Posted on 05/08/2011 11:43:24 PM PDT by Winstons Julia
The two men inside, Angel Naverrete and Daniel Alfaro, videotaped and narrated the entire exchange. The video will be at the center of a trial that will take place this summer.
During the traffic stop, which took place in February, the two men can be heard repeatedly asking the officer, who gave several warnings before eventually breaking the window, for his name and badge number.
FYI, even the ACLU agrees that the production of a DL is required at a sobriety checkpoint
ROADBLOCKS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACLU of Arkansas
Updated June, 2009
Law enforcement officials are allowed to use roadblocks for specific, limited purposes. Whether a roadblock is legal depends on the facts of that roadblock. The legality of the
roadblock depends on the primary purpose of the roadblock. If a roadblock’s primary purpose is general crime control (such as searching for illegal drugs), the roadblock
would generally violate the Fourth Amendment because general crime control is not a valid primary purpose. However, ensuring road safety is a valid primary purpose, so
roadblocks with that goal may be lawful. Sobriety checkpoints and checkpoints to verify drivers’ licenses and vehicle registrations are two examples of roadblocks motivated by road safety, so those two types of checkpoints have a valid primary purpose. If a roadblock is operated to seek information from local motorists about a recent crime or to prevent an imminently threatened crime (for example, to prevent a terrorist attack about which law enforcement has been warned), these would also be valid primary purposes.
If the roadblock has a valid primary purpose, detention of motorists may still be unlawful if the circumstances fail a three part test. The test looks at the seriousness of the public concern being addressed by the roadblock, the
ffectiveness of the roadblock in addressing that public concern, and the severity of the interference with idividual liberty during the stops. The severity of the interference with individual liberty is measured two
ways: objectively (looking at the duration of the seizure and the intensity of the investigation); and subjectively (looking at the fear and surprise felt by law-abiding
motorists at the prospect of being stopped at a roadblock). For sobriety checkpoints, for example, courts have generally said that deterring drunk driving is a very serious public concern, and that removing even a few drunk drivers from the road makes the roadblock an effective way of addressing the problem. Moreover, sobriety checkpoints usually require less than a minute of individualized attention per car, and if all cars are receiving equal attention, courts assume that law-abiding citizens would not feel afraid or surprised once it is their turn to speak to the officers at the roadblock.
Yeah - as I was typing it and thinking of the costs, time delay, etc. I started wondering. I don’t know how it works - perhaps he could have lost his rig license if he had multiple infractions? And this would have happened 30 years ago or more by now.
I was just telling my son who is about to get his license that it is always “Yes, sir. No sir” to the cops.
I learned that the hard way at the age of 17! Small town cops trying to either act tough, or just put some fear into a punk kid. (Was processed to spend the night in jail for a traffic violation, and couldn’t pay the fine in spite of my AAA card.)
Until the county sheriff came in with his hat, jean jacket and cowboy boots, and caring a stiletto “that I took off of the Anderson boys”. He looked over at me and my buddy and asked what we were in for and I told him, as I’m looking at the fine-print on my AAA card figuring out why the cops wouldn’t accept it.
He grabbed the card out of my hands and stormed over to the desk. “Damn it Frank, you know damn well you can take this. Now process it and get these kids out of here!”
If I had just kept my mouth shut I would have just gotten the ticket. But being a smart-alec gave me a lot of extra grief.
My father told me when I was a young gal, Never argue with the man that has the gun.......he was a mounted police officer in Detroit...As a teen in the 1950’s, we were hassled by cops a lot....the guys having glass pack or steel pack mufflers gave them reason to stop teens...uncessive noise....As a gal in a full car of gals and guys I as a passenger was asked a lot to please get out of the car. Everyone said “Yes Sir” they checked the car and let us go....No one gave lip and no one ever had a problem with agressive cops... But that was 1950’s.
Oh good. Holder will take care of this...../s
Shocking how many Freepers who claim to love liberty and the constitution are all to eager to applaud and embrace the police state, I dunno if it’s because they want it or are just too stupid to realize what they are asking for...
Thanks for citing that document.
I’m not armed with any supporting references to backup my thoughts on this, so I guess the statists win this round.
That doesn't make them right or even Constitutional, despite the incorrectly decided legal cases to the contrary.
With that reasoning, warrantless searches of your house could be a fact of life because people grow pot. Warrantless wiretapping of your phone could be a fact of life because people do X. Nation-wide gun bans could be a fact of life because people do X. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point.
People will always have some issue that they feel is SO important that it must be dealt with by extra-Constitutional means.
That said, these two particular protester were idiots.
This is a great case to debate. But I’m to burnt out to deal with it now. BTW, there’s an appeal to statism because it gives the impression it’s solving the immigration problem perhaps in a case like this.
The slope isn’t as slippery as you think.
In Texas I was on a road and had to pull into a manditory checkpoint for immigration.
Driving drunk is more of a danger than driving hispanic.
If a police state comes, it will be at the hands of people like you. Organized belligerent resistance to lawful commands by executors of the law will only result in more laws, which means more power. Simply stated, power is directly proportional to resistance, and liberty is inversely proportional to power. So go ahead, cheer these guys on and push back all you want, because it's going to be the next guy, or the next generation that feels the momentum of your belligerence.
There's a simple lesson to be learned from stories like that posted by "goatgranny" in #23. I'm not very confident though that you either recognize it, or understand it.
If you have ever had a teenage maggot spit in your face and take a swing at you, understanding the jaded nature of many LEO’s today is simple.
This country is blessed by the character of local LEO Personnel, tho few understand this reality. Sometimes they may feel the need to kick your butt... They rarely do so without reason.
Actually, driving IS a right!
Do you deny that the freedom to travel is right too?
Unless you are trapped in a major metropolis Driving is the only practical means of travel.
It is also most likely the only way out if you are trapped in a metropolis!
Just because Gov. Org. has claimed driving to be a privilege for several decades does not mean they are correct.
RThey claimed the Second Amendment was not an individual right too, my dictionaries still back that claim.
SCOTUS finally (mostly, but chickened out and stopped short of the full truth) corrected that fallacy.
Gov. Org. always want more power and control, by claiming your freedom of movement as a privilege that they grant you they get both!
So you think all illegals are hispanic?
LOL!
I’ve met or worked with them from every continent!
I viewed that video and the more it went on the more I was hoping for a happy ending.....there wasn’t one though darn it!!!!! (’Idiots’ is right and I can think of a lot of other names that fit those 2 T.E.I.B’s also).
Shocking how many Freepers who claim to love liberty and the constitution are all to eager to applaud and embrace the police state, I dunno if it’s because they want it or are just too stupid to realize what they are asking for...
I always find it funny that people who are guilty are the ones that have problems with the cops. Really stopping at a sobriety check point, handing over your driver’s license and registration takes a few seconds. It is always the folks who have something to hid who have the problems. Regular folks have no problem with this.
But I have more faith in the military than police and thats hard for me to say as my father was a cop. Walked a beat for 2 years and then went on the mounted division...saw his action in labor riots in detroit during the 30's and 40's. But in those days nothing broke up a riot quicker than a line of mounted cops, galloping horses and men swinging billy clubs to break up riots. People died during those times and it was not the cops doing the killing. Union organizers were even worse then than they are today...
There is a thing called civil order. I give not a spit for a police state.
You will be screaming to high heaven for the national guard when you and yours fail to prevent some parties assuming control over your free bumm.
I know this to be fact that shall soon reconcile with reality. It will not be as nice as many would like to believe. You can have your gun, it is the balls required to use it that determines value. Some people are not as nice as others, and tend to be vindictive creatures who have lost compassion and tolerance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.