Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Check Point across USA

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Check Point across USA

    https://www.checkpointusa.org/

  • #2
    https://www.checkpointusa.org/

    Comment


    • #3
      Very interesting website. Thanks for posting it.
      "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

      Comment


      • #4
        If they are unconstitutional why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said they were constitutional? M.orons.

        Comment


        • #5
          Interstate Check Points

          Comment


          • #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
            If they are unconstitutional why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said they were constitutional? M.orons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            What did the Supreme Court say so, moron? Please cite the specific case law(s), moron.

            Comment


            • #7
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unique:
              Interstate Check Points </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

              Wow. Scary. If this kind of thing can happen to a US serving military officer, imagine how they treat illegals and those that look like they are illegal (davdah's "reasonable suspicion"). I'm guessing the reason they wanted him out of the vehicle was so they could search it for drugs. If that was the case they should have said that. According to davdah this behavior is ok though You'll be seeing plenty of videos soon from AZ.
              "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

              Comment


              • #8
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
                If they are unconstitutional why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said they were constitutional? M.orons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                What did the Supreme Court say so, moron? Please cite the specific case law(s), moron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                Moron didn't read this:

                Tennessee Supreme Court Overturns ID Roadblocks

                Tennessee Supreme Court finds an ID roadblock illegal because it was used to issue traffic tickets in the name of safety.

                On Thursday, the Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously found the use of roadblocks to check identification papers, driving licenses and automobile registrations to be unconstitutional. The court struck down a Chattanooga Housing Authority (CHA) "residency" checkpoint at Poss Homes on 2409 Washington Street. The authority, which has its own police force, claimed the stops would protect residents from crime and illicit drug use by turning away non-residents.

                TheNewspaper.com

                Sounds like a bunch of Keystone cops on an outing for the day LOL
                "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                Comment


                • #9
                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wow. Scary. If this kind of thing can happen to a US serving military officer, imagine how they treat illegals and those that look like they are illegal (davdah's "reasonable suspicion"). I'm guessing the reason they wanted him out of the vehicle was so they could search it for drugs. If that was the case they should have said that. According to davdah this behavior is ok though You'll be seeing plenty of videos soon from AZ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  Good point Brit,

                  If that guy was an illegal, and behaved the way he did. Nobody would ever hear from him again. That kind of aloof mild disobedience might cost him his life.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Too bad leftards don't have any facts in their arguements. Checkpoints Rock!

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      #1 "directing some to a secondary checkpoint to answer questions about citizenship and immigration status for three to five minutes"

                      The guy in the video was stopped for 30 minutes.

                      #2 "The Supreme Court found that only minimal intrusion existed to motorists at reasonably located checkpoints," said Vik. "The Supreme Court found that the very brief detention of motorists at a well-marked and identified immigration checkpoint did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure."

                      30 minutes is brief??

                      The courts have typically ruled against "suspicion-less" stops and searches of vehicles at police checkpoints, such as the one that detained Anderson. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Indianapolis vs. Edmond that police cannot establish roadblocks staffed by dogs to randomly search automobiles for drugs."

                      "We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," the Supreme Court majority wrote in Indianapolis vs. Edmond. "The [Indianapolis] checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment."

                      wnd.com

                      Immigration checkpoints appear to be an exception but in general "police checks" set up by local authorities for suspicion-less stop and find searches are not.

                      So back to the soon-to-be new law in AZ...is it constitutional for local cops to use a so far undefined "reasonable suspicion" to stop and search somebody for an immigration violation? I'd say NO - Hell NO!
                      "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Almost all the videos show the drivers being difficult too though, Brit. How would it have gone if they'd simply done as they were asked?

                        I'm no law enforcement expert, but in my limited experience, the more obnoxious and unreasonable you are with them, the worse they're going to be with you.
                        **************************************
                        The whole of life is but a moment of time. It is our duty, therefore to use it, not to misuse it - Plutarch

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          It is quite common for j.erks like Brit to play those games at checkpoints. I just hope the next time Brit tries that he gets the BP smackdown. Tazer, just lie back and enjoy!

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
                            Supreme Court Decision #1 M.oron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            In re: Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the legal tussle arose from an accident in Lombard, Illinois in 1997 when and where a 70-year-old man was killed by a hit-and-run driver. Robert Lidster was stopped by local police in a roadblock erected a week later at the same spot, and was eventually tried and convicted for DUI. He challenged his arrest arguing violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court rejected his challenge but was sustained by the Appellate and the Supreme Courts of Illinois. Hearing the case, the SCOTUS ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use a roadblock to investigate a traffic accident.

                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Supreme Court Decision #2, M.oron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), Martinez-Fuerte was convicted of transporting two illegal aliens. The SCOTUS granted his certiorari petition and held that the United States Border Patrol (repeat: US Border Patrol, federal agents, not state authorities) are allowed to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border, and that these checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. But the Court continued on to hold that: "our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. Any further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols as opposed to permanent checkpoints.”

                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Supreme Court Decision Number 3, M.oron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."

                            As mentioned by Brit, there’s another recent hallmark case, Indianapolis v. Edmond, in which the Supreme Court held that "narcotics checkpoints" were an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment.

                            In other words, (again, as what Brit has already pointed out), these roadblocks (or checkpoints) fall under what is known as a special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment. The special needs exception requires that the checkpoint stops, searches, or seizures that should be based on “consent” and “probable cause” be for regulatory but ”not” for federal law enforcement purposes.

                            In my opinion, Arizona’s SB 1070 that aims immigration law enforcement to be relegated to or assumed by local troopers would pose a head-on challenge to the emotional and statistical vein of the Supreme Court on this matter.

                            As what Justice Stevens said in his dissenting opinion in Sitz, "consensus that a particular law enforcement technique serves a laudable purpose has never been the touchstone of constitutional analysis." Meaning to say, more possible than not, it's going to be a rough and b.umpy ride for this Arizona bill on its way to the sewer.

                            Read my lips, moron.

                            Comment



                            Working...
                            X