Illinois traffic safety check

[chas_martel]

Yeah, right, now I'm a troll...............

Vex, I am here on this thread to just throw out wild, tangential and
meaningless comments. I mean I'd be violating the main premise of
my original post on this thread if I entered into discourse with you.

But, what the heck here goes. I am gonna paraphrase a little 'cause
I don't want to scroll back and copy you verbatim, so just correct
me if I am wrong.

You basically stated that "citizens" have nothing to "fear" from these
road stops. The subtle nuance you are missing is that some of us
value LIBERTY more than perceived safety. Let me put it into
very simple terms. I have a 15 year old daughter that is fixing
to start driving. Fast forward a few years. I don't want her to have
to endure a road stop that is a fishing expedition for the bad guys. I
don't give a crap that you might catch one in the process. A free
persons liberty is worth more than the infringement of the rights
of someone doing something warranting such. <-- Please pay real
close attention to that statement. I know it is wordy, as I am not
the best wordsmith, but let it soak in. Please?

Some of us actually believe in the "spirit" of the BofR's. I know that is
hard for some people to comprehend.

 

[carebear]

Presumption of innocence.

Observe or get a reliable report someone is actually driving in a reckless manner, THEN pull them over and investigate.

Otherwise, if they are obeying the traffic code, there is no reason to suspect them of a crime and, thus, they should be allowed to go on their way.

If they are on a cellphone, putting on makeup or, yes, even drunk (all statistically at the same risk of causing an accident) and then actually cause an accident drop the hammer on them.

I'd rather accept a little more upfront risk then sacrifice freedom or even convenience. Because that trade-off, once begun, never stops.

And even after their keys are taken away and all their driving privileges are revoked, the repeat offender drunk drivers still drive anyway. The deterrent effect of all this "do something" legislation is, unfortunately, effectively nil. You can't catch all or even most of the drunks without actually going all the way to jackboots, so it's all just show and a waste of time and resources.

 

[Vex]

Chas Martel,

I let your statement soak in for a few. I think I understand where you're coming from.... You're saying that you'd rather let people drive drunk, high, or on a suspended license than let your law-abiding daughter be inconvenienced by a police sobriety checkpoint. Right? And you feel this way because if you give an inch to the government and allow them to conduct these checkpoints, then they'll take a mile and revoke other your rights as an American citizen?

Another question: If/When your daughter encounters a police sobriety checkpoint whether she's stopped or not, do you think the experience might serve as a deterrant so that in the future she might think twice about going on the road after a few drinks?

Carebear,

I gather by your statements that you feel the police should be 100% reactionary with no proactive approach to crime? How do you feel about other proactive programs, such as D.A.R.E.?

 

[Autolycus]

I live in Illinois. If you do not pull over for the stop you will be stopped. The officer I spoke to (Orland Park, IL Police) told me that they have reasonable suspicion that you were driving unde the influence. I am not a lawyer and I suspect that most people do not know their rights so they go along with it. The officers usually stop every third or fourth car depending on the number of officers on scene. They had officers from different townships and had a police exchange program with other local townships. THis was the St. Patricks day of 2004.

As for Vex saying that driving was not written into the bill of rights he is correct. However stopping me for driving on the road simply because it is a holiday and some people drink is still a violation of our rights. As you stated it is for public safety and that they are cracking down due to a media article or whatnot does not justify that. They say there is are to many guns on the street and they will crack down on crime by taking them.

As for the fact that I do not have to stop for them that may be true. But if I do not stop the police will stop me. If I tried that I would hate to see the consequences.

And I have to know how you can justify the actions of the ICE officer threatening a 10 year old boy? We are going crazy as a nation allowing LEOs to many passes when they break the law. And we need other LEOs to hold them accountable and not give them a pass for simply being part of that thin blue line.

 

[Vex]

Tecumseh,

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was personally justifying the actions of the ICE agent. If the news story is true, then I hope he gets fired and thrown in jail for a year. The point in my statement was merely to inject a sense of doubt in the media, and to point out that none of us were there.

 

[SomeKid]

Vex, your comment to Chas regarding stopping everyone and searching them being a deterrent, I see your point. We should begin strip-searching everyone, and doing cavity searches to people.

Why? Well, some drug traffickers (since Chas cited his daughter, we will use her for this example) are women, who stick the contraband in certain orifices, we should pull them off the road, have them stripped naked, force them to spread their legs, and check up inside them for drugs. Police should be allowed to probe until their hearts are content. After they are done doing this to Chas' daughter, they will let her go and it was only a minor inconvenience. No problem here. After all, it serves as a deterrent, and I am sure they will catch a few drug-runners. Since it catches the occaisional criminal, we must let it proceed.

/sarcasm off, common sense hat on


For those who may have forgotten, the BoR is not a listing of rights. It is designed to limit and restrict the governments ability to infringe upon our rights. They did not list every right we have, but IX was placed in their becuase they knew people had more rights than listed.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What this means, is that just because it isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it isn't a right. Example: You have the right to breathe. I do not believe the constitution anywhere mentioned anything similar to the following: "Breathing, being required for humans to survive, the right of the people to breathe and be well shall not be infringed." You do have a right to drive. You do not have a right to endanger other people. You do have a right to travel about the country freely, and you do have a right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and be secure in your effects. (If you read the IV, you will see the word effects. It means your property. Your car is your property.) IV also states:

Amendment IV

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.

Do note the bolded parts. Yanking a person off the roads, and searching the person for their papers, minus a warrant, is unconstitutional. Warrants may only be issues, under probable cause that is supported by oath or affirmation. A cop on the side of the road does not the right to legally (or morally, but that is a seperate issue) search you. The fact that he can, and will get away with it, is a sign that the courts and the system is not working properly.

 

[odysseus]

Art said:

Nobody's brought up WHY these checks are done: To give the Upstanding Citizens the idea that Something Is Being Done for their safety. It's mostly a PR deal. IOW, your parents, your neighbors, your friends have contributed to some sort of pressure on the local government and the police such that "Okay, we'll do something about all this drinking and driving!" Or the local paper has commented about the number of wrecks and/or fatalities from DUI/DWI events and the mayor jumps all over the police chief.

I think Art hit it on the nail. It's about perception and appearances.

This topic of check points comes up from time to time. The usual discussions seem to be the same, that they are stopping DUI's. However DUI's continue on and on, and we all know on a given evening if you really want to catch DUI's why don't they checkpoint then right out of the bar, club, or late night liquor stores?

The issue of a checkpoint for a "vehicle safety check" and "license check" is plain offensive to me though. I have not been through one of those, but I am sure if I do the department's PR person will certainly hear from me on the complete waste of it all. You ever had to wait 3 hours in traffic to go through a checkpoint? I have, and I had no choice since I needed to get on the freeway and got stuck in it with a +hundred others (in a big city).

Honestly these discussions will never find common ground because the discussion on either side is not talking about the same thing. On one hand you have those with the opinion (which I agree) that random checkpoints (not looking for a particular perp, kidnap, etc) are simply unconstitutional and an abuse of power, and the other side who don't care about that and think you are crazy for taking this stance because they stop DUI's.

However I don't see the difference so much with it just because I am in a car. I know it's a "priviledge" (I am paying the taxes though, right!?!) to drive, but they are not inspecting the car, they are inspecting me. So I don't see it too much further then if I were walking down a street and a LEO stops and asks me to show him my ID and everyone else on the street for their ID and if asks us if we are high on drugs and have any drugs on us, as a random check. Yet this may not be too far off for some here, and heck they will say it's for the common good and what have you got to worry about, right?

 

[Vex]

Do note the bolded parts. Yanking a person off the roads, and searching the person for their papers, minus a warrant, is unconstitutional. Warrants may only be issues, under probable cause that is supported by oath or affirmation. A cop on the side of the road does not the right to legally (or morally, but that is a seperate issue) search you. The fact that he can, and will get away with it, is a sign that the courts and the system is not working properly.

And what if, when you get your license, part of the paperwork you sign states that by operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway you agree to abide by the State's authority to pull you over and check for a driver's license to make sure you're a valid driver?



You're right that your car is your property, and it can't be searched at random anytime LEO thinks he wants to. There are other ways around that... such as the Terry stop, as outlined in Terry v. Ohio. If you want to know more about what this ability gives the police, let me know, I'd be happy to help.

I admire your enthusiasism on this topic. Know, though, that greater men than we have challenged the authority on these matters, and failed. The law is a very complicated thing, and there are loopholes that cover each other very well. Sobriety checkpoints would not be conducted if it was a violation of civil rights.

Here's an example: I'm driving around in the cruiser, randomly running license plates because the law says that I can, and when I run your car's plate, the computer tells me you have a suspended license. If the description of the car owner is the same or very similar as the person driving it, I have the authority to pull you over then and there to find out if you have a license. If you are driving without the license, and it is indeed suspended, then we have a problem.

Same example, a little different: I'm driving around in the cruiser, randomly running license plates because the law says that I can, and when I run your car's plate, the computer tells me you have a suspended license. I check the description of the driver. However, today you let your wife drive your car, which is also totally legal. I compare the description of the owner (you) with the description of the driver (your wife) and conclude they're completely different. I do not that the authority to pull your car over to see if your wife has a license.

However I don't see the difference so much with it just because I am in a car. I know it's a "priviledge" (I am paying the taxes though, right!?!) to drive, but they are not inspecting the car, they are inspecting me. So I don't see it too much further then if I were walking down a street and a LEO stops and asks me to show him my ID and everyone else on the street for their ID and if asks us if we are high on drugs and have any drugs on us, as a random check. Yet this may not be too far off for some here, and heck they will say it's for the common good and what have you got to worry about, right?

If you're walking down the street, minding your own business, and a cop stops you and says, "I want to see your ID, and I want to know if you have any drugs on you," then he's not breaking the law, because he's not forcing you to comply. He's merely asking a question. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER HIM. You could, quite frankly, lean over and very quietly say, "Hey pig, f**k off..." and there's not a darn thing he could do about it. Why? Because you're not breaking any laws, and if he arrests you, you've got a very nice false arrest lawsuit. One thing to point out: If you curse at him too loudly, and someone else hears it and is offended, then you're breaking a law. In Ohio it's called "Disorderly Conduct." If only the cop hears it, oh well... The supreme court ruled that cops are not allowed to be offended, and you telling him what to do is just an exercise in free speech.

Complicated, huh?

 

[Autolycus]

Vex

Not a problem.

Vex Wrote
Same example, a little different: I'm driving around in the cruiser, randomly running license plates because the law says that I can, and when I run your car's plate, the computer tells me you have a suspended license. I check the description of the driver. However, today you let your wife drive your car, which is also totally legal. I compare the description of the owner (you) with the description of the driver (your wife) and conclude they're completely different. I do not that the authority to pull your car over to see if your wife has a license.

Could you not say that you suspected the car was stolen by this woman and pulled her over to check as the description did not match the driver?

I am not sure exactly how you get the description but I imagine it gives hair and eye color, along with height and weight. So you just see a Red Headed woman driving a car and the owners wife happens to be red headed. You draw your conclusion that way I assume? (I am curious as to how this works.)

 

[SomeKid]

And what if, when you get your license, part of the paperwork you sign states that by operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway you agree to abide by the State's authority to pull you over and check for a driver's license to make sure you're a valid driver?

And what if, when you buy your next firearm, part of the paperwork you sign states that by purchasing that firearm and owning that firearm you agree to allow the government to search your home to ensure you have said firearm stored in an approved manner?

Oh, you don't want to comply with that because it sounds like an infringement upon your rights? Well, just don't buy a gun. Problem solved.

Here is what just happened, to exercise your rights the government forces you to give up another right. It is an infringement that is wrong any way you slice it.

There are other ways around that... such as the Terry stop, as outlined in Terry v. Ohio.

A way to infrigne without infringing. That is all Terry stops are. The fact that the courts have allowed this obvious violation of a persons rights to stand proves the courts are not filled with Constitutionalists or Originalists. (Yes, I know of Terry Stops, the Kid is well read. Allowing a cop to pat a person down, or search parts of his car, under the auspices of 'Officer Safety' is nothing more than one government agent (judge) protecting another, in this case a cop at the expense of our rights.)

Know, though, that greater men than we have challenged the authority on these matters, and failed. The law is a very complicated thing, and there are loopholes that cover each other very well. Sobriety checkpoints would not be conducted if it was a violation of civil rights.

By greater I will simply assume you mean richer and more powerful. The only reason they failed was because they fought the battle wrong. When judges rule against liberty, said jurists should be proptly impeached. The Judiciary is failing because they feel immune from the wrath of an angry and oppressed public. Laws are only complicated because people who do not care right them. As for loopholes, you are either free or you are an oppressed slave. No loopholes there. Bear in mind, Dred Scott was the law of the land, and accepted by the SCOTUS. Just becuse it is a violation of your God-given rights does not mean it won't be conducted.

Your first example involves an action that clearly violates the 4A. To force a person to stay (detainment is a violation of your right to freely travel, if a Policeman detains a person against their will, they must have an issued warrant allowing said person to be siezed) per the 4A a cop would need a warrant. No warrant, you should be able to drive off. Sound extreme? You bet it is. People have been conditioned that it is ok for Police to do things a commoner (you and me) would be jailed for. A second violation of the 4A, in the same instance is when the cop forces ID to be shown. If the person does not wish to show ID they have the right (currently infrigned upon pretty much everywhere) to not hand over any of their papers or effects without a warrant forcing them to. (This day in age, this should not be hard to do. Have a judge on call to fax warrants to the cop car. It will be expensive, but the good news is it will force cops to do less. Less government activity means more personal freedom.)

Complicated, huh?

Not at all. Freedom is just that, freedom. Sadly, people are conditioned to accept these odious and found infringements upon our Liberty.

 

[Vex]

Tecumseh,

The computer won't tell me what your wife looks likes.

In the above situation, I see a car owned and registered to you, and run the plates in the computer. The computer tells me that you, the owner of the vehicle, has a suspended license. So let's say the computer gives me a description of male white, 6'2" 240lbs, brown hair, green eyes, and the computer will even show me your driver's license picture (neat, huh?). However, the current driver of the car is a female white, 5'4" 120lbs, red hair, blue eyes. I can see through the window and clearly conclude that the driver of the vehicle is not the one listed as the owner. At this point, I do not have the authority to pull the car over to investigate. If it's a stolen car, it all depends on if you reported it stolen. If the car does not come back as stolen, the driver is not the same as the owner, then I do not have the probable cause to detain the driver.

If I'm really suspicious of the vehicle, then I could always follow the car for a few and see if there's anything that will warrant detainment, thus giving me an opportunity to find out more about the driver. If there's no suspicion of any foul play, then the car goes free, even though the owner does not have a license... because owning a car without owning a license isn't a crime.

Make sense?

And what if, when you buy your next firearm, part of the paperwork you sign states that by purchasing that firearm and owning that firearm you agree to allow the government to search your home to ensure you have said firearm stored in an approved manner?

Oh, you don't want to comply with that because it sounds like an infringement upon your rights? Well, just don't buy a gun. Problem solved.

Here is what just happened, to exercise your rights the government forces you to give up another right. It is an infringement that is wrong any way you slice it.

The best thing to do is read the papers before you sign them.

Anyway, I just want point out that you're assuming that operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway is a right. It's not. It's a privilege. Owning a firearm is a right. I know what point you're trying to make, but unfortunately it's not happening with this example, as they're two different scenarios.

 

[jeepmor]

Checkpoints ARE the start of a police state

Drunk checkpoints is an excuse to push the police state agenda. Nothing more. Drunks offer enough clues by their driving to be stopped with probable cause. Making people go through a checkpoint in America is reminiscient of the Nazi's. And supposedly Illinois is ahead of the curve on this issue. As is expected from the climate created by our current Republican Administration.

I don't really appreciate those that embrace a violation of personal privacy simply by making us all stop and show our licenses. This is the beginnings of a tyrannical society, not simply a checkpoint for drunks, drugs and thugs. This is merely a guise to legitimize their position. Smoke and mirrors is all. t
Think of 9/11 and how it was used to further an agenda simply by the use of fear. Same thing going on here in my opinion, one excuse used to cover another.

This activity will only drive those factions underground, making them more vigilant, and clandestine about their activities. History seems to be repeating itself. Didn't the English try to monitor the colonists a bit too much too. To the point that we CHOSE treason over oppression and started shooting at them.

Not a pretty picture, but Bush is getting us there. Isn't he the one who considered the Constitution just a "god damned piece of paper." No wonder his support numbers are so low.

Sorry, off topic, in a Bush mood tonight, but it fits with the way the big picture of our society is panning out. Freedom, what's that 39% tax? How's that freedom?

jeepmor

 

[odysseus]

Make sense?

Vex, how does this thread all relate to random checkpoints?

 

[SomeKid]

The best thing to do is read the papers before you sign them.

I did. I tried not to vomit as I was forced to either live in the woods on someone elses land (because with no transport I sure wasn't going to have a job and be able to pay government rent, AKA property taxes), or give up my 4A. A government that forces people to give up liberty and do things the governments way is a government run by tyrants.

Anyway, I just want point out that you're assuming that operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway is a right. It's not. It's a privilege. Owning a firearm is a right. I know what point you're trying to make, but unfortunately it's not happening with this example, as they're two different scenarios.

pub·lic Audio pronunciation of "public" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pblk)
adj.

1. Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people: the public good.
2. Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park.
3. Capitalized in shares of stock that can be traded on the open market: a public company.
4. Participated in or attended by the people or community: “Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion and public debate” (Hannah Arendt).
5. Connected with or acting on behalf of the people, community, or government: public office.
6. Enrolled in or attending a public school: transit passes for public students.
7. Open to the knowledge or judgment of all: a public scandal.


Publicly owned roads should mean anyone is free to use them without loosing their liberties. Driving on publicly owned roads IS a right, for two reasons. One, freedom of travel. Two, the people already own it.

 

[Vex]

Vex, how does this thread all relate to random checkpoints?

Heh... Conversation about the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints and similar forms of detainment.

Publicly owned roads should mean anyone is free to use them without loosing their liberties. Driving on publicly owned roads IS a right, for two reasons. One, freedom of travel. Two, the people already own it.

If what you say is true, then why do people bother getting a driver's license?

And supposedly Illinois is ahead of the curve on this issue. As is expected from the climate created by our current Republican Administration.

You're right. Next to Bush's hurricane machine that he used to control Katrina is a time machine that he used to go back to the 1950's so he could create sobriety checkpoints.

 

[SomeKid]

If what you say is true, then why do people bother getting a driver's license?

Protection Money. Same reason I got a Handgun Carry Permit. I do not need one, but by giving the thugs my money, I head off a problem I cannot yet win.

 

[Vex]

Dude, you're giving into the system. I'm disappointed in you. You gotta stand up. Make your stand. If you don't do it, who will?

Oh yeah, check this out. Lots of information, including some answers to how this is legal: http://statepatrol.ohio.gov/programs/SOBCH.HTML

 

[SomeKid]

Right Vex. I will get right on that. I won't try to educate people and get the entire country on my side. I will run out into the streets, burning my handgun carry permit and open-carrying. Then I will drive to DC (after burning my DL of course) and march into the White House, still open-carrying, and tell Bush he is in charge of a government that violates civil liberties and he needs to stop it immediatly. I bet the very next day we will live in a civil-rights Utopia.



Vex, you do know that is a link, to the OSP. When people post links to the bradycenter and cite them for reasons why guns are bad, people see the propoganda.

 

[Vex]

I won't fault you if you view it as propaganda. I'm merely asking for an open mind, and I just find that as an official site, it clearly defines some things that are being discussed here, such as legality of check points, judicial review, guidelines for the checkpoint, and a few sentences that are really important. Here's one. See if you can find the rest on that site....

On June 14, 1990, the United State Supreme Court reviewed and upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints as a valid enforcement tool if operated within guidelines.

The physical makeup of the checkpoint reflects the court's and our concern for the safety of everyone using the highways. Large, highly reflectorized signs are set on the side of the road well in advance of the actual checkpoint. Fully marked police vehicles are situated at these signs on the approach to the checkpoint. It is at this point where motorists who choose not to enter the checkpoint may turn around. A second "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead Sign" is placed at the beginning of the lane of traffic cones, fussees, and other devices that mark the boundaries of the checkpoint itself. The area is illuminated by portable lights, flares and the emergency lights of several police cars which are situated on the berm to provide additional protection for the zone.

Here's another link, this one includes a map of States which allow sobriety checkpoints and more information on the legality of such. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/SobrietyCheck/caselaw.html

Finally, here's one from drunkdrivinglawyers.com... probably more propaganda, but still: http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/sobriety-checkpoints.cfm

 

[SomeKid]

Vex, just because the SCOTUS says it is acceptable does not mean they are right.

See Dredd Scott, or Kelo for examples.

From the NHTSA website:

The U.S. Supreme Court decision held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint.

Assuming that is 100% true (which, in this case it probably is) what the SCOTUS said was that a violation of your rights was OK, because it is being done to make you safe. In other words, safety trumps freedom.

Now I know where Bill Clinton got the idea that "If it saves just one childs life" came from. (Quote from when he said something supporting gun-control. Someone on this forum probably has the full quote.)

 

[chas_martel]

Vex,

Your reply is expected and the reason why I said I should not even
discuss this topic. Your missing my whole point.

Here is another angle. What is worse, for one innocent to be put into
prision accidently or for several BG's to be let loose with no innocents
imprisioned? I think it would be better for a few BG's to be let
loose if it ensures not ONE innocent person is "troubled".

And please don't mistake me for a wack job leftist. I say fry
everyone that commits murder. I am not soft on crime, I am just
hardcore for observing "rights of innocent people."

This is a concept which the sheep have been indoctrinated
to not understand. IMO...........................

 

[TheEgg]

There are and have been apoligists for government misconduct in all countries and in all era's. Sad to see so many of them here, but I guess that is inevitable.

I think our form of government is the best the world has ever seen, and does an excellent job of maintaining just about the maximum liberty for the most people as possible in the real world.

That does not mean that I automatically think that the people who are employed by the government are automatically smarter, more ethical, or more stable than the population at large. They are the same.

Knowing that, eternal vigilance is necessary that we not lose our freedoms to those most likely to take them -- Ourselves.

So when many of us object to what we see as over-reaching by some government agency, such as the warrantless, mass 'safety' check points, we are NOT advocating anarchy, civil war, murder, or dogs living with cats. We are simply exercising what we think is required of good citizens -- oversight.

 

[Master Blaster]

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

Do they have a warrant and Probable cause?????
It doesnt say anything about fishing poles here does it, its quite clear.

Now if the POPO wanted to prevent drunks from driving. They know where all of the bars are its not a secret. So they set up right outside the bars parking lot and stop everyone coming out of the BAR, becuase then you see they would actually have a reason to suspect a drunk driver.

But they dont do that do they???????

And do you know why??????

Because the BAR owners would complain, and they have more clout than the average citizen.

Its clearly unconstitutional to stop everyone on a fishing expedition when you know perfectly well where your efforts need to be directed.

 

[answerguy]

To those who say that you have a right to use the roads because your tax money paid for them I say: Do you have the right to spend the night at the White House?

 

[Biker]

answerguy...

If I'm tight with the boys who run Diebold I do.
Biker