beardo
Well-Known Member
Anyone think it strange to pay someone to impede your right to travel, block the routes of travel you pay to maintain and question and search you?
Dui checkpoints: How to proceed when the gistapo ask for your paperz
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
your paying them to do something about the drunk drivers that can:
block the routes you travel(ever been stuck behind an accident?)
destroy the roads (crashes and fires dont do roads and bridges much good)
completely destroy your need for rights (i guess the right to get driven to cemetery would be useful)
beardo
Well-Known Member
We need laws against and check points for cell phone owners and old and young drivers as well as those with food in the vehicle and people with medical conditions. Make up users should also be prevented from driving on public roadways, These measures should be taken to make us all safer as the groups I have mentioned cause a disproportionate amount of accidents and fatalities.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
havent you got laws yet for cell phones? we have them here and some of the speed camera's are able to see if you on phone or not
i'm pretty sure even in the usa there are some conditions that the doctors are obliged to inform the dmv
dont young drivers get hit with higher insurance rates and get pulled more often by the police?
make up users and people eating fat arsed burgers and such over here come under "driving without due care and attention"
i'd be surprised if you had none of those over there
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
No such thing as "driving without due care and attention" here that i know of.
You can use the cell phone without concern.
You can use the cell phone without concern.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
they've got nothing to ticket you with if they see you say reading a news paper, doing speed limit in heavy traffic?
TheDemocrat
Active Member
tennessee is going to start using motorcycle checkpoints just like dui checkpoints.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
People are driving around wearing headphones and cops dont do nothing
unohu69
Well-Known Member
Im almost sure I saw a report somewhere that somewhere around 30% of ALL accidents are caused by being distracted by someone on the sidewalk. iE: checkn out a cute girl or guy.
So we need to make a statute... awww fuck it, theres no sense in talking to 50% of you people, your completely content in the idea that you can tell someone else how to act and conduct themselves, simply because its in your best interest.
to the rest of you, just have a good laugh at them. bout all you really can do anymore, tell them they are being dicksa and your likely to get involved in a lawsuit cuz you hurt their feelings. I dont remember feelings being mentioned in the constitution, declaration, or the articles...
So we need to make a statute... awww fuck it, theres no sense in talking to 50% of you people, your completely content in the idea that you can tell someone else how to act and conduct themselves, simply because its in your best interest.
to the rest of you, just have a good laugh at them. bout all you really can do anymore, tell them they are being dicksa and your likely to get involved in a lawsuit cuz you hurt their feelings. I dont remember feelings being mentioned in the constitution, declaration, or the articles...
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
They dont actually impede your travel unless you or the vehicle are dangerous or improperly licensed. How can they ever determine that if they were not allowed to stop and question you?
eyesky
Active Member
To hit the crotch rocket/stunter crowd or just cops on bikes hitting up the cagers?
They can stop you for 15 minutes, stopping is not traveling, they are impeding a public motorway. How can they determine whether or not you are a pot smoker unless they come to your home and search for pot?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you ever going to discuss the constitutionality/legality of DUI checkpoints?
you're like a petulant child.
Cali chronic
Well-Known Member
We used to joke as kids 20 years back about having to leave Urine samples in a jar on your porch every morning to be collected and tested. Those who do not comply will have their door kicked in and be arrested or shot. LOL Not so far off ehhh? Maybe another 25 years of American Gestapo??
Cali chronic
Well-Known Member
Our resources could be better used for Welfare Fraud...you know the guy with the new truck, or goes out to dinner on his dime and is housed and eats on your dime. Or have check points in the supermarket, for those abusing the express check out lines LOL!
On a positive note, in Long Beach yesterday one ICE agent Killed another.....One more good cop.
On a positive note, in Long Beach yesterday one ICE agent Killed another.....One more good cop.
unohu69
Well-Known Member
If you can see there are differences in, Constitutionality & Lawful, and Legal.
the absolute "RIGHT" to move about on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.
If you have signed a MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENSE, then you are pretty much screwed, The judge will tell you its a Liability claim. If you didnt have your seatbelt on, pay up buddy. tire pressure to low, pay up buddy, someone is offended by the color of your car, pay up buddy.
If you know for a fact that you DO NOT need a License or registration, well Good Luck to you in court, your gonna need it. I give you a 10% chance of getting the courts to let you go. and I feel your pain dude.
Now more facts:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/ISSMVD.pdf
Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
A roadblock established to intercept drivers carrying drugs was
unreasonable and violated the 4th amendment. The purpose behind a
roadblock is critical to its legality. The roadblock in this case
was not intended to protect highway safety, but to apprehend drug
offenders. The roadblock would have been legal if it had been
intended to discover violations of traffic laws, and was not a
pretext for drug enforcement. Stopping a vehicle at a roadblock is a
seizure within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
U.S. v. Drayton, ___ U.S.___, 70 U.S.L.W. 4553 (June 2002)
In a random search of bus passengers, officers may ask for
consent to search luggage. Consent is valid if a reasonable
person would feel free to decline the request to search and
terminate the encounter with the officer. Police officers are
not required to advise persons that they can refuse to consent
to a search.
State v. Williams, __ Wis. 2d ___, 2002 WI 94 (July 2002).
A consent search is valid if the person who consented to the
search was legally detained and was free to go. This was a
vehicle search. The stop was initially justified because of a
speeding violation, a warning was issued and the driver was
told he was free to go before asking for consent to search.
Applied U.S. v. Drayton.
Drug-sniffing dogs can be used without a warrant, and without probable
cause or reasonable suspicion. This is because the use of a trained dog,
in a public place for a reasonable amount of time, is not a search under
the 4th Amendment.
U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).
Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999).
Michigan Dent. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
Roadblocks and vehicle checkpoints are constitutional. Description
of requirements for valid roadblocks.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
Roadblocks designed to intercept illegal aliens found to be
constitutional.
Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 1462 (2000).
Bus validly stopped at Border Patrol checkpoint. But agent~s search
of luggage by manipulation and sgueezing was unreasonable.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/DrivLicVRightToTravel.htm
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/TravelAsARight.htm
[video=youtube;ILqc0DMh84k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqc0DMh84k[/video]
the absolute "RIGHT" to move about on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.
- 25.1 Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren "RIGHT." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. (Emphasis added). See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/TravelAsARight.htm
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/RightToTravel.htm
If you have signed a MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENSE, then you are pretty much screwed, The judge will tell you its a Liability claim. If you didnt have your seatbelt on, pay up buddy. tire pressure to low, pay up buddy, someone is offended by the color of your car, pay up buddy.
If you know for a fact that you DO NOT need a License or registration, well Good Luck to you in court, your gonna need it. I give you a 10% chance of getting the courts to let you go. and I feel your pain dude.
Now more facts:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/ISSMVD.pdf
Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
A roadblock established to intercept drivers carrying drugs was
unreasonable and violated the 4th amendment. The purpose behind a
roadblock is critical to its legality. The roadblock in this case
was not intended to protect highway safety, but to apprehend drug
offenders. The roadblock would have been legal if it had been
intended to discover violations of traffic laws, and was not a
pretext for drug enforcement. Stopping a vehicle at a roadblock is a
seizure within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
U.S. v. Drayton, ___ U.S.___, 70 U.S.L.W. 4553 (June 2002)
In a random search of bus passengers, officers may ask for
consent to search luggage. Consent is valid if a reasonable
person would feel free to decline the request to search and
terminate the encounter with the officer. Police officers are
not required to advise persons that they can refuse to consent
to a search.
State v. Williams, __ Wis. 2d ___, 2002 WI 94 (July 2002).
A consent search is valid if the person who consented to the
search was legally detained and was free to go. This was a
vehicle search. The stop was initially justified because of a
speeding violation, a warning was issued and the driver was
told he was free to go before asking for consent to search.
Applied U.S. v. Drayton.
Drug-sniffing dogs can be used without a warrant, and without probable
cause or reasonable suspicion. This is because the use of a trained dog,
in a public place for a reasonable amount of time, is not a search under
the 4th Amendment.
U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).
Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999).
Michigan Dent. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
Roadblocks and vehicle checkpoints are constitutional. Description
of requirements for valid roadblocks.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
Roadblocks designed to intercept illegal aliens found to be
constitutional.
Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 1462 (2000).
Bus validly stopped at Border Patrol checkpoint. But agent~s search
of luggage by manipulation and sgueezing was unreasonable.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/DrivLicVRightToTravel.htm
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/TravelAsARight.htm
[video=youtube;ILqc0DMh84k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqc0DMh84k[/video]
You should stop trying.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
stop trying to get you to talk about the OP?
probably. you seem happier to discuss cleaning supplies at walmart rather than DUI checkpoints.
deprave
New Member
It seems to me the constitutionality has been discussed quite thoroughly, what is it you are looking for UncleBuck?
I would like to hear some argue that checkpoints protect people or save lives with some actual data and or proof. The simple truth is that batman is not out there saving lives and you guys are on another planet if you think police are out there protecting people from drunk drivers, they just aren't, they can't, and they never will because they do not have super human powers.
I would like to hear some argue that checkpoints protect people or save lives with some actual data and or proof. The simple truth is that batman is not out there saving lives and you guys are on another planet if you think police are out there protecting people from drunk drivers, they just aren't, they can't, and they never will because they do not have super human powers.