Posted on 01/03/2007 2:08:50 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
"The courts are wrong on that."
Well, that's a beautiful argument...and it certainly makes it easy for you, me, and everybody else to all be right. However, it is a relativistic argument that doesn't hold water.
The Supreme Court has ruled and you are incorrect. DWI roadblocks are indeed constitutional.
You are correct. BUT. Are you here to suggest that the supreme court, should this case ever reach it, would rule *this* case a legal search? If so, I beg to differ.
Did you read what you posted?
Did you think about it before putting it up?
Was there a missing SARC tag?
No other answer was nearly so appropriate, if you espouse delight and support for despotic actions you should expect to be viewed as a wanna-be despot!
Sadly, they are not, and it will take a long time to undo the damage done by that conclusion.
"You are correct. BUT. Are you here to suggest that the supreme court, should this case ever reach it, would rule *this* case a legal search? If so, I beg to differ."
This case aint goin anywhere but youtube lol. I wouldn't even attempt to dissect this case. We don't have the facts. We only have the written transcript of a kid who is having fun playing with cops. The film verifies the initial conversation only. This facts of this case would take into consideration the set up by the kid, the tone of the kid etc. I would never make it to the Supremes. And a jury could interpret the officer actions as reasonable based on suspicion. But that is speculation. Bottom line is this is no big deal to anybody of note and never will be.
I do see some possible unconsitutional aspects but I won't comment because the kid needs to do his own homework.
(tpaine: I'd be interested in your take on this and 871)
What about where other factors are primary and DUI is only nominally a factor, if it's really considered at all?
Suppose carp became such a nuisance that the DNR of a state were to pass a rule that anyone could catch carp with no license required; to further encourage fishing for carp, they passed a rule that other fish caught while fishing for carp could be kept.
A game warden observed a boat go out with tackle that was really not suited for carp fishing. When it returned, the owner (who had no fishing license) had caught 100+ fish, including one carp. He claimed, of course, that he had been fishing for carp and just happened to catch the other fish as well.
Should the game warden let him go as an honest fisherman, or arrest him as a poacher?
IMHO, the best way to undo the damage would be to focus the conclusion very narrowly: traffic checkpoints that are truly focused only on DUI are constitutional, but checkpoints intended as pretexts for other purposes are not. While the line may at times seem fuzzy, I would argue that it's really pretty clear: if police divert their attention from DUI checks to focus on other things, absent clear prima facie evidence of a crime (as distinct from probable cause for suspicion), that would be a sign that they really weren't interested in catching DUIs and thus the checkpoint was illegal.
Supercat:
The SC has ruled that roadblocks or checkpoints were unconstitutional for general crime. The govt can't set up checkpoints for any and all things.
Stop the fishing expeditions.
However, the larger problem is that we are now using cops to limit behavior some people find offensive, be it smoking, or contributing to our collective body fat by eating at McDonald's.
In the course of doing so, my grandson now has to sit in a restraining device in the back seat of a vehicle while his mother sits next to him and my son drives them all around like a glorified chaufeur.
Gradually, and incrementally, the nanny-statists are sucking all the joy out of life.
"I have several LEOs as friends, and, in my position as the operator of a public utility"
You still know nothing about law enforcement. What do you do as operator of a public utility? Flush toilets! Obviously you have the "IQ" of a pea.
Rub a few of your remaining brain cells together.
How would you like it if I called you a Nazi or Commie? Huh???
You shure seem to freely name your fellow freepers as such.
You probably got jacked by a slime cop. They are not all that way. Not nearly even a slight majority. You got burned by a bad one. Personal perspective is not always reality or truth.
This kid was spoiling for an altercation with the LEOs. I am glad he didn't get hot lead for doing so. It happens! They are not robot popes infallable. They are fellow citizens of this Great Nation Under God.
A little civility goes a long way
A little civility goes a long way
A little civility goes a long way
A little civility goes a long way
A little civility goes a long wayYes ... it ... does.
But a certain 'purist' cardre won't here of it; I wonder how the same cadre of 'folks' feels about classical conscription (as in forced duty in the Armed Services).
It would seem that they have forced themselves into an untenable position where they must now also deny conscription by taking the strident position in this case as they have ...
You are such a twit! I've been havin' fun laughing at you. So have many others here. I'll take a chance here IQ-wise. Tested 158 to 164.
That's easy because it is not my logic but the decision of the Supreme Court. -- The Supreme Court has ruled and you are incorrect.
"Well, that's a beautiful [circular] argument." -- You aren't refuting it because :
The Court ruled that minimal intrusion traffic stops based on random traffic stops are reasonable and constitutional.
-- Despite the fact that the 4th ` clearly says "-- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, --- against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, --"
"Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least "probable cause" that they have committed a crime."
-- How can you 'square' the SCOTUS ruling with the clear words of the 4th Amendment? -- Do you really contend that Court 'rulings' are infallible?
It would be like walking on PINS and NEEDLES; nearly where we are now with 'PC' (politically correct) -ism.
"Don't tread on me!"
"I'm not treading on you."
"Well, what are you doing then?"
"I asked you a simple question."
"YOU don't have the right to do that!"
"Says who?"
"The RULE book, page 352, paragraph, six, second line."
"But that doesn't apply on Tuesdays, Thursdays, or Saturdays during and a month after Lent."
"Oh, right you are ... okay, on with the question again ..."
(bad Monty Python skit, I know ...)
You're not getting it. Brett just said he didn't want to discuss that issue with the officer. He still gave him, by responding, a chance to assess intoxication (not that this is constitutional either.) And because the officers didn't get a sufficiently SERVILE response, he detained the kid and one of the cops threatened to FIND (invent, plant?) a reason to PUT HIM IN JAIL.
What part of this obvious abuse of power that was PREVENTED by a recording device do you NOT UNDERSTAND?
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.