Independence, MO - Police Stage Roadblock To Check Driver's Licenses


PDA






WonderNine
July 16, 2004, 04:41 PM
From the nazification of the usa files:

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/checkpoint_cl.htm

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. -- Police in Independence conducted a driver checkpoint on Thursday, but it wasn't to look for drunken drivers. For about an hour Thursday afternoon, officers stopped vehicles to make sure drivers had valid licenses. But some are questioning the legality of holding such a checkpoint. Independence police have arrested more than 1,300 drivers this year for driving without a valid license, KMBC's Jim Flink reported. On Thursday, police stopped about 300 drivers on a busy street.


Independence Officer Tom Gentry said drivers without licenses pose a safety concern. "It's a public safety issue. On public highways, you don't want illegal drivers out there who might pose a grave danger," he said.

But Gentry added there are other reasons for wanting to make the stops.

"People who don't bother to get their driver's license or get them renewed -- usually that's an indicator of other problems as well," Gentry said.

Independence officers issued 10 tickets on Thursday, and they also arrested four people on outstanding warrants and one person for possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.

But Dick Kurtenback, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he's troubled by police stopping drivers for this type of search.

"This bothers me -- they're conducting general searches without probable cause," he said. "I think the problem there is they're changing some essential aspects of this country's character, and I think it's troublesome that they're doing that."

Kurtenbach said the searches may violate people's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Some drivers with whom Flink spoke agreed.

"For public safety, I think it's all right. But it does kind of bother me, in the sense that I think it's an invasion of my personal liberty," driver T.K. Shiao said.

But motorist Jan Huff-Soper thought police were doing the right thing.

"It sounds like they have a lot of people driving without licenses, and I would hope people driving out there would have valid licenses," she said.

Police said the number of arrests this year proves the roadblocks work. The police department is basing its use of checkpoints on a Supreme Court case that allows DUI roadblocks in the interest of public safety.

Kurtenbach said drivers without licenses aren't inherently dangerous, even if they are breaking the law.

If you enjoyed reading about "Independence, MO - Police Stage Roadblock To Check Driver's Licenses" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KaceCoyote
July 16, 2004, 04:45 PM
dude, I am -so- done with this stupid state.

TarpleyG
July 16, 2004, 05:52 PM
Independence Officer Tom Gentry said drivers without licenses pose a safety concern. "It's a public safety issue. On public highways, you don't want illegal drivers out there who might pose a grave danger," he said.
Maybe I am stupid but would someone please explain to me how a piece of plastic will prevent someone from 'posing a grave danger?" I fail to see the logic.

Greg

R.H. Lee
July 16, 2004, 06:00 PM
pffftt. I don't think they do that even here in California. The crime rate in Independence must be ZERO, or else they'd be out there apprehending criminals. Truman would weep.

Ian
July 16, 2004, 06:56 PM
Maybe I am stupid but would someone please explain to me how a piece of plastic will prevent someone from 'posing a grave danger?" I fail to see the logic.

See, people without proper government licensing are super dangerous. The problem is, when they're out driving, they pretend to be safe, and so you can't tell who they are by watching them drive. Instead, you have to set up checkpoints to find out if they're actually safe or just acting safe to trick people. It's for the children, you know.

Blue Line
July 16, 2004, 07:01 PM
maybe they should have said those that are out there driving on suspended licenses instead. I'm all for taking the the guy who has his license suspended for DUI off the road before he runs into my family or yours.

WonderNine
July 16, 2004, 07:06 PM
maybe they should have said those that are out there driving on suspended licenses instead. I'm all for taking the the guy who has his license suspended for DUI off the road before he runs into my family or yours.

But that's not the premise behind this article. Citizens traveling down a public road who aren't breaking the law have the right to be secure in their persons and effects without being randomly stopped and searched like criminals. That whole 4th Amendment thing.

Hawkmoon
July 16, 2004, 07:08 PM
I guess I'm stupid or something, but I don't see any problem with this. Unlike the RKBA, there is no Constitutional "right to operate a motor vehicle." Driving is a privilege, for which we are supposed to pay a fee. Those who drive without a license (a) haven't paid the fee, and (b) as the officer said, usually have some other problems as well.

Unreasonable search? Why? How? If one is required by law to have a license to drive, why is it "unreasonable" to conduct stops to verify that those driving the public highways have the required license?

I don't get it.

WonderNine
July 16, 2004, 07:10 PM
Unlike the RKBA, there is no Constitutional "right to operate a motor vehicle."

There is no Constitutional "right to operate an AR-15" either. You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The Constitution does not tell the government what they CAN'T do, it tells the government what that CAN do.

Unreasonable search? Why? How? If one is required by law to have a license to drive, why is it "unreasonable" to conduct stops to verify that those driving the public highways have the required license?

:rolleyes: Where do I start?

Or maybe a better question is; why bother?

ducktapehero
July 16, 2004, 07:32 PM
Independence Missouri has one of the highest concentrations of meth labs in the whole country but the idiot's in charge think unlicensed drivers are "a grave danger"? :banghead: :banghead:

Hkmp5sd
July 16, 2004, 08:02 PM
I also do not see a problem in this. Roads are constructed using taxpayer money and overseen by various local and federal governments. To drive on a public road, you must have a valid driver's license as well as valid motor vehicle registration. Neither is a constitutional right and it is not comparable to the 2nd Amendment protections. You can own cars and drive anywhere you want on private land without a license. Only operating a vehicle on public streets requires a license.

I equate it with being required to show ID prior to entering a bar. Is it an invasion of my privacy to have to prove I'm over 21 to enter a bar or buy alcohol?

Whether or not it is a waste of time and law enforcement resources is a different matter.

Penforhire
July 16, 2004, 08:16 PM
I have zero problem with being stopped to show a valid drivers' license. I start to have a problem if there are then unreasonable searches and seizures. But driving is not a right. You have to have a license on your person when you drive. So I say they keep at it. Wish they did it more in my neighborhood.

The report is not clear on the unreasonable search and seizure part. We all know non-law-abiding citizens can and do give themselves away in conversation (making a search reasonable).

westex
July 16, 2004, 08:26 PM
If they were also checking to see if everyone was a legal US citizen I might be inclined to let this slide.:D

ducktapehero
July 16, 2004, 08:57 PM
The fact that some people will accept this is very disheartening to me.

madcowburger
July 16, 2004, 09:45 PM
Well, I have a perfectly valid driver's license, but I don't think I should have to. I have a perfectly valid CCW permit too, and I don't think I should have to have that either.

I don't buy all this pre-recorded propaganda that "Driving is a privilege, not a right" they've got everybody programmed to repeat automatically anyway. I don't respect such "laws" at all. I just play along to keep out of jail. I *know* it has *zero* to do with "public safety."

I say the right to travel, to move about freely, is just as much a right as the right to self-defence, and that both rights imply the right to the *means* of exercising the right. It's just as much a right as the rights to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- and an inherent *part of* all those rights.

How're you going to "pursue happiness" if you can't go anywhere? What kind of *life* can you have? What kind of *liberty* is that?

"Public safety." Please. Tell me how having a little laminated plastic card makes a hormonally challenged 16-year-old in a souped-up "monster truck" zooming along while yakking on a cell phone a "safer" driver than someone like me, who's been driving for 31 years, without a ticket (other than a parking ticket) or any accident that was in any way my fault in 25 or 26 years, with or *without* the little laminated plastic card.

And all that "implied consent" stuff. :rolleyes: If I "consented" to anything, by God it was under duress, almost as much as if a gun were held to my head.

How long's it going to be before *walking* becomes a "privilege, not a right"? It's almost like that now. How long before you need a "walking license," that you have to present on demand to any policeman you meet, which not having in your possession is a crime, and the mere possession of which "implies" your "consent" to a whole host of external and internal searches?

*Working* has evidently become "a privilege, not a right," since Clinton fixed it so that *everybody* applying for *any* straight job in America must provide a Social Security card to work. This was done in the name of tracking down "deadbeat dads" -- "for the iddy-biddy widdew-childwen," you know.

I have a *huge* problem with any and all warrantless searches. I consider all these roadblocks/checkpoints -- whether they be in the name of "sobriety" or "public safety" or "seatbelt compliance" or whatever, you name it -- to be *grossly* unconstitutional, and indeed *anti*-constitutional.

I can't do anything about right now, but I sure don't have to like it.:fire:

MCB

Standing Wolf
July 16, 2004, 09:52 PM
Driving is a privilege, for which we are supposed to pay a fee.

Driving is a right that can be lost as a result of criminal behavior. States always claim it's a privilege, but that's more statist dishonesty.

Norton
July 16, 2004, 10:04 PM
westex beat me to it......how many of those stopped were illegal al.....oops, I mean "undocumented workers" and what was done with them?

Ellery Holt
July 16, 2004, 10:24 PM
WonderNine wrote:
Citizens traveling down a public road who aren't breaking the law have the right to be secure in their persons and effects without being randomly stopped and searched like criminals. That whole 4th Amendment thing.

KaceCoyote wrote:
dude, I am -so- done with this stupid state.

All are welcome to move to Oregon, where our state supreme court ruled years ago that this kind of thuggish behavior is prohibited by the state constution.

Looking for a date when this happened (I recall I was a new driver then, and had never encountered one myself) I found this:

The constitutionality of roadblocks to check driver sobriety was contested in state courts in the 1980s... Thirty-nine states plus the District of Columbia permit sobriety checkpoints. Even though the US Supreme Court said sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, there are still eleven states that do not allow them: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

So it looks like Oregon is in the minority. A great club to be in. :-) Oregon, Washington & Idaho make a great little corner of the world to live and drive within.

Oregon is not without its share of peoplewhothinkotherpeoplelivingfreeisscary. One wrote an editorial in The Oregonian several months back that the federal government should mandate that every automobile be equipped with a breath alcohol analyzer connected to the ignition. :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
July 16, 2004, 10:27 PM
Driver's license checkpoints have been around since at least 1959, to my personal knowledge. SCOTUS has held that so long as all cars are stopped, the checkpoint is legal. They certainly are no part of "nazification".

Driving a car on a public road is a state-licensed activity. As such, it can be monitored as the states desire.

The local daily paper lists various crimes in a daily police report. I've long been amazed at how many get stopped for speeding, etc., and are then found to have no driver's license, or an expired driver's license, or to have lost their driving privilege via court order.

It's all well and good to get on one's high horse and snort and snicker about safety, but somebody who's gone downhill to 20/100 vision or has a history of DUI can ruin your whole day--and that of your family.

Art

WonderNine
July 16, 2004, 10:29 PM
It's all well and good to get on one's high horse and snort and snicker about safety

Didn't you mean liberty? ;)

Yea that darn liberty high horse, I can't stand people who rant and rave about liberty all day. :scrutiny:

Fortunately, people who care about it and have a life don't like to be subjected to random searches of their persons and effects everytime they travel down the road. Slippery slope this, papers please that, those darn terrorist criminals with their pocket constitutions.

Penforhire
July 16, 2004, 10:39 PM
How exactly do you propose we police inside our borders for foreigners who are not here legally (overstayed visa or straight illegals) without ID checkpoints? Or do you propose that once you slide under our fence you're safe?

As far as free travel, go ahead and ride a bicycle. You don't need a license for that. But if you want to run a motor vehicle on public roads... "license and registration please."

WonderNine
July 16, 2004, 10:43 PM
How exactly do you propose we police inside our borders for foreigners who are not here legally (overstayed visa or straight illegals) without ID checkpoints? Or do you propose that once you slide under our fence you're safe?

Well, at least we're in agreement about one thing. It appears the government wants to have open borders and treat its citizens like slaves. Don't make any sense to me!!!!!!

But if you want to run a motor vehicle on public roads... "license and registration please."

Why don't we all just tatoo 666 on our foreheads. That way the passengers won't have to dig out their national I.D. cards at every "approved checking detail".

madcowburger
July 16, 2004, 10:53 PM
Let me get this straight: the SCOTUS has ruled that violating people's 4th, 5th, and other amendment rights is "legal" and okay and "constitutional" -- just as long as *everybody* is violated equally, with no discrimination?

So, what matters is not liberty, but equality. As long as everyone is *equally* unfree, the SCOTUS is fine with it.

Hm, could it be possible that the SCOTUS could ever be, or could have ever been, wrong? They *did* uphold the free speech-gutting McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" bill. They did uphold the conviction of that Hiibel guy, the rancher who refused to present identification to a deputy who said he was "'vestigatin' a 'vestigation.'" They did *refuse* to hear the case brought against Califirnia's state AWB. They did once rule that slavery was perfectly okay, and that even a *free* "negro has no rights a white man is bound to respect." Nowadays the rule seems to be that no "civilian" of whatever race has any rights the government is bound to respect.

MCB

Art Eatman
July 16, 2004, 11:01 PM
W9: What "search"? Asking to see your driver's license is a "search"?

I don't think it's I who needs to get a life.

That you may use public roads for driving is condidtional upon your demonstrating some knowledge of traffic law and a minimum level of skill in maneuvering a vehicle. Any problems with that? If so, why?

The state has the lawful power to ensure you meet the conditions. Why is that such a problem for you? Do you feel you are so wondrous and wise that you need not care about the safety of the rest of the driving public? That you need not prove that you are competent to enjoy the use of the tax-paid highways?

The stop-and-check-DL is in no way a "search" of your person or vehicle. You are not being stopped for no probable cause and undergoing a warrantless search of your person or property. That's not happening, unless you're foolish enough to leave a Vital Baggie on the seat in plain view of any passerby...

And how does it translate that an officer's asking to see one's license is somehow a "search"? Sorry, but my dictionary just doesn't work that way.

Art

ducktapehero
July 16, 2004, 11:31 PM
Driving a car on a public road is a state-licensed activity. As such, it can be monitored as the states desire. Remember that when the SCOTUS decides that cops don't need a warrant to search your car. After all, you are on a public roadway and driving is a privelige, not a right. :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
July 16, 2004, 11:44 PM
dth, warrantless searches are not the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about that, start a thread. That's a whole 'nuther subject, and I doubt you'll find anybody in favor of warrantless searches.

The LEO asks to see your license; you show it. If it's current and there are no outstanding warrants for prior events having to do with egregious stupidity, you're on your way.

Art

WonderNine
July 16, 2004, 11:44 PM
That you may use public roads for driving is condidtional upon your demonstrating some knowledge of traffic law and a minimum level of skill in maneuvering a vehicle. Any problems with that? If so, why?

Isn't peaceably traveling down the road without breaking any laws proof enough in itself? Isn't it still innocent until proven guilty? I feel like I'm in Oceania twilight zone here talking to an Inner Party member.

Let me ask you something. Do you support waving the Brady background check (as many states do) if you have a concealed carry permit? Any problems with that? If not, why?

The state has the lawful power to ensure you meet the conditions. Why is that such a problem for you? Do you feel you are so wondrous and wise that you need not care about the safety of the rest of the driving public? That you need not prove that you are competent to enjoy the use of the tax-paid highways?

It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with treating us like slaves. But it's for the children right? Just one of the problems is too many people have already been conditioned to incriminate themselves as evidenced by the fact that most people don't even realize that they can refuse a search of their car. Police also seem trained to see that as a sign of guilt. If you want to be treated like a criminal everytime you drive down a public road, that's your business. The fact is that it sets a dangerous precedent. In this case you can be one of the two wolves, I'll be the well armed lamb.

The stop-and-check-DL is in no way a "search" of your person or vehicle. You are not being stopped for no probable cause and undergoing a warrantless search of your person or property.

And how does it translate that an officer's asking to see one's license is somehow a "search"? Sorry, but my dictionary just doesn't work that way.

A law abiding citizen being stopped for no reason other than to verify their identity and whether or not they are breaking the law.....this is not part of being secure in person. No warrant has been issued or served. There is not probable cause to do so. Driving down the road is not probable cause of a crime UNLESS YOU ARE ACTUALLY BREAKING TRAFFIC LAWS or there is reasonable suspicion that you have broken a law. Simply driving a car should not be considered reasonable suspicion that you don't have a driver's license. Checking is not searching? Your dictionary is malfunctioning.

That's not happening, unless you're foolish enough to leave a Vital Baggie on the seat in plain view of any passerby...

So you think that is a search? Yep, better get that dictionary checked.

Everytime you stroll through the public park you better be ready to whip out that national I.D. card. Do you think you're better than anyone else? You could be a dangerous terrorist. You could be committing a crime. Maybe your national I.D. card is expired??? Why is that such a problem for you? Do you feel you are so wondrous and wise that you need not care about the safety of the rest of the general public? That you need not prove that you have paid your taxes, are a citizen of this country and are competent to enjoy the tax-paid public lands?

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Ellery Holt
July 16, 2004, 11:56 PM
WonderNine, check this out:

NHTSA Alcohol-related traffic fatalities by state in 2002:

Alabama 413
Alaska 35
Arizona 477
Arkansas 242
California 1,612
Colorado 307
Connecticut 140
Delaware 51
District of Columbia 25
Florida 1,276
Georgia 529
Hawaii 50
Idaho 91
Illinois 648
Indiana 269
Iowa 131
Kansas 229
Kentucky 301
Louisiana 413
Maine 51
Maryland 265
Massachusetts 221
Michigan 490
Minnesota 255
Mississippi 332
Missouri 525
Montana 127
Nebraska 117
Nevada 171
New Hampshire 51
New Jersey 299
New Mexico 215
New York 478
North Carolina 601
North Dakota 48
Ohio 562
Oklahoma 249
Oregon 179
Pennsylvania 656
Rhode Island 46
South Carolina 551
South Dakota 92
Tennessee 471
Texas 1,745 :uhoh:
Utah 73
Vermont 27
Virginia 371
Washington 298
West Virginia 180
Wisconsin 364
Wyoming 70
Puerto Rico 241

U.S. Total: 17,419

PBIR
July 17, 2004, 12:00 AM
What do those statistics have to do with anything?


A law abiding citizen being stopped for no reason other than to verify their identity and whether or not they are breaking the law.....this is not part of being secure in person. No warrant has been issued or served. There is not probable cause to do so. Driving down the road is not probable cause of a crime UNLESS YOU ARE ACTUALLY BREAKING TRAFFIC LAWS or there is reasonable suspicion that you have broken a law. Simply driving a car should not be considered reasonable suspicion that you don't have a driver's license. Checking is not searching? Your dictionary is malfunctioning.


I agree.

WonderNine
July 17, 2004, 12:00 AM
Seasons don't fear the Reaper, nor do the wind or the sun or the rain, we can be like they aaaaarrre.........:D

Hkmp5sd
July 17, 2004, 12:01 AM
Isn't peaceably traveling down the road without breaking any laws proof enough in itself? Isn't it still innocent until proven guilty?
Yep, it sure is. Just hop on your bicycle and travel peaceably along. If you wanna use a motor vehicle, you gotta have a license and display it when asked.

Ellery Holt
July 17, 2004, 12:07 AM
What do those statistics have to do with anything?


Well, less if the Texas per-driving-adult percentage is the same as other states, and more if it's a much larger per-driving-adult. In Texas there may be more opportunities to have known someone who was killed by a drunk. That might influence someone's perspective.

Even if a person doesn't directly know another killed by a drunk driver, I imagine the news coverage in the #1 state for DD has more reports of people dying. That too might affect the degree to which one accepts curbs on liberty.

PBIR
July 17, 2004, 12:18 AM
Just for some balance:

US State Populations, from 2000 Census


California 33,871,648
Texas 20,851,820
New York 18,976,457
Florida 15,982,378
Illinois 12,419,293
Pennsylvania 12,281,054
Ohio 11,353,140
Michigan 9,938,444
New Jersey 8,414,350
Georgia 8,186,453
North Carolina 8,049,313
Virginia 7,078,515
Massachusetts 6,349,097
Indiana 6,080,485
Washington 5,894,121
Tennessee 5,689,283
Missouri 5,595,211
Wisconsin 5,363,675
Maryland 5,296,486
Arizona 5,130,632



TX - 0.0084% population were alcohol related fatailities

Missouri - 0.0094 % were alcohol related fatailities

WonderNine
July 17, 2004, 12:34 AM
TX - 0.0084% population were alcohol related fatailities

Missouri - 0.0094 % were alcohol related fatailities

Interesting.

"Problem" arises.

1. Citizens call for government intervention.

2. Government sees the opportunity.

3. Government steps on citizen's rights "for their safety".

4. Government gets more power, another inch is lost.

5. Precedent is set.

6. Rinse and repeat.

Treylis
July 17, 2004, 12:45 AM
I equate it with being required to show ID prior to entering a bar. Is it an invasion of my privacy to have to prove I'm over 21 to enter a bar or buy alcohol?

Number one, bars are private establishments.

Number two, yes, it is, unless the owner of the bar is doing it privately.

Treylis
July 17, 2004, 12:49 AM
Tell you what, people... why don't we all just have fingerprint/DNA/photo ID cards from birth, and you're stopped whether you're walking or driving every block for a check. Plus, in the interests of tracking down deadbeat dads, you're also required to display it for the purchases of any goods.

Have a problem losing oft-handled cards? Well, then, make it a scannable tattoo! Just put it on your hand or face and you'll never have to worry about it losing the pesky thing again. Because when you go and buy bread at the supermarket, you MIGHT be breaking a law and on the run, so we have to find out.

Now, I know some of you would have no problem with that, but some of us realize that there's a REASON why the Fourth Amendment and such exist.

ducktapehero
July 17, 2004, 12:54 AM
dth, warrantless searches are not the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about that, start a thread. That's a whole 'nuther subject, and I doubt you'll find anybody in favor of warrantless searches. A cop stopping me for no other than to search my "papers" is in itself a warrantless search. Besides, do you think it will stop there? What's next? Being stopped on the street to show our ID? How do you think about that? Do you think that the gov't should be able to stop us anywhere in public and demand our ID?

Ian
July 17, 2004, 01:06 AM
Drivers' licenses are a Constitutional violation to begin with. In virtually every state, licenses were sold for a fee by the government for years before any "safety" type exam was thrown into the bargain. The things are a money-generating enterprise, not a safety precaution.

Maybe El Tejon can help me out here - I'm pretty sure I remember a Supreme Court case or two way back when acknowledging a "right to travel" as part of the 9th Amendment...

Hawkmoon
July 17, 2004, 01:12 AM
Isn't peaceably traveling down the road without breaking any laws proof enough in itself? Isn't it still innocent until proven guilty? I feel like I'm in Oceania twilight zone here talking to an Inner Party member.
Well, let's suppose that you're an illeg... er, "undocumented worker" and you're peacefully cruising along staying in your own lane and not exceeding the speed limit. In fact, the very model of a good, safe driver. But ... you don't have a driver's license.

So you ARE breaking the law, both by operating a motor vehicle on a public highway without the required license, and by being in the US of A illegally to begin with. And that's precisely the people these checkpoints are designed to find, and to remove from the roads (and, one hopes, from the country).

R.H. Lee
July 17, 2004, 01:17 AM
Drivers' licenses are a Constitutional violation to begin with. In virtually every state, licenses were sold for a fee by the government for years before any "safety" type exam was thrown into the bargain. The things are a money-generating enterprise, not a safety precaution.


I think that's an absurd statement. The Constitution does not address driver's licenses, so their issuance is a power of the state. So much for a "Constitutional violation". The single biggest responsibility most people have is the manner in which they drive their vehicles. The state has the authority (constitutionally) to regulate operating motor vehicles on public highways.

buy guns
July 17, 2004, 01:27 AM
the people are the ones who pay to have roads built.

the people are the ones who pay to build automobiles.

the people are the ones who buy said automobiles with money they earned.


who is the govt to say i cant drive the car i paid for on the roads i paid for?


driving will be a privelage when the govt gives the people cars and roads for free. until then its my damn right.

Hkmp5sd
July 17, 2004, 01:46 AM
who is the govt to say i cant drive the car i paid for on the roads i paid for?
People are the ones who elected the government that passed the laws requiring driver's licenses. If you desire the law be changed so licenses are not required and LEOs cannot hold license checks, have your elected officials write laws to that effect. Or sue the agency that requires licenses or allows license checks and get SCOTUS to make those laws null and void.

who is the govt to say i cant drive the car i paid for on the roads i paid for?
The same one that will not let you borrow Air Force One, which you paid for, so you can make a quick surfing trip to Hawaii. :)

JPM70535
July 17, 2004, 02:47 AM
This thread and others closely related appear constantly on this forum. Always we seem to divide into 2 groups, those who proclaim their God Given Rights to drive their motor vehicles on the roadways of this land completely unregulated, and the rest of us who see the logic in requiring that a motorist have a VALID drivers license, Registration papers showing that you have paid your fair share of the revenue it takes to maintain those roads, and proof that you are financially able to pay for any injury you may cause to others with your vehicles, (Insurance)

The only conclusion I can form is that the TOTAL FREEDOM group have a reason other than freedom for not wanting to show they have complied with what I and others see as a perfectly reasonable request at a MV check point.

I have been on both ends of the check points and see absolutely nothing wrong with them. I have also as a result of the checkpoints, made numerous DUI and Stolen vehicle arrests that I might otherwise have missed. Quit your gripeing and show your license.

Ellery Holt
July 17, 2004, 05:32 AM
JPM70535 writes:

The only conclusion I can form is that the TOTAL FREEDOM group have a reason other than freedom for not wanting to show they have complied with what I and others see as a perfectly reasonable request at a MV check point.

Dear Mr. JPM,

Would you consider it a fair paraphrase of what you've written above as, "Those who object obviously have something to hide."

Wildalaska
July 17, 2004, 05:54 AM
Those who object obviously have something to hide."

Ya know I am seeing this more and more..:)

Wonder how many peiople crying about the Brady Bill, or CCWs or felons owning firearms, or the war on drugs....wonder how many....hmmm:uhoh:

If you desire the law be changed so licenses are not required and LEOs cannot hold license checks, have your elected officials write laws to that effect

Naw its far easier to rail on the net.....working to change somehting takes...well work...

I read these threads and sometimes I am reminded of my student days where we all sat around, fired up a few doobies, and engaged in meaningless and foolish critism of everything from our oh so eductated and self assured perspective :)


WildyawantmylicnesaskAlaska

WonderNine
July 17, 2004, 06:18 AM
Those who object obviously have something to hide

Ya know I am seeing this more and more..

Wonder how many peiople crying about the Brady Bill, or CCWs or felons owning firearms, or the war on drugs....wonder how many....hmmm

I was going to post about how WA was going to have a quivering right nut fascist orgasm over that quote, but I thought "why bother" at the time.

Naw its far easier to rail on the net.....working to change somehting takes...well work...

I read these threads and sometimes I am reminded of my student days where we all sat around, fired up a few doobies, and engaged in meaningless and foolish critism of everything from our oh so eductated and self assured perspective

The internet is a great tool in the information wars. Your defeatist downtalking doesn't discourage people like me. In fact it encourages us.

WildyawantmylicnesaskAlaska

What?

WonderNine
July 17, 2004, 06:23 AM
Oh, I figured it out. "Ya want my license, just ask."

Got it now.

Wildalaska: superslave.

RWK
July 17, 2004, 06:27 AM
I am NOT taking a position re this issue. However, I want to emphasize two FACTS: (a) this is nothing new and (b) it is essentially a nation-wide practice.

I have been driving for over forty years. During that time, I have been stopped at a roadblock three times for a routine documentation check (drivers license, vehicle registration, safety inspection sticker, and so forth). Interesting, all three checks were in the 1980s, were during the day, and were in conservative – RKBA tolerant – southern states (Virginia, North and South Carolina).

In all three cases, the police were very polite, did NOT perform any vehicle-search, and were simply inspecting to ensure drivers and cars had all the applicable licenses, safety, and tax documentation.

Ellery Holt
July 17, 2004, 06:37 AM
Well, if 22% of states can be dismissed out of hand, then sure roadblocks are a nationwide FACT.

If 22% is statistically significant (hint: it is) then you're mistaken in stating that we have essentially a nationwide practice.

Sergeant Bob
July 17, 2004, 06:40 AM
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) (USSC+)
Opinions
STEWART, J., Opinion of the Court
II

The fourth numbered paragraph of the indictment alleged that the defendants conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Negro citizens of the United States in the free exercise and enjoyment of:

The right to travel freely to and from the State of Georgia and to use highway facilities and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce within the State of Georgia. [n13]

The District Court was in error in dismissing the indictment as to this paragraph. The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. In Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, invalidating [p*758] a Nevada tax on every person leaving the State by common carrier, the Court took as its guide the statement of Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492:

For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.

See 6 Wall. at 48-49.

Although the Articles of Confederation provided that "the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State," [n14] that right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. [n15] In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. See Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 , 97 ; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177 (concurring opinion), 181 (concurring opinion); New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1, 6-8; 12-16 (dissenting opinion).

In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, invalidating a California law which impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent, the Court based its reaffirmation of the federal right of interstate travel upon the Commerce Clause. This ground of decision was consistent with precedents firmly establishing that the federal commerce [p*759] power surely encompasses the movement in interstate commerce of persons as well as commodities. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 203; Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 218-219; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320; United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 423. It is also well settled in our decisions that the federal commerce power authorizes Congress to legislate for the protection of individuals from violations of civil rights that impinge on their free movement in interstate commerce. Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80; Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454; Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 ; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 .

Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. [n16] All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. § 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now. [n17] [p*760]

/doc/{@39130}/hit_headings/words=4?Chisolm v. Georgia (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[jump!3A!27383+u!2Es!2E+757!27)

/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?]Many More Cases (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+f_right+to+travel:)



Here's a pretty good database to search for Supreme Court decisions (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topic.htm) by subject.

RWK
July 17, 2004, 07:17 AM
The word “ESSENTIALLY” was intentionally used. It does not mean “UNIVERSALLY"; rather, it means “FUNDAMENTALLY”, “BASICALLY, or “GENERALLY” – and (IMHO) 88 percent certainly would qualify.

And, by the way, what is the basis of your twenty-two percent of the states comment? I am not trying to be argumentative, but where is your documentation to substantiate eleven states prohibiting this practice?

Ellery Holt
July 17, 2004, 07:48 AM
RWK writes:

...and (IMHO) 88 percent certainly would qualify.

Okay, great, we agree: Roadblocks for DWI cannot be said to be essentially a nationwide practice because it is not prevalent enough. Your standard is 88% Mine would be 90%. Only 78% of states use roadblocks. Nothing to debate there.

The source? Here's one: http://www.madd.org/activism/0,1056,7615,00.html

Thanks.

ksnecktieman
July 17, 2004, 08:19 AM
License to walk, or ride your bicycle......... I do not know anything about law, but I can tell you that in Kansas you do need a license. They do not call it that, but if a law enforcement officer asks who you are, and you have no proof of identification they are allowed to take you in and hold you until identity can be proven. Even with no crime committed.

Freedom is not free,,,,,, and no one has paid for it lately.

PBIR
July 17, 2004, 09:14 AM
A Tennessee Supreme Court ruling on the justification of driver's license roadblocks effectively negated the state's case in Carter County Criminal Court last week.
Judge Jerry Beck ruled to suppress evidence against Jeffrey Lee Campbell, who was charged with driving on a suspended license after being stopped at a driver's license checkpoint conducted by the Tennessee Highway Patrol.
Public defender Bobby Oaks cited a Tennessee Supreme Court decision State of Tennessee v. Hicks filed Sept. 2001 that found driver's license roadblocks did not hold up to standards under a similar decision regarding sobriety roadblocks.
"In order for a roadblock to pass constitutional muster, the roadblock must by properly conducted under General Order 410 of the state Department of Safety," Oaks told the court. He added that the burden was on the Department of Safety to demonstrate "...that safety is enhanced by driver's license checkpoints."
The state supreme court held that the driver's license roadblock in the Hicks case violated the protections against unreasonable seizures under Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.


from here: http://www.starhq.com/html/localnews/0803/0801003check.html

Keep that approval for roadblock mentality up and soon it won't just be roadblocks. How'd you like random traffic stops for license checks? You might even say it's fine here, but how would you like to be pulled over for no reason on your way to pick your kid up from school? "Oh hiddie ho mr officer, glad you just pulled me over to check my license, I love having my time wasted. " Now, how would you like it when that starts happening several times a year?

Oh, BTW, law enforcement is not Dept of Immigratration. Here cops aren't even allowed to ask if a person has a green card, so you can drop all that "removing illegal aliens" BS - that simply is not the case.

Art Eatman
July 17, 2004, 11:46 AM
"He added that the burden was on the Department of Safety to demonstrate "...that safety is enhanced by driver's license checkpoints."

I have no problem at all with that finding by the court. But, that's in Tennessee. The state's attorneys apparently were unable to convince the courts of the degree of public safety from checking drivers' licenses.

If you don't like the idea of checkpoints for driver's licenses, I suggest filing suit and trying your luck in your state.

Walking from Maine to California is a right. SFAIK, non-Interstate horsebacking is a right. I plead "no knowledge" as to one's "right" to use public transportation, although it would seem so per US v. Guest. But driving a motor vehicle has been held by numerous courts to be a regulated privilege. Most states' constitutions and laws thus allow DL checkpoints.

Art

Chris Rhines
July 17, 2004, 12:31 PM
But driving a motor vehicle has been held by numerous courts to be a regulated privilege. Those courts are wrong. Driving is every bit the right that owning property is.

- Chris

Penforhire
July 17, 2004, 01:54 PM
I understand the "total freedom" position and I don't think it means these guys have anything to hide. I just disagree. I don't see that it would EVER be practical to any society beyond horse-and-buggy population density.

The day is coming when we'll have various wireless ID chips ("RFID"). Some of you may call it a violation of your rights but imagine if every car travelling on our roads could be passively scanned for having a licensed driver (or if the car won't even start unless your key belongs to a licensed driver).

Beyond that, how about an automatic ID check whenever you enter a public building? A little further in the future we're talking about having that RFID a chip implated at birth. There's a student who did this as a publicity stunt a year or two ago.

That day is coming and I won't resist it one little bit. This is not intrusive. Can it be used to trample on our rights? Heck yes. But so can the police force. Should we not have a police force because it COULD be misused? I think not. Same for universal ID and automatic checking.

ducktapehero
July 17, 2004, 01:57 PM
those who proclaim their God Given Rights to drive their motor vehicles on the roadways of this land completely unregulated,:rolleyes: I think you're assuming too much. I'm sure there are a couple people who have a problem with even being forced to have a DL but that is not the case with me. I don't have a problem with getting a DL. We must have some standard to keep unsafe drivers off the road. I don't have a problem with being pulled over if I am driving unsafe or my vehicle is unsafe as I'm a direct threat to the lives of other people on the road.

I DO have a problem with being forced to prove I have my DL when I have done nothing wrong. And it's comical to think that this will somehow slow down illegal aliens. Border enforcement and stiff fines to companies who hire illegals is the way to do it.

The only conclusion I can form is that the TOTAL FREEDOM group have a reason other than freedom for not wanting to show they have complied with what I and others see as a perfectly reasonable request at a MV check point.Ah yes, the "your hiding something" arguement. Our liberal friends have used this argument quite often when they talk about registering guns. "If you're not hiding something then you shouldn't have a problem with this". This scares the hell out of me.

I have nothing to hide, I'm doing nothing wrong so why should I be stopped?

Wildalaska
July 17, 2004, 02:13 PM
Wildalaska: superslave.

Better superslave than...well lets just say I wont drop to your level...we already jknow how you act based on your little park incident...

The internet is a great tool in the information wars. Your defeatist downtalking doesn't discourage people like me. In fact it encourages us.

But tell us o leader in the freedom wars...what have you actually done to advance the cause of "freedom" other than spout off here? I mean this is a gun Board where all of us share an interest in guns and a political philosophy that will allow continued ownership...and you cant even get half of us to agree with you...

But what do you really do to convince the masses? Ya running for office? You volunteering in a campaign? Ya writing position papers? Filing lawsuits? Starting a grass roots organozation?

Or do you content yourslef with just making the same boring arguments here over and over so that you can at least get the ego gratification of having a few of your fellow travelers scream "halleluia, huzzah, the gubmint is soooo mean I bet the founding fathers woulds spin in their graves, thank gawd for US who can preach to each other on the net."

Naw yer too busy fighting "punks" in the park cause they wave at ya.

WildimremindedofharveykeitelinpulpfictionAlaska

Wildalaska
July 17, 2004, 02:18 PM
Those courts are wrong. Driving is every bit the right that owning property is.

No sorry Chris you are wrong...if you were right the Courts would agree with YOU...

WildherewegoagainAlaska

atek3
July 17, 2004, 04:38 PM
That day is coming and I won't resist it one little bit. This is not intrusive. Can it be used to trample on our rights? Heck yes. But so can the police force. Should we not have a police force because it COULD be misused? I think not. Same for universal ID and automatic checking.


Hold on, my CRAZY alarm just went off the scale. You're fine with implanted RFID chips...
And if people don't want said RFID chips IMPLANTED, say for moral, ethical, or religious reasons? You say to them, "oh well, you can't get a job, enter government buildings, or drive a car?"
Remind me why such diehard police state advocates are on "the high road?"

Wait, this just in, on a different thread you complained about "loss of liberty" and you are saying you wouldn't have a problem with the government MANDATING implantable RFID chips?!?!?!


Sure the PA helps prevent acts of terror. So would a host of other loss-of-liberty laws. So what? The point was made that freedom should be valued more highly than safety.

The "land of the free and home of the brave" is going to the dogs, Federal dogs that is.


Okay now I'm baffled.

sch40
July 17, 2004, 05:39 PM
Ian: See, people without proper government licensing are super dangerous. The problem is, when they're out driving, they pretend to be safe, and so you can't tell who they are by watching them drive. Instead, you have to set up checkpoints to find out if they're actually safe or just acting safe to trick people. It's for the children, you know. ROFLMAO :D :D


Three points of "due process":
- guilty until proven innocent
- when a LEO stops you and will not release you until he finds out something, he is 'detaining' you
- LEOs need 'probable cause' (or at least 'reasonable suspicion') to detain you

R.H. Lee
July 17, 2004, 06:50 PM
Those courts are wrong. Driving is every bit the right that owning property is.

OK, I'll bite. What is your legal underpinning for this statement, or is it just a personal opinion?

PBIR
July 17, 2004, 08:03 PM
if you were right the Courts would agree with YOU

We all know the Courts always side with what is right, don't we? :banghead:

Penforhire
July 17, 2004, 08:40 PM
Atek, I just find some things intrusive and some things not. No reason for confusion. And I'm just speculating about where we're headed. If you find it offensive then you better work against it now. And not just on an impotent online message board. Chip implantation would be a generation or more removed from simple RFID card-carrying.

I'm not certain chip implants would necessarily ever be manditory. It would, at some point in the future, make life convenient for that person. It also doesn't rule out a black market for spoofing, transfered chips, or chip removal. Someone without an implant might be stopped more often to show conventional forms of ID.

I expect a rise in biometrics but I'm not sure if it will be fingerprints, palm prints, retinal, or something more exotic (brainwaves?). Theft of general goods (cars, phones, PC's) might be reduced by having them rendered inert without an authorized user. There will still be hacked goods, much like cracked software today, and that could ruin any benefit.

LoneStranger
July 17, 2004, 08:47 PM
So, after reading this thread, What should be my response to LEO at one of these DL checkpoints?

Politely ask the LEO why I am being stopped if not volunteeded by him.

Explain that I will have to reach for the appropriate papers, so please don't shoot me out of fear.

After the LEO does the walk around inspection for obvious equipment problems, get papers back from LEO.

Don't engage in any light banter with LEO or answer any question beyond what is necessary for LEO to inspect papers.

Remember to never consent to anything beyond those papers pertinent to the stop.

ksnecktieman
July 17, 2004, 09:25 PM
Just remember, "bitte herren" is "please sir" and "danke herren" is thank you sir" in german. Just remember that, do not use it. The officer may not want to know that some of us consider him to be a "jack booted thug" like the ones in eastern Germany in the late thirties.
We won that war, but it was easy compared to this one. In this war we are our own enemies, and there is no one to defeat.

another okie
July 17, 2004, 09:48 PM
"You are not being stopped for no probable cause..."

My vote for the most "in denial" statement on this thread.

Of course you are being stopped for no probable cause.
What is the probable cause? You are obeying the law, driving in a proper manner, and you are stopped and questioned by police.

I have no problem with being required to have a driver's license to drive on the public streets, or with arresting people stopped for probable cause and found driving without one. But a safe driver is obeying the law. To stop them and question them is offensive in a free country.

DRZinn
July 17, 2004, 10:21 PM
Again, I apologize if someone already said this, but here goes:

We hear time and time again that driving on a public road is a privilege, not a right. I can accept the basic premise, since it's a government-maintained road. (Though it shouldn't have to be, but that's another argument.)However, I think we can probably all agree that the ability to move around freely is a basic human right, so can someone please tell me how you can move yourself around anymore, whether in a car, bicycle, or Doc Martens, without using government property?

harpethriver
July 17, 2004, 11:12 PM
another okie-I couldn't agree with you more. I am amazed at the number of people who actually think these stops-constitutional or not-are being done in the interest of safety. Well, the police say that's why they're doing it, so it must be true. These stops are being conducted because they can-not because they should. If the police in any jurisdiction actually wanted to prevent unsafe drivers from being on the road, then they would observe the unsafe activity and the government, which is here to help us, would take steps to remove these unsafe drivers from the road. But as long as huge amounts of tax revenue is so closely tied to the operation of a motor vehicle, we will never see government, on any level, remove large numbers of unsafe drivers from our roads. In any state in the union, I'm not sure which is the bigger joke, the ridiculously easy driver licensing procedure, or traffic law enforcement.

WonderNine
July 18, 2004, 12:12 AM
Better superslave than...well lets just say I wont drop to your level...we already jknow how you act based on your little park incident...

Oh that horrible deed where I confronted some idiots who were talking smack to me. :rolleyes: Yea, I'm just a horrible criminal. Who's side are you on anyways?

You know an 18 year old woman was beaten and raped by three men at almost that same spot 4:30am Friday morning. I think the more people stand up for themselves, the better off we all will be.

I couldn't give a damn about the disarmed victim zone the city parks are. I simply will not follow such stupid laws.

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 12:51 AM
Oh that horrible deed where I confronted some idiots who were talking smack to me.

Talking smack at you? They WAVED AT YA and said something INDECIPHERABLE...and you wheeled yer Schwin over to them ready to TAKE OUT the punks, yes?

Yea, I'm just a horrible criminal. Who's side are you on anyways?

Theirs...they werent carrying a weapon ileegally...they werent the ons who armed with a pistol started a confrontation...they werent the ones who demonstrated contempt for the law...YOU ARE.....and add your comments about police on top of it

I couldn't give a damn about the disarmed victim zone the city parks are. I simply will not follow such stupid laws.

You sir are therefore representing yourself as a criminal, an armed criminal. You have no place among legitimate gun owners. With all your inflammatory statements on this Board, and your own admitted behavior, you represent a danger to the public...I pray that some LEO will not be hurt when they attempt to bring you to heel..

WildandthatsthatAlaska

Wild

HKUSP40
July 18, 2004, 01:58 AM
Somedays you just dont see how fast its comming, some days you see it with Crystal Clear 20/20 vision.Plenty of doublethink here God save us.
Joshua

wunderkind
July 18, 2004, 03:10 AM
In the not-too-distant past, Indiana lawmakers said that the new seat belt laws would never, on their own merits, justify a traffic stop. The officer could write the seat belt cite as a secondary enforcement activity AFTER a valid stop (speed, equipment, expired plates, etc.)

In the less than two decades since then, lo and behold, it has been determined that the state has an "compelling" interest in seeing that drivers buckle up.

Seat belt enforcement is now a PRIMARY enforcement activity based on that "compelling state interest."

Of course, it's really only enforced when the Feds kick in the $$$ for overtime grant patrols. Yep. The Feds pay for the time-and-a-half pay to encourage an officer to make stops for something he/she ordinarily does NOT stop for.

Hmmmm...the Federal Government is funding "Click it or Ticket," "OWI Checkpoints" and possibly the "Let's Make Sure Everyone's License is Good" programs.

Regular day--agency can't tell their officers to write cites-quotas have been found to be illegal/immoral/distasteful.

Federal Grant day--officer must turn in a signed "Activity Sheet" showing how "productive" he/she was during that "Special Patrol."

Could the Feds want us to become more used to being stopped and checked for compliance by local LEO's??

What's next, a Vehicle Safety Checkpoint where a govt. regulator does you the favor of making sure your tire tread depth and brake pad linings are thick enough to be safe? As long as they've got you stopped, might as well see if you've got a valid DL, warrants, back child support, etc. Wow, that would make us safer.

While we're at it, wouldn't it be a lot faster if we got National ID cards with a digitized thumbprint on the back?!

Whether IN or MO, seat belt or "License Validity Check", it all adds up to chintzy police/citizen interactions that may be more restrictive and less random than advertised.

Ellery Holt
July 18, 2004, 03:12 AM
Threads like this are just like the 'shooting a dog' threads in that two more-or-less polar sides debate and argue with passion and no real possibility of anyone really understanding why the other side believes and thinks the way they do, but different -- and really involving and interesting -- because the topic matters.

I love these threads because I believe passionately in the importance of the issues.

firearms_instructor
July 18, 2004, 05:35 AM
"Those who object obviously have something to hide."

All right. I'm squarely in the "Total Freedom" camp. I have zero tolerance for any statist encroachments on my freedoms. The Constitution means what it says, so it doesn't need to be INTERPRETED by anybody.

I object, and I have something to hide. Now there are many of you who might assume that when I say I have something to hide that what I am hiding is illegal. (I beg your pardons for that tortuous sentence). However, I just value my privacy, and unless I choose to share any personal info with you, my personal info is private, and I wish to keep it that way.

There are very few people that I choose to discuss sex, religion, or politics with, and how much money I make or what I own is nobody's business. Unless I'm actually committing a REAL crime, I don't want some state employee wasting my time or money, sticking their nose in my business.

Random traffic stops are BS. We used to have the right to travel freely. We also used to have the right to own property.

BTW Ian, "See, people without proper government licensing are super dangerous. The problem is, when they're out driving, they pretend to be safe, and so you can't tell who they are by watching them drive. Instead, you have to set up checkpoints to find out if they're actually safe or just acting safe to trick people. It's for the children, you know." - That's awesomely well put. You rock, sir.

WonderNine
July 18, 2004, 07:40 AM
I don't believe in licensing. It's a joke and nothing more than a money collection scheme. Anybody who can't see that has got rocks for brains. But, I'll go along with it because it doesn't trample on my rights too badly and it just ain't worth the trouble fighting. What I won't go along with is random stops and searches of motorists who are peaceably traveling and obeying all traffic laws.

As the police say: "The traffic laws are our best friends. If ya wanna pull someone over, just follow them for a couple blocks."

Not like they can't pull anyone over whenever they feel like it anyways.

Yea, I got a police scanner and read Glocktalk/Cop Talk. :D

It's not like the police can't already pull over whoever they want, whenever they want, already. A couple of the posters in this thread need to get with reality.

Chris Rhines
July 18, 2004, 08:47 AM
No sorry Chris you are wrong...if you were right the Courts would agree with YOU... Sigh. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from your statement, Wild, is that the courts are always right. This is, of course, absurd. Courts and legislators make (and enforce) legal decisions that are morally wrong all the time. The Dred Scott decision is one example; the redefinition of driving as a government privledge is another.

Quit thinking with your spinal column.

OK, I'll bite. What is your legal underpinning for this statement, or is it just a personal opinion? Personal opinion, based on my moral code. Which is all that really matters.

- Chris

hammer4nc
July 18, 2004, 11:15 AM
Just last week, there was a discussion of the Hiibel case; supreme court upheld man guilty of not identifying himself. Those who defended the action were endlessly pointing to "reasonable suspicion" (poor relative of "probable cause"), as legal underpinning requiring identification. What's the "reasonable suspicion" in this case? Totally thrown out the window?

Previous court decisions concerning checkpoints have stipulated a "overriding safety mission" (i.e., drunk drivers), as a reason to invade privacy. That standard has de facto been lowered to "seatbelt compliance" as the overriding safety mission. What's the overriding safety mission in this case? Totally thrown out the window?

Random searches on public transportation, related to the political conventions (exigent circumstances). Who's betting this will not be rescinded once the conventions are over?

Wunderkind touched on the real reason behind these intrusive saturation patrol tactics...federal grant money. All these absurd, make-work, police-state activities that would be out of the question, if PD's had to justify funding to local citizens; suddenly become compelling issues, when federal grants (esp overtime patrol $$$) are dangled out there. Yeah, lets throw in a catchy slogan and millions in ad dollars to back it up ("clickit or ticket"..."booze it and lose it"), to boot.

Simply remove financial accountability, and common sense goes out the window. The attempts made by the usual apologists to justify these activities are laughably transparent.

longrifleman
July 18, 2004, 11:48 AM
This has been hinted at by previous posters but I will say it point blank to avoid any confusion: the main long range purpose of this kind of immoral behavior (the constitution is dead so appeals to it are useless) is to desensitize the populace to the constant police control of their actions at all times.

Desert Dog
July 18, 2004, 12:40 PM
longrifleman, I couldn't have said it better...

The rest of this thread is merely arguing facets of this point...

Now insert something about a downward spiraling firey basket and we are done.

NMshooter
July 18, 2004, 01:31 PM
I really do get a chuckle every time folks start musing about RFID and biometrics. As we move further in the direction of a monitored society it becomes easier to spoof the system. If you think identity theft is bad now, wait until you have to prove that was not your car used in a bank robbery, because your car really was sitting in your driveway, but since the tracking system's records place your vehicle at the scene it must have been there. And, by extension, you must have been there, because only you could have operated that vehicle.
Well, at least it makes for an interesting thought experiment. As for the central argument in this thread, well, in Mexico random roadblocks are setup all the time. To search the vehicles for guns. Draw your own conclusions.

Coronach
July 18, 2004, 02:12 PM
OK. I'll chime in.
Oh, BTW, law enforcement is not Dept of Immigratration. Here cops aren't even allowed to ask if a person has a green card, so you can drop all that "removing illegal aliens" BS - that simply is not the case.This is the way it works (sometimes in practice, alway in theory)- cop pulls over illegal immigrant for X, where X is something have nothing to do with immigration status. Cop requests Driver's License. Illegal Immigrant has no DL, and is arrested. Cop contacts INS, lets them know that a probable illegal immigrant is being held at the county lockup on a DL charge. INS checks him out, and if he is illegal picks him up and deports him. So, this is not BS, and it is the case.

As to the rest:

Driving is just as much of a right as owning property?

OK. I'll agree with you. Drive your own privately owned car on your own privately owned land. Enjoy your right to property. I wholeheartely agree with this.

Now, steer your private property out onto public roadway, and you need to comply with licensing requirements set up by the states (remember that pesky Constitution's Bill of Rights? Under that the states are promulgating rules and regulations regarding the operation of vehicles on state-maintained roads).

JM&TSCO*

Mike

* (Just My And The Supreme Court's Opinion)

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 02:14 PM
Personal opinion, based on my moral code. Which is all that really matters.

Well no offense and speaking probably in accord with the vast numbner of people in this country, we would proabably be more comfortable living under a court that may be wrong once in a while (that can be corrected btw, after all we dont have slavery do we?) than you personal moral code (or the personal moral codes of our happy little elves over on Stormfront), which cannot...........

Quit thinking with your spinal column.

Ah but at least I am thinking, no just knee jerking :)

Hey ya know what anti checkpoint guys...let me point something out...

Ya see, as indictative as checkpoints are of the destruction of our american values and symbolic of the gestapo boot on our neck I bet ya didnt know...

That there is no law that I am aware of REQUIRING such checkpoints, only laws that govern HOW they are conducted...or even...gasp...laws that PROHIBIT THEM...

Yes thats right, somewhere, someone, somepeople...GOT INVOLVED..and got a law passed to prohibit them...thats called THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS...and it entaills stepping AWAY from the computer screen and DOING SOMETHING....

So may I kindly suggest that perhaps y'all stop...well think of Harvey Keitels line in Pulp Fiction....and do something if it bothers you..

Me I live in a non checkpoint state. I have been subjected to DWI ones in the past and found them unobtrusive...but hey thats me.....I dont get real worked up over minor annoyances...Im too busy earning a living...

WildandiknowwhatfollowsnextAlaska

JohnBT
July 18, 2004, 02:28 PM
"Driver's license checkpoints have been around since at least 1959, to my personal knowledge."

I went through a driver's license check in 1972 outside Blacksburg, Virginia. The nice officer didn't see the open beers(legal in VA until a few years ago.) He also didn't see the license plates on the used red TR-3 because there weren't any - we forgot to switch them from the other car because we were in a hurry to get to Radford College to check out the coeds.

John

R.H. Lee
July 18, 2004, 02:51 PM
DWI checkpoints

heh. I'd almost forgotten. Last time I went thru one of these I was on my way home from the range late in the afternoon. In the truck with me were 2 1911's, a 30-30, a Savage FP10 topped with a Tasco SS 10x40 scope, an SKS, a Ruger MKII, a CZ75B, lots of 1911 magazines and two cans still fulla ammo. The cop walked right up to the drivers window of the truck (like within 1' of my face), looked me in the eye and said "Have you had anything to drink today?" I smiled and said "No, nothing". He smiled back and waved me thru.

grislyatoms
July 18, 2004, 02:55 PM
Hmm.

I don't believe the police should be able to interfere with my activities as long as I am not breaking the law or given them cause to think that I am. I believe that wholeheartedly. And I have absolutely nothing to hide.

If I resemble a suspect in some crime and the police stop and ask for I.D. I don't have a problem with that. If I have been driving erratically and they stop me I don't have a problem with that, either. There's at least some degree of suspicion or probable cause there.

To be herded like a sheep into a checkpoint and have to be delayed in my trip or activities without any probable cause or suspicion chaps my nethers.

Don of Kalifornia
July 18, 2004, 06:44 PM
In a ********** Supreme Court case inabout 1990 or 1991, the DUI check points were nearly banned. The court stated that the police/CHP could not ask for licences, insurence, etc. The police/CHP could only use normal senses, vision, hearing, smell, to determine if a person was under the influence/has been drinking before driving. If alchol is smelt, eyes appear bloodshot/blurry then the officer can request a breathalizer test.

All checkpoints must also be published in the newspaer before hand, and may only operate during the hours stated and approved by the AG.

The officers can ask, but not demand or ticket you if your not wearing a seat belt.

liliysdad
July 18, 2004, 07:12 PM
Thank God checkpoints are still legal in Ok....they catch a LOT of DUI/warrants through them.

IMO, anything I can do as a cop to catch a DUI or Drug charge in my town, I am all for it.

BTW, driving is a privelege, plain and simple. You dont have to drive to travel freely..walking is slower, but it still works.

PBIR
July 18, 2004, 07:14 PM
You dont have to drive to travel freely

In fact, it appears the two are mutually exclusive in many parts of the US.

WonderNine
July 18, 2004, 07:47 PM
Thank God checkpoints are still legal in Ok....they catch a LOT of DUI/warrants through them.

IMO, anything I can do as a cop to catch a DUI or Drug charge in my town, I am all for it.

That's the problem. I don't think that police should have the authority to stop someone without probable cause to check law compliance. YOU may think that YOU will do much good with new unconstitutional policing powers, but what about the next guy? Did you see the Ashcroft quote in my signature?

BTW, driving is a privelege, plain and simple. You dont have to drive to travel freely..walking is slower, but it still works.

Yea, the latest technology is always a "privilege". All part of the gradual desensitizing of the population. You can't get far in this society without a driver's license nowadays.

Jeff
July 18, 2004, 08:55 PM
It appears the main argument of the pro-checkpoint crowd revolves around the constitutionality of actual government involvement in the public roads arena.

This makes sense, because the roads we travel on are indeed public. The government demands that we become properly trained, licensed, and insured for using our private vehicles in public spaces. It makes sense.

One of the main arguments of the anti-checkpoint crowd is the un-constitutionality of being harassed by law enforcement "roadblocks" which indeed prevent us from moving about freely.

This is really not a hard one to figure out. Once you get all the licensing and paperwork in order and have pleased the state gov't, they really should leave us alone unless we have committed an actual crime, or if there is actual probable cause.

Otherwise, it is indeed unconstitutional to stop and check motorists who have done nothing wrong. Such measures bring this nation one step closer to a police state.

You know, it's the police who are checking people at random times and places and harassing innocent people in the possibility they might catch someone breaking the law. Hello? There is nothing constitutional about that.

------------------------------------

Where did this WildAlaska guy come from? Is he the token Socialist around here?

"No sorry Chris you are wrong...if you were right the Courts would agree with YOU..."

What a remarkably naive and offensive statement.

Jeff
July 18, 2004, 09:15 PM
Now, steer your private property out onto public roadway, and you need to comply with licensing requirements set up by the states (remember that pesky Constitution's Bill of Rights? Under that the states are promulgating rules and regulations regarding the operation of vehicles on state-maintained roads).


Coronach, there are obviously limitations to what the state can do to drivers operating vehicles on public roads.

They can't pull us over and prevent us from going any further because they don't like the color of our cars. They can't pull us over and give us "alertness-coordination" tests to prove that we are not drowsy. They can't pull us over to make sure that our radios and CD players are not on too loudly.

Maybe they can, if they really wanted to. Right? Would your view of constitutional legitimacy supercede the view of unconstitionality for "not being allowed to move about freely?"

Many argue that people have a sovereign right to their bodies, therefore, a constitutional right. But does the sovereign right to one's own body supercede the right to life of a viable fetus?

Coronach
July 18, 2004, 10:20 PM
Coronach, there are obviously limitations to what the state can do to drivers operating vehicles on public roads.

They can't pull us over and prevent us from going any further because they don't like the color of our cars. They can't pull us over and give us "alertness-coordination" tests to prove that we are not drowsy. They can't pull us over to make sure that our radios and CD players are not on too loudly.Equal protection. So long as the police are pulling over and inconveniencing everyone, or individuals only for probable cause, there is no constitutional issue here, IMO. SCOTUS agrees. And while they are not always right, theirs is the only opinion that matters.

This is easily resolved. If the people think this is a bad idea, their representatives in the legislature will make it illegal.

Mike

atek3
July 18, 2004, 10:25 PM
Where did this WildAlaska guy come from? Is he the token Socialist around here?

Careful insulting the guy with 20 times as many posts as you.
and he's no "token socialist" either, this board has plenty of like-minded people.

atek3

Ellery Holt
July 18, 2004, 10:29 PM
heisthevoiceofreason

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 10:35 PM
What a remarkably naive and offensive statement

Ah Jeffy, I see your another one of the "only the laws that I like apply to me" crowd...

And shall I assume you are another person who prefers to vent on the net than do something? Ya'll got legal roadblocks in your state (do you know?) and if so, what are you doing to change it...

Many argue that people have a sovereign right to their bodies, therefore, a constitutional right. But does the sovereign right to one's own body supercede the right to life of a viable fetus?

Id love to debate that one with you, but unfortunately Board rules (which you will probably learn when you are here longer) dont allow it....

Where did this WildAlaska guy come from? Is he the token Socialist around here?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha

WildgonnahavesomefunicanseeAlaska

Chris Rhines
July 18, 2004, 10:51 PM
Well no offense and speaking probably in accord with the vast numbner of people in this country,... The fact that many people agree with you has no bearing on the rightness/wrongness of your opinion. The crowd ain't any smarter (or any more moral) than the individual.

...or the personal moral codes of our happy little elves over on Stormfront... Oh, I love this part. The classic Wildanyonewhodisagreeswithmeisabigotalaska left-handed implication of racism. The last refuge of a failed argument. Nice try, though.

Yes thats right, somewhere, someone, somepeople...GOT INVOLVED..and got a law passed to prohibit them...thats called THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS...and it entaills stepping AWAY from the computer screen and DOING SOMETHING.... Another all-too-typical logical fallacy, Wild. You have no idea just how involved in the political process I am, (and you never will,) but I'll put my record of activism up against yours any day of the week, pal.

I see your another one of the "only the laws that I like apply to me" crowd... If you were honest enough to admit it, you'd place yourself in that crowd as well. As would everyone.

-

Every single sapient person on this globe makes a moral decision whether or not to obey a law. Nothing at all wrong with this - it's as natural as breathing. Those who are fearful of unconstrained expressions of individualism often rail against such moral choices, but such people should be ignored. Why would you pay attention to someone who asks you to set aside your own morals, and replace them with the 'wisdom' of the crowd?

- Chris

Wildalaska
July 18, 2004, 11:01 PM
but I'll put my record of activism up against yours any day of the week, pal.

Go for it.."pal"...tell us all how sucessful you have been.....

Why would you pay attention to someone who asks you to set aside your own morals, and replace them with the 'wisdom' of the crowd?

Why would you trust someone to "do the right thing" without some laws to keep em in check..in that regardI would trust an ATF agent over you....

Funny thing is, the "I am my own little diety" crowd wants you to beleive that their moral code is good and righteous...while at the same time the government, which provides laws based on reason and compromise of many moral codes..is evil...

Methinks we have a fallacy....

The classic Wildanyonewhodisagreeswithmeisabigotalaska left-handed implication of racism. The last refuge of a failed argument. Nice try, though.

Actually7 you misread the point but hey its far easier to make ad hominem attacks that comprehend, neh?

WildwhoyagonnatrustAlaska

WonderNine
July 18, 2004, 11:04 PM
Why would you trust someone to "do the right thing" without some laws to keep em in check..

Because most people are not bad. Most people are good. Bad people don't follow laws whether good or bad and good people shouldn't have to follow bad laws. I think I said that right. :uhoh:

Art Eatman
July 18, 2004, 11:07 PM
Yeah, the ad hominem attacks do indeed bring about the usual result.

Clang...

Art

Coronach
July 18, 2004, 11:13 PM
If you were honest enough to admit it, you'd place yourself in that crowd as well. As would everyone.Untrue. Some people (myself included), fall under the heading of "if you can do the time, might as well do the crime." This explains my traffic record. I fully acknowledge when I break the law, and if caught I expect to pay the price. I refuse to toss the mantle of righteous indignation and constitutional outrage across my shoulders when I do something I know is illegal. The fact of the matter is that existing in society is a team sport. The Consititution makes the ground rules for this interaction, but the old truism that 'no man is an island' remains. I cordially suggest that one gets used to it.

Mike

Coronach
July 18, 2004, 11:16 PM
Oops. Simulpost. And my police state moderator privs allow me to get the last word.

NAZI PWNED! ;)

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "Independence, MO - Police Stage Roadblock To Check Driver's Licenses" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!