Bill of rights

[tvc184]

SCOTUS ruling that DUI checkpoints are NOT A violation of the 4th amendment, appears to have been upheld as far back as 1990. Seeing all of the people on here claiming that its totally fine and acceptable because "if it saves one life", yet the same logic is placed on weapons and magazines, and the same people cry foul. Toss in if you havent done anything wrong, why would you fight the questioning or let guys like you search their vehicle when they havent done anything wrong? you can't have it both ways.

When can officers search a vehicle at a DWI checkpoint?

In Michigan v. Sitz the court showed that the average stop for a vehicle was 25 seconds. It was just long enough to show a driver's license and ask the person if he had been drinking, which he isn't require to answer or tell the truth. At 25 seconds or less per stop, I don't think the cops are searching any vehicles nor do they have any lawful authority to do so, even under Sitz.

[Mac...]

I don't think any laws that infringe on our rights are ok!
Patriot Act, HR 347, NDAA are all unconstitutional and as long as I have my 2nd amendment rights, and even after they're gone, I'll say and do what I can to protect my home and family til the death if need be to preserve our other rights as well.

[Tommyh]

When can officers search a vehicle at a DWI checkpoint?

In Michigan v. Sitz the court showed that the average stop for a vehicle was 25 seconds. It was just long enough to show a driver's license and ask the person if he had been drinking, which he isn't require to answer or tell the truth. At 25 seconds or less per stop, I don't think the cops are searching any vehicles nor do they have any lawful authority to do so, even under Sitz.

Understood, but you dare question authority, and you see the end result as in the video. Whether it was a staged event by the videographer or not, he asked questions, was **** near pulled out of his vehicle, and had his vehicle searched. The cop wouldnt even answer his questions for whatever reasons. You yourself have stated that probable cause is all that is needed to search a vehicle. The LEO here might as well have said "i smell marijuana" instead of "pull over there and get out of your vehicle". What right does a citizen have to stop a cop once hes decided hes going to search your vehicle?

[Smell the Glove]

Understood, but you dare question authority, and you see the end result as in the video. Whether it was a staged event by the videographer or not, he asked questions, was **** near pulled out of his vehicle, and had his vehicle searched. The cop wouldnt even answer his questions for whatever reasons. You yourself have stated that probable cause is all that is needed to search a vehicle. The LEO here might as well have said "i smell marijuana" instead of "pull over there and get out of your vehicle". What right does a citizen have to stop a cop once hes decided hes going to search your vehicle?

Totally agree. The reactions I read to that video are disturbing. You are given a set of rules. Someone else is given a set of rules. The other person breaks their rules, but you stand by your rules. Because you didn't let the other person break their rules and you followed the rules set out for you, you are the one deemed "confrontational". Right...

Also, unrelated but on your original topic of overreach. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/“why...ut_of_control/

[Daniel75]

Understood, but you dare question authority, and you see the end result as in the video. Whether it was a staged event by the videographer or not, he asked questions, was **** near pulled out of his vehicle, and had his vehicle searched. The cop wouldnt even answer his questions for whatever reasons. You yourself have stated that probable cause is all that is needed to search a vehicle. The LEO here might as well have said "i smell marijuana" instead of "pull over there and get out of your vehicle". What right does a citizen have to stop a cop once hes decided hes going to search your vehicle?

As he's stated a MILLION times, the time for that is in the courts, not on the side of the road. If an officer violates your civil rights and you can prove it, action can and will be taken.

[Smell the Glove]

As he's stated a MILLION times, the time for that is in the courts, not on the side of the road. If an officer violates your civil rights and you can prove it, action can and will be taken.

And in this case, if this guy's car had been loaded with meth, weed or any other drug most lawyers who have commented on this video say they could get the case thrown out. So not going by the book costs us all.

[Tommyh]

Totally agree. The reactions I read to that video are disturbing. You are given a set of rules. Someone else is given a set of rules. The other person breaks their rules, but you stand by your rules. Because you didn't let the other person break their rules and you followed the rules set out for you, you are the one deemed "confrontational". Right...

Also, unrelated but on your original topic of overreach. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/“why...ut_of_control/

Does this make me liberal or libertarian that i agree with you?

[Daniel75]

And in this case, if this guy's car had been loaded with meth, weed or any other drug most lawyers who have commented on this video say they could get the case thrown out. So not going by the book costs us all.

That's true, it was affirmed in Wong Sun vs US, in the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Basically, any evidence found without probable cause to search, is inadmissable in court.

[Smell the Glove]

Does this make me liberal or libertarian that i agree with you?

Haha...just American. Terrifying isn't it.

[Tommyh]

As he's stated a MILLION times, the time for that is in the courts, not on the side of the road. If an officer violates your civil rights and you can prove it, action can and will be taken.

Ive been on a few juries in my time. The officer is almost always believed except when a minority is involved. The good people on this board agree with you, in that leo is the ultimate authority come hell or high water, and to question their actions or motives is unconscionable.

Playing your scenario out, how long does it take to even have te officer investigated, trial docket created, cases heard, appeals filed, and should it go all the way to the SCOTUS.....? Meanwhile joe citizen has to prove his innocence the whole time because his arrest record stands strong until its expunged. Exeryone believes the cop.

[Tommyh]

That's true, it was affirmed in Wong Sun vs US, in the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Basically, any evidence found without probable cause to search, is inadmissable in court.

I smell marijuana at a sobriety checkpoint"

[Daniel75]

Ive been on a few juries in my time. The officer is almost always believed except when a minority is involved. The good people on this board agree with you, in that leo is the ultimate authority come hell or high water, and to question their actions or motives is unconscionable.

Playing your scenario out, how long does it take to even have te officer investigated, trial docket created, cases heard, appeals filed, and should it go all the way to the SCOTUS.....? Meanwhile joe citizen has to prove his innocence the whole time because his arrest record stands strong until its expunged. Exeryone believes the cop.

The burden of proof is on the state (DA) to prove guilt, NOT on the defendant to prove innocence. There's nothing wrong with questioning authority, but there's a time and a place

As far as a time frame, I guess no longer than any other kind of case.

[Smell the Glove]

There's nothing wrong with questioning authority, but there's a time and a place
.

I believe the cops learned that in this instance.

[marshrat]

As he's stated a MILLION times, the time for that is in the courts, not on the side of the road. If an officer violates your civil rights and you can prove it, action can and will be taken.

And how do you PROVE it? When has any average knucklehead off the street been able to contest the word of a cop? Only in the most egregious situations or through a usually illegal video. If I am not mistaken, you cannot film law enforcement on the job or film them interacting with you. I could be mistaken, though. I could argue until I'm blue in the face about anything, but in the end, their word is upheld and mine is meaningless.

Easy to say wait for the courts. Who will fight it? Am I going to take a case to the courts when I'm just trying to make ends meet? In the end, the average guy takes it, and LE knows that this is the case. Boundaries are pushed until someone stands up or has the time and money to fight in court. The only people that I know have who would say that the time and place is "not the side of the road" is LE. That is because they dictate the time and place unless you have the power or privilege to fight it.

[Daniel75]

And how do you PROVE it? When has any average knucklehead off the street been able to contest the word of a cop? Only in the most egregious situations or through a usually illegal video. If I am not mistaken, you cannot film law enforcement on the job or film them interacting with you. I could be mistaken, though. I could argue until I'm blue in the face about anything, but in the end, their word is upheld and mine is meaningless.

Easy to say wait for the courts. Who will fight it? Am I going to take a case to the courts when I'm just trying to make ends meet? In the end, the average guy takes it, and LE knows that this is the case. Boundaries are pushed until someone stands up or has the time and money to fight in court. The only people that I know have who would say that the time and place is "not the side of the road" is LE. That is because they dictate the time and place unless you have the power or privilege to fight it.

It's not illegal to film police.

I lost a public intoxication case one time, that guy beat the rap. You can win against the police in court.