We have enough of this sh*t from the acting-POTUS -- neither he nor ANY other Public Official need help in "re-interpreting" YOUR Bill of Rights! Please do not enable them!!
The Bill of Rights is about INDIVIDUAL rights -- not that of the "collective".
Are you yelling at us or agreeing with this gentlemen who took a stand? You just never know these days..:)
Opps sorry it took me to your post, question answered. Thumbs up to you BP2...there are alot of people on FR believe it or not that don’t get this!! Thank you.
Right now I’m freaking over the BRAND NEW strain of Swine Flu and how this crisis will be used or abused and blown up to take more away from us. My brain hurts and is not functioning properly...LOL.
1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 556-564.I'll comment upon the parts I underlined.(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well-disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 556-557.
(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving-patrol stops. Pp. 557-560.
(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 560-562.
It would be nice to see the law that authorizes these stops. Not to be flippant but he decision only says that they may question you and not that you have to answer, and not that you are required to provide identification.
Whoever wrote this decision isn't a very good writer. The first paragraph says these stops are "consistent" with the fourth Amendment. The third paragraph calls them an "intrusion on the fourth Amendment, and then the fourth paragraph effectively says the fourth Amendment is irrelevant if some public interest outweighs it. These statements are not mutually consistent.
The decision clearly states that the only purpose of the stops is to look for illegal aliens, plural. No search is authorized. The BP guys could clearly see that he was the only one in the car, and their dog undoubted is or could be trained to detect whether people are hidden in the trunk or not, so I would say that this decision gave the BP no cause to stop him longer than to look in and at his car.
ML/NJ