Dui checkpoints: How to proceed when the gistapo ask for your paperz

[InCognition]

Im not against stopping drunk drivers. I just don't think lining people up and visually profiling them and choosing people to check in that fashion, which is what checkpoints really are, is doing it "right".

You have to look at profiling from a realistic approach. The only reason it's conducted is because it works, and that is a fact, whether racially, sexually, visually, etc.

You can argue discrimination all day and all night, but if profiling did not work to any degree, it would not continue to this day.

That doesn't make profiling right, but in the circumstance of visually profiling drunks on a public road, it's beyond justified.

 

[Boyz N Da Hood]

Ur lucky if u live in a st where its deemed unconstitutional cuz they do them here all the time.. Shits ridiculous..

 

[InCognition]

Its unconstitutional because they do it without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “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.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped withoutreasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

It's been argued that these DUI checkpoint violate the 4th amendment over and over, yet I fail to see anywhere in the amendment where it mentions an individual's motor vehicle being operated on a public route of transportation.

Secondly, the 4th amendment states "there shall be no unreasonable searches". What are they searching? They are visually checking and profiling individuals in order to sense if one may be intoxicated. A cop doesn't need a warrant to visually profile you. A drunk is a drunk, and if you look like you're drunk, you're probably a drunk.

I fail to see what is "unreasonable" about running DUI checkpoints at very specific time frames and days. So how could a "search" (which they don't do unless you've given probable cause) be unreasonable if one is to consider a DUI checkpoint a "search". It's not a search.

Like I said before, it's essentially probable cause for anyone in a motor vehicle, past 6:00 pm to be intoxicated. There is even more probable cause on a Friday or Saturday. There are lots of idiots who DUI during these times. They don't randomly select any given time to run a checkpoint. They specifically target time frames and days to catch individuals who decide to DUI, because it works.

 

[InCognition]

EVERYONE in these check points is being stopped willy nilly. Driving down the road---BOOM--chech point! That's willy nilly. I do agree that driving is something you earn, and can lose just as readily. But many people don't agree with unwarranted stops like that are unconstitutional, and this countries government decided to leave decisions like this up to the state (checks and balances). It is pointless to debate if you think it's "okay" or not. Either become a politician and change some things or write a bill good enough to go all the way to the federal government convincing them to change the constitution so states don't have that right anymore. Which creates a whole new problem of the federal government having too much power. And I'm willing to bet you think the Feds already overstep their boundaries (ie pot is ferally illegal despite state laws.) with too much power.

Would you rather have checkpoints, or random cops pulling you over for suspicion of DUI? They are two very different procedures.

 

[UncleBuck]

" In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C. C. E. D. Pa. 1825) the right to travel interstate was grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. In concurring opinions in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, reliance was placed on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/shapiro.html

I tried to tell you I knew more about Civics than my high school teachers and got 99th percentile on the state test. Just because something isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, doesn't mean it's not part of constitutional law.

next time i get pulled over, i will refuse to hand the officer a driver's license and tell him i don't need one.

then i will explain to him that i am not driving, i am personally traveling.

i will top it all of by asserting that i am not driving a motor vehicle, but rather my personal property.

HIPPY. CRAP. just plain garbage. come back to reality, canna.

 

[InCognition]

The police have no right to stop you if you aren't violating any laws. The police have no right to demand a driver's license. You must only show a driver's license iff you are a driver and therefore have a contract with the dmv. Your instrument of travel, whether by foot, animal or mechanical locomotion, is a right and my not be deprived if for person use of traveling from point A to point B. A driver is a person of hire. A motor vehicle is a means of locomotion used by the driver. If your means of locomotion use id for personal travel, then you aren't a driver. If your means of personal travel is not a motor vehicle, which it isn't if you're not for hire, then your means of transportation is personal property. Your use of public roads is a right under the 5th amendment due process clause and the 14th amendment right to interstate travel.

Your argument is flawed.

The police don't know you're violating any laws, that is why they hold checkpoints... to discover who is violating what.

Why do you think police run checkpoints for valid motor vehicle inspections? They typically cannot tell with everyone around them, when someone has an invalid or past due inspection while driving through normal traffic. Some cops have auto-scanning cameras that pick it up for them, but that is not my point. People on the road who don't get their cars inspected can jeopardize the lives of those around them via irresponsibility.

With that said, do you think checkpoints for valid motor vehicle inspections are ludacris too? Whether you believe it or not, these inspection checkpoints are designed to promote safety and ultimately save lives, just like DUI checkpoints.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

next time i get pulled over, i will refuse to hand the officer a driver's license and tell him i don't need one.

then i will explain to him that i am not driving, i am personally traveling.

i will top it all of by asserting that i am not driving a motor vehicle, but rather my personal property.

HIPPY. CRAP. just plain garbage. come back to reality, canna.

Was it hippy crap when horse and buggies weren't regulated requiring a license? Without proper training you can cause damage with one. Now all of a sudden mechanical buggies get licensed?

 

[UncleBuck]

Was it hippy crap when horse and buggies weren't regulated requiring a license? Without proper training you can cause damage with one. Now all of a sudden mechanical buggies get licensed?

ah, yes. the old regressive horse and buggy argument. almost indefatigable.

 

[WIGGIM]

Yea but I don't think a horse and buggy is capable of the speeds or performance that mechanical buggies are capable of??? And if you think a DUI stop,where cops are stoping and checking everyone, to see if your sober is against your rights, don't drive it's just that simple, I believe it's been said a drivers license is not a right it is a privilege.

 

[unohu69]

Anyone who believe the state gives you privileges is a moron. drink your koolaid. pay your taxes, realize you are an owned slave. Its not my job to educate you on the matter. do your research.

Courts Rule Driving is a Right ​

The US Supreme Court, and other US courts have already ruled in the following cases that we all have the right to travel protected by the constitution:

“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.” -United States v. Guest, 383 US 475, 757, 86 S. Ct 1170 (1966)

“It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain (profit) is special and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.” - Stevenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 77 L.Ed. 288

“The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom.” - Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250, 254, 94 S. Ct. 1076, 1080 (1974)

“The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty.” - Worther v. Herter, 270 F.2d. 905, 908 (D.C. Cir 1959)

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of the exercise of consitutional rights.” - Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 948

“Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitution of the particular state; if it infringes upon provisions of either, it is so far void.” - Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1, 5 L.Ed. 19

“Void: Null; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.” - Hardison v. Gledhill, 72 Ga. App. 432, 33 S.E. 2d. 921, 924.

“The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom.” Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254

Driver’s licensing, as a method of conveniently keeping track of people is also prohibited by the following court ruling:

“ ...pure administrative convenience, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for an enactment which restricts the right to travel.” - Costa v. Bluegrass Turf Service, Inc. 406 F. Supp. 1007 (B.D. Ken. 1975)

The State of Maine does appear to be complying with the Supreme Court rulings, because it does not require human beings - the only entities who can have natural (granted by God) rights - to be licensed in order to travel, only businesses who use the road for profit or gain, which the Supreme court has ruled is O-K.
The State of Maine also allows any vehicle may be operated on a public roadway...” at 29-A §102.

Class D Crime to Interfere with Rights ​

Title 17 §§2931 - 2932 makes it a class D crime for any person (human being or organization) to:

“ ...by threat or threat of force, intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or intentionally attempt to injure, intimidate, interfere with or intentionally oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, secured to that person by the Constitution of Maine or laws of the State or by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.” - U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179 at 187; and has said of the courts:

“It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against stealthy encroachments by the State.” - Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616

It appears that police officers and judges who enforce driver’s licensing on private, non-commercial human beings are in direct violation of Title 17-A §2931 and are guilty of a class D crime. Please don’t fault the police officers, who are just doing “what the legislature tells them to do” or today’s legislators. They were all brought up in the same government-run education system as you were, which does not consider teaching the law as beneficial to the existence of unconstitutional mandates - especially ones that make a lot of money for the state. Maine is simply one example of how all of the states in the union have “duped” their citizenry into financing a system which exists only for the benefit of itself and to permit a centralized governing authority to track and trace the movements of all who have signed up. Driver’s licensing, itself, does not provide funds to repair and maintain roads. It exists merely for the purposes of existing. The driver’s licensing and vehicle registration scheme was originally designed by mid 19th century political thinker and Communist, Karl Marx. Marx notes Centralization of communication and transport in the hands of the state” in the 6th plank of his Communist Manifesto”



http://www.mainemediaresources.com/mpl_drivers license.htm#photodefense

 

[ultraviolet pirate]

re-hash of old shit. its illegal where folks have said fuck you, still going where they havent. cool. just dont dont expect shit to go for you like it did in the video.

 

[NLXSK1]

Traveling on the roads is a right.

Operating a motor vehicle on those roads is a privilege.

And if you think it is a unbridgeable right, then why is it illegal to walk along the side of the interstate's? Doest that violate your constitutional rights?

 

[unohu69]

if you agree your horseless carriage is actually motor vehicle. its all about the definitions of the words, if you dont know them, then you have no basis for argument.

Illegal and unlawful are two different things. our people actually believe they are the same thing, but once you look into it, youll realize. Statutes are code of conduct for a corporate entity. laws are a common ground ALL people throughout history have agreed upon, hence "common law"

 

[Sunbiz1]

ah, yes. the old regressive horse and buggy argument. almost indefatigable.

The horse and buggy argument has a bit more merit than you might think. I could cite case law ALL day long showing driving is an inherent right.

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:​

​

​

CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.​

​

​

CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.​

​

​

CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.​

​

​

CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
​

​

​

 

[WIGGIM]

So if it's a right, why do you have a drivers license? Or register your automobile?

 

[unohu69]

from a purely "Time is Money" standpoint. the average trafic stop is at least 15 min long, if you start in on the whole "im a sovereign" thing, well, it will be considerably longer.

So.. estimate you will be pulled over at least 3 times a day if you have no "Tax Stamp" on your car (license plate for you normals out there)

thats a min of 45 min a day, times average 30 days in a month... 22 1/2 hrs a month dealing with police. Then the added court time in there the next month, assuming your not in jail the whole time.

now figure in your 35$ license fee, then registration, (iv only owned used cars, never paid more than 150$ for registration, 12 for inspection sticker..) round up to 200$ for math purposes...

So for a measly $200.00, and Giving up certain rights, you can have a small bit of piece of mind that you wont be pulled over and shot.


Shit, this happens even to licensed drivers.

I guess the real question is, Why do YOU bother to get a license, and pay your fees?

 

[Sunbiz1]

So if it's a right, why do you have a drivers license? Or register your automobile?

I don't, allowed my license to expire 3 years ago...along with tags on 2 vehicles regularly driven.

I keep waiting for a ticket to challenge, local law enforcement doesn't wish to write me one.

 

[UncleBuck]

driving is a right. no one should have to take a test to determine if their vision is suitable for driving, or if they are even mentally competent to operate an automobile. that shit is for pussies!

i want to share the road with anyone who THINKS they are able to drive, because, ya know, it is their right. mental retardation be damned!

in case any of the mentally-retarded people on this thread think i am serious, let me assure you i am not. i am just being facetious.

driving is not a right. rights end where they interfere with other rights. my right to swing my fist ends at your face. your "right to drive" an automobile ends where it may cause a hazard to my right not to be killed in car accident by a blind or retarded driver or someone operating an unsafe automobile.

to determine who these people are, there is a licensing agency established which has to be funded.

that's why you have to pay to get a license and register your vehicle, not because of some retarded "time is money" argument that is composed of more hypotheticals than previously imaginable.

 

[Sunbiz1]

driving is a right. no one should have to take a test to determine if their vision is suitable for driving, or if they are even mentally competent to operate an automobile. that shit is for pussies!

i want to share the road with anyone who THINKS they are able to drive, because, ya know, it is their right. mental retardation be damned!

in case any of the mentally-retarded people on this thread think i am serious, let me assure you i am not. i am just being facetious.

driving is not a right. rights end where they interfere with other rights. my right to swing my fist ends at your face. your "right to drive" an automobile ends where it may cause a hazard to my right not to be killed in car accident by a blind or retarded driver or someone operating an unsafe automobile.

to determine who these people are, there is a licensing agency established which has to be funded.

that's why you have to pay to get a license and register your vehicle, not because of some retarded "time is money" argument that is composed of more hypotheticals than previously imaginable.

And I'll bet you support mandatory insurance laws as well, the insurance industry has for decades. In the same way pharmaceutical companies have manipulated Federal law.

Our last 2 governors have been convicted of misappropriating tax dollars, one of them was secretary of state here...the department that rules the roads.

Now go run for office.. ya patsy bitch.

 

[NLXSK1]

And I'll bet you support mandatory insurance laws as well, the insurance industry has for decades. In the same way pharmaceutical companies have manipulated Federal law.

Our last 2 governors have been convicted of misappropriating tax dollars, one of them was secretary of state here...the department that rules the roads.

Now go run for office.. ya patsy bitch.

Mandatory insurance protects the property and medical needs of people you injure or property you damage. As such it is a legitimate requirement for you to operate a 2000 pound vehicle moving at 60+ miles per hour.

Medical insurance is something completely different.