|
The reason *sniff sniff* I'm stopping you *sniff* citizen is because this is a drunk-driving *sniff* checkpoint. *SNIIIIIIFFFFF* Is that marijuana I smell?
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:The reason *sniff sniff* I'm stopping you *sniff* citizen is because this is a drunk-driving *sniff* checkpoint. *SNIIIIIIFFFFF* Is that marijuana I smell? Oooh, I see that you've bought plastic bags in your groceries there. Along with my smelling marijuana that looks to me like paraphanilia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Lots of checkpoints stop every 2-5th car at random to minimize bias and profiling, so no. Regardless, they don't require probable cause to stop. That's my point, address it. It has been addressed. The American Constitution allows it, this has been tested at the highest level of your court system, and comparable legislation is vitally necessity for society to function. e: also the only person who has addressed this simply stated that they disagree with the Court, without a specific reason or rationale for their disagreement. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
quote:(my) rights come before (other people's) safety
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
I'd like to see an answer regarding VitalSign's question about health inspections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But you haven't said how it's unreasonable. Are health inspections unreasonable because they're conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion? Is the implied consent of operating with a food handler's permit a tortured rationalization to allow unconstitutional searches of the premises? It's unreasonable in that there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and therefore no reason to search anyone. It's unreasonable to stop and search someone without some indication they've done something wrong - that's pretty straight forward. Health inspections and weigh stations relate to regulating commercial activity, which is a different sort of activity than stopping and searching individuals for the purpose of determining whether they're up to no good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's unreasonable in that there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and therefore no reason to search anyone. It's unreasonable to stop and search someone without some indication they've done something wrong - that's pretty straight forward. Stop making reasonable arguments. You're scaring me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
I don't know what problem you guys have with communication. Police lying to obtain probable cause is a problem. Performing a search without probable cause is illegal. Agree or disagree with the law, the odor of illegal drugs is probable cause that there are illegal drugs in the vicinity. Is there a point to all this noise? I guess that's the loggerhead, otherwise let's just go whole hog and get it out of the way: *unzips* looks like rape cop is feeling frisky *jams plunger up your anus* ...and that's why we can't have laws or government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I don't know what problem you guys have with communication. Police lying to obtain probable cause is a problem. Performing a search without probable cause is illegal. Agree or disagree with the law, the odor of illegal drugs is probable cause that there are illegal drugs in the vicinity. Is there a point to all this noise? I guess that's the loggerhead, otherwise let's just go whole hog and get it out of the way: The only reason for the courts to find drug search checkpoints constitutional was to encourage exactly this to happen. It was an intended feature, not an error.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
gently caress this thread moves fast. The main problem is that the people arguing against the checkpoints seem to argue as if operating a car was a right, which it isn't. "Freedom of travel" in regards to cars is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. Stop And Frisk; definitely unconstitutional. Sobriety checkpoints and inspection tags; constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Health inspections and weigh stations relate to regulating commercial activity, which is a different sort of activity than stopping and searching individuals for the purpose of determining whether they're up to no good. So what you're saying is, it's unconstitutional to stop individuals just walking down the street for the purpose of determining whether they're up to no good, but if they're engaging in a licensed and regulated activity in which incompetency poses grave risk to public safety, then we can require them to pass reasonable inspections to ensure they're obeying regulations even if we don't have cause to suspect them. Awesome. Edit: but seriously, if you're walling off commercial activity then what about vehicle inspection stickers? Violation of my 4th and 5th Amendment rights? Same for airworthiness inspections of private aircraft? How about building code requirements for adding on to my private home myself? Sounds like a bunch of statist intrusion into my sovereign rights! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The only reason for the courts to find drug search checkpoints constitutional was to encourage exactly this to happen. It was an intended feature, not an error. I'm pretty sure it is to catch drunk drivers. You realize that people actually take that very seriously, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Buick with clapped out suspension, full of Mexicans? Time for scrutiny at the checkpoint. 5 year old Merc S class with a white lady in it? SAME LEVEL OF SCRUTINY, LET ME ASSURE YOU
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Only time I ever see check points for alcohol are the nights of major holidays that correspond to excessive drinking like New Years Eve or St. Patrick Day. That a particularly large number of people drink on a particular day is a perfectly reasonable reason especially if said check is say between 2 and 5 AM. That is very different from randomly stopping and searching individuals for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Stop making reasonable arguments. You're scaring me. It's possible I'm making reasonable arguments when you don't agree with me, too!  Or not, but anyway... Hodgepodge posted:e: also the only person who has addressed this simply stated that they disagree with the Court, without a specific reason or rationale for their disagreement. What's wrong with responding to "X is legal because THE AUTHORITIES deemed it legal" by saying "I think they called it wrong"? Certainly that's a thing that happens on these boards all the time. =) But to be specific, I think the rationale that drivers give implied consent to search in exchange for a license granting freedom of movement is basically the supreme court pissing on the 4th amendment. It would be like ruling that as a condition of accepting employment you implicitly sign away your right to workman's comp, waive your rights under the ADA, etc. It makes those rights meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:gently caress this thread moves fast. The main problem is that the people arguing against the checkpoints seem to argue as if operating a car was a right, which it isn't. "Freedom of travel" in regards to cars is Sovereign Citizen bullshit. You're ignoring the "Reasonable" part of the amendment. It is unreasonable to pull people over to search their cars for anything they may or may not be up to, regardless of suspicion. This is what is being argued against. What you seem to be arguing is that since cars are regulated at all, and driving is not a right, police should be able to search your vehicle at any time for any reason. Which is bullshit. There needs to be a reason, and "because safety" is not a good enough reason to do random searches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Buick with clapped out suspension, full of Mexicans? Time for scrutiny at the checkpoint. Oh I know, let's take 20 minutes to "run your licensce", demand questions about why you're in an area after 11pm and demand the license of the woman in the passenger seat, all with your hand on the butt of your service pistol! For a headlight out. SAFETY!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Ok, when this started, it was about Sobriety Checks, which I have only ever seen on holidays and in the wee hours at that. So there is for sure Probable Cause. Now we've shifted to completely random stops period. Which are illegal. Did I miss something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's possible I'm making reasonable arguments when you don't agree with me, too! Except that you are only giving up the right under specific circumstances. If having a car is a right via freedom of movement, then requiring a license is also unconstitutional, is it not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You're ignoring the "Reasonable" part of the amendment. It is unreasonable to pull people over to search their cars for anything they may or may not be up to, regardless of suspicion. This is what is being argued against. What you seem to be arguing is that since cars are regulated at all, and driving is not a right, police should be able to search your vehicle at any time for any reason. Which is bullshit. There needs to be a reason, and "because safety" is not a good enough reason to do random searches. Checkpoints are not random, and the Supreme Court has already addressed what is reasonable, and none of your arguments have anything to do with their reasoning: Michigan State Police v. Sitz posted:d) The Court of Appeals also erred in finding that the program failed the "effectiveness" part of the Brown test. This balancing factor -- which Brown actually describes as "the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest" -- was not meant to transfer from politically accountable officials to the courts the choice as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public danger. Moreover, the court mistakenly relied on Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and Delaware v. Prouse, to provide a basis for its "effectiveness" review. Unlike Delaware v. Prouse, this case involves neither random stops nor a complete absence of empirical data indicating that the stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety. The balancing test in Brown: Brown v Texas posted:The reasonableness of seizures that are less intrusive than a traditional arrest, depends "on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." Consideration of the constitutionality of such seizures involves a weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with, individual liberty. If you want to show the court is wrong, you have to either show that the stops don't promote public safety or that the inconvenience of the checkpoints is great enough to outweigh the public safety interest (careful here, you don't want to make inspection points for cargo trucks unconstitutional, do you?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Edit: but seriously, if you're walling off commercial activity then what about vehicle inspection stickers? Violation of my 4th and 5th Amendment rights? Same for airworthiness inspections of private aircraft? How about building code requirements for adding on to my private home myself? Sounds like a bunch of statist intrusion into my sovereign rights! I'm ok with "gently caress it, burn it all to the ground, let chaos reign" so we can get back to the issue at hand. None of these is of a type with randomly stopping people to determine if they're breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Ok, when this started, it was about Sobriety Checks, which I have only ever seen on holidays and in the wee hours at that. So there is for sure Probable Cause. Now we've shifted to completely random stops period. Which are illegal. Did I miss something? Yes. The supreme court deemed random searches constitutional only because of implied consent. They use that to set up checkpoints around the country to search your car for anything illegal as a "Drug Search". You theoretically could turn around and go another way, the way it is worded, but if you do so, they will chase you down. VitalSigns posted:If you want to show the court is wrong, you have to either show that the stops don't promote public safety or that the inconvenience of the checkpoints is great enough to outweigh the public safety interest (careful here, you don't want to make inspection points for cargo trucks unconstitutional, do you?) Drug Search Checkpoints do not promote public safety in any way. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Hm yes very nice of them to spell out the objective balancing scale one measures before disregarding what the 4A straight up says.Rhjamiz posted:Ok, when this started, it was about Sobriety Checks, which I have only ever seen on holidays and in the wee hours at that. So there is for sure Probable Cause. No it's not. As driving at 2am on Saturday is legal it tells you nothing about the individual you've stopped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:01
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm ok with "gently caress it, burn it all to the ground, let chaos reign" so we can get back to the issue at hand. None of these is of a type with randomly stopping people to determine if they're breaking the law. You are correct, the Supreme Court has ruled that randomly stopping people would be unconstitutional Michigan State Police v. Sitz posted:this case involves neither random stops nor a complete absence of empirical data indicating that the stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
I think we can all agree denying violent crime suspects 4/5A would allow us to catch more and further public safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Hm yes very nice of them to spell out the objective balancing scale one measures before disregarding what the 4A straight up says. The Fourth Amendment leaves it up to the courts to determine what is a reasonable search and what is not. That's what the courts are for, sorry bout your illiteracy. Fourth Amendment posted:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated DeusExMachinima posted:I think we can all agree denying violent crime suspects 4/5A would allow us to catch more and further public safety. Fortunately, the court balances this against liberty in the case of the Fourth Amendment, and this suggestion of yours wouldn't pass. In the case of the 5th Amendment, drug tests aren't self-incrimination which is why a judge can issue a warrant for a blood draw with probable cause but can't issue a warrant to beat a confession out of you. Jesus Christ, what is it with Libertarians and not understanding arguments? Oh, right. VVVVV DUI checkpoints aren't searches, but the court does consider them seizures so for purposes of the 4th Amendment it's not any different. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You're ignoring the "Reasonable" part of the amendment. It is unreasonable to pull people over to search their cars for anything they may or may not be up to, regardless of suspicion. This is what is being argued against. What you seem to be arguing is that since cars are regulated at all, and driving is not a right, police should be able to search your vehicle at any time for any reason. Which is bullshit. There needs to be a reason, and "because safety" is not a good enough reason to do random searches. wateroverfire posted:What's wrong with responding to "X is legal because THE AUTHORITIES deemed it legal" by saying "I think they called it wrong"? Certainly that's a thing that happens on these boards all the time. =)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Drug Search Checkpoints do not promote public safety in any way. We are talking about checks specifically in circumstances in which drivers are likely to be drunk. Nothing else. If you think that has nothing to do with public safety, you may want to educate yourself on the topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:We are talking about checks specifically in circumstances in which drivers are likely to be drunk. Nothing else. If you think that has nothing to do with public safety, you may want to educate yourself on the topic. And yet those are not the only checkpoints, which are hiding under that same umbrella ruling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Additionally, breathalyzers are not covered by the 5th amendment, just like fingerprints and DNA aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The reason *sniff sniff* I'm stopping you *sniff* citizen is because this is a drunk-driving *sniff* checkpoint. *SNIIIIIIFFFFF* Is that marijuana I smell? This kind of abuse would also not be a problem if we made DUI 100% legal. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The war on drugs is bullshit and smelling marijuana shouldn't be probable cause for anything. Ending DUI checkpoints wouldn't end the marijuana as an excuse for searches during other routine traffic stops. The place to stop this is by repealing laws that criminalize possession, not by backing off from DUI enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
DUI checkpoints and drug search checkpoints are very different things, one is looking for intoxicated drivers and the other is just looking for contraband. Do you have examples of these drug search check points which are similar to DUI sobriety check points? It has been a bit since criminal law in law school but I recall check points with K9 units sniffing for drugs to be held unconstitutional (not counting boarder searches which are a completely different topic) as there is no relation to driver safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
This is somehow even dumber than the "heroin should be legal" libertarian plank. Is this liberty? The freedom of drunks to operate 3000 pound death machines without supervision or interference from the scary government? I think I'll take a pass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Is this liberty? The freedom of drunks to operate 3000 pound death machines without supervision or interference from the scary government? I think I'll take a pass. No, true liberty is letting businessmen like the owners of Hobby Lobby buy the roads so they can decide which drugs are allowed to be transported on their private property. "Just a routine check for whore pills, ma'am, thanks for driving ChristWays™" "Sorry, but your TOS requires full observation by a ChristWays™ Morality Attendant. Just pee on that stick there, if it don't turn orange, we know you're not whorin'!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:DUI checkpoints aren't searches, but the court does consider them seizures so for purposes of the 4th Amendment it's not any different. Talmonis posted:And yet those are not the only checkpoints, which are hiding under that same umbrella ruling. Mavric posted:DUI checkpoints and drug search checkpoints are very different things, one is looking for intoxicated drivers and the other is just looking for contraband. Do you have examples of these drug search check points which are similar to DUI sobriety check points? It has been a bit since criminal law in law school but I recall check points with K9 units sniffing for drugs to be held unconstitutional (not counting boarder searches which are a completely different topic) as there is no relation to driver safety. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Except that you are only giving up the right under specific circumstances. If having a car is a right via freedom of movement, then requiring a license is also unconstitutional, is it not? I think the issue is the abridgement of your 4th amendment rights, not whether having a car is itself a right. Being licensed should not be held to make what would otherwise be an unconstitutional seizure constitutional, should it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Mavric posted:DUI checkpoints and drug search checkpoints are very different things, one is looking for intoxicated drivers and the other is just looking for contraband. Do you have examples of these drug search check points which are similar to DUI sobriety check points? It has been a bit since criminal law in law school but I recall check points with K9 units sniffing for drugs to be held unconstitutional (not counting boarder searches which are a completely different topic) as there is no relation to driver safety. If you're dusky, every checkpoint is a drug search checkpoint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Fourth Amendment leaves it up to the courts to determine what is a reasonable search and what is not. That's what the courts are for, sorry bout your illiteracy. It's almost like judges are human too and they decide on some blurred lines about implied consent  on the road because that makes them feel better/safer. But we don't do the same for suspected murderers in court who also kill thousands a year because we're culturally drilled on a gut level to recognize rights in court are Serious Business(tm). Public safety would benefit from a "nuanced" "interpretation" of the 4A in both cases, but we've got an inconsistent standard based on how much of a right a judge or soccer mom is comfortable with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm aware of what courts can do and disagree with the blood draw during detention ruling SCOTUS made recently, if that's what you're referring to. I'm saying it completely breaks credulity to believe that drunk drivers endangering lives merits a stop based on nothing other than time of night, but potential murderers don't. If you regard testing people for inebriation while they're on public property operating a very dangerous machine as a tyrannical abuse of some amendment, the sensible thing would be to advocate for changing that amendment. It's not set in stone, after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm aware of what courts can do and disagree with the blood draw during detention ruling SCOTUS made recently, if that's what you're referring to. I'm saying it completely breaks credulity to believe that drunk drivers endangering lives merits a stop based on nothing other than time of night, but potential murderers don't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:38
|
|