Posted on 05/31/2006 12:54:05 PM PDT by AzaleaCity5691
Police arrest 67 at checkpoints Wednesday, May 31, 2006 By NADIA M. TAYLOR Staff Reporter Officers issued more than 1,800 tickets and arrested 67 people over the Memorial Day weekend at several driver's license checkpoints throughout the city, police said.
Most of the 1,834 tickets issued were for not having a driver's license or proof of insurance, according to interim Mobile police Chief Lester Hargrove.
Fifty-four people were arrested on outstanding misdemeanor warrants, and 13 people were arrested on felony warrants, Hargrove said. Most charges stemmed from traffic violations or drug offenses, police said.
One man, Carl Mitchell Washington, 22, was driving with his 2-year-old son when police stopped him at a checkpoint and found about 30 pills, which were believed to be Ecstasy, and $2,775 in cash, Hargrove said.
Washington was charged Sunday with possession of a controlled substance and endangering the welfare of a child and was released on a $3,500 bond, according to the Mobile County Metro Jail log.
Under Alabama law, possession of a controlled substance is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Endangering the welfare of a child is a Class A misdemeanor, which can carry a sentence of up to one year in jail, according to state law.
In addition to the weekend arrests, police seized two handguns and towed 53 vehicles as a result of the checkpoints, Hargrove said.
The topic of roadblocks garnered substantial media attention last month after two men were shot to death at a McDonald's drive-through in northeast Mobile. After the April 5 killings, city officials called for more frequent random checkpoints to look for and seize illegal weapons.
The latest round of checkpoints -- which ran Friday through Monday -- was the third weekend since April 28 that police have set up roadblocks in Mobile. Police issued a total of 1,362 citations during the first two weekends, which took place April 28 and 29 and May 5 and 6.
I have been waived through checkpoints in NM, because they saw me regularly at that time and place for six months.
Bet everyone in line behind me thought it was because I was driving a Cadillac.
Naw. He is simply trying to piss you off. lol
I never said I liked "checkpoints" per se, I personally would have rather not waited where I was stopped, but I saw one rickety car pull off the road per the cops instruction, and I saw a kid get out that looked like he had been in a mugshot or two.
In other words, it's something that we have to put up with right now because it can help curb crime, and we have to do what we can to curb crime. You know, before all those decisions of the Warren Court which created a bunch of rights out of thin air for criminals we had alot less crime in this country. I wonder why crime rose after the Warren Court, why would crime rise after we made things easier for criminals. The guy who shot at Roosevelt in 1933 was executed about a month after the attempt, as opposed to today, where someone on death row gets 20 years to get ACLU lawyers to plead his case, etc.
Don't believe me. I have a new 2005 C6 Coupe. And indeed the back is stuffed with space junk. (most of that stuff is either flat, like the solar blankets, etc. or small, like the antennas and gyros).
You would be amazed how much stuff fits in a Vette.
They already did this in New Orleans, after Katrina. Confiscated the guns of LEGAL owners - door to door - by boat.
You know how to eat an elephant? One bite at the time. The police state seems to be eating our freedom, one bite at the time.
And every time our lawmakers pass another law, we lose more of our rights.
I would like to say that if I had a Vette it would be stuffed with me and redhead - but much more likely, it would be me and my dog.
Not totally the right question: the right question is "does law enforcement have the right to stop your car without probable cause that a crime has occurred?" This is because when your car has been stopped by police, you have been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. The stop itself triggers the Fourth Amendment, not the search (although there are more Fourth Amendment considerations if a search takes place). The answer to this question is "it depends." Brief, suspicionless seizures at fixed checkpoints have been held constitutional in order to apprehend illegal aliens, detect and remove drunk drivers from the road, and the Supreme Court has implied that these checkpoints would be allowed in order to verify drivers' licenses and registrations--as is the case here--but it has not so squarely held. Each of these are geared at serving permissible highway interests or protection of the border.
On the contrary, the Court has clearly and plainly held that checkpoint programs whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing are unconstitutional.
You answered your own question... The reason there is more crime, is because "we" became soft on crime.
Now, to answer your next question, I'll use the your previous question... "How do we stop criminals??" Become hard on crime again. Not checkpoints. The next person caught with drugs, send them to prison for life. Next one caught murdering someone? Administer the death penalty within 30 days. Tell the ACLU to go piss up a rope.
You don't get hard on crime by illegal search and seizure. You don't get hard on crime by saying all are guilty until proved innocent. You don't get hard on crime by setting up road blocks and searching everyone who goes through. That is stupid, and you'll only catch the morons. Do you REALLY think an organized operation would send a courier, on a route that has not been reconned?? I think not... these cops are setting up these checkpoints, because it is easy to nail morons. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
The real criminals, would know that checkpoint is there, and go around.
Checkpoints are a fraction of a step away from dismissing the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Just incase you're not totally clear on the verbiage, I took the liberty of posting it below...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As far as the guy who "looks" like he has been in a mug shot or two, again, I am amazed at your outlook. You really think Blue collar crime outweighs White collar crime? I got news for you. there are more white collar criminals, than there is low life's to which you think have been dominating LEO scrap books.
"Your Papers Please" is totalitarian. No other explanation is acceptable...
"Denial..."
Yeah, way to avoid the subject.
The painful reality is that checkpoints treat ALL citizens in line as though they have committed a crime (otherwise, why stop them from their travels?) until the citizen proves their worthiness to pass.
So what am I denying exactly?
Thank you sit-rep, well said.
Nah, what makes ya think that? :-)
I did start to ping you but didn't wanna get ya riled up this evening.
Oops, too late. LOL!
I turned around before I got to the roadblock (at a service station) and was chased down and pulled over. The officer asked me why I "ran" the roadblock, and he said that people that run roadblocks are usually doing something wrong. I, of course, told him I didn't "run" anything and when he kept it up, I told him I wasn't going to argue with him all night. He let me go. Funny thing was, he never asked for proof of insurance or noticed that I was driving with expired tags (I had the new plate in the car, I just hadn't put it on).
That applied in certain conditions will produce arrests of people with warrants outstanding, weapons and drugs.
You won't produce much in the suburbs but do it in high crime areas and the results are much different.
Just went for a ride around the block a few times with the kids, and have regained my inner peace!
On to the next one!!
'preciate it... Every once in a while I get somethin right!! Now I'm gonna go quite before I jinks myself!... ;o)
I have no idea.
Just wait. They tried to confiscate guns in NOLA (when they were needed more than ever). The confiscators will be back, when they see a "need." The only reason police don't want people to have guns is it makes their lives easier (BTW, some of my close relatives were cops). It doesn't make us any safer.
I never wrote that criminals wouldn't be caught. Yes, if you set up checkpoints you will eventually find lawbreakers, since a certain percentage of the population does not follow the law.
If you go door-to-door and search houses, eventually you will find lawbreakers.
If you stop pedestrians on the sidewalk and wand them, eventually you will find lawbreakers.
If you set up CCTV cameras on every street, eventually you will find lawbreakers.
If you tap everybody's phones and read everybody's email, eventually you will find lawbreakers.
My point was that checkpoints treat all, law-abiding and criminal, as suspects. The law-abiding can not pass until they prove that they are not criminals.
The ends (captured lawbreakers) does not justify the means (loss of privacy, safety from unreasonable searches). There are ways of keeping the peace that do not violate the peaceable citizen.
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.