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

[RWK]

Ellery . . .

The word “ESSENTIALLY†was intentionally used. It does not mean “UNIVERSALLY"; rather, it means “FUNDAMENTALLYâ€, “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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

those who proclaim their God Given Rights to drive their motor vehicles on the roadways of this land completely unregulated,

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

1984

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]

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]

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.