Posted on 12/14/2013 2:06:35 PM PST by DariusBane
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21c_1387051363
My point in posting this is to show how easy it is for a Police officer to manufacture probable cause.
The officer asks "you do want us out protecting you don't you?" The citizen does not answer. I will. No officer, it's not worth the price.
Police routinely manufacture probable cause. They can claim they smell something, or even use every officers favorite, the furtive look.
If we want to regain control over our right to travel the streets without interference, as a society we will have to accept the added risk of bad people doing bad things. I am willing to pay that price. Are you? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21c_1387051363
How do you hyperlink it?
The state legislatures could put an end to it.
A law professor and a police investigator both give talk on why you should NEVER talk to the police!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
It’s very good and if you haven’t seen it, you need to watch it.
It won’t hyperlink “automatically” in the initial posting of the thread, but it will in all the comments.
Fer later
It didn’t in my comment # 1. Maybe if I had added another line...?
I have watched that. With his advice, he would still be hassled by the cops at the checkpoint.
No, unless you use HTML coding in your first post ... it won’t automatically link. All the subsequent remarks will. It just won’t work with the initial posting.
Being lazy ... I just add my link to the first comment after posting ... :-) ...
The real beef is with MADD, who have been very successful in pressing their agenda for a couple of decades now.
The main takeaway is that cops HATE to have their authority challenged. It’s the only thing that makes them feel special.
I understand that SCOTUS has taken a pro checkpoint position. BUT, I can read.
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.[1]
Nine political appointees wearing robes and swilling my tax dollars cannot change what the text says.
I would wager there are drunk drivers out there that have better driving skills than the average soccer mom.
Oh, and the fifth amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
Yes, the war on drunk driving has helped the left transfer power to the state that was never intended.
But if you stand up, you are pro-killing children.
It is the narcissism of a society that thinks all accidents can be avoided.
Yes MADD has turned DUI into an industry designed to build jails, fund courthouses, make attornes rich.
It’s a big racket.
If they cared about DUI, they would simply say that life taken as a result of intoxication results in class A felony and life imprisonment.
Property damage or injury life sentences.
Problem solved, no repeat offenders.
No rinky dink checkpoints. Fewer cops. No BAC analyzers sold. No interlock devices. No probation officers.
But that would leave attorneys poorer, and courthouses unfunded, and you wouldn’t need all those assistant DA’s or most of the judges. Fewer jails built and fewer drunk drivers. We can’t have that.
I live in NC - one of the Red States in the chart.
They don’t run them as DUI check points but as “License Check Points” since all drivers are required to have their license while driving.
Very polite as they ask “May I see your license please?” but the alcohol detecting flashlight is right at your window edge as you hand it over.
Let’s be honest, SCOTUS’ rulings on checkpoints have not been sterling recommendations for them, but rather an attempt to not overturn every conviction that resulted from them.
Truthfully, the best action to take against them is to confront those who would authorize them, and get them shut down before they are even set up. This can be via city council meetings, open forums with police officers, etc.
I’ve drawn more than a bit of ire from local officers for holding a sign up down the street from a checkpoint, advising drivers to avoid the checkpoint by turning on the next street. I’ve gotten harassed for doing so, and my response has always been the same - simply because an illegal act has been condoned for expediency does not change the fact that they are illegal actions.
I’ve been threatened with charges for my actions, and have invited arrest, firmly convinced that my exercise of my first amendment rights will be protected. So far I’ve been right, though on the rare occasion when a reasonable officer is sent to try to convince me to depart that I point out that I’m making my job easier for them - odds are the only ones who will see and read my sign are people who are driving legally and I’m simply reducing the number of drivers the checkpoint has to deal with.
And indeed, published results from the town’s few use of checkpoints, ones where I’ve protested and ones which have not been protested, the only difference has been the number of cars that have gone through the checkpoint. Same number of drunk driver arrests (two on average), same number of unlicensed driver investigations, etc.
Last few times, I attracted enough attention that others joined my protests, some aiding by making a detour route for drivers to take around the checkpoint, others by displaying additional signs, and others who have stood on sidewalks near the checkpoint and filmed officers in action. It has been two years now since my town has actually done a checkpoint, with zero plans for future checkpoints.
Other nearby towns aren’t so lucky, and I’ve started protesting them as well, as I deeply believe that these illegal searches and invasions of privacy and interfering with the public right of way must be stopped.
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.