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.
ABBY NEWMAN: WOMAN WRONGFULLY ARRESTED AT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHECKPOINT FOR KNOWING HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND REFUSING TO GIVE HER PAPERS
EXCLUSIVE INFOWARS.COM VIDEO FROM THE ILLEGAL TRAFFIC STOP!!!
CLIP
ONE: ABBY REFUSES TO GIVE HER "PAPERS PLEASE"
FAST
CONNECTIONS -- CLICK HERE
56K
CONNECTIONS -- CLICK HERE
CLIP
TWO: ABBY IS FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM HER CAR BY THE OFFICERS
WHO ACCUSE HER OF RESISTING ARREST AND ASSAULTING AN OFFICER
FAST
CONNECTIONS -- CLICK HERE
56k
CONNECTIONS -- CLICK HERE
CLIP
THREE: OFFICER IS CONCERNED IF HE HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG.
HE ALSO COMMENTS THAT ABBY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN "OUR LAWS,"
BECAUSE SHE MAINTAINS HER RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
FAST CONNECTIONS
-- CLICK HERE
56K CONNECTIONS
-- CLICK HERE
CLIP
FOUR: OFFICERS VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, SEARCHING ABBY'S
CAR AND MAKING BIZARRE COMMENTS ABOUT ITS CONTENTS, INCLUDING
QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY OF ABBY'S HAVING A POCKET CONSTITUTION.
LISTEN TO THE OFFICERS AS THEY TRY TO CONSTRUCT, THAT IS,
MANUFACTURE OTHER CHARGES AGAINST HER, LIKE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
FAST CONNECTIONS
-- CLICK HERE
SLOW CONNECTIONS
-- CLICK HERE
This could easily be any one of us Freepers. Listen to the cops when they are searching her car. She's got reading material that's not approved by the state, she must be anti-government. Think long and hard about what happened here. Do you really think that it would be any different in any other part of the country?
P.S. Sorry about the article formatting, but I just ripped it straight from the original web site.
Scary videos.
These officers need to attend a Constitutional Law class, as I did when I was a cop 20 years ago! I fear for our country. They are pushing us closer and closer to civil war!
Toward FREEDOM
Oh my gosh! I'm actually speechless!
P.S. Sorry about the article formatting, but I just ripped it straight from the original web site.
Tell me, where is the source for this video and audio? Was it from the police that stopped her? If so, dosen't that sort of blow your jack-booted thug theory out of the water? All the "lady" had to do was show the cop her DL. What I saw and heard was a smart mouthed wannabe "protester" that got EXACTLY what she was looking for, her 15 minutes of fame. What is even funnier is someone posting this drivel as "proof" that the we are living in a police state. I just love the internet in the wee hours of the morning.
I watched all 4 twice. Do you have Real Player?
Are there any details as to who these SS Stormtrooper types are and what law enforcement (sarcasm) agency they belong to? I would like to send them at the very least an email to let them know that they are American Police Officers, and not Soviet KGB or Chinese military thugs. They apparently, no, willfully do not understand the laws they are required to enforce. Please keep me posted on this, thecabal, just post a bump to BADROTOFINGER and I will get it in my "self-search", in case you didnt know about that function here on FR...JFK
Sorry Texas, you first have to show what right they had to stop her in the first place. See the U.S. Constitution, 4th amendment please...JFK
scary indeed, i sent emails and faxes to the governor of virginia and asked him "where did these troopers learn these "gestapo" tactics to be able to treat this lady like a "jew" without her "papers',please"? Ms. Newman goes to court for a special hearing on monday to relieve her public defender and to let the judge know that she plans to present the case herself. i pray that this "incident" recorded for all to see will help to wake up the "sheeple" and i pray for Ms. Newman as she could be facing up to thirty years prison time for asserting her god-given rights and constitutional knowledge.
These officers need to attend a Constitutional Law class, as I did when I was a cop 20 years ago!
Thanks for the input. I'm not a cop-hater, but when I see morons like this, drunken with power, it makes me question the way that we handle police authority in this country.
they are virgina state troopers
Oh my gosh! I'm actually speechless!
Not me! I had a few choice words come to mind when I first viewed them. :-)
From clip 4, "I wonder if I can keep that?" f@$!!ng thief to boot...JFK
"Bow down and lick the boots of your masters (even if they are ignorant buffoons like these "officers".)" -- thecabal
Naw .. most americans want to shine the boots with their own tuxedos.
I agree, I'm glad someone finally got these unconstitutional tactics on video w/audio. That woman along with the lady in idaho have more courage than most men I know. God bless them.
Definately. I am not a cop-hater either, but if these clowns happened to be my neighbors, I would knock on their door and let them know that I would (probably) rather have a crack den next door than a power mad facsist (with a badge, to boot)...JFK
Ihre Papiere sind in der Ordnung, Sie konnen uberschreiten. Ja, ja, sind Sie ein guter Burger.
Sorry Texas, you first have to show what right they had to stop her in the first place. See the U.S. Constitution, 4th amendment please...JFK
Show me in the 4th amendment where state governments do not have the right to have "checkpoints". Show me how the 4th amendment gives a citizen the "right" NOT to show proof of identity when asked for by a State police officer when that citizen is on a state highway. Show me where, at anytime, the officer was overly aggressive to this "lady". Further show me how this "lady" was singled out for "special treatment". This "lady" was trolling for a confrontation and she got it. She should stop her infernal bitching and accept the consequences.
Why was she pulled over?
I'll just bet you can belch the alphabet too.
Trolling for a confrontation by driving the speed limit (or under) on a public road. Hmmmm....sorry Texas. Don't have a copy of the 4th at hand, but the right to be secure doesnt mean the right of someone else, state policeman or not, to SECURE you...JFK
That trooper's voice sounds eerily like Bubba Clinton.
did you catch the part where he told her to get out of "HIS" car? hmmm....after all hillary clinton says that driving and owning a vehicle is a priviledge, not a right, which can be revoked.
Yeah. I figured it out. I had to alter the setting on my firewall to let RealPlayer roll the clips.
Does anyone know what pretext, if any, they pulled her over with in the first place? I know the Supreme Court has ruled that Sobriety Checkpoints are constitutional but I've never heard of a Driver's license checkpoint(!?).
For no reason at all. Note the lack of probably cause. Also please note the thugs excuse of "I dont know who you are" as "probable cause"...JFK
Ooops thats "probable cause"...JFK
Interesting. I think I would have just showed them my license, however, I can see the points raised on here. What is the need to show papers at a check point like this if you have not been witnessed doing anything wrong.
Exactly, MissBaby...JFK
Tell me, where is the source for this video and audio? Was it from the police that stopped her?
I'm checking into the actual source of the tape, but doesn't it seem obvious that it is from the dashboard-cam in the police cruiser?
If so, dosen't that sort of blow your jack-booted thug theory out of the water?
How so?
All the "lady" had to do was show the cop her DL.
Sure, that would have gotten the cop off of her back, but tell my why she is required to do so. Numerous times in the video the officer admits that Abby has done nothing illegal to warrant a search and interregation. Plus, where is the "Resisting arrest" and "Assault on a Police Officer" that the cop declared once he got fed up with the woman asserting her Constitutional right to not be unreasonably searched?
Trolling for a confrontation by driving the speed limit (or under) on a public road. Hmmmm....sorry Texas. Don't have a copy of the 4th at hand, but the right to be secure doesnt mean the right of someone else, state policeman or not, to SECURE you...JFK
Sorry, you need to get a copy and read it. She was operating a vehicle on a state road and for, whatever reason, she was pulled over. All the cop asked her for was a drivers license. Nothing else. But hell no, this "Joan of Arc" wannabe decided to play games and when it came time to face the consequences squealed like a stuck pig.
How was she singled out for special treatment you ask??? Look at the clips again and count the number of cars that passed and were not stopped then tell me why??? The only reason that the thug stopped her was because he didnt know who she was. So can we assume that he knew all of the people passing by that he could have only gotten a passing look at while being distracted by her???...JFK
Well, her and her lawyer will be "squealing" all the way to the bank after they are done with this guy...JFK
The only reason that the thug stopped her was because he didnt know who she was. So can we assume that he knew all of the people passing by that he could have only gotten a passing look at while being distracted by her???...JFK
The salient question is still why was she pulled over? So far that seems to be a small tidbit missing in this little drama. As to her and her "lawyer" yep I am sure that crossed her mind when she started this.
i'm sure some of the germans said the same thing. Just show them your "Papers" and it will be ALLRIGHT.
i'm sure some of the germans said the same thing. Just show them your "Papers" and it will be ALLRIGHT.
ROTFLMAO Geeze how predictable. You folks need a new shtick, this one is so worn out it has no impact.
Exactly! He had no reason to pull her over. With no reason, he had no right, his position in law enforcement notwithstanding...JFK
According to the storm troopers it may be illegal to have a copy of the 4th
Whew!!! If I had had a copy and posted it, they could use that to violate my 5th amendment rights too...thanks, I owe you one!!!!...JFK
According to the storm troopers it may be illegal to have a copy of the 4th
LMAO Ya'll never fail to deliver.
so, you think that history doesn't tend to repeat itself?
Clip 2, copper sez "this is an approved checking detail site".
The burden of proof is on the state, and thats a mighty big burden if you have nothing to carry it in...JFK
That comment was delivered by the cop, not the freeper you were responding too...JFK
A lot of the dialog was fuzzy for me, but it seems apparent that the officer was on a fishing expidition to justify himself. A drivers license would "prove" that she wasn't a wanted crimnal? Not meaning to be flippant, but the Bush girls have demonstrated that a license is not the final say in identity. More importantly, since when do we need to prove that we are not criminals?
He claimed she was obstructing justice. Just how was she doing that? He mainly said that so that he could place her under arrest. Then when she refused to comply he said that she was "resisting arrest" and "assaulting" him.
Further, he then searched the car hoping to find something contraband.
Unfortunately, it is very easy to use bullying tactics on people who are not violent criminals, etc.
Wrong! - A citizen is under no compulsion to show identification simply because they are asked. A policemen has to have a reason for pulling you over. Sobriety checkpoint has been determined to be a reason - BUT, at such a checkpoint they CANNOT demand your license unless and until they have determined that you are intoxicated.
The first thing a citizen should do, when their license is requested, is ask the REASON for the stop (unless, of course you know why you're being stopped - like, you were driving 75 in a 25 - no need to antagonize when you know you're gonna lose). Without a reason, they are wrong for stopping you and cannot - repeat CANNOT! - demand identification. Oh, unless we live in the old Soviet Union, where citizens could be expected to produce their "papers" at anytime.
These turkeys are hung by the nards!
Let's see...Illegal detention. Illegal search and seizure. False arrest. I think, with a good lawyer, those are worth a couple million - a good lawyer who was also a good businessman would advertise for others who were stopped and asked to identify themselves. This has the markings of "class action" all over it - see, even those who were stopped and just showed their license and went on, had their rights violated by an unlawful detention. This sucker will never see the inside of a courtroom. The state (or whoever these lame-brains work for) will settle out of court QUICKLY! (And may have already). Is this woman single? She's gonna be RICH!
I think Texas' reply will be, "History?!?! What's history???"...JFK
Bang!!
Besides, she wasnt ASKED for her ID, she was ORDERED to produce it. The officer in question then stated that he had ASKED, but had not done so. Add self-delusional to the list of adjectives for this creep...JFK
Exactly! He had no reason to pull her over
Really? Where does the "post" say that? I am still waiting for the actual reason that this particular "patriot" was treated to this particular episode. I have been pulled over in license and insurance checkpoints in Texas about 3 times in the 30 years I have lived here and my gosh, I showed them my "documents" and then went on my way. I was not herded into a cattle car and taken to the concentration camps. However; I have been hit by lowlifes that had neither a DL or insurance and had to "eat" the damage. I can see now the mentality of the mouth breathers that think the way this "lady" thinks.
The "salient question" is only a question in your mind. When asked, the trooper's only response was "I don't know who you are". Not being known by the state troopers would seem to be a commendation not a crime. IF THERE WERE A VALID REASON for the stop, that reason would have been repeated as often as "I don't know who you are" was repeated. How many times did you hear a valid reason given? That's how many valid reasons there were.
Agreed. I am waiting also for the reason. Not only does this thread not supply one, the office doesnt either. I believe that he has the burden of proof here, and again, nothing to carry it in...JFK
So what you are saying is that these cops just wanted to make life miserable for this poor little "lady"? I am still waiting for the reason she was pulled over, out of all the other "candidates" available to them.
OK, let's make this simple. What did this woman do to get arrested? Did she "resist arrest" or "assault" the cop?
You know you are winning the arguement when the other side has to start dropping personal insults. I want to give you a few choice ones, but I wont because being right is just too damn sweet...JFK
I have been hit by lowlifes that had neither a DL or insurance and had to "eat" the damage.
So, I assume that you sued them for damages, right?
Forget talking to ol tex. All you'll ever get is that it's OUR fault whatever cops and the gov't do to us. So just shut up and bend over, here it comes again!!!
David Wright
Wrong! - A citizen is under no compulsion to show identification simply because they are asked
Man I hope to HELL you are not a lawyer. Every state in the union requires their citizens to provide their identification upon request by a law enforcement officer.
Sometimes those in power need to randomly exercise that power just to reassure themselves that they have it. When challenged, we see what we have just seen here. Shutup, keep your head down, and produce your papers on demand...doesn't sound like the country I grew up in.
I can sympathize with Texas on being hit by lowlifes. But I believe that the lowlifes should be punished and monitored, not some lady just driving down the road...JFK
i heard ms newman being interviewed on the Alex Jones show she is a farmers wife ( and obviously smart enough to know her rights) and she is going to represent herself.
I dont know about Giles, but I am not a lawyer. But doesnt the cop have to show some semblance of probable cause?...JFK
OK, let's make this simple. What did this woman do to get arrested? Did she "resist arrest" or "assault" the cop?
She refused a lawful order to produce documentation that she was licensed to be operating a vehicle on a public highway.
BS - you are only required to produce once the officer has stated the reason for stopping you - without that, he has no standing upon which to make his demand. I've tested it buddy - I know!
Regarding your little "insurance papers" bendovers and your agitation at those who drive without insurance - there is always a reason given to justify the restriction of freedom. But just because there are those out there who break the law, is no reason for lawful citizens to be treated as criminals - OR FORCED TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT!
So, I assume that you sued them for damages, right?
Oh, please. Does the term "judgment proof" mean anything to you?
Forget talking to ol tex. All you'll ever get is that it's OUR fault whatever cops and the gov't do to us. So just shut up and bend over, here it comes again!!!
Damn, thanks for the laugh! I still haven't seen his defense for the cop's lies. Guess I better not hold my breath...
Part of what is going wrong from when I was a kid in America is now days two people can look at something black and white and one just can't get it. I would venture to guess that same person would see no wrong what-so-ever in what occured in Waco. (Texas)
No wrong in abortions, no wrong in kids killed by raids by swats, no wrong in gun laws, why heck, the constitution is from another generation long ago.
OR FORCED TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT
Do this, go to findlaw.com. Look up any state that you want and search for "proof of identity. Then get back to me. You are just spouting "gut reaction" as to what you THINK the law should be not what the law actually is.
Right On! Innocent until proven Guilty, not the other way around.
Damn, thanks for the laugh! I still haven't seen his defense for the cop's lies. Guess I better not hold my breath...
I must have missed the "lies" could you post those for me. All I heard was a smart mouthed little twit that thought she was a student of the "constitution". Not unlike many of those posting on this thread.
I must have missed the "lies" could you post those for me.
Resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, to start with.
I asked you about these twice before, but no answer yet.
I did - lots of stuff about "proof of identity" as it relates to gaining access, or priveledge, or custody, or assets. Nothing about proof of identity just for walking around, or driving around. The laws to which you allude, were written to enable police to roust unsavoury characters, part of a battery of vagrancy laws (like showing visible means of support) - vagrancy laws have been ruled unconstitutional. Sorry, you lose.
Please educate us as to your constitutional knowledge...or don the "twit" had yourself.
Every state in the union requires their citizens to provide their identification upon request by a law enforcement officer.
Really? Now why would they do that? Oh yeah...you may be wanted in ten counties. Shame no wanted posters could've been made.
Face recognition checkpoints? Look at the little birdie.
doesn't sound like the country I grew up in.
Yeah right. I tell you what, when you can come up with the actual reason that this particular lady was "singled" out for this particular episode and why and how the official police video of the event was released, along with why she was pulled over, then you and I may come to some kind of agreement. Does it not seem strange to you that this video was released to the public if it was as damning to the police as you seem to think it is? Hardly the work of a "police state" huh? But then again how much creative editing has taken place? Now I know that this modern day "Joan of Arc" is completely innocent BUT damn, why would the police release it if they have so much to hide?
I can see now the mentality of the mouth breathers that think the way this "lady" thinks.
Tu quoque. See post #50.
vagrancy laws have been ruled unconstitutional. Sorry, you lose
LMAO show me the cite. I will look for your response later today.
She recorded it! There evidently was a recorder in her lap or in the car.
I did - lots of stuff about "proof of identity" as it relates to gaining access, or priveledge, or custody, or assets. Nothing about proof of identity just for walking around, or driving around. The laws to which you allude, were written to enable police to roust unsavoury characters, part of a battery of vagrancy laws (like showing visible means of support) - vagrancy laws have been ruled unconstitutional. Sorry, you lose.
I don't think that you are right (regard the driving part). I looked up the laws of my state, Nevada. Here is the pertinent part:
NRS 483.350 License to be carried and surrendered upon demand; limitation on conviction. Every licensee shall have his driver’s license in his immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall manually surrender the license for examination, upon demand, to a justice of the peace, a peace officer, or a deputy of the department. However, no person charged with violating this section shall be convicted if he produces in court or the office of the arresting officer a driver’s license theretofore issued to him and valid at the time of the demand.I belive that texasforever is right about this. Although, notice the last stipulation. You are not guilty if you can later produce a valid license
[Part 20:190:1941; A 1953, 191; 1955, 65]—(NRS A 1969, 544)
But...that is not the issue. The issue that I have is that these cops blatantly made up the charges of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer. If he really thought that he was being assaulted then he is the biggest pussy on the planet. Maybe a new line of work is in order. Not to mention the legality of setting up a roadblock just for the possibility of catching someone with outstanding warrants.
I have lived here and my gosh, I showed them my "documents" and then went on my way. I was not herded into a cattle car and taken to the concentration camps.
Give them time.......
The 10th Amendment says that if not explicitly authorized, a government act is unauthorized. So the burden is not to show that the 4th Amendment authorizes it, the burden is on you to show where the 4th Amendment is overridden. Read your post again. Identity papers? Just what the hell kind of society are you looking for?
Why would they release it? They've already proven beyond a doubt that they are severely stupid - maybe they're just stupid. Or...duh! Ya think it might have been subpoenaed?
If you have questions about editing - check the clock - report back what you find.
Also, please report to the class the portion of the constitution that tells us that we are obligated to prove we are not a criminal, anytime a policeman asks; and absent such proof can be arrested for obstructing justice.
Look - bend over all you want...there were Tories in '76 ya' know. But just because you like the warm rush a grabbing of the ankles gives you is no reason anyone else must feel compelled to toady to "authority" as well.
To quote Toht, the poker-wielding Gestapo agent from Raiders of the Lost Ark:
"Shoot them. Shoot them both."
The most obvious lie by the cop was the arrest for assault.
You sure are selective about what you hear or read, aren't you?
What you don't show is that the law officer MUST HAVE A REASON FOR STOPPING a citizen. Without said reason, they have no standing to make the demand. Yes - when the demand is made, the license must be produced...BUT the demand CANNOT be made without a reason. You are within your rights to ask for the reason for the demand, as this lady did (good cops tell you right up front why they are stopping you, the dirtbags just demand your license). If a cop stops you and demands you identify yourself without cause - that is illegal, you are under no obligation to respond to an illegal request from a cop, and he could be in deep doo-doo...these guys are.
I think GilesB is right about the vagrancy laws. I don't know the name of the ruling but I just wanted you to know I think GilesB is right on this one. The ruling was about their civil rights. It may have been when the Court was ruling that mental patients had to be released if they were not a threat to themselves and others. Civil Rights again.
Darn thing is on the mental patient issue it hurt the very people the Civil Rights people say they wanted to help. That ruling gave us the majority of the homeless we see. I think the majority of these former patients would rather be in the hospital but when you are put out on the streets or halfway houses with a bottle of medication and told to fend for yourself the result is pretty predictable.
Take care,
CATO
just so that you know this "incident" happened 7-8 months ago and it took that long for her to get the video released to her from the Virgina State Troopers. she did have a microcassette recorder with her in the car and she was recording the "stop", i carry one too, that way there is no "he said, she said" in ANY situation! maybe you should check out infowars.com and "listen"(winamp) to the Alex Jones show. BTW he broadcasts out of Austin and he covers the stories that you won't find in "mainstream" and he Tells it LIKE IT IS!!!!! TRUTH TO THE MASSES!!!!
I did several different web searches for Abby Newman Checkpoint arrest officer trooper...Google, Hotbot and the like, and I never came up with any information regarding this case. The only other site I've seen it on has been Infowars.com, and that only because of your link at the top of the article. Do you have any other references as to where this story has been previously posted?
Why would they release it? They've already proven beyond a doubt that they are severely stupid - maybe they're just stupid. Or...duh! Ya think it might have been subpoenaed?
I think that one went right over his head. How can someone spout off case law, etc., etc. and not think about that little fact?
Sounds like this particular goosestepper's name is Trooper Mike Morgan, of Virginia State Police.
The most obvious lie by the cop was the arrest for assault.
You sure are selective about what you hear or read, aren't you?
Yeah, he still hasn't answered my questions about the cop's blatant lies and abuse of power.
What you don't show is that the law officer MUST HAVE A REASON FOR STOPPING a citizen. The cop does have to have a reason to stop a person, but the law I posted doesn't really state that. Unfortunatly, we don't know the exact reason for the stop, but, you can hear the cop say (many times) that she has done nothing illegal. If she has done nothing illegal, then what is the probable cause? Hmmm.......I'm waiting......
I did several different web searches for Abby Newman Checkpoint arrest officer trooper...Google, Hotbot and the like, and I never came up with any information regarding this case. The only other site I've seen it on has been Infowars.com, and that only because of your link at the top of the article. Do you have any other references as to where this story has been previously posted?
I have done a lot of searching too with no luck yet. I have asked Alex Jones and his webmaster via e-mail for further information to back up the story. One thing to remember though, is that just because it is not in the "mainstream" media doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
ALL...Sure glad Texasforever was not one of the founding Fathers. We would be in big trouble.
it is either mike bowen or bowman
Thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps we should find the Highway Patrol station he is based out of, and subject them to a good Freeping?
Hey Adolph, you wanna see assault?
Get yourself reinstated and try that nazi sh!t with me.
Most of you guys are pussies without that sidearm and badge.
Hey, Texasforever!
Sounds as if you are campaigning for the position of Umpire in the Gulag baseball team!
FYI the case is in Rocky Mount VA, that may help with the search for more info, i also heard the about this at thepowerhour.com
Here is one cite - it is typical:
U.S. Supreme Court
PAPACHRISTOU v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)
Notice, please that two of the defendents were arrested specifically because they did not have identification. The vagrancy law was tossed because of vagueness - read the decision, it talks about what the average citizen can be expected to believe is lawful. Being without identification is certainly one of those things.
Around this time ('72), several local vagrancy laws, many of them using lack of identification as evidence of vagrancy, were repealed or declared unconstitutional. That you are so ignorant of such a large portion of civil rights law is not my burden to carry for you - research the rest yourself.
Perhaps we should find the Highway Patrol station he is based out of, and subject them to a good Freeping?
That would be satisfying. Any info you can find on this story/officer would be greatly appreciated.
Thought you might be interested in this.
"My bosses don't write the laws, they just enforce the laws."
Nuremburg trials? WHAT Nuremburg trials?!
you can hear the cop say (many times) that she has done nothing illegal. If she has done nothing illegal, then what is the probable cause?
BINGO! Ergo - he cain't be askin' for no license.
"My bosses don't write the laws, they just enforce the laws."
Nuremburg trials? WHAT Nuremburg trials?!
Ve ver just following orders!
Our state troopers have taken to pulling cars over to fish for violations. I have been pulled over for cracked windshield four times, cracked rear view mirror twice, brake light twice and am getting sick of it. This has all been in the last two years, and in all cases the "problems have not been citable, except for the cracked mirror. [the windshield crack is in the bottom of the glass, 6 inches long, and doesn't obstruct vision, and the brake light seems to work whenever I go look with the officer.] I let my son-in-law and daughter use this car the other day, they were stopped coming home from a movie, the "storm"trooper gave them the ol' brake light excuse, my son-in-law asked to be shown the problem, the cop told him that one of the four bulbs was out, state code says you need only one working to be legal. The gist of it is, son-in-law was searched, my daughter and grandson were removed from the vehicle and placed in the patrol car, and the car was impounded. When calls were placed to the court house, the lady said that the kid must have been unco-operative, as the cops have the leeway to do this if they are not responded to in a respectable manner. They sat in the patrol car on the side of the hiway for nearly an hour, while the cops did checks on whatever they wanted, and they came up with an unpaid fine on a traffic ticket[the ticket had been paid, but a $42 late fee had been assessed.] Now the cop admitted that my son-in-law had not been notified of this fee, because when the original ticket had been written, the cop had copied down the wrong address. So if under these circumstances, you are comfortable with the police actions, I say to you fine citizen, Seig Heil. By the way, the car is a '90 Geo Metro, and is in fine working order. I was even pulled over once for missing a windshield wiper blade on a state hiway, in August. Tell me how he saw that at 55, or maybe he just pulled me over at random, and went looking for problems. It has gotten to the point in this area, that when seeing a patrol car, it causes fear and consternation, not relief and a feeling of safety. [Probably the desired result.]
A few weeks ago, a church I've been going to had "Law Enforcement Day" that Sunday. Intended to honor officers who are sworn to uphold the law.
Predictably enough, the tone from this particular minister and his congregation was one of ALL citizens MUST obey ALL law enforcement officials at ALL times. No questions asked. Doing otherwise, according to them, is acting against God and His authority.
So what I'm wondering, and what no one has the cajones to answer, is if that's the case, then everything we did in 1776 was acting against God's authority, and America exists due to a sinful act.
If that's NOT the case, then what is taking place now that is different from then?
And if the same principles of life and liberty are as decreed in being now by God as the Founding Fathers held them to be in their time, then shouldn't that mean that WE THE PEOPLE have it within our sovereign right to resist any and all of these "law enforcement officials" if and when they cross the line from "protecting and serving" us to being the thugs as shown in this video?
Meaning... should we the people stand ready to use any and all means necessary, when no other alternative is viable, to slap this government back into line?
BINGO! Ergo - he cain't be askin' for no license.
Hey now, don't make fun of Virginians! :-)
BTW, I'm still waiting for ol' Tex to answer for the cops lies...
Predictably enough, the tone from this particular minister and his congregation was one of ALL citizens MUST obey ALL law enforcement officials at ALL times. No questions asked. Doing otherwise, according to them, is acting against God and His authority.
So what I'm wondering, and what no one has the cajones to answer, is if that's the case, then everything we did in 1776 was acting against God's authority, and America exists due to a sinful act.
Oops, I think that you just pointed out that the emperor has no clothes on.
If that's NOT the case, then what is taking place now that is different from then?
The difference this time is that we are brainwashed into complacency.
And if the same principles of life and liberty are as decreed in being now by God as the Founding Fathers held them to be in their time, then shouldn't that mean that WE THE PEOPLE have it within our sovereign right to resist any and all of these "law enforcement officials" if and when they cross the line from "protecting and serving" us to being the thugs as shown in this video?
That's the theory, at least when enough of us grow the sack to stand up against "them" at the same time.
I've studied this topic a lot. I recommend you look at Ancient Rome...divide and conquer. They squash us one little "tin-foil hat extremist" at a time.
Meaning... should we the people stand ready to use any and all means necessary, when no other alternative is viable, to slap this government back into line?
Paging Claire Wolfe, paging Claire Wolfe...
'Slap' is a really, really mild version of what I had in mind in #96 above.
But the candy-ass hasn't been heard from since.
Just don't let 'em goad you into it on the side of the road.
Everyone's off-duty sometime or other...
Paging Claire Wolfe, paging Claire Wolfe...
Meanwhile, red flags go off in my file in the central database. "He's invoked the name!" :-)
I think tomkat has it right - Tex is either one of the dirtbag kind of cops, or a wannabe.
I vote wannabe.
NOT only should WE THE PEOPLE be ready, but it is our DUTY to ourselves and our children, as outlined in the Second Amendment. BTW...what is the ONLY difference between a free man and a slave?.... The RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
Just don't let 'em goad you into it on the side of the road.
Everyone's off-duty sometime or other...
I would be careful about my words if I were you.
Close tags?
Not denying that it didn't happen. Thing is, it happened 9 months ago, and it's only being reported on one site.
I've seen abuse of authority like this myself.
IMO, rather than a grand police state conspiracy this is just another example of a lowlife incompetent individual who has let delegated power cloud his judgment. This “officer" needs to return to bagging groceries.
This written under my wife's name but really comes from Eaker. I am too pissed off to log-out and log-in.
Please take the word Texas out of your handle. You ARE no Texan. Not even close. "Commieforever" is still open for use.
Eaker
Show me in the 4th amendment where state governments do not have the right to have "checkpoints".
The concept of limited government seems to elude you. In order for government to act, power must be granted. "Limited" government means that if the power is not specifically granted, it cannot be assumed. Incidentally, individuals have rights, state governments do not.
I read through posts 1 through 116 and realized I had not seen the current magic word regarding traffic stops: "profiling". That must be because the motorist was female and not a minority. But any stop without probable cause (leave sobriety checkpoints out of it) is profiling on some level. Perhaps there is such a thing as "stranger" profiling.
Your cautionary is noted, and I thank you for it.
Nevertheless, when free men become afraid to assert their rights, voice their opinions, and stand up to the nazi wannabes, they have ceased being free men.
I have lived to such an age that the quantity of life remaining to me becomes less important than the quality thereof...
Nevertheless, when free men become afraid to assert their rights, voice their opinions, and stand up to the nazi wannabes, they have ceased being free men.
Believe me, I know where you are coming from. I feel the same way.
I have lived to such an age that the quantity of life remaining to me becomes less important than the quality thereof...
If only more people believed this...
Be back in a little while.
Thanks for the 47 minute download that then "Times Out." Very enjoyable
A Little FYI
Citizens may resist unlawful arrest . . ." John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. . . " Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
Might wwat to keep this handy too:
www.aclu.org/pdf/bustcard.pdf
New string for your tin-can??
On the list of the many false gods that we have come to worship, perhaps the foremost is the worship of 'life' itself.
I believe that we were created to be men first, and if longevity should follow, then so be it.
BTW, nothing I said above should be construed as advocating any kind of ambush.
The best way of dealing with a bully has always been to look him square in the eye immediately before proceeding to pound the livin' crap out of him...
"My bosses don't write the laws, they just enforce the laws."
Nuremburg trials? WHAT Nuremburg trials?!
I was thinking the same thing as I listened to the tape. The trooper used exactly the same excuse as the Nazis at Nuremburg.
>> More importantly, since when do we need to prove that we are not criminals?<<
Since passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA-68). Things didn't really get rolling untill Carter had RICO passed around 1976,which was the official start of the so-called "War on Drugs". It's all about taking rights away from the individual and giving all the power to the state. Has nothing at all to do with criminals having guns,criminals profiting from drug sales,or public safety. Those are just cover stories and PR ploys.
In Oceanside California they are now setting up drivers licence check points and if you don't have one they are impounding the vehicle, they are also checking for any other vehicle violations at the same time. They are doing this with government grants given to them for this purpose. No licence, you lose your car and walk, right then.
>>>So, I assume that you sued them for damages, right?<<<
>>Oh, please. Does the term "judgment proof" mean anything to you? <<
OK,so why aren't you outraged that the police don't spend more time enforcing our immigration laws? They might have time to do this if they spent less time "fishing" along the highway.
Simply incredible.
I have a Cop friend, who went through a racial thing. A Black security guard spotted some black teenagers/young adults on a college green that were acting suspiciously. He called the cops, my friend showed up. My friend asked for some ID, all he had to act on was the security guard's call, he saw nothing, and the black kids refused to provide ID. He arrested them for something because of their not showing ID.
The arrest was held up in the city, but the kids sued and he lost his job. He told me that in Connecticut, when a Cop asks you for an ID, you have to comply. I watched all the videos, and I think the Cop should have asked his supervisor for advice before he took the woman out of the car. I dont want to see the assault charges and the resisting arrest charges stick!
This woman did none of those things in my opinion. I do wonder what they pulled her over for, plus his statements that he was not charging her with anything, and that in essence meant there was no complaint against her like there was against those kids on the college campus
All the cop asked her for was a drivers license. Nothing else.
Lemme guess. You're a cop? Your dad is a cop? Your son is a cop?
The salient question is still why was she pulled over?I believe from the context of this that she was pulled over because she came up on a "police state checkpoint," sometimes called a "sobriety checkpoint" or by other names to make it sound like it has a more agreeable purpose.
Here's the Fourth Amendment for you to read:
Now, if she had been speeding or weaving or doing anything illegal, don't you think that the cop would have said something other than "I have not accused you of breaking any laws," 45 seconds into the first clip. At that point, if he had said she was speeding, or that she made an illegal turn, ran a stop sign, or anything at all, I would agree with you. However, he just wanted to look at her drivers license, not because she had done anything wrong, but so that he could check her for outstanding warrants. They also searched her car without a warrant, although most searches of cars take place without warrants and the courts seem to think this is OK.
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.
This whole incident is pretty scary, but the part where the cop says, "I must know who you are before you can go down the road," is the scariest. That's what it's coming to now. You have to show your papers in order to travel anywhere.
GREAT JOB THIS IS VERY POWERFUL STUFF
State law is of no force or effect with regard to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Only idiot courts staffed by idiots like you think they have such powers. When the shooting starts, you should think carefully about which side you are going to be on. There are going to more of us than there are of you.
"LIKE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE."
TC, Justice?? What justice??? The 9 politically appointed bureaucrats we call supreme court judges have said that stopping people at "checkpoints" and demanding their papers is legal. Justice??? What justice???? "Better that thousands be "put out" rather than one be free". I don't remember it that way. Peace and love, George.
Show me in the 4th amendment...
Why bother, Tex? You are Sarah Brady's soul mate. If anybody shows you anything you just get angry. Like all socialist police state enablers, you are immune to fact and logic.
The Supreme Court is not God or the final arbiter. The people are the final arbiters over the Court. I will add that the composition of the Court changes periodically and the Court has made numerous errors over the past 65 years. As the quality of the Court declines, the inevitability of the people deciding to change the Court and the manner by which the Court is Constituted will change. We are getting very close to that point now.
She should stop her infernal bitching and accept the consequences.
If that ever happens, I hope you "stop your infernal bitching, and accept the consequences."
I am not sure if you deserve the honor of living among FREEDOM-LOVING Texans. Maybe they can have a recall vote on your 'Texas-resident' status, and ship you off to Kalifornia. I am sure you would be more comfortable there, with the rest of the Socialist-fascists.
GWR
PS--
Have a nice day!!
I will be the FIRST to REMIND you of your ARROGANT statements on this thread, after those same 'jack-booted thug types' mistakenly take bad 'info' from one of their 'informants' and bust into your bedroom at 3:30 am, and make you and your wife stand outside naked for two hours, while your house and belongings are ransacked...
? All the "lady" had to do was show the cop her DL.
WRONG ANSWER!!! Cops MUST HAVE A REASON TO PULL YOU OVER, AND THEY MUST STATE THAT REASON. This cop did neither. Total violation of her rights.
"Virginia is for lovers"? BALONEY, no tourista money for them from me. And I would have been there this year. It almost makes me feel good to live in the peoples state of massachusetts. The cops here cannot legally pull you over, without a real good reason. And under no circumstances can they search your car without your permission or a legal warrant, gotten from a judge beforehand. They must ask your permission to search your car, and if you say no, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Nothing they find will be admiisible in court. As long as you are between the lines, under the speed limit, and all of your stickers and lights are ok, they will not pull you over, they know better.
I can see Hitler wringing his hands and laughing his ass off down in hell. Sieg Heil
After going through these videos the second time, it is obvious that the trooper was asking for her name at first and she refused to give it to him. Not her license. Her name. It was not until after the officer reached into the car and opened the door, told her he must have her name, and told her she may be wanted in 10 states for all he knew that he finally asked if she had her drivers license "with her".
It is also obvious that when the troopers are talking among themselves they suddenly realize they are way out on a limb by taking the actions they did. I hope this one goes all the way to the Supremes. I also hope this trooper is sent packing. He's got the wrong mentality for the job.
Now I am scared. You scare me.
". She's got reading material that's not approved by the state, she must be anti-government. "
I am not surprised that jack-booted thugs think the Constitution an anti-government document, in a way it is, it was designed to limit the powers of government. However, these jack-booted thugs, the jack-booted prosecutors and the jack-booted judges who let them get away with it all swore to obey it.
We have words for laws that violate the Constitution, they are called nullities. Spouting nullities does not make you someone that knows the law. Of course, you have a corrupt judiciary on your side, so perhaps boot licking is in now as the law.
Texasforever posted:
Show me in the 4th amendment where state governments do not have the right to have "checkpoints".jammer posted this reply:
The 10th Amendment says that if not explicitly authorized, a government act is unauthorized. So the burden is not to show that the 4th Amendment authorizes it, the burden is on you to show where the 4th Amendment is overridden.jammer is right, but for the wrong reason. Here's the constitutional reason that this incident was wrong.
First, there's the fourth amendment which protects you from illegal searches and seizures. Compare the language there with the first amendment.
In the first amendment, it's clear that the prohibition is on the federal Congress. In the fourth, the prohibition against unreasonable searches is a blanket prohibition. Given the tenth amendment language about things "prohibited by it (the constitution) to the states," you would think that the blanket prohibition applies to the states too.
That might have been what the founders intended, but the courts didn't agree. So, the 4th amendment was interpreted to mean that the federal government couldn't subject you to unreasonable searches and seizures, but the states weren't prohibited by the Federal constitutional provisions.
Then, in 1868, there was the 14th amendment. It includes a provision that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This means that the states have to honor the rights protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which as amendments to the Constitution are considered part of the Constitution. From that point on, all states were held to the same standard for searches and seizures.
The first thing a citizen should do, when their license is requested, is ask the REASON for the stop (unless, of course you know why you're being stopped - like, you were driving 75 in a 25 - no need to antagonize when you know you're gonna lose). Without a reason, they are wrong for stopping you and cannot - repeat CANNOT! - demand identification.Good advice and worth repeating.
However, when following it, be prepared for the consequences as seen in these video clips. We need more people like this woman to stand up for their rights, but everybody has to realize that when you do, you will be hauled down to the station and go through this whole process. Freedom has a price.
All I heard was a smart mouthed little twit that thought she was a student of the "constitution".
Which is precisely why you learn nothing from thread after thread, even when other posters courteously attempt to enhance your comprehension. You refuse to see and hear what is truly happening around you.
The woman repeatedly addressed the officer as "sir," never cursed or threatened or insulted him. Where do you get the "smart mouth" remark from? In fact, it was the officers who were insulting and degrading as they rummaged through her personal property with no justification for doing so. What exclusive information have you obtained that causes you to label her a "twit?" As far as her being a student of the Constitution, that is what every responsible citizen SHOULD be. Why aren't you?
Texasforever, I have also been stopped a few times here in Texas and once in Missouri and in every case the officer came to the window and said right what I had been stopped for.
Sorry, the officer said right away what I was stopped for!
Absolutely horrifying.
Man I hope to HELL you are not a lawyer. Every state in the union requires their citizens to provide their identification upon request by a law enforcement officer.I'm not a lawyer, but I will ask you to back that statement up by quoting what specific law requires this. This woman was in Virginia, so you might look for a Virginia law. You could also check for a Texas law since you seem to be a Texan and might be asked at some point.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've searched both Virginia state laws and Texas state laws and I've found no evidence that your statement is true.
It was a paper checkpoint apparently. They admitted at least twice that she had broken no laws prior to her refusing to show them her travelling permits.
>She refused a lawful order to produce documentation that she was licensed to be operating a vehicle on a public highway.
Gotta agree with you, Texas. Now, if the woman was walking down the road, and the cop waylayed her and demanded she produce identification, I'd be outraged, but since driving is a privilege, and you must have a valid license to do so, I think a case could be made that this woman is in the wrong.
"Every state in the union requires their citizens to provide their identification upon request by a law enforcement officer."
OK, Tex, it's put up or shut up time.
Please provide cites -- fifty of them -- for state laws that require citizens to carry identification.
Please note that you may not weasel out by showing that drivers are required to carry licenses.
That is not the issue here, nor does it pertain to your claim.
You said that "citizens" are required do show "identification" to the police upon demand. Nothing there about drivers, or licenses. You asserted that citizens must provide identification upon demand.
If we are truly living in a "papers, please" society -- as you assert -- then I demand to see the legal basis for your claim.
Fifty bases, to be precise -- in accord with your specific claim.
OK, Tex. Put up, or shut up. NOW.
Show me in the 4th amendment where state governments do not have the right to have "checkpoints". Show me how the 4th amendment gives a citizen the "right" NOT to show proof of identity when asked for by a State police officer when that citizen is on a state highway. Show me where, at anytime, the officer was overly aggressive to this "lady". Further show me how this "lady" was singled out for "special treatment". This "lady" was trolling for a confrontation and she got it. She should stop her infernal bitching and accept the consequences.
Texas, you just saved me a bunch of typing.
HEY FOLKS! Remember the word "FEDERAL". Thanks.
Thought you would find this interesting....check out post # 98!
FYI
Check post #147
First, I know there are a lot of wonderful people in Virgina, I've been there a number of times to visit. This is by no means a personal attack on Virginians.
I suggest that we all send a letter to the governer of Virgina and to the tourist council. In fact, order the Virgina Tourism package, wait a week then send it all back to them (the Facist State Of Virgina) with a letter stating that due to the apparent Jack Booted Facist tactics of their obviously communist state, that you have no need to visit now or ever, and that you perfer to vacation in a state where your vacation time isn't wasted sitting at various "Check Point Charlies" Furthermore, as you travel the east coast, you will make every effort not to trespass into their territory so that the valuable time of their State Storm Troopers isn't wasted on accosting innocent drivers. A few letters like this and they might take a closer look at the whole situation.
I, too, am wondering why this particular woman was stopped at the checkpoint. It's strange that they happened to pull someone over who had so much Constitutional literature in her car. Could they have had her profile and license plate number and were singling her out for some reason, especially since many of the other cars were not stopped (unless they were stopped out of the camera range.) Their remarks about the type of literature they found in their illegal search of her car were very telling.
"Predictably enough, the tone from this particular minister and his congregation was one of ALL citizens MUST obey ALL law enforcement officials at ALL times. No questions asked. Doing otherwise, according to them, is acting against God and His authority.
"So what I'm wondering, and what no one has the cajones to answer, is if that's the case, then everything we did in 1776 was acting against God's authority, and America exists due to a sinful act.
"If that's NOT the case, then what is taking place now that is different from then?"
What is different now is quite obvious: in 1776, King George dictated what our laws were, and what our government consisted of, and how it behaved. And ours was not to question why, ours was but to do or die.
Now, however, we decide what our government consists of, and we decide who it is that governs us, and we decide how they govern.
We are truly living in a country where the government operates "with the consent of the governed."
If you don't like the way the government operates, then you need to take it up with the voters.
Sad, but true. Tragic, actually.
Look around you. Remind yourself that half of the folks you see have an IQ that's under 100. Then remind yourself that the majority of them -- even the ones with an IQ that's over 100 -- would be content to be "governed" by satan himself, so long as they had a ready supply of cheap beer and got to regularly watch "the big game" on the boob toob.
The problem is not that we have a rotten government.
The problem is that our countrymen have decided to give us a rotten government.
And nothing will change until the public wakes up and decides to change things.
Once that happens, it'll change within one election cycle.
So there, in a nutshell, is the difference between "then" and "now". "Then", we had the government that King George imposed on us. "Now", we have the government that Joe Sixpack imposes upon us.
Take it up with Joe.
Y'all just settle down! Nobody has confirmed this story, none of the names have been successfully Googled. Don't go off 'til you know the facts.
Information please! Where did this happen? When did this happen? Was that a police tape or was that a camera placed there by Abby and friends
What was the disposition of this case?
The scarest thing to me was the question by the police if the books were legal. On the drivers license that to me could go eithor way, Driving is a privilege not a right..
On May 17th, 2001 my wife and I (she was driving) were in route from our home in north Texas to Oklahoma to have lunch, it 11:15 AM. On a hiway 91 just north of Denison Texas, we approched a road block with a Denison Texas Police unit and Officer setting in the unit. We were stopped and approached by a very polite gentleman in work clothes and orange vest. He stated they were taking information. He then began to ask questions about where we were coming from. My Wife told him home, but he said I have to have a physical address. I couldn't believe she gave it to him. Then, where are you folks going? What are you going there for? This when on for several minutes until he obtain all the information he needed and then it was the car behind us turn.
At no time the did the Police Officer get out of his unit. At no time did the man ask us about our vehicle, or was it carrying contraband/alcohol/weapons/drugs, did it have any mechanical defects. What he did, was obtain personal information and restrict our freedom of movement from one city/county/state to another for the purpose of gathering personal information. I later told my wife after we pulled away, I couldn't believe she gave him all that information. I told her our constitutional rights had just been violated. She being a Police Officer herself, said she guessed she had been programed and didn't think about it at the time. I being a retired cop, told her that I'd had time to recover some, and would have told the guy we don't care to participate, and then pray for an arrest, if he wouldn't take no for a answer.
I did write to my Texas State Rep, Ron Clark and my Tex. Senator Tom Haywood about what had happen, and also wrote to TDOT and ask them why we should give personal information to the State Texas. That was back on May 17th and I'm still waiting for anyone of them to give me a reply. Both Clark and Haywood are kind of like...does anyone know Trent lott.
A couple of points, offered in the spirit of information rather than argument. My own legal conclusion is that this lady probably has no case.
1. I can't draw too many conclusions about who is responsible for escalating this situation, because the video starts out well after the encounter began.
2. Some on this group believe that if a law is unjust or unconstitutional, that they need not follow the law. If you think that, which is a common enough position here, don't bother reading the rest of my post.
3. The notion mentioned here that a government may not do anything that it is not explicitly authorized to do is a venerable principle, but it does not apply here (other than in a natural law sense--see point #2). The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government has limited powers, and powers it doesn't have are left to the states and the people. Several states have a similar declaration of limited government in their constitutions, but to my knowledge Virginia is not one of them. Even if it was, it seems unremarkable that it would have the power to regulate the highways. Driving is a privilege (admittedly an important one) that states all regulate.
4. Virginia Code § 46.2-104 says that "The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity." So the officer was authorized by state law to ask for her license and name. This leaves the question, though, of whether he was authorized to stop her in the first place, and of whether the law in question is unconstutitional.
5. Virginia courts have allowed check points set up to enforce the license law (see, e.g., Sheppard v. Commonwealth, 489 S.E.2d 714 (Va. App. 1997). There are constitutional limits to this, however. As the Virginia Court of Appeals put it in Sheppard:
"The statutory right of a law enforcement officer to stop a motor vehicle and the obligation of a motor vehicle operator to submit to such a stop for a license or registration inspection are circumscribed by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979), holding unconstitutional the random stopping of motor vehicles, other than upon the basis of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
The Court ruled that a person 'operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation.' Id. at 662, 99 S.Ct. at 1400. However, the Court went on to say: 'This holding does not preclude the States from developing methods for stopchecks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. We hold only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers.' Id. at 663, 99 S.Ct. at 1401."
The test for constitutionality here is from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979). Generally speaking, you can be stopped if there is probable cause, OR if you are being stopped pursuant to a general plan, neutrally applied (i.e., a proper checkpoint). Reviewing courts are supposed to balance the importance of the reason underlying the checkpoint, the degree to which the checkpoint advances that reason, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.
It appears from the video that this checkpoint was part of a list, and there are probably procedures for determining when, where, and how to set up these checkpoints. You see other cars driving by perhaps because the checkpoint was over (they usually don't last long) or because they had a neutral plan of stopping, say, every other car. Unless this lady can prove that this checkpoint was not set up pursuant to procedure, or that it was not neutrally applied, or that the plan itself is somehow flawed, she will lose. This is a big "unless" because courts aren't supposed to second guess administrative judgment if they can avoid it, and so they will generally accept the department's word for it that the plan fills a need. They will also likely hold that asking for people's licenses is not an unreasonable infringement of privacy (disagree? see point #2).
Anyway, that's my two cents.
After watching and listening to the audio/videos, I've sat here for nearly an hour reading the entire thread. This incident is a nightmare, but the SCARIEST part to me is the last audio/video (the 4th one).
Its obvious that these troopers (as with most publik skool graduates) don't have the foggiest idea about our individual constitutional rights, let alone what is legal and illegal.
Again, scroll up and click onto the last tape and listen CAREFULLY to the dialogue between the troopers (toward the end of the tape) about their speculation as to whether or not the woman can read "what she wants to". With respect to one of the publications they are scrutinizing, one of the dufus troopers actually says that he thinks "they've actually outlawed that."
Unfriggingbelievable!!!!
". She's got reading material that's not approved by the state, she must be anti-government. "
Since when has reading material had to be "approved" by the State?? Isn't that part of our 1st Amendment rights?
Additionally, the cop physically dragged this woman from her car, yet charged her with "assulting a police officer"!
......More to come in "Alice in Wonderland"!! God help us all.
I agree that we get some kind of proof of legitamcy of this act. A court document or something concrete confirming the facts so we know this isn't a class project or an attempt to discredit Freepers. If it is indeed a valid occurance, then we can form a protest plan.
Everyone on Free Republic needs to watch and listen to these clips. These sorts of intrusive, unconstitutional traffic stops happen all the time. The fascist mentality of these cops is frightening. Privacy rights and the U.S. Constitution have absolutely no importance to them. They are products of a paramilitary police state that views citizens as an enemy that needs constant surveilliance.
"Where are your papers, please?" We're living in a police state.
' This "lady" was trolling for a confrontation and she got it. '
Maybe. But so what? How is it not her right to confront what she perceives as tyranny? Wouldn't a denial of such a right constitute tyranny in and of itself? Where do you see anywhere that she's not willing to accept the consequences of her actions? And what if we all decided that we've had enough of this whimsical police state impedence to the right to free travel, and we failed to comply? Would we all belong in jail? As someone who has travelled to Taiwan while they were operating under martial law, the only difference I see in this Virginia case is that the ROC army carried low slung machine guns... the VA state stormtroopers carry sidearmsd.
According to a lawyer on the subject of police stops... two questions need to be asked:
I'm not a lawyer. YMMV.
Feh! It's obvious
Watch all four of the videos...these cops skipped the 4th Amendment in their high school civics class.
I WANT ONE OF THOSE POCKET CONSTITUTION THAT ABBY'S OWNS.
ANY FREPR KNOW WHERE TO GET ONE?
QUOTE FROM ORIGINAL ARTICLE.
LEGALITY OF ABBY'S HAVING A POCKET CONSTITUTION.
Mrs Ruth Price has something to say about this issue.
Bad guys don't live by the rules. Here is Mrs. Ruth Price story and I would think that you would agree she disagrees with this leftist extremist, anti-gun views. Here is Mrs. Price story. Another disarmed voice.
Mrs. Price speaks directly to the gun control extremists with a powerful message. Requires Audio setup, downloads in 30 seconds, however, well worth your wait for this message.
If you have trouble with this load, cut and paste to URL line.
http://www.geekswithguns.com/audio/911_call_no_address.ram
Next Picture from Mother's of the past, speaking to soccer moms of today.
Have we forgotten already.
Women's talk about self defense.
The best news link on the planet for self defense.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Who needs protection? The women of our lives, and our children, the poor who have little police protection, our grandparents, and parents, our wife, and our daughters need the right to self-defense at home and on the street. 2.2 million felons in jail, 3.5 million felons on probation, and 14 million drug abusers looking for their next fix. Do you think they are living in your city? Guns save lives. Gun free zones are killing zones for criminals. Most anti gun liberals are one mugging away from conservative views.
Dail 911 and die is more than a cute saying. It is life or death.
The actual 911 call is Mrs Price voice. Take this recording to every MMM and anti gun rally in the nation. Perhaps the MMM anti guns will be the next Mrs Price.
Another Mrs Price story in Columbus OHIO -- Dialed 911 and Died.
Mrs. Turner's story. Restraining orders, Killer telling police he was going to kill her, begging for life for several minutes, nor did phone call to 911 save this woman's life.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b28997102ad.htm
What is your self defense plan when the killer shows up at your door?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
".....every state in the union requires their citizens to provide identification upon request......"
I sure can't find that in the FL statutes, and I don't see it in the Federal Statues either. Even if it is there, IMHO it would be unconstitutional.
What I don't see in the videos is the reason for the initial stop. However, I don't see the cop wanting to verify that see has a drivers license, as much as he is demanding that she identify herself. She is under no legal compulsion to do so.
I would suggest to all that when arrested, the only words to come out of your mouth are "I want to call my lawyer". Absolutely nothing else. I have been stopped by DOT and I refuse to verbally interact with them. I will show them my documents, but say nothing. It really pisses them off, and I laugh about it all the time.
The Boy Scouts used to have them for all the boys. Know of any troops around you?
These illiterate morons seem to think they are judge, jury and censors rolled into one. After conducting an illegal search without probable cause, they try to determine whether the woman's reading material, which they refer to as "paraphernalia," is legal. Hell, why don't they just excute her on the spot and be done with it.
It sickens me to watch and hear these police state tactics. Yet they happen every day on our roads.
Here is the Florida Statute (§ 322.15):
(1) Every licensee shall have his or her driver's license, which must be fully legible with no portion of such license faded, altered, mutilated, or defaced, in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same upon the demand of a law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the department.
(2) Upon the failure of any person to display a driver's license as required by subsection (1), the law enforcement officer or authorized representative of the department stopping the person shall require the person to imprint his or her fingerprint upon any citation issued by the officer or authorized representative.
For the Virginia statute at issue in this case, see my post # 167.
"Now, however, we decide what our government consists of, and we decide who it is that governs us, and we decide how they govern. We are truly living in a country where the government operates "with the consent of the governed." If you don't like the way the government operates, then you need to take it up with the voters."
Sorry, this is not a democracy. This is a Constitutional Republic where We the People have delegated certain powers to government. The US Supreme Court, like the President and Congress, have been usurping power from the people for years. The recent fouth amendment decision is an abomination to any concept of "reasonable".
Amendment IV
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.
"From time to time, the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrannts and that of patriots." Thomas Jefferson
We are nearing the time.
Why are you on this site? Why are you a Federal apologist? Do you know a single thing about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
There is no such thing as having to prove to anyone on demand that you're NOT a criminal.
Go back and learn a little about our Rights under the US Constitution.
got to be a lot of smart and likable police officers in this country. I just haven't heard of them or met them.
Here's a link to a page with other links to VA's court system. Some digging might verify this case. Things like traffic citations etc. are a matter of public record.
http://www.virginia-beach.va.us/courts/geninfo/othrsite.htm
BUMP for Harry. Looks like our worst fears about our Republican Government here in Virginia are being realized. Vote Libertarian this fall!
"However; I have been hit by lowlifes that had neither a DL or insurance and had to "eat" the damage."
"He who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither."
"Show me in the 4th amendment where state governments do not have the right to have "checkpoints"."
No, you show me where the States are given the right by the Constitution, to have checkpoints.
"Show me how the 4th amendment gives a citizen the "right" NOT to show proof of identity when asked for by a State police officer when that citizen is on a state highway."
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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 or things to be seized."
"Show me where, at anytime, the officer was overly aggressive to this "lady".
When he dragged her out of the car for no reason, he admitted several times that she had commited no crime.
" Further show me how this "lady" was singled out for "special treatment".
When all the other cars drove by unstopped.
"This "lady" was trolling for a confrontation and she got it. She should stop her infernal bitching and accept the consequences."
Yep, you're trained and ready for the NWO.
"Go back and learn a little about our Rights under the US Constitution."
If he read the fourth amendment word for word it would destroy his argument.
Every state in the union requires their citizens to provide their identification upon request by a law enforcement officer.
Nope...now I understand why your logic is so misguided on this thread.
Only if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person engaged in a crime, or will engage in a crime, are you required to show ID to a police officer.
I did not once hear the officer tell this lady why she was stopped. If he had a reason, he would have done so. Notice on the 4th video they were fishing for evidence to arrest her.
In fact, I guarantee that if this was not recorded, the officer would have made up a reason to stop her. Believe it or not, Tex, not all cops are honest. Hate to break it to you.
Unless there is some other evidence other than these 4 videos, I predict that the prosecutor will drop this case.
These tapes sound to me like a conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights. The fishing expedition is pretty amazing - to find something to charge her with, including the resisting arrest and assault, as well as the subversive literature discussion (Patriot Games - sheesh - gimme a break). The State of Virginia is clearly negligent in:
a. not educating officers about individual rights under the constitution. I mean, these officers couldn't pass a grade school test on the Bill of Rights.
b. not properly educating officers running a roadblock (on the dubious assumption - and some of our erstwhile friend on the S.C. aside - that this is actually a constitutional search and seizure) on processes procedures and applicable laws running a roadblock. If someone refuses to show papers then they ought to know what, if any, the charge is, and not have to concoct it.
c. Not educating its officer on how to administer Miranda rights - "you have a right to remain silent even if you don't believe in the laws" Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe I heard them give her the rest of her Miranda rights either.
d. They arrested this individual without informing her of the charge against her, and had to go through an extended discussion to cook one up.
Of course, if she sued for abuse of process, invasion of privacy, assault, etc. and it went to a jury there are a lot of "law and order" folks around (especially around here) who would sympathise with the JBT's, although I actually think they don't really fit in the same league as the JBT's of Elian fame. They are just a couple of clueless good ol' boys. I personally would give her an amount equivalent to the last couple of years payroll for the highway patrol.
It is also scary that they think that they are "just enforcing the law." There is no law that says you must set up roadblocks and stop people who are minding their own business - although the SC in its infinite wisdom has just about made it so that those are the only folks you can, constitutionally stop - on a random basis.
If he had a reason, he would have done so. ....If he had a reason he would have said so...REPEATEDLY
Having fun? Anyway, in the hopes of clearing up some arguments about rights regarding papers and so on, I went to www.norml.com, which advocates for marijuana legalization. Their site provided a link to the ACLU website, which provided the following guidelines ( I think you will notice the woman in the video did not follow these rules):
What to do if you're stopped by The Police
To fight police abuse effectively you need to know your rights. There are some things you should do, some things you must do and some things you cannot do. If you are in the middle of a police encounter, you need a handy and quick reference to remind you what your rights and obligations are.
That's why the ACLU is making these tips available as a downloadable .pdf file. You can photocopy this and carry it in your wallet, pocket or glove compartment to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning police encounters.
Be polite and respectful. Never bad-mouth a police officer.
Stay calm and in control of your words, body language and emotions.
Don't get into an argument with the police.
Remember, anything you say or do can be used against you.
Keep your hands where the police can see them.
Don't run. Don't touch any police officer.
Don't resist even if you believe you are innocent.
Don't complain on the scene or tell the police they're wrong or that you're going to file a complaint.
Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.
Remember officers' badge & patrol car numbers.
Write down everything you remember ASAP.
Try to find witnesses & their names & phone numbers.
If you are injured, take photographs of the injuries as soon as possible, but make sure you seek medical attention first.
If you feel your rights have been violated, file a written complaint with police department's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board.
1. What you say to the police is always important. What you say can be used against you, and it can give the police an excuse to arrest you, especially if you bad-mouth a police officer.
2. You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer.
3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT.
4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police -- you can be arrested for it.
1. It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to answer can make the police suspicious about you. You can't be arrested merely for refusing to identify yourself on the street.
2. Police may "pat-down" your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon. Don't physically resist, but make it clear that you don't consent to any further search.
3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have a right to know why.
4. Don't bad-mouth the police officer or run away, even if you believe what is happening is unreasonable. That could lead to your arrest.
1. Upon request, show them your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. In certain cases, your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause. To protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. It is not lawful for police to arrest you simply for refusing to consent to a search.
2. If you're given a ticket, you should sign it; otherwise you can be arrested. You can always fight the case in court later.
3. If you're suspected of drunk driving (DWI) and refuse to take a blood, urine or breath test, your driver's license may be suspended.
****************Now then, surely NORML and the ACLU are not jack booted thugs, right?
This woman has more guts than most of us on this forum. She knows damn well that the constitution (the Fourth Amendment) protects us from these sorts of police state tactics. The police have no power to pull motorists over and search their car without reasonable cause. She was arrested because she refused to give the police officer her name, which was on her drivers license. As soon as she's hauled from the car, for not providing her name, she's then charged with resisting arrest and obstructing justice (For what, not providing her name?) Is there a law on the Virginia books that requires motorists to provide their name at roadside checkpoints? If so, what is the penalty for not providing one's name?
"Where are your paper's, please?" These scenes are erily reminiscent of the tactics employed by Hitler's Gestapo.
We've allowed the police in this country to become paramilitary organizations that have no respect for the U.S. Constitution or the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
I believe the two officers in this video would have no problem firing on law-abiding citizens who refused to surrender their guns. They and Hitler's SS (Schutzstaffel) troops share the same mentality.
As you so cogently pointed out, however, there is the probable cause issue. Just becaues you must show license and registration does not mean that the officers, absent some other probable cause, can demand them.
Whether or not she is guilty of the traffic code violation of failing to produce said documents - and we will just have to disagree over this point - she is clearly not quilty of all of the potential felonies that the officers tried to trump up - assault, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest [arguing with a cop is not resisting arrest - stomping on the accelerator and driving off at 120MPH is resisting arrest] - reading subversive literature [constitution, Patriot Games].
The problem is that these officers did not know what she was guilty of - and if they don't know, and they are the witnesses in the state's case - then is she guilty of anything.
[I have lived to such an age that the quantity of life remaining to me becomes less important than the quality thereof...]
I'm there with you. Those words just seemed to bear repeating, to me. I have nothing more to add, so thanks for reminding me.
"You know you are winning the arguement when the other side has to start dropping personal insults."(BADROTOFINGER, direct to Texas4ever.post #54)
"I'll just bet you can belch the alphabet too." (Texas4Ever, to 68Grunt, in post #19, which was posted prior to BADROTOFINGER's post above)
No comment necessary. This says it all.
." There is no law that says you must set up roadblocks and stop people who are minding their own business"
Unfortunatly, The Courts have ruled that random checkpoints are Constitutional. But they also ruled that forced bussing of school children is also Constitutional when it clearly it is not. People need to wake up.
If Driving is a privilege in your country, we need to live in different countries.
If you think we need traffic control laws to prevent accidents; look around. See how many laws are preventing the accidents that are occurring. Think a law about stopping at stop signs is going stop the underage drugged up kid in the car coming at you in the intersection you are crossing from hitting you. Think the ticket he is going to get is going to prevent him from hitting somebody else the next time he goes on a joy ride.
Conservatives and Liberals need to learn that passing laws does not solve problems. It adds to them. You stop accidents by stopping accident prone drivers from driving. Ask your insurance agent how many drivers have caused multiple accidents. The way to stop crime is to put criminals in jail. The way to stop accidents is to stop bad driving, and if necessary bad drivers. Driver's licenses or licensing and whether we have them, produce them now or later is irrelevant.
It is time to get rid of Dumokrauts and put responsible thinking conservatives in control of the government. Stay Focused, Freepers.
HE ALSO COMMENTS THAT ABBY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN "OUR LAWS," BECAUSE SHE MAINTAINS HER RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
Actually, what he says is she has invoked her right to remain silent "even though she doesn't believe in our laws."
But my point in #167 was that under U.S. Supreme Court case law, they *don't* need probable cause to stop her. They just need a general plan to address a legitimate interest, neutrally applied. In other words, checkpoints can be OK even though they have no reason to stop any one particular person. If this general principle weren't so, how would the government ever be allowed to, say, inspect meat?
Really? Where does the "post" say that? I am still waiting for the actual reason that this particular "patriot" was treated to this particular episode. I have been pulled over in license and insurance checkpoints in Texas about 3 times in the 30 years I have lived here and my gosh, I showed them my "documents" and then went on my way. I was not herded into a cattle car and taken to the concentration camps. However; I have been hit by lowlifes that had neither a DL or insurance and had to "eat" the damage. I can see now the mentality of the mouth breathers that think the way this "lady" thinks.
Are you so utterly stupid and brainwashed that you do not understand that if you are not reasonably suspected of a crime i.e. "probable cause" POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP YOU?
What does :
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
mean to you?
If you can't figure it out it is time for you to change your handle to a more accurate one like Cubaforever or Chinaforever fool.
"Papers, please."
"Papers please."
"Papers, please."
"Papers, please."
Get used to it, right?
bttt
I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this sort of jackbootery unconstitutional several times in the last few years. Anyone remember any case references?
I WANT ONE OF THOSE POCKET CONSTITUTION
We have several of them around the house. My wife got them somewhere. I think they were free. Ours are the little brown booklets that fit in a top pocket. It is the same as the one Olli North used to pull out as his "owners manual". They were put out by the Cato Institute. The ISBN is 1-882577-67-1
Okay, I just found this in the back of the booklet. Additional copies of this booklet can be purchased for $1 by calling toll-free 1-800-767-1241. This was published in 1998 so it may not be accurate now. They also have a web site.
You need to read the constituional law and supreme court cases.
Individuals do not need to show ID anway except when driving a vehicle.
For police to stop a vehicle an infraction of the law is the reason for the stop.
Now the lady has very valid points by constitional law. Must inform reason for stop which the police officer in the tape did not do!
I am sorry but until placed under arrest, or informed of a violation she is within her rights.
Until violation has been established, it is just friend converstaiton which she does not have to engage in.
I went to the Web-site but they do not give a source. Without a source, this is meaningless! It is far too easy to make a movie and post it on a web page.
Get used to it, right?
If someone wants to be civilly disobedient to a law they don't like, they can do that. They will likely get arrested for it, but that comes with the territory. So, no, I am not saying "get used to it." Folks can handle things however they see fit. As for me, I am not disobeying checkpoints. Hell, I have only been through one ever. One checkpoint in 34 years hardly makes me fear the dawning of an American Reich.
I wonder, is it also Fascist for states to have fishing licenses, and game wardens who ask to see them? I don't happen to think so. The licenses pay for management and stocking of the waters. Heck, I am happy when I get asked to show my fishing license (and that's only happened once). I paid for it. I feel like I'm not getting my money's worth if I don't ever have to use it.
Which is to say what? I don't take this stuff as a threat to the American way of life. If folks feel that strongly about it, they can protest like this lady, but she's dead wrong on the law, as the ACLU on its website affirms.
did you catch the part where he told her to get out of "HIS" car?
Maybe he was her husband.
All my life, if a state trooper stops you and asks to see your license, you just do it on the supposition that he's not riding around just to play mini-Nazi. God only knows what kind of nut job call he might be responding to that came in as a complaint from some citizen, and if all he wants to do is look at your public documents, just let him. After that is another issue, but you can't prosecute anyone for anything until they commit a crime. It's reasonable for a citizen to assume that the troopers are actually doing their job in a reasonable fashion, and if you aren't breaking the law, it's reasonable to assume that you will be back on the road in just a minute or so, and that whatever his is looking for wasn't you but that he wasn't psychic and that he's just trying to do his job.
Absolutely frightening. Think the courts with the Rico laws have not unleashed an uncontrolled tyranny.
"From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrannts and that of patriots." Thomas Jefferson
You can almost smell the blood in the streets right now.
Thank you. Yes, this is somewhat crazy. Our rights are being sold down the river.
Again, I don't see him concerned about the license. He seems intent on her identifying herself. He even states something about her maybe being wanted in several states.
These cops are borderline illiterates. It appears that city police departments and county sheriff's offices are reaching into the bottom of the barrel to meet their hiring quotas.
These two uniformed dim-bulbs should re-acquaint themselves with the First Amendment. We don't ban or burn books in this country. While inventoring the woman's book collection, they referred to Tom Clancy's novel, "Patriot Games," as paraphernalia. Now that's scary.
Hey, these sorts of police-state tactics are the rule, not the exception. The police no longer view themselves as public servants; they have become our masters. Give them a uniform and a gun, and they're read to re-enact the gunfight at the OK Corral -- or yank middle-age ladies from their car for not providing the "proper papers."
"I don't take this stuff as a threat to the American way of life."
Are there domestic threats to the AWOL?
Is government restrained by the Constitution and Bill of Rights a defining characteristic of the AWOL?
What is your take on the "frog in a pot of water" metaphor?
OK,so why aren't you outraged that the police don't spend more time enforcing our immigration laws? They might have time to do this if they spent less time "fishing" along the highway.
Pete, I am curious how officers of the law can enforce immigration laws. On one hand, they can't "profile". Now we see they may not even be able to ask someone to provide documentation (driver's license, ID, PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP?). Do illegal aliens "look" illegal, thereby giving probable cause (see also racial profiling). It seems like a catch 22. Respectfully......JRR
I agree. Driving is a privilege. She should have known that getting a "drivers license" waives her rights. She needs no drivers license. All she has to do is get bill of lading title then she has a "private conveyance" not a vehicle. She is then free to exercise her constitutional rights without a drivers license. However, the states have a scam going where every car dealer sends bill of lading title to the State the State then issues a certificate of title but the state retains true title thereby insuring that all cars sold become the property of the STate and do not fall into the hands of citizens as private conveyances. This allows the state to search their own vehicles and tow them and ticket them without interference from anyone who thinks they live in a free country.
They have them all over the place here in Virginia.
Check-point Berlin, anyone?
Yes, my guy was an out of work Mexican who was drunk and could not speak english well..... He put the bottle of booze outside his car and I picked it up and gave it to the police....No insurance....The district attorney called me and asked if he could pursue ...I said fine and never heard from his office again.....Although I agree with this woman completely....I have no respect for law enforcement being a law abiding citizen, and having experienced this same type of harrassment.....
She refused a lawful order to produce documentation that she was licensed to be operating a vehicle on a public highway.
If you actually think that a cop can stop any car at random, simply because they are driving on a highway, and then request a drivers license, you are very misinformed.
Try the CATO Institute.
"....but the SCARIEST part to me is the last audio/video (the 4th one)."
I'd say the second scariest. To me, the scariest part was when they dragged her out of her car. Did you hear the 'officer' say she may belong to the 'Klan,' and mentioned The Constitution Society' booklet they were examining.
I'm sure the Constitution Society is going to be happy to learn they are being equated to the Klan and is regarded by the 'police' as anti-government. Here's a link to the CS:
When the locals began taking money from the federal government we lost the country. Now the locals wear jack boots, black jammys and are trained in war tactics against the civilian population as if we were prisoners of war.
We now live in a very large concentration camp fenced in by two oceans and two other nations. Who needs razor-ribbon fences when you can train the police to serve as prison guards.
I agree, if she was driving on a state highway, and a state policeman asked her to show a drivers license she should have done it. If she was driving on her own property, then they'd have no right. She should stay off roads built by the government.
I have one question that is burning in my mind. Why just not run the plates?
Are you a Democrat? You have to be if you don't see an erosion of freedom, regardless of this episode.
To really understand what is going on here, I suggest everyone go to www.civilwartwo.com and check out the speech that Tom gives, it's at www.civilwartwo.com/speech.ram - it goes into great detail as to why this is happening.
This trooper is not acting this way because he is a bad trooper, he is acting this way because he has been told to by his superiors! Just look at the reactions of his fellow troopers. He is not supposed to process the information given to him by his superiors, if he showed any inclination to question the constitutionality of his orders they would quickly find a reason to get rid of him.
The fact of the matter is that we have become an empire. Empires do not recognize the concept of individual, God-given rights, or rights that supersede the rights of the state. Instead, empires grant privileges which may be revoked at any time. This is just a quick glimpse into the future for every one of us.
What happens to those who don't have their papers? What about if your papers are confiscated by an officer? Where does that leave you?
It is just a matter of time until CWII breaks out....
Are there domestic threats to the AWOL?
There can be.
Is government restrained by the Constitution and Bill of Rights a defining characteristic of the AWOL?
Yes and no. It hasn't been restrained to the extent the Framers might have wanted, but the stretching has been going on since day one. It's nothing new, and since we the People hold the cards--electing the President who nominates Judges, electing the representatives that write laws--we can have the gubmint we want, whenever we want it.(allowing of course for the fact that we must compromise with the other 10 millions souls who vote.
What is your take on the "frog in a pot of water" metaphor?
Not familiar with it.
Lemme guess. You're a cop? Your dad is a cop? Your son is a cop?
I wear a badge, and these cops disgust me.
Supposedly, a live frog will remain in a pot of water being brought to the boil for cooking purposes, because the incremental change in water temperature does not appear as a threat.
When it dawns on the frog that he is at risk, it is too late to leap!
I hope that helps.
FYI. Here is one for you.
Sounds like a DRUDGEREPORT to me!
Oppressed FReeregards
She should stay off roads built by the government.
Funded by whom?
"What is your take on the "frog in a pot of water" metaphor?"
In the case of this very brave lady, the frog just jumped out of the water!
The cops in this case just demonstrated that old axiom that "power corrupts".
I wonder what would have happened in this case if the officer had just explained to the Lady (as a fellow citizen) the reason for the roadblock and the officer's reason for asking her name. Participation is fine, compulsion is not.
I still wonder if the use of officers for this sort of duty is effective against crime..Might not these same policemen be much more effectively employed walking a beat in an inner city to protect and serve the citizens there?
Would be a lot more hazardous, I'd guess - and a lot less profitable in the way of "fines".
I shop online , but this time i went to publix .a cop found my car door unlocked as i came out . i got the security lecture . I thanked him , and stated i did not need his assistance .i got in my car, and he asked for some ID. i stated it was in the trunk. He asked to see it , i said no and verbally gave him the fact's, address and the like .he then demanded , and i repeated the information . After consulting with his sargeant , they just walked off .tell me all about case law, and state roads , she's an activist , and the like . I'm slapping leather with this woman , you do what you want to .
The taxpayers of course. I don't like checkpoints myself, but where I live sometimes I wish they'd have them because so many people are driving without drivers licenses and insurance and they cause many accidents. Recently a 15 year old with no license or insurance cut off someone on the interstate, she was driving way too fast and caused several cars to wreak and spin out.
I guess it depends on if the taxpayers want safe highways or not. Once I was pulled over for no reason and after showing my drivers licence, I asked the cop why and he said they were having to pull over all brown compact cars because someone was robbing people at rest-stops.
"Search with probable cause."
Beer bottles, gun case, dead body,
anything found in the search will problaby not stand the test of illegal search and seize. You are just as screwed up as the boot thugs.
Kalt, Thanks for an informative post. I listened to the videos again, and noticed that the woman was arrested for "obstructing justice". If you do not produce your license, would this be the proper charge? Is obstructing justice a felony? In other words, is failure to produce a license a felony?
The woman also agreed to go to the police station and discuss the matter with the officer's supervisor. That doesn't seem like "obstructing justice". If I have a license but forget to carry it and can't produce it, or other ID, what would I be charged with and what would the penalty be? Is failure to have your license with you sufficient crime to be arrested, handcuffed, and have your car searched?
First, wcbtinman: We didn't see the beginning of the video where he may have asked for her license. But check out the statute in #167--you are required to give them not just for your license but also your name.
Second, bigbobber: Your point is a good one, I think. I don't think that calling it "obstructing justice" was right. But if you refuse to turn over your license and name according to the law, you can be arrested. I doubt it is a felony, though--but remember, the Supreme Court recently decided that you can be arrested for not wearing a seat belt!
Maybe the law itself is unconstitutional, or was applied unconstitutionally, but that just means that you will win when the case goes to court, not that you should refuse to be arrested.
Bottom line: If you don't have your license or don't want to give it over, your best bet is just to say so calmly--let him ticket you and then fight the ticket in court. You probably won't be arrested unless you start shouting. We didn't see the start of the encounter, so it is hard to say if she started out polite.
While I agree wholeheartedly that this sort of thing should not happen in America, I'm afraid this probably passes constitutional muster with the current Supreme Court.
Remember, they recently decided, in Indianapolis v. Edmonds (2000) that drug checkpoints were unconstitutional, only because drug enforcement is not sufficiently related to driving. They used this (twisted) logic to remain consistent with their earlier decisions (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990) and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)) that drunk driving checkpoints were constitutional.
One glimmer of hope: Justice Thomas, in his dissent in Edmonds, points to the obvious in a manner uncharacteristic of the recent Court:
I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided. Indeed, I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered "reasonable" a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.
Unfortunately, the rest of the court, including even Justice Scalia, has not come to their senses on this yet.
Unfortunately for We, the People, knowledge of our Constitution does not seem to be required. While attending a constitutional law class most of my classmates were law enforcement types. Their ignorance was astounding – but at lest these people were rectifying the situation.
So the "state roads" for which we pay through the nose are not ours but the State's?
Taking a page from their purge of religion from the public schools, I'm surprised it's not illegal already to have St. Christopher on the dashboard of your car.
3. The notion mentioned here that a government may not do anything that it is not explicitly authorized to do is a venerable principle, but it does not apply here (other than in a natural law sense--see point #2). The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government has limited powers, and powers it doesn't have are left to the states and the people.Please read the 14th amendment and get back to me on that. I thought that the courts have (in most cases) held that the 14th amendment basically make the personal rights guarantees of the bill of rights apply to state governments as well as the federal government.
4. Virginia Code § 46.2-104 says that "The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, exhibit his registration card, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officer, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity." So the officer was authorized by state law to ask for her license and name. This leaves the question, though, of whether he was authorized to stop her in the first place, and of whether the law in question is unconstutitional.It's interesting that nowhere in the video links that are posted does the office either 1) ask to see the woman's license or 2) ask her to write her name.
Based on her words and actions, I doubt that she would have complied with those requests either. However, if the officer didn't make those specific requests, she was under no obligation to follow his orders. I'd have to see the whole tape to make a better judgement, but based on the video clips I've seen here, a case can be made that the officer did not make any request that was authorized by the code section that you cited. I wonder if the cop ever actually asked to see her license or asked her to write her name.
As for the constitutionality of this law, to my reading of the constitution, it's questionable. Of course, I don't always agree with the courts either.
The test for constitutionality here is from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979). Generally speaking, you can be stopped if there is probable cause, OR if you are being stopped pursuant to a general plan, neutrally applied (i.e., a proper checkpoint).That's true for now, but the Supremes have made mistakes in the past. If a Supreme Court decision were absolute and irrevocable, then Plessy v. Ferguson (163 US 537) would mean that "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land.
While the case you cited could be cited as a precedent for determining the constitutionality of a checkpoint, it's also possible that a future court that believes in a more literal reading of the fourth amendment might realize that nowhere in the text of the fourth amendment does it say "except where the state's interest is more important than the person's expectation of privacy." I hope to see the phrase "a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference," go the way of "separate but equal."
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 167 | Top | Last ]
"". This "lady" was trolling for a confrontation and she got it. She should stop her infernal bitching and accept the consequences.
"
Wow! There's sure no doubt you'll probably volunteer to be first into the shower. Breathe deeply, you idiot!
You can get one from your Congressman or Senator free of charge.....
"Those (persons) who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," Benjamin Franklin
Oh, yeah! Old Ben was a real "mouth breather," alright. Try it. It helps get oxygen to the brain.
Wish I could have seen those clips! The computer I'm using is one that has been donated to the public library and it's a brand-new Gateway with all kinds of software, but evidently it isn't set up to show those clips.
Anyway, it's not just the 4th Amendment that's on death watch now. Did you happen to hear about the case (in California, I believe) where one juror was holding out to acquit (and thus nullify bad law) and the "judge" replaced him with one that would vote to convict?! I heard about that one two or three weeks ago and "we're in a heap of trouble" if that's allowed to stand.
All the "lady" had to do was show the cop her DL.
All Jews had to do was wear a star.
All Poles had to do was carry ID and show it when asked.
You are part of the problem, Texasforever...unless your post was in sarcasm.
Please read the 14th amendment and get back to me on that. I thought that the courts have (in most cases) held that the 14th amendment basically make the personal rights guarantees of the bill of rights apply to state governments as well as the federal government.
Basically, but only for the first 8 amendments (and some have of those have been ignored). The 10th amendment is structural--it's about state-federal relations, not "personal rights guarantees" as such--and so it doesn't really make sense to write it into a state constitution. That said, many states have something like that in their constitution anyway (same with the 9th amendment).
I'd have to see the whole tape to make a better judgement
I agree with that part of your statement. If he did make the request, it would have been right at the beginning wouldn't it? And that's precisely the part we don't see.
While the case you cited could be cited as a precedent for determining the constitutionality of a checkpoint, it's also possible that a future court that believes in a more literal reading of the fourth amendment might realize that nowhere in the text of the fourth amendment does it say "except where the state's interest is more important than the person's expectation of privacy."
Well certainly it may be worth a try to fight existing precedent, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. As for literal readings of the 4th amendment, look carefully at how it says only that "unreasonable" searches and seizures are forbidden. That is very different than saying that all searches and seizures are forbidden. I think it makes sense to base the "reasonableness" inquiry on the basis of the state's interest--you might disagree on how the courts have answered the question, but it seems like the right question to ask. An extreme but clear (to me) example: Consider the metal detector at the airport. Maybe I don't want to be searched--and it is a search--but the interest in not having me get on a plane and blow it up outweighs my personal interest.
You certainly could try to argue in court that the government interest in ensuring that drivers are licensed is insufficient to warrant asking you for your license, but the fact is that driving has long been treated as a privilege and if you won this argument in court it would be surprising and groundbreaking.
You're looking for "proof" that we're living in a police state? The only "proof" you, or anyone like you, will ever accept is when the jack-booted thugs breaks your door down in a no-knock raid, warrantless search. They've already done this to other people, haven't you heard of any of them?
Better pray that the "judge" is a constitutionalist and not a statist. The lady will be looking at that whole 30 years if the "judge" is a statist who can only assert "The gubmint is right because the gubmint is never wrong!"
I think that you are being a bit unrealistic. Granted that Nazi laws were unjust, would a Jew or Pole have been well advised to fight the law by refusing to comply and getting shot? Or would it be best to comply and leave the effort for reform to more general and productive avenues? For Abby Newman, a more productive avenue would have been saying "I don't think that I have to provide this information. Please give me a ticket--the way you would if I lied and told you I just didn't have it--and we'll let the court sort this out and set a precedent." If she lost, she could take the case to public opinion or the legislature. Say what you want about unjust laws, but yelling at cops is counterproductive.
I have been following this thread.
Has anyone verified at the court house the status of this case?
Has anyone been able to locate ABBY, or an attorney who represents ABBY, or find a newspaper article relating to this traffic stop??
This traffic stop appears to have occured in September 2000. What has happened since then? Anyone KNOW??
Here is a case you may be interested in reading. While not exactly the same it gives some indication to the courts' thinking on traffic stop and ID. Here.
Here is the opening of the syllabus:
No. 74,968
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
2. An individual's claim that he or she does not have identification is not justification for a law enforcement officer to conduct a Terry search.
3. An individual is "seized" when a law enforcement officer restrains his or her freedom, even if the detention is brief and falls short of arrest. The scope and duration of a seizure must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its initiation proper.
4. A traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Re: Tom's speech:
'I.A.I.O.' -- Imperial Army of Internal Occupation. Appropriately coined.
What's Tom's last name? Sounds like he's been to hell and back -- more than just as a casual observer. Thanks for the link.
The cops had the right to cite her for not showing her DI etc. but she has the absolute right to stand silent under the 5th. Furthermore, a German cop is better trained than these clowns and would not mouth off the way they do.
All your car are belong to the state! Didn't you already know that? The MSO, which is the manufacturer's statement of origin and which is also the title is sent in to the state. The state then sends you a "Certificate of Title which is not the title (the MSO is, which they retain). That's one of the ways they can force you to have insurance and have their little revenue enhancers (cops) to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, "driving" too fast, broken taillight, yadda, yadda, yadda.
"Terry" stops are a special case that does not apply to the checkpoint context. Can't we at least agree that any court will start their analysis with more directly applicable cases like those cited in #167, e.g. Sheppard v. Commonwealth, 489 S.E.2d 714 (Va. App. 1997)?
All "good" communist countries have their papers checkpoints!
Clearly they are not stopping every car, as required by the cite you mention - this stop is unconstitutional, as stated in your post. Thanks for confirmation.
Re; 37 Really, um, I have a copy of it taped to the inside (facing out) of my rear window along with the meaning of the word "unreasonable" right under the 4th. All taken from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
I also have a microphone taped to the L/S (aka; drivers side) mirror.
The problem with this lady is,
The problem with all these cases and any constitutional argument is, the (EWPA)
Ja, sehr gut.
"As to her and her "lawyer" yep I am sure that crossed her mind when she started this."
One can only hope!
You don't mention the limits on an officer's ability to stop and ask for a license. Your previous posts makes it clear - probable cause, or a checkpoint that stops all cars (I think random document checks could be successfully challenged - any jury without Texasforever would be horrified by the similarity to the old Eastern European document checks).
These officers, by their own admission, have no probable cause; as you watch all the cars streaming by, even early in the video, it is obvious that they are not stopping all cars. These guys are in some deep doo-doo. I wish I could have 10% of her eventual award, it's gonna be BIG!
I think Samuel Adams said it best to people of your ilk over 200 years ago: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek neither your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
You want to go around being stopped by police officers just because they decide they want to satiate their curiosity as to who you are? That's ridiculous. I want to know who people are sometimes, but I can't pull them over and insist that they tell me.
What if you are in a hurry to get somewhere and do something very important and you find yourself the subject of an officer's curiosity about your identity? Police officers could continually complicate people's lives unnecessarily if they had the power to make them pull over just to I.D. themselves when they had done nothing wrong.
Nice try. The case I cited says that "Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative." It is not the only possible one, and no Virginia court that I have seen has held otherwise. To be sure, the cases show that stopping every car is a much better way to avoid constitutional problems, but some checkpoint plans allow them to stop, say, every third car. The point is that it must be neutral.
Besides, we don't know if they stopped every car or not. We only know that they weren't stopping cars at the time the tape picks up. They might have done it for thirty minutes and stopped this lady in minute #20, and had ten minutes of tape running before the portion that we see, in which they stopped a hundred other cars who all complied.
Show you WHAT?!?!? HAve year ever heard about a little thing called 'illegal search and seizure'???
I have been pulled over in license and insurance checkpoints in Texas about 3 times in the 30 years I have lived here and my gosh, I showed them my "documents" and then went on my way.
Some of us here simply prefer freedom to the tranquility of servitude. I kow that's hard for you to understand. It was hard for the people Samuel Adams was addressing as well. Fortunately, there were enough people then that DID understand it that America was born.
Bingo! Correct. The cop was in violation of the Constitution. THE END.
It's too bad the pastor at your church didn't know the story about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (sp?). The Bible does not teach that you have to do every flippin' illegal thing some bonehead tells you to. Many things are taken out of context to the detriment of Christians and those who actually want to do the right thing. But one of our greatest rights, and the one which is most abused, is simply the right to be let alone when we're not harming others. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask, does it?
I agree with you wholeheartedly! We need names addresses, et al. Failure to document such stories make Free Republic come across as some kind of anti government fanatics. If the tape is complete and not altered then the lady was obviously in the right albeit a little obnoxious. The left wingers are doing everything they can to discredit Free Republic. Let's make sure we have our ducks in a row when we post around here.
Might have, could have, should have...you're reaching. This is clearly a fishing expedition - they don't state the purpose of the stop, not even, "We are making random stops to acertain if drivers are properly licensed and insured" - just "We need to know who you are". They have NOT established their need to know, and they have not stated the purpose of the stop (they don't even attempt to cloak in in questionable rational - sobriety, document check, etc) - and are therefore in violation of her rights. Big, BIG settlement coming.
I'm not reaching. Given that the tape is obviously incomplete, I am just saying that we have no proof to conclude anything about what the cop said to her. Besides which, he doesn't have to tell her the purpose of the checkpoint. The only thing he has to do is treat her the way the neutral plan dictates. If it is a license checkpoint, he asks for her license. If it is a sobriety checkpoint, he asks sobriety questions. Etc.
Authentication of this episode would be most desirable. Yet, even if not true it should be, i.e. it's truly apocryphal in nature, as attested by so many postings here.
I was stopped in a Joliet suburb not long ago. I had (freeper) guests in my vehicle, and we were actually part of a caravan heading to a local watering-hole. We had been tailed by an unmarked squad for a bit (red Pontiac GP) while we were erratically (both vehicles in caravan, and erratically in sense of stop and go, not swerving, &c.) stopping to check addresses to pick up another passenger in unfamiliar territory. The tail was very inept and quite visible. When we found the correct address, it stopped at the end of the block with lights on and after a bit roared up alongside the first vehicle to take a good look and drove off. When we resumed our course to the tavern, a marked vehicle took up position behind us, scoping out the lagging vehicle and then stopped my car. The officer at no time stated why we were detained. He asked if we had ID, and these were provided. He asked if we had contraband, and I emphatically stated that neither I nor my companions had any contraband whatsoever. He then asked me to alight, and patted me down, as well as my two passengers. The tail then pulled up behind us, and the officer began asking us where we were coming from and where headed to while their uniformed partners searched my car. I know all these games well, and answered accordingly. I was issued a ticket for no insurance (dismissed in court) and a warning ticket for a mal-functioning headlamp. AT NO POINT IN TIME WAS I INFORMED OF THE REASON OF THE STOP.
Having been raised in a country under martial law, I instinctively complied. Nota bene: "instinctively". A fine point that is perhaps being missed in the midst of all the legalese is that the principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty is being eroded quickly! Are we effectively under a napoleonic code of law? Seems so...
Gets any worse, I'm movin' back down to tropic of Capricorn way. At least they have no snow there...
You should write to Ron Paul about this travesty too. I believe he will answer your letter.
Officer Bubba: "She's invoked her right to remain silent, even though she doesn't believe in our laws" Shows you what a dumba** this cop is. She said she believes in the Constitution, and she is excercising her constitution right against self-incrimination, not Virginia state law.
Are cops no longer required to have a high school diploma?
Ever been through a checkpoint? First words out of the officers mouth - "We are conducting this routine stop for (insert reason)..."
We hear the woman ask what right they have to do what they're doing - the ONLY reason given is "we need to know who you are" - which is not a valid reason. We are not compelled to submit to unlawful requests by law enforcement officers, since they do not give a lawful reason for their request, (or even a good sounding unlawful one) she is within her rights to refuse to comply. It is safe to assume that, given the number of times they said "We need to know who you are" that they would have stated the basis for their request had there been anything other than their burning desire to know who she was.
Why were they so keen to know who she was? They never answer that, though prompted repeatedly to do so.
fontfix?
Jesus, Mother, and Joseph! Since when are copies of the constitution, excerpts from articles, and books and the like "paraphenalia" like some skum crack smoking sleaze? We're in real trouble here. What would happen if I was stopped on the way back from the video store with a copy of "Patriot" in my car? What would happen if I hung our first flag (Don't Tread On Me") on my flag pole? What would happen if I stood outside of any state house in this land and read the Consitiution of the United States? What would happen if I told children of the great struggle of the founding fathers of this country to make a Republic where the people rule? What would happen if I wrote this same prose on FreeRepublic?
I'm 53 years old (soon to be 54) and I've seen the "nose of the camel" coming into the tent. I got news for you freinds, we got the whole damn camel now! This is the most blantant Nazi tactic I've seen, outside of old movies about occupied Europe under the Nazis or Soviet Union East Europe.
Before we have a second armed revolution we need to use the legislative and judicial branch to change this violation of our civil rights.
I'm sick, none the less, but inspired at the same time. This lady needs a positive FReep from us..........she done good, she resisted tyranny, and if we don't continue to do it, you can kiss a Sunday drive goodbye! The state will need a detailed travel log, with no deviations from the "log", and they will need a copy of the menu for your picnic (the nutritional standards must be enforced).
There vill be no smoking, und if you engage in sexual activity you vill use a state condum, und, you vill like it, or you vill be shot! These are the orders of our illustrious, und our glorius Fehurer, und they vill be obeyed, or you vill be shot! Seit---Hail! You vill have your 'papers' vith you at times, or you vill be shot, you vill obey all edicts of the government, or you vill be shot, you vill smile vhen asked anything by the police, or you vill be shot. Most of all, any violation of the rules..............und, you vill be shot! Do you understand these orders, anyone not understand, vill be shot? Seit---Hail!
Of course, before this happens I'll be packing up provisions and my own arms, and heading to the Rockies. Hope to meet y'all there.
fix?
Think about it: any owner/operator of a motor vehicle is presumed guilty of something, ergo the liscensure; any gun owner is presumed guilty of something, ergo the registration. What's next?
I went through a sobriety checkpoint when I lived in Virginia. The cop started to get huffy about my livense being expired until I pointed out that he had transposed two digits.
To respond to your point, even if they usually tell you what the checkpoint is about, that doesn't mean that they are constitutionally required to. And if, as you say, that is the first thing that they say, then it is clearly on the part of the tape that we haven't been shown.
I imagine it going like this: Cop: "Good evening, ma'am, we are conducting this routine stop to check driver's licenses and for sobriety. Can I see your license and registration please." Newman: "No." Cop: "Ma'am, you are required to give me your license and registration and tell me your name." Newman: "No." Cop: "Who are you? What is your name?" [this is where the tape we saw starts.]
Note also that at the very start, there appear to be other cars stopped. The cops probably knew that they would have their hands full with this lady and so ended the checkpoint soon after. The best evidence would be if we knew how mnay cars were driving through before Newman was stopped.
With respect to one of the publications they are scrutinizing, one of the dufus troopers actually says that he thinks "they've actually outlawed that."
Unfriggingbelievable!!!!
I know...what a line to end the fourth video!!!!
Sieg HEIL!
Objection! Speculation...
:)
>>Pete, I am curious how officers of the law can enforce immigration laws. <<
The same way they have always been required to enforce them.Catching illegals crossing the border,and running raids against businesses that hire illegals. LEO's DO have the right to ask for ID when they have probable cause.
Fair enough : ) Again, I'm not saying that we should assume that that is how it happened. I'm just saying that we shouldn't jump to conclusions either way. We don't know what happened at the beginning of the tape. We don't know what the cop did or didn't do.
What we do know (or at least what no one has responded to me about) is that it is not illegal to stop someone without probable cause, as long as it is an appropriate checkpoint neutrally applied. And we have no evidence that it wasn't.
When the shooting starts, you should think carefully about which side you are going to be on.
My guess is ole Tex will side with his heart. If this were the Revolution, he'd make a great Tory. Help me out here. Anybody know the words to "God Save the King"?
Heretofore we know not if this event was even staged! But I do find it most troubling that in our free society there are so many mirrorings of less free societies. I remember having to carry about my national ID card ready for surrender to any authority on pain of immediate jailing...
I would ask again, have we drifted into a napoleonic code of justice? I returned to this co
