediately showed my drivers license so he wouldn't pop the trunk(or come in my motorhome) which would have been full of loaded assault rifles ect. I hope they screen everybody who remotely resembles an illeagal alien in all areas where they pass thru. I dont mind any inconvience to avoid paying one dime to another alien:fire: It looks like they took down some drunks from the resevation too,another problem, and recovered dope? Great. I hope your "legal defense" doesnt hamstring this half assed method of controlling America's #1 problem, something is better than nothing. Sounds like the the Detective wanted to let you go but you made a federal case out of it. You do have to show your ID on demand to LEOs and I dont see that a problem as long as it stops there.:rolleyes:

[suvdrvr]

Gotta agree with Ledbetter, No problem compling with a request from an LEO if you've nothing to hide, things usally work out best if you comply, even if you do have something to hide.

[Shootin' Buddy]

suvdrvr

Your sig line doesn't seem to philosophically match your post.

I quess the question then is, when do we start refusing to comply? How long do we allow the system to take away our essential liberties because compliance is safer?

[clem]

I think he wanted to get arrested and he got his wish.

Check out:





http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/03169.htm

[Ledbetter]

What do you imagine a border check point looks like? Do they have them in your state? What do you imagine they check for if not I.D.? :banghead:

If you want the country defended from inundation from illegal aliens, and I sure as hell do, you're naive to expect that it will not have a minimally intrusive effect on your life. Otherwise, you're some kind of bliss-ninny who thinks it can be had both ways. Wise up, or invite them to your state.

The fact that I share the majority opinion around THIS place hardly makes me a sheeple. If my part in the protection of our country's borders is to show my driver's license to a cop, well that's not too bad if that'll get them to do their job.

I hope the wrong-headed driver gets what he deserves. Too bad he's going to take up MORE taxpayer money now "fighting for his right" not to show a drivers' license at a border checkpoint.

:fire:

[Shootin' Buddy]

Ledbetter,

Is it okay if the INS makes a random, occasional search of your house at 3 a.m.?

I mean, heck, these illegal aliens have to be sleeping somewhere.

[Bottom Gun]

We have Border Patrol checkpoints here all the time and they do apprehend illegals.
I haven't been asked to show my license yet, but I would if I was asked.

I drive through Ft Huachuca frequently and each time I enter the post I have to show ID to the MP's. It's no big deal.

This guy over reacted in my opinion.

[suvdrvr]

imo you give up essential freedoms by not voting or contacting your elected reps. You lose essential freedoms in the legislature and executive branches. If you believe your civil rights have been violated, you should seek recourse in the courts, I would prefer civil as opposed to criminal. I believe it would be easier to find a good lawyer for a civil case than a criminal case, that's where the $$$$ is. I guess an exception to this would be OJ, but I don't have his money!

[Joe Demko]

In PA......our check points (we've only done DUI) have to be posted and approved (a large number of DUI drivers are known to travel this route, etc).

Negative, unless you are speaking only for the specific local police force for which you work. Pennsylvania State Police sets up "safety checkpoints" that have nothing to do with DUI. I got held up at one on Mother's Day (Route 28 just outside Kittanning, PA) a few years ago. They never said a word about alcohol. Among other things, they were checking to see if seat belts were buckled, inspections up to date, etc. This was at mid-day. The "Coal and Iron Cops" really are quite the little revenue enhancers.

[Tamara]

No problem compling with a request from an LEO if you've nothing to hide

Where do you draw the line?

Being randomly detained on the road without probable cause and asked to show "your papers, bitte"?

How about being randomly detained without probable cause while walking down the sidewalk and sniffed by Ralph the Wonder K9 (our newest expert on Constitutional law) or frisked?

How about a random knock on your door to let a police team come in, without probable cause, and search your house? In the middle of the night?

I mean, if you've got nothing to hide...

Where do you draw the line?

[Gordon]

Tamara: I think we draw line when they come for the guns. Any general round up of firearms deserves an organized resistance movement with counter measures. I am sure you have been stopped for some traffic infraction that you felt was unjustified and were asked for your papers with no "bitte" . As long as you produce them it goes OK. Heck it can go ok even if you dont produce them all but are legit. I dont like the swarm of ninja technique for run of the mill perps that has become standard. However conserning THIS thread if you read carefully the man was given every chance to just show something and leave. Even after he complained of restriction of his movement it sounded like a detective wanted him to shut up and leave with no hard feelings. Since we are not going to militarize the border this was a good attempt by INS to stop illegal traffic flow in a known corridor. How else are they gonna do it? :confused:

[Frank Jones]

I think we draw line when they come for the guns. Any general round up of firearms deserves an organized resistance movement with counter measures.

If we don't complain when they take every freedom but our guns, exactly what good are guns anyway?

Of course, you know that they have already come for the guns. Don't believe me? Where is the BAR? Where is the Ma Deuce? Gone and taken.

I guess I'll try to aim for somewhere in between a) sitting on my hands until I'm face down in a ditch and b) shooting the next authority figure that looks at me cross-eyed. It seems like Terry Bressi has found his mark, and it's not too far from my own.

[Uncle Ethan]

I know that stretch of highway well- in about 1960 we used to close down the highway for drag races [ only the time needed for a race] and then re-open to let the traffic through. Lots of drinkers sitting in their car waiting for us to let them through. We knew how long it would take for someone to get to a pay phone and call the highway patrol, and we would be driving home by then. In this instance I would have shown my license upon request [especially because it is a reservation] and because I have become less willing to spend a lot of money fighting the system, and I know how tough a LEO's job is. That said, however, perhaps if more people were willing to consult an attorney ahead of time as to what their rights are, and then fight illegal searches in the courts citizens wouldn't be subjected to illegal stops and searches. I guess it happens when someone has reached their own personal threshold beyond which they won't permit further intrusion.

[Ledbetter]

If you're in border country and there's an illegal alien trafficking problem and a war on terror where border control is important, a minimally intrusive request to show your drivers' license or other proof of residency/citizenship is reasonable.

If you can't see the difference between this and having your door kicked in at 3 AM for no reason, you will have an interesting and difficult time in life.

[Shootin' Buddy]

Ledbetter,

Apparently we both agree that a 3 am unannounced inspection is over the line. So, I ask again -- where's the line?

We had a line. The line is well-drawn and well-defined, by law.

Our lawmen have stepped over the line. They are ignoring the law.

And you want to say, "Oh well, it isn't so bad." And draw a fresh line.

But how many times are we going to re-draw the same line? And who is going to hold the lawmen accountable to obey the law, if good citizens are not willing to do it?

[Litlman]

Give up the ID. I have been stopped by the Police on several occasions. Gave up the ID no B.S. on my way. Now days you have to show ID to get a pack of smokes, a tin of snuff and your booze. So you will give up your ID to the 7/11 guy but not to the police. PLEASE!!!!!???.

[Ledbetter]

Buddy,

The law allows for border checkpoints. Always has, always will. The notion that we have ever had a "right" to be free from border inspections is naive, especially now.

[pax]

Ledbetter,

We aren't discussing a border checkpoint, because the checkpoint in question wasn't on the border. Read the initial post again.

Also, when you are re reading the initial post, pay special attention to the nuances in the law referred to by the writer. There are rules governing what is, and is not, allowed at checkpoints in order to make them pass constitutional muster. This checkpoint apparently violated many of the rules surrounding the use of checkpoints, and the author called them on those violations.

Buddy is right: if honest citizens are not willing to hold our lawmen accountable to obey the law, who is going to do it?

pax

This world belongs to the person who is wise enough to change his mind in the presence of facts. -- Roy L. Smith

[2nd Amendment]

The difference between this and having your door kicked in at 3AM is just one of degree. This is just one of those little steps on the road to the 3AM visit. It's a lot easier to stop things at this level than it will be later.

Litlman, I choose to give my ID to the cashier. It's entirely up to me. That's a big difference.

[AZTOY]

Pax

The border patrol can put a check point anywhere thay want!!. The check point are to look for illegal aliens. Most of the check point are on 20 to 30 mile from the Mexio Borde and most on road that have no way around.

Highway 86 is the only road from Sells to Tucson so it is prime place for a check point.

A. A licensee shall have a legible driver license in the licensee's immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle. On demand of a justice of the peace, a police officer or a field deputy or inspector of the department, a licensee shall display the license.

B. A person who is served a complaint for violating this section is not responsible if the person produces in court or the office of the police officer or field deputy or inspector of the department a legible driver license or an authorized duplicate of the license issued to the person that was valid at the time of the alleged violation of this section.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/03169.htm

So if the guy hand over the driver lincens he would have been fine

[Gila Jorge]

In my humble opinion the "local yokels" did not have any authority on an indian reservation and that is probably why the INS and Customs idtiots were in attendance to give an appearance of color of law. Change of Venue is a must...and file suit yourself for violation civil and constituional rights. That filing must however be in Federal court as the even happened on a reservaiton and not within the County or state's jurisdiction.
Stand firm as you did and remain standing!

[bronco61]

The law allows for border checkpoints. Always has, always will. The notion that we have ever had a "right" to be free from border inspections is naive, especially now.

HE wasn't driving over the border.


"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves. "

[AZTOY]

bronco61

We have 2 kind of border checks.

#1 . This at the border of Mexio and the US.

#2 . The other one is a car or truck check that can be set up any where the Border Partol choices.

[HS/LD]

So you would have had NO problems just hading over your drivers license at an illegal checkpoint??

So you would also have no problems allowing the 'powers that be' to search your person / property / home legally or illegally right?

Hey you have nothing to hide right!?!?!

What about stopping you on the street 'coz your wearing a "Colt" t-shirt? Or a Molon Labe hat?

Where do we draw the line?

The 'powers that be' should always be held to a higher standard than the population. An LEO breaking the law should be punished to the extent of said law.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

Who Watches the Watchmen?

At least this guy Terry is watching!

HS/LD

[Bottom Gun]

Funny how people a thousand miles or more from the border are authorities on checkpoints. ;)

[AZTOY]

HS/LD

In Arizona if a LEO ask for your driver license , you must give it to him.:banghead:

Yes, i would give it to him.

[AZTOY]

Funny how people a thousand miles or more from the border are authorities on checkpoints.

I AGREE:banghead:

[HS/LD]

When they pass a law requiring you to surrender all your firearms?


What then?

HS/LD

[pax]

Bottom Gun,

I lived for years within a few dozen miles of the border.

Thanks for the irrelevant ad hominem, though.

pax

[AZTOY]

HS/LD

So want you are say is if you get stoped, you are not going too give the LEO your driver license? .:confused:

[Litlman]

Did they ask this guy for his guns , colt t-shirt or hat. It was the ID right? Seems like a bunch of what ifs out there. Give the ID and go on your way. BUT WHAT IF???????????????

[HS/LD]

Giving over the ID wasn't the issue as far as the guys defense is concerned it is the illegal stop.

HS/LD

[Atticus]

An "all or none" mind set is unrealistic. If everything is simply a matter of degrees; then I assume that the police are wrong to stop anyone, anywhere, unless they KNOW that that particular person is in violation of the law...as in the DC sniper case, or following a bank robbery, child abduction, etc?

In this case there is a high probability that a significant percentage of the traffic on this corridor are illegals.

This isn't a new practice resulting frm the "War on Terror". Texas troopers/ border patrol stopped me thirty years ago. Showing an I.D. wasn't a big deal then...and isn't now.

[Shootin' Buddy]

Funny how people a thousand miles or more from the border are authorities on checkpoints.

This wasn't a border patrol check point. This was a sobriety check point. Please reread the article so we can actually have a discussion here.

[Shootin' Buddy]

In this case there is a high probability that a significant percentage of the traffic on this corridor are illegals.
It is a proven fact that in the county where I live a large percentage of the houses contain meth labs. By the same reasoning then, should the police be allowed to go door to door and search everyone's houses?

[suvdrvr]

Would I allow an illeagle search of my house at 3:00 AM, yup, if the constables had me at gun point. The point I tried to state was if you believe the line has been crossed, you can seek to address the problem in civil court or criminal court. I would comply then seek a lawyer and proceed with civil proceedings if I felt violated. jmho! If you worry about losing your guns, you can set home and post all the worry wart post you want or you can get involved with the political system and do what has to be done within the framework of the constitution.

[Shootin' Buddy]

In Arizona if a LEO ask for your driver license , you must give it to him.
AZTOY,

It is generally true nationwide that if an officer asks you for your license while operating a motor vehicle you are required to give it to him. However, the officer needs to pull you over first and he has to have a valid reason to pull you over. An officer can not just pull you over without probable cause and ask for your license.

[Gordon]

Sobriety check points have been going on for 10 years nicht wahr? If a "high percentage of homes in my county contained meth labs" I'd ask police to start at mine at my invite and proceed to others at their pace. I wish all this flap was about taking somebodies guns or stopping the Bisbee Border patrol if we want a cause to rally about. :confused:

[Bottom Gun]

Shooting Buddy,

What part of Massachusetts are you from?

[AZTOY]

Shootin' Buddy
To find a check point you must be driving!! The guy did walk though the check point.

He was in the truck at the check point. A leo check point the last time i checked you had to stop .So a leo check point is a legal reason for a leo to ask for your driver license .

A check point with cop or border partol is a legal road block, so you must stop.

[Shootin' Buddy]

The point I tried to state was if you believe the line has been crossed, you can seek to address the problem in civil court or criminal court.
You are absolutely correct that the issue will be resolved in court and not there on the scene. But what kind of case would Terri have had if he simply complied?

Defense: "What did the officer do?"

Terri: "Ask for my license."

Defense: "And what did you do?"

Terri: "Gave him my license."

Defense: "And then what did the officer do?"

Terri: "Let me go on my way."

Defense: "Please explain again what the he!! you're complaining about."

In other words, he'd have had no case. By refusing to comply he forced the officers to expose the gravity of the offense. He now has a much better chance in court of putting an end to these egregious violations.

[Shootin' Buddy]

What part of Massachusetts are you from?
Bottom Gun

:D :D :D That was funny.

[bad_dad_brad]

Folks, driving a motor vehicle is not a right. Read your laws. It is a privledge awarded by the state.

I DO NOT agree with so called roadside safety checks. I DO BELIEVE that probable cause must be shown to pull you over.

But, like it or not, when an LEO asks to see your driver's license, if you are in your vehicle, you MUST show it to him. It is the law. That is the bottom line, The Walrus was just asking for trouble and better kiss the Judge's arse, because if he does not, he will be convicted.

Life is not fair. There is no justice. Freedom is an illusion. Get used to it.

[bad_dad_brad]

I guess The Walrus was only posting. It was Terry the emailer that should have known better.

[Shootin' Buddy]

I wish all this flap was about taking somebodies guns or stopping the Bisbee Border patrol if we want a cause to rally about.
Gordon
The best time to put out a fire is while it's still a tiny flame.

Do we draw the line here? Or do we let them get a little more powerful before we put up a fight?

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a
worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. -- Winston Churchill

[Tamara]

Why is "Your papers, please?" at a random checkpoint only chilling when said with a German accent? It seems that the same phrase uttered with a downhome drawl at an equally random checkpoint is greeted with shrugs of "Well, it's legal."

Good thing Paul Revere didn't hit one of these things; ten bucks says he didn't have horse insurance, may have had a mug of ale before leaving on his ride, and I guar-on-tee that he didn't have a Massachussets permit for his flintlock pistol.

That the stops were fishing expeditions is beyond question. Police admitted that a set number of cars were pulled over at each roadblock based on no criteria beyond their being in motion on a designated street at the time. From the 1,161 vehicles pulled over, 104 arrests were made, 55 of which were for violations of drug prohibition laws, and the rest for a variety of unrelated offenses.
Given the spiderweb of laws in which we live today, and the wide popularity of marijuana alone as an illegal intoxicant, an arrest rate of ten percent of a rough sample of the population actually sounds a bit low. No doubt equivalent or higher arrest rates could be achieved by randomly patting-down pedestrians on a busy street or kicking in the door of every third home.
--J.D. Tuccille
“Court Checks Checkpoints”

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.

[PATH]

You can drive on your private property without license, registration or insurance. Once you are on the PUBLIC highway you must generally have all three.

A quick look at the ACLU site shows that even the left knows to present a drivers license. You do not have to submit to a search of your car. You must present your license to an officer.

If you wish to make a complaint after the fact then by all means do so! Arguingyour point I fear at the stop will gain you naught IMHO.

[Shootin' Buddy]

He was in the truck at the check point. A leo check point the last time i checked you had to stop .So a leo check point is a legal reason for a leo to ask for your driver license.

Which brings us right up to the problem. This joint task operation was set up to make it possible for the officers involved to legally do something they were not otherwise legally able to do. They set up a sobriety checkpoint as an excuse, as a legal loophole, to check licenses and search cars without probable cause.

Now, if you like the idea of living in a world where the police can check you out any time, anywhere to see if you've done anything wrong, then you certainly won't be offended by what this joint task force was doing.

I, on the other hand, do not want to live in such a world, and so I find the situation disturbing. Would I call this event a major catastrophe? No. But it appears to me like a crack in the dam. A crack that is not checked can become worse and can inspire new cracks and eventually the dam could fail.

So, I appreciate the hassle Terri has brought upon himself for the sake of checking that crack. I hope he is successful.

[Gordon]

Um, Law enforcement is already powerful and has been since 1935 or so. I don't have a problem with workable laws and showing ID has been workable a long time. What this lawsuit can get is hamstringing what little battle has been chosen to stem illegal tide; corridor check points. So what positive effect is this going to be on America's #1 problem? Just let everybody walk around with police unable to verify you are here legally? Congratulations somebody just figured how to make things worse. Reguarding Paul Revere's ride; Tamara that was a good one, I am Shure if Red Coats had a garrison in area there would indeed be check points to ride around. Russian accent works well on asking for papers too. Maybe we can get around this by having LEO point scanner at your imbedded chip so you could keep moving. That WILL be MY line in sand, I ain't taking no stinking chip and will use my brain to exterminate the trash that tries. I dont see ANY similarities between that scenario and what played out at the resevation check point.:(

[Uncle Ethan]

Is a group of Attorneys that defend the Constitutional rights that conservatives cherish with the same zeal that the ACLU defends those the liberals cherish. I bet the ACDU [American Constitutional Defenders Union] wouldn't be as broke as the ACLU is. I'd donate a couple hundred a year, and I bet a fair portion of the NRA would too. That might help slow down the loss of Constitutional Rights.

[AZTOY]

Shootin' Buddy


I'm glad that Terri is your hero. I did not braking the law made you a roll model!:banghead:

[ahenry]

Folks, driving a motor vehicle is not a right. Read your laws. It is a privledge awarded by the state. And therein lies the problem. Until that error of thought is corrected (and it has to happen in the courts...) the checkpoint was legal, notice I said legal not constitutional, and Terri was wrong. I hope he takes this all the way to the Supreme Court (sorry Terri, I hope you loose at least the first round) and gets this error in thinking changed.

[Tamara]

So what positive effect is this going to be on America's #1 problem? Just let everybody walk around with police unable to verify you are here legally?

As long as we have a First World welfare state across a barely-patrolled dry creek bed from a Third World hellhole, we are going to have an illegal immigrant problem. Until the government removes the attraction for criminals and layabouts by abolishing the welfare state and restoring the Second Amendment, we will continue to have this problem.

Hmmm... Let's see, random checkpoints, National ID cards, troops on the border, plus the giant sucking sound that is the welfare state, or abolish the free handouts and pandering to radical minority special interest groups to insure that only folks who want to contribute to the party will show up, and lower taxes at the same time. Wow. That's a rough one. Gonna have to think it over... ;)

[Atticus]

"Tohono O'odham police, U.S. Customs, & INS/Border Patrol Vehicles were present along with several unmarked enforcement vehicles.
I was stopped by the officer in charge who worked for the Tohono O'odham Police.
Upon request, the officer indicated the purpose of the checkpoint was sobriety & LICENSE checks which seemed inconsistent with the presence of U.S. Customs & INS law enforcement personnel."

Shootin Buddy- I did read the article bud. Maybe the INS and other alphabet folks weren't being completely upfront about their goals. Perhaps you should sue as well.

[Uncle Ethan]

I couldn't agree with you more, but this aging brain of mine can't figure out how to acomplish the Lazarus Long ideals you expounded on. How can we accomplish these freedoms- we weren't able to do much when we had Reagan, let alone Bush. I hope those hours you spent reading Heilein, Harrison and Pournelle can help figure out how. Tell me more.:what:

[Tamara]

Unfortunately, barring a miracle, you and I both know that Pandora's Box has been opened with the increasing Federal handout programs since the '30s.

When you have two candidates running, and one promises more free money (welfare, subsidies, protectionist trade schemes), the other can't win on a "turn off the faucet" platform.

For the forseeable future, I'm pretty convinced that we're stuck with the '5% Increase Party' and the '15% Increase Party'.

[Atticus]

Tamama: So you are saying that immigrants (even those with dubious intentions) didn't come here prior to welfare and/or would stop coming if welfare ended? Don't think so. The average Walmart employee in the US is better off financially than many/most Mexican physicians.

[Tamara]

As long as the immigrants who are coming are productive, not a strain on my tax dollar, and don't attempt to hijack the legislative process to gain special rights, what's the problem? We used to have a word for those people: we called them "Americans".

If a Mexican doctor wants to come work at Wally World, let him.

If a Mexican doctor wants to come live on U.S. Gov't largesse, then I have a problem.

[Jeeper]

Didn't SCOTUS rule that random checkpoints were constitutional not too long ago?

Driving is a privledge, not a right.

[Atticus]

Tamara: I'll agree with that, if done legally...but then how do you sort out those that still sneek in? That problem ain't going away. It's a heck of a lot easier to set up check points at funnel areas than to police every border/coastline.

[AZTOY]

As long as the immigrants who are coming are productive, not a strain on my tax dollar, and don't attempt to hijack the legislative process to gain special rights, what's the problem?

So all the people in AZ, NM and CA can go :cuss: them self. It ok as long as the immigrants stay out of Tennessee.
:fire: :fire: :fire:

[Navy joe]

Hmmm... Let's see, random checkpoints, National ID cards, troops on the border, plus the giant sucking sound that is the welfare state, or abolish the free handouts and pandering to radical minority special interest groups to insure that only folks who want to contribute to the party will show up, and lower taxes at the same time. Wow. That's a rough one. Gonna have to think it over...

I agree, except for the troops on the border part, sounds like a great idea. (national guard or a new volunteer component of the BP) Not inside the border on U.S. highways. Wanna come to this country? Go to the U.S. Consulate and apply for a visa. Immigration will always be a significant portion of our population growth even if we completely took away the gov't cheese. Immigration quotas need to be set by our elected representatives and upheld by keeping illegals out. The population that this country can support with any desirable quality of life is finite.

AZtoy. I think the illegals make it to every state in the union, especially places like rural TN and VA for the agricultural work.


As far as everyone who says it's because we are on a public road and the 4th amendment is suspended... Well, the Supreme Court hasn't seen it that way. A fun test to prove this. Walk through one of these check points, or ride a bicycle through tell us how it goes. Ever had a cop ask for your driver's license when you are on foot? It's a hoot, especially when you point out that you are not driving. Anyone that thinks a driver's license is a permit to drive only is delusional.

[Uncle Ethan]

Good answer- you remind me of several of the individuals populating some of Heileins books. You are in a part of the Country where you don't have to keep a low profile yet.

[pax]

Didn't SCOTUS rule that random checkpoints were constitutional not too long ago?
Jeeper,

Yes, they did. They said that such checkpoints were legal when confined to ensuring the public safety. They said that such checkpoints are not legal, when used as law enforcement tools. In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that these checkpoints are constitutional only when they are contained within certain, narrowly defined and sharply delineated boundaries.

The law enforcement agencies on the scene at this particular checkpoint had visibly stepped over the constitutional bounds defined by the US Supreme Court. They were breaking the law as it is written.

A lot of people here apparently believe that it does not matter if law enforcement personnel actually break the law, because if we make them obey the law that makes their jobs more difficult. I do not see how obeying the law makes it more difficult to uphold the law, but then, I am not a Californian either.
I'm glad that Terri is your hero. I did not braking the law made you a roll model!
AZTOY, that was my gripe about the law enforcement personnel on scene.

pax

One way or another, any government which remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way -- prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs. -- Robert Heinlein

[pax]

As long as we have a First World welfare state across a barely-patrolled dry creek bed from a Third World hellhole, we are going to have an illegal immigrant problem.
Tamara,

I think we are rapidly fixing that. Have you visited southern California lately?

pax

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery. – Thomas Jefferson

[pax]

Tamara wrote, As long as the immigrants who are coming are productive, not a strain on my tax dollar, and don't attempt to hijack the legislative process to gain special rights, what's the problem?
And AZtoy responded,
So all the people in AZ, NM and CA can go :cuss: them self. It ok as long as the immigrants stay out of Tennessee.
AZtoy, I don't think I have ever heard a more racist statement. You want to keep those brown people out -- why? Not because they aren't productive, or are taking your tax dollar, or are using the legislative process to gain special rights -- those were all ruled out in the statement you were responding to. So we've established that "those people" aren't a problem to you ... you are objecting to their very existence.

That's an ugly picture, sir. A very ugly picture.

pax

Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation, or creed. -- Bertrand Russell

[Shootin' Buddy]

I'm glad that Terri is your hero. I did not braking the law made you a roll model!
I liked Dietrich Bonhoeffer, too.

[tyme]

I hope very much the case gets thrown out with prejudice, but the bottom line is that you were one of the targets of the roadblock, and by opening your mouth you gave them reason (not justification) to charge you with anything they could. Those roadblocks may be primarily for drugs/illegal immigrants, but they're also to crack down on people who care about their rights. If you start talking about your rights, you're just as guilty as someone with a kilo of heroin in the trunk.

The alternative is to shut up and let them get away with it, and that isn't what any of us wants, but if the judge is smart the charges will get thrown out and they'll still be running those roadblocks. The difference is that next time someone gets stopped, he/she might do something stupid and get nabbed for something more serious. Then the gloves come off and all the conservative judges in the country can't save you or your rights.

I'm totally convinced that the only way executive-branch agencies will start respecting rights is with 100% planned arrest scenarios. Plan the time, do recon, know every item you have in your car, know what you've ingested for the past week, know the proclivities of each LEO on the scene, have a good layer selected and briefed, have an exact plan to follow when asked for ID, have planned responses to any question they could possibly ask and any action they could possibly take. Getting those roadblocks or any other instance of rights violation shut down by a court as a result of an unplaned scenario like you found yourself in would be, IMHO, pure luck.

[Tamara]

So all the people in AZ, NM and CA can go :cuss: them self. It ok as long as the immigrants stay out of Tennessee. :fire: :fire: :fire:

So, even if immigrants didn't leech off your tax dollars, contributed to the economy, and didn't attempt to gain special status through bilingual education and other dumb laws, you still wouldn't like immigrants? Does this include your grandparents?

And about your non sequitirish statement: A) I said nothing about "the people" anyplace, I merely said I'm not against immigrants who pull their fair share. B) "As long as the immigrants stay out of Tennessee"... Oh, that's a hoot! Hey, lendringser, aint' that funny? Don't project your xenophobia on me, AZToy.

[Master Blaster]

Driving is a priviledge not a constitutional right. If the rules say you must show your drivers license to the police upon request, then you need to do it or lose the priviledge.

Its that simple.

[Tamara]

Driving is a priviledge...

Until we get over this idea that our Masters can grant us Privileges, we will get nowhere.

[Joe Demko]

Driving is a priviledge...

Until we get over this idea that our Masters can grant us Privileges, we will get nowhere.

If we respect property ownership, it is a privilege. All land belongs to someone. The owner is under no obligation whatsoever to allow you to travel across that land, it is his to control as he sees fit. The gummint owns the roads, therefore they, as the owners, are in control of the property and its use. Whether the gummint should be in the road-owning business is another question altogether.

[Tamara]

Funny, I thought the government didn't own anything, but was rather just a steward of those few objects that you and I chipped in on and own jointly, like freeway overpasses and stealth bombers. :D

[Joe Demko]

As stewards of other joint property of ours, military installations for example, they routinely restrict our access to and use of "public property." How are the roads different?

[Tamara]

"Routinely" and "right" aren't even on the same page in my dictionary. ;)

[JohnBT]

"I thought the government didn't own anything..."

I thought Lincoln settled that.
See: Civil War, U.S. for further details.

John
Richmond, Virginia

[The Walrus]

Wow, I didn't think my thread starting would get this sort of reaction.

A clarification, I am not the person who wrote this first-hand account, just a conscientious reposter.

[Joe Demko]

"Routinely" and "right" aren't even on the same page in my dictionary.

Did I say it's right? All I am indicating is that they have a precedent for their actions. In the bizzarro world of legality, "precedent" is more important than "right."

Intriguing notion, though, whether there would be any "right to travel" if there were no gummint-owned roads.

[Uncle Ethan]

Please clarifiy your thoughts regarding immigrants as to legal or illegal- I would agree if you are referring to legal immigrants, but illegal immigrants should not be so easily tolerated. They need to return to their place of origin and either fix what is broken there, or follow the law and apply legally. As to Southern California, unfortunately I live here, and the problem is anything but solved. Large portions of my tax dollars go to support Mexico's poor political situation. Perhaps if legal Americans were treated as well in Mexico as the illegals are treated in America there wouldn't be so much resentment.

[JPM70535]

AFAIK driving is not a right, it is a priveledge given a person who completes the necessary requirements to satisfy the State A license is then issued and one of the requirements attached thereto is that the person issued the license SHALL PRESENT SAME when requested by a LEO

I too wish this citizen all the luck in the world, he has an uphill battle.

The LEOs in this situation used normal procedures, or at least normal in any juristiction I ever worked in.

Once the individual refused to sign the Citation and was arrested for non-compliance, I would not have un-arrested him.

[Tamara]

I always thought that this nation was founded on the principle that we bestow privileges on the government and not vice versa.

*shrug*

[AZTOY]

So, even if immigrants didn't leech off your tax dollars, contributed to the economy, and didn't attempt to gain special status through bilingual education and other dumb laws, you still wouldn't like immigrants? Does this include your grandparents?

And about your non sequitirish statement: A) I said nothing about "the people" anyplace, I merely said I'm not against immigrants who pull their fair share. B) "As long as the immigrants stay out of Tennessee"... Oh, that's a hoot! Hey, lendringser, aint' that funny? Don't project your xenophobia on me, AZToy .

Tamara
My grandparents and lendringser came to this USA legally.I do not have to problems with people come here legally! I do have a problems with the illegels .................
I guess we should let the illegals run drugs, break in to houses, steal vehicles , steal guns ,litter the country, cut your fences , kill your dog and cost the goverment millions.
Sorry but living in Tennessee you don't see want the illegals are doing down here!!:banghead:

Pax

Sorry if i sound like a racist. I did not mean too.:(


WE WILL HAVE THE CHECK POINT AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE ILLEGALS IMMIGRANTS CROSSING THE BORDER. :fire:

[Tamara]

I guess we should let the illegals run drugs, break in to houses, steal vehicles , steal guns ,litter the country, cut your fences , kill your dog and cost the goverment millions.

:confused:

Did you miss the part where I said: "As long as the immigrants who are coming are productive, not a strain on my tax dollar, and don't attempt to hijack the legislative process to gain special rights..."? A criminal is a criminal, a thief is a thief, and a leech is a leech; I don't care where they were born or what language they speak. Ditto with an honest, hardworking person.

[Betty]

It ok as long as the immigrants stay out of Tennessee.

I live in Nashville by one of the most heavily Hispanic populated neighborhoods. Alot of the people here have immigrated, legally or not, from Mexico. (Tennessee, I have heard, is a popular stop for illegal immigrants who don't stay in the southwest states.)

They've brought alot of good Mex food and colorful culture, and are extremely friendly and courteous. :)

I've also seen alot of them do hard physical labor jobs while people like my lazy white welfare aunt sit around and watch TV.

Crime, drugs, etc. has little to do with whether one's an illegal immigrant or not.

[AZTOY]

not a strain on my tax dollar, I know, that is want got me upset .It sound (well to me) , as long as the money was not come out of your pocket, the illegals immigrants were ok being here.

OK this is getting us know were, LETS MOVE ON!!:D

[ahenry]

Tamara,
Did you miss the part where I said: "As long as the immigrants who are coming are productive, not a strain on my tax dollar, and don't attempt to hijack the legislative process to gain special rights..."? A criminal is a criminal, a thief is a thief, and a leech is a leech; I don't care where they were born or what language they speak. Ditto with an honest, hardworking person. Since we do live in a real world (last I checked), and absolving the entire welfare state is a pipe dream, what then would be your solution? I think we both agree that checkpoints are not good from a constitutional standpoint, so what should be done? By all means, pontificate. Do keep it within the realm of the feasible though.


Runt,
They've brought alot of good Mex food and colorful culture, and are extremely friendly and courteous. HAHAHAHA. Pardon my interjection, but Nashville was the place I stopped to get a Mexican meal and was told, when I asked for butter to go with my tortilla, that they didn’t have any in the entire restaurant. Ate something in Knoxville that was supposed to be “good Mexican food” over the Thanksgiving holiday’s and it was no more Mexican than pork is BBQ. (Where did I put that nomex...?) :p

[Betty]

ahenry,
"Good food" is relative. I figured it was common knowledge that alot "foreign food" restaurants modify their recipes for the tastebuds of the locals. "Strange" though - when Oleg and I go to our favorite Mexican restaurant, the customer population is 90% Hispanic. I feel like I've crossed over the border because most everybody else is speaking Spanish.

I wouldn't tell my mother how to cook Vietnamese food, as individual recipes vary. "But ma, it says in this recipe book right here...."

[Edward429451]

Driving is a privilege? I know thats what they want us to think but a lot of misconceptions abound about that statement.

My understanding is that the licensing laws went into effect for commercial purposes only. The Constitution says we have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. So if you're not licensed does that mean that you're not allowed to pursue your happiness by jumpin in your ride and going to visit your friend? Sorry hosea, thats defacto BS. If you are a private citizen, in a private vehicle, going about non-commercial personal business, YOU DONT NEED A LICENSE. But all the hypocrites have made it law by sheepful compliance making it a law par se'.

If you tell a lie long enough, eventually it'll be accepted as the truth. Even by all those pro-2nd people.:confused: Draw your line in front of your last gun and make our forfathers proud you hypocrites.

I agree that he could have probably made his day go more smoothly if he would have presented his license (I have one too.) But OTOH, the man is correct and I applaud his stand in the gestapo face tactics. If we ALL stood in their face demanding lawfulness on their part, then our country would not be in the shape it is in right now. But, so many hypocrites, so little brains and backbone.

(I agree Tamara is cut from a Heinlein book. Friday comes to mind.) And mods...My seemingly sharp statements are no attack or intended to anyone in particular. Just my 2 cents in general for this 'hot topic'...:)

[Preacherman]

Folks, this thread has moved from an analysis of an actual traffic stop, via illegal immigration, through xenophobia, to comparisons between Tamara and Heinlein's characters!!! I think it can now be definitively classified as "off-topic" - and in any event, the original report is now updated in a subsequent thread. Closing this one now.