4th of July DUI Checkpoint Video

[Jack]

Just when I thought we had this beast dead, Jack.....


Emp, put one behind the ear, please.

You mean Jack is; The Resurrector!

See? A emperor is a ****in macaw

You think that was a good resurrection? Wait until you read the can of worms I'm about to open at the bottom...





So, responding to all of this was going to be a monumental task on an iPhone, so I waited until I got to a computer to have a second go at it.

In the context of this thread/conversation, I view his comment of interstate commerce to be consistent with this definition of Interstate Commerce that i found:

interstate commerce n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another.

Remember, he stated: "your right to free interstate commerce", which in no way implies or even makes sense inserting article 1 section 8, which grants gov't power NOT us Rights!

Fair enough, it seems odd he would throw in free interstate commerce as opposed to saying something about searches, but I'm not a mind reader, so I can't argue what he was intending to say.

No, it protects us from suspicionless unannounced investigatory seizures and searches (scotus words, not mine). So, if a seizure/search is suspicionless, I can't see how it's reasonable.

Already addressed in other posts.

that is not completely true at all... Public Schools .--In New Jersey v. T.L.O., 108 the Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school authorities. The Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials because ''school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.''

You're right, which is why they now have signs that say that if you come in, you're consenting to a search. You're waiving a right in exchange for a privilege. Same as visitation in a jail

Additionally, we are talking SPECIFICALLY of traveling, which is addressed directly as an Inalienable Right of ours to remain secure while doing so.

Getting there...I'm sure some people are figuring out where this is going now...

If I am suspicionless, which I am indeed driving up to a checkpoint, then it's an UNreasonable (without reason to my activity) search and seizure. Philosophically, it cannot be made any more clear.

And the gray area, it depends on what is considered reasonable. Lots of people seem to think that rolling down their window and having a 30 second interaction is reasonable.

Not at all, 4 of the 9 agree with me! it's not that far off from majority agreement lol. Even the 5 who ruled checkpoints constitutional, said: that since checkpoint searches were equally intrusive on all drivers, no individual had a right to complain about an intrusive search. Translation: Yes it's infringement on your Rights, but since it's hurting everyone equally, have at it!!!

But that stands the Bill of Rights on its head — reading the Fourth Amendment to require the government to equally violate the rights of all citizens, rather than to restrict government violations of any citizen’s rights - is absurd!

Yes you are correct here...sorry my comments were not clear before. Yes it protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, Yes some claim there are gray areas (I don't think they have a philosophical leg to stand on), yes the courts have ruled on this matter, some against the checkpoints, some for it.

Don't you think that the close margin of the ruling, rulings for and against, and this very discussion are evidence that "reasonable" is a very gray area?

The can of worms I'd like to crack open is the obvious similarities between this and flying. In both areas you are using a privilege, not exercising a right, in both areas the exchange for this privilege is a search without probable cause. If you don't wish to stop at a checkpoint(DUI, seatbelt, insurance, TSA, or other), you're always welcome to travel without using one of these privileges or have someone else deal with these things for you(read: walk/call a cab/get a designated driver).

 

[Jack]

It's a forum. Tell them to support your views in the open. If I have to visit a friend in a dark alley where no one can see then I'm thinking we are not really friends.


MOTOR51

Dumb ass cop, those aren't friends, they are drug dealers, you're supposed to arrest them after they hand you the dope and you hand them the money.

 

[SVT]

I believe that driving a car on a highway is a privilege. There are rules governing this and that is part of the privilege of driving. That's the way I see it. Some of you should print up your own license plates etc and hang out with that crowd. They better understand the constitution apparently.
MOTOR51

Yeah I can agree that driving on property that you don't own is a privilege and you are subject to the rules on said street. Having said that, if the gov't chooses to operate the roads we travel on, then per the 4thA, we have the Right to travel on the roads free from gov't suspicionless/unreasonable searches.

I can picture it now:

Obama states: "Since we've had so much gun trafficking across America's Highways, I'm proposing new laws to regulate guns in vehicles. No longer can you travel with a gun in your vehicle on you or close to you, it must be locked away in a case, and put into your trunks."

Motor Objects: "But Mr. President, we have the Inalienable Right to own guns and protect our lives!"

Obama Retorts: "Motor, you and I agree that driving is a privilege, therefore, you are subject to the rules of the roads, your so-called Rights be damned."

Motor Objects: "Oh yeah that's right...I AGREE!"

And the gray area, it depends on what is considered reasonable. Lots of people seem to think that rolling down their window and having a 30 second interaction is reasonable.

BUT, prior this interaction, You should have NEVER been stopped in the first place!

Don't you think that the close margin of the ruling, rulings for and against, and this very discussion are evidence that "reasonable" is a very gray area?

Perhaps, but philosophically they have no leg to stand on. Suspicionless stops and searches are UNREASONABLE to those that hold the view that our Rights are Inalienable and DO NOT come from Gov't. If you think they are reasonable, then you do not believe we have Rights, instead you believe the gov't can do whatever they think is "reasonable".

 

[Jack]

BUT, prior this interaction, You should have NEVER been stopped in the first place!

Perhaps, but philosophically they have no leg to stand on. Suspicionless stops and searches are UNREASONABLE to those that hold the view that our Rights are Inalienable and DO NOT come from Gov't. If you think they are reasonable, then you do not believe we have Rights, instead you believe the gov't can do whatever they think is "reasonable".

For someone who loves pointing out fallacies, I'm sure you know how ******** that last bit is. I believe that they are reasonable, I believe that you can easily avoid this interaction by exercising a right as opposed to a privilege, and I believe that this "infringement" is based on that privilege. Simply put, I feel as though you don't have a right to drive(see licencing) and as such this is a requirement to maintain that privilege, just like purchasing insurance and passing a driving test.

 

[SpeedRacer]

The fourth amendment doesn't cover driving. I don't even think they had cars back when they wrote it. Duh.

 

[JR1572]

The fourth amendment doesn't cover driving. I don't even think they had cars back when they wrote it. Duh.

It applied to horse drawn carriages. After all, back then the same people that wrote the Constitution owned people.

JR1572

 

[mcinfantry]

Yeah I can agree that driving on property that you don't own is a privilege and you are subject to the rules on said street. Having said that, if the gov't chooses to operate the roads we travel on, then per the 4thA, we have the Right to travel on the roads free from gov't suspicionless/unreasonable searches.

I can picture it now:

Obama states: "Since we've had so much gun trafficking across America's Highways, I'm proposing new laws to regulate guns in vehicles. No longer can you travel with a gun in your vehicle on you or close to you, it must be locked away in a case, and put into your trunks."

Motor Objects: "But Mr. President, we have the Inalienable Right to own guns and protect our lives!"

Obama Retorts: "Motor, you and I agree that driving is a privilege, therefore, you are subject to the rules of the roads, your so-called Rights be damned."

Motor Objects: "Oh yeah that's right...I AGREE!"




BUT, prior this interaction, You should have NEVER been stopped in the first place!




Perhaps, but philosophically they have no leg to stand on. Suspicionless stops and searches are UNREASONABLE to those that hold the view that our Rights are Inalienable and DO NOT come from Gov't. If you think they are reasonable, then you do not believe we have Rights, instead you believe the gov't can do whatever they think is "reasonable".

Strawman Victory Team

 

[MTregre]

Jesus this thread is scary.

 

[MOTOR51]

Jesus this thread is scary.

I agree. All homeland security has to do is pull some of these comments and present them to the politicians. Next thing you know they have more money to protect against anti government types.


MOTOR51

 

[Bayoupiper]

No, interstate commerce is article 1 section 8.


No, it protects from unreasonable searches. Unreasonable is a whole lot of gray area, one the SCOTUS has ruled on.


Being in a school is a privilege and your forfeit the 4th there.


It is debatable as to wheather that is an unreasonable search, if it is reasonable(which it has been ruled to be), you aren't having them thrown out a window.




Am I wrong?

He doesn't want to get it.

He just wants to bitch about it on the internet.

Were he to actually be at a checkpoint, you wouldn't hear a peep out of him except Yes Sir! and No Sir!



.

 

[Leadfoot]

He doesn't want to get it.

He just wants to bitch about it on the internet.

Were he to actually be at a checkpoint, you wouldn't hear a peep out of him except Yes Sir! and No Sir!

I believe you are absolutely right. He is living out a fantasy, vicariously through these people with video cameras.

Although the world may have never shown him these horrible violations personally, he knows they're out there and he's found proof in these videos.

 

[MOTOR51]

I believe you are absolutely right. He is living out a fantasy, vicariously through these people with video cameras.

Although the world may have never shown him these horrible violations personally, he knows they're out there and he's found proof in these videos.

They are all experts. Please don't attempt to apply common sense on here anymore. Resistance is futile.


MOTOR51

 

[Gator 45/70]

You know I've never had to drive thru a DUI checkpoint.

I have been in one as a passenger, I found it to be ''funny'' due to the question's that were asked to the driver.

I did have to drive thru a Insurance check point a couple of year's ago on the bypass road at the Cameron/Creole exit off I-10.

LSP, Insurance and driver's license please sir.

Me, Here ya go officer.

LSP, Were are you coming from ?

Me, The deer lease, You eat deer meat ? I have one in the ice chest.

LSP, Yes sir but I'm on duty and I have no place too put the meat.

Me, To bad, I could hook you up with a roast, Say why do they make you wear those F*#_ed up Hat's ?

LSP, Cough ,snicker, snicker, grin, grin. Regulation's sir.

Me, Well ok then, I noticed several car's about a 1/2 mile back turning around ?

LSP, We have someone working those.

Me, Good, I think those are the one's that have something to hide.

LSP, Here's your license and insurance paper's, Have a nice day.

Me, Thank you sir, Have a good one !

 

[jmcrawf1]

http://www.wate.com/story/22821494/...fers-other-side-to-viral-dui-checkpoint-video


The UNEDITED dash cam video was released. I'd crack the window too if I was riding dirty with weed in the car. Good proactive police work was done, no discipline was given to the officer and the world moves on. And the derps cry.....

 

[Emperor]

http://www.wate.com/story/22821494/...fers-other-side-to-viral-dui-checkpoint-video


The UNEDITED dash cam video was released. I'd crack the window too if I was riding dirty with weed in the car. Good proactive police work was done, no discipline was given to the officer and the world moves on. And the derps cry.....

Always another side to EVERY story!

Does the douche that made this video work for NBC?

 

[Jack]

http://www.wate.com/story/22821494/...fers-other-side-to-viral-dui-checkpoint-video


The UNEDITED dash cam video was released. I'd crack the window too if I was riding dirty with weed in the car. Good proactive police work was done, no discipline was given to the officer and the world moves on. And the derps cry.....

No ****ing way, this can't be the second time in a row there was more to the story. Between this and the dog shooting I wonder how many people will actually admit wrong.

 

[Leadfoot]

Wow, first we learn the police didn't maliciously kill an individuals dog just for shits and giggles and now we find out this fine young citizen actually had a reason to be avoiding the police. Go figure.

Looks like the tint is wearing off those glasses you see the world through, SVT.

 

[JNieman]

I don't know about anyone else, but I thought we all agreed that the dude in the video was a douche, before we found out he's a /criminal/ douche, and had moved on to the topic of checkpoints in general, rather than /that/ checkpoint.

 

[Hitman]

Well I'm not sure how having weed seeds in your car has anything to do with DUI Checkpoints or everything that happen BEFORE the seeds were found(Which is what I think opponents to DUI Checkpoints consider the issue) They make these videos all the time with nothing to hide

........Regardless dude will probably believe and tout that the officer planted the seeds. Why would he set up the confrontation with illegal drugs in his car ON THE PASSENGER SEAT?! Plenty of room there for plenty of followers to speculate.


Anyway I find it more interesting what happen according to the news link;

but in the video, we hear the officer say they found something-- another moment edited out of Kalbaugh's video.

Deputy Ross: "There's a few seeds in the passenger seat of marijuana."

.....The officer didn't cite Kalbaugh.

huh? after all that they didn't cite him for the seeds?

 

[Emperor]

No ****ing way, this can't be the second time in a row there was more to the story. Between this and the dog shooting I wonder how many people will actually admit wrong.

But aside from the other side of the story in the video, the cop bashing, the name calling, the topic drift in this thread, etc.; the questions on Constitutionality are still valid for debate.

These dumbasses that make these videos do so to stir the ****. The debate is there with or without their input.

On a side note, when these little douches make these videos and deliberately edit them to improve their POV's, it makes me want to club them. I hope this little f-head eventually gets that camera shoved up his ass.