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

[firearms_instructor]

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

In a California 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]

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]

You dont have to drive to travel freely

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

 

[WonderNine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

heisthevoiceofreason

 

[Wildalaska]

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]

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]

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]

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.