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.
Yeah. Pity they couldn't just give the victims a helo ride to a trauma unit. Oh wait. There's a reason doctors were called 'sawbones' back then... before antibiotics.
It probably has more to the fact that after 24 years in the military and getting stopped constantly going through the gate for breathalizers; urinalysis; getting our cars inspected; and many other things, I find civilians b!tch about everything. To us here, it really is no big deal.
Forget it, never mind......
Yes, but you’re not getting the root cause of the problem here. It’s not that fact that these two punks were douchebags to the cops it’s the fact that checkpoints should be unlawful to begin with.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Fine, you want to make a Constitutional argument, then go for it. If you can't do that, then saying they're unlawful, in principle, doesn't mean anything.
Liberty and Morality are superior to Law. And the source of Good is NOT Government. And the reverse of that applies, too.
You've learned well. The others, I speak to in language they are used to.
Geeze, you want me to look up all of the case law that I have read which argues for and against? You will have to wait on that. I won’t post what I know from memory and bullshit the rest.
You folks should read and understand this bit of information before making your comments. This was a focused effort made by people working for a group whose intentions are undermining the sovereignty of the United States of America.
If yo have a problem with the officers and their conduct, which looks fine to me based on the video presented, then you are supporting those who wish to destroy the U.S.A. as we envision it here on Free Republic.
No
I don't want an argument, I want a proof. You already made your argument that sobriety checkpoints should be unlawful. Now I want a proof that certifies it.
It's your argument, not mine.
I was LE in NH, no badge number but did have a name Tag
I am former LE and would not consent to a vehicle search on principle. Why? Because they won’t put your stuff back, they need a warrant, and to get that they need PC and not consenting, is not PC.
The officers involved had to have known this was a set up. But, given their direction, what choices do they have?
The problems with sobriety checkpoints as I remember are they don’t require a reason for a “stop” and the results are more than just checking for sobriety. In California they used to check for wants and warrants, expired registration and even proof of insurance. I don’t know if things are different now, but it seemed to me a great way to generate revenue and catch those guilty of drinking and driving.
I don’t like that a group has possibly found a way to set up police for financial compensation and I also certainly don’t favor the ignoring of our immigration laws. But, these checkpoints are an overreach for police (IMO) and I’m troubled by them.
My opinion is of one who has numerous law enforcement family members and having nothing to hide, FWIW.
The case law requires sufficient notice on both sides of the non-checkpoint to allow motorists to safely and lawfully avoid the non-checkpoint.
The more interesting issue is when the motorist must travel through the non-checkpoint to reach their desitination. For that motorist the decision to travel through is not truly voluntary.
What does this have to do with the accrimonious arguments between the statists and the libertarians on this thread?
These non-checkpoints are basically an accosting (check your case law) since there is no PC or RS to stop the vehicles. Therefore, as in any accosting, the citizen has no obligation to submit to the accosting and can walk/drive away at any time.
Eventually the Courts will correct the legal fiction of these non-checkpoint checkpoints and the argument will go away.
And I still consider myself law enforcement even though the badge went on the shelf after 7 years after I decided the grass would be greener as a prosecutor.
So I think I can speak with some authority on the issue of "checkpoints." They are un-American, un-constitutional and are abused by well-intentioned police officers that have no idea that motorists can refuse to participate even if they end up driving into one.
Regards.
I don’t know maybe the 11 states that have struck them down on the basis of unreasonable search and seizure.
Show us your papers.
I don't consider myself arguing the Statist point of view, if that's what you're implying. I don't like sobriety checkpoints any more than the next guy. I may not agree with it, but I understand them, and when I pass through, I'm cooperative and polite. That doesn't mean that I'm giving a passive ideological hand wave to the whole thing. Once you stop under the authority of a law enforcement officer, and your stop is an acknowledgment of that, I have absolutely no problem with LEO requesting identification, registration, or anything else that identifies the occupant or their vehicle. Searching is something entirely different and isn't an issue in this case, nor should it.
There is something else going on here that is culturally inducive and it's not about maintaining the Constitution, but subverting it, and we've been seeing the momentum build for decades. The essential problem with the debate is that people want the law to be responsible, while they abrogate their own responsibility and that of others, and liberty can not survive without responsible citizens. It must be part of the culture.
That said, I might agree with you that the sobriety checkpoints are un-American, but I don't agree with you that they are un-Constitutional, and I haven't seen anyone provide any evidence that they are. Even the ACLU agrees with that.
What I wish, is that they were unnecessary.
Sam Adams would have disagreed.
One thing the guys did that I completely agree with is that they refused to roll down the window. As long as it’s rolled down enough to pass the license through, then that’s enough. If you roll down the window all the way, it gives the cops the opportunity to stick their flashlights in and get a great view of everything inside. I wouldn’t have rolled down my window either, because it’s none of their business what’s in my car, unless they have a warrant.
Overall, the cops were set up, and they behaved badly, as did the two morons in the car. Personally, if I had to pick a side, I’d side with the guys in the car, because I believe in our Constitution.
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.