Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to

[Spartacus FPV]

There was no sound on that video. You have no idea what they were asking him. First thing was probably: "Sir, please roll down your window." What.A.Dork.

Then what lawful order are you presuming that he refused?

 

[joko104]

If checkpoints are legal in that state, then I have no problem with what they did. He wouldn't even talk to them. If a copper gives you a lawful order, you obey. Period.

He was making some sort of test case of himself. It probably cost him a couple hundred dollars. Stupid. Serves him right.

A couple hundred dollars? Yeah, back when a loaf of bread cost a buck. :lol:

 

[ecofarm]

Regardless, you left open a window, and it was funny if you can follow it.

Are you supposed to be making sense?

 

[sangha]

Regardless, you left open a window...

If only the ass hole in the video had done the same thing

 

[Henrin]

Btw, it was pretty awesome how civil disobedience lead to the cop destroying private property. Of course, it's also pretty awesome how the dog, which btw is a search, found nothing and yet the cops still decided to destroy property. How nice.

 

[Ikari]

If only the ass hole in the video had done the same thing

hahaha, OK, that's funny. But I agree with the dude in the video. They had no right, no cause nor warrant, to search him. He has every RIGHT to refuse. Exercise of rights is not met with government force in a Free Republic.

 

[Caine]

Nah...He has no reason to stop me, so why should I listen to him? He can **** off.

And yet challenges to checkpoints continue to be tossed out......

But you know better than all those lawyers... right?

 

[Caine]

Btw, it was pretty awesome how civil disobedience lead to the cop destroying private property. Of course, it's also pretty awesome how the dog, which btw is a search, found nothing.

He refused to come out of the vehicle..... a lawful order during a legal detention.

Funny enough.... he decided to step out when they broke glass and showed him they were serious....

I am curious though..... Why only the short video clip? Was he trying to hide something????

 

[Ikari]

And yet challenges to checkpoints continue to be tossed out......

But you know better than all those lawyers... right?

I know better than the government in many cases. Of course government wants to expand its powers against the rights and liberties of the people. Freedom is dangerous. In a general sense, and to the Government itself. Close it down, restrict it, get people to start arguing for submitting. Poor beasts running around with their tail between their legs thinking that running away is getting them somewhere better.

 

[Henrin]

And yet challenges to checkpoints continue to be tossed out......

But you know better than all those lawyers... right?

What is the reason to stop me? That I'm on the road?

 

[Ikari]

What is the reason to stop me? That I'm on the road?

That you may even consider holding your rights as RIGHTS. That's what makes you dangerous.

 

[Caine]

Property damage and arrest are not warranted without proper cause or warrant first.

There is this interesting concept........ even approved by the USSC.... try to follow along....

Its called..... "Warrantless Arrests"

Which is, amazingly enough, the majority of your misdemeanor arrests... *gasp* who would have thought it?

And, just to shut you up, nowhere in the 4th amendment does it REQUIRE a warrant for an arrest. It only states that warrants shall not be issued without probable cause....

 

[joko104]

Over a year ago I recounted my wife and I stuck at that HUGE East-West southern route checkpoint for hours due to having a "cannonball" antique high security safe I bought cheap because the combination was lost. Those suckers despite being over 100 years old are extremely difficult to get into because the top-end one have layers of different types of metal - including highly reactive to torching and designed for each layer to confound a different method of adverse opening. The round shape also makes them difficult to blow open. And it weighed thousands of pounds despite its seemingly small size, as the interior of those is very small. Their fame is the safe that Jessie James could never get open and the company (then) assured they were impossible to adversely enter back-then. Nor did they have any justification to open the safe anyway. Finally let us go on their way but not until after a lot of phone calls and waiting.

 

[Henrin]

He refused to come out of the vehicle..... a lawful order during a legal detention.

What was their reason for ordering him out of the vehicle? That he wouldn't roll down the window and talk to them? Let's all cry for the those poor ignored officers. :boohoo:

Funny enough.... he decided to step out when they broke glass and showed him they were serious....

Yes, when people with weapons show they are about to kick your ass with those weapons many people will obey. Go figure.

 

[Ikari]

There is this interesting concept........ even approved by the USSC.... try to follow along....

Its called..... "Warrantless Arrests"

Which is, amazingly enough, the majority of your misdemeanor arrests... *gasp* who would have thought it?

And, just to shut you up, nowhere in the 4th amendment does it REQUIRE a warrant for an arrest. It only states that warrants shall not be issued without probable cause....

And that I have the RIGHT to secure myself, my houses (property), papers (information), and effects (anything else I deem fit) from unreasonable search and seizure. It takes warrant or cause to make reasonable search. So without warrant or cause, as I said, property damage and arrest are not warranted. Here's the full of the 4th because it seems that you don't quite understand it.

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.

 

[Caine]

I know better than the government in many cases. Of course government wants to expand its powers against the rights and liberties of the people. Freedom is dangerous. In a general sense, and to the Government itself. Close it down, restrict it, get people to start arguing for submitting. Poor beasts running around with their tail between their legs thinking that running away is getting them somewhere better.

Oh please....

Come to me when someones rights were violated.

Not when a stupid no-life troll gets legally punked by the Border Patrol.

 

[Caine]

What is the reason to stop me? That I'm on the road?

Yes.

For futhur clarification, contact a lawyer that can explain to you the USSC decision allowing the use of Checkpoints and the legal restrictions set on them.

 

[Gaius46]

What lawful order? He refused a search, which is WELL within his rights. I hope you're not one of those "do whatever the police tell you" types who opposes people citing their rights.



If he wasn't being detained he should be free to go. What PC did they have to detain him in secondary inspection? From his story (and yes of course if he is full of it it'll come out in court) they had none.

I really hate these bull**** "interior" border patrol checkpoints. They can occur far from any border and treat the coasts as our borders too:
View attachment 67150136

This includes EVERYWHERE in my state.

They don't need probable cause. The need reasonable suspicion which is a significantly lower bar .

As far as I can tell he wasn't refusing a search, which is within his rights for a Terry stop. He was refusing to even talk to the cops which is not within his rights.

 

[Ikari]

Oh please....

Come to me when someones rights were violated.

This man's person, property, and information were unlawfully violated by the acts of the cops here. They had no cause nor warrant.

 

[Ikari]

Yes.

For futhur clarification, contact a lawyer that can explain to you the USSC decision allowing the use of Checkpoints and the legal restrictions set on them.

Yes, we all know that government loves to usurp power. That's not in contention right now. What's in contention is whether or not there was actual CAUSE OR WARRANT. Despite what power the government wishes to grant to itself, there are still the principles of the Constitution, no matter how much some of you wish not to consider that. Government is restricted, not the individual. Or is that a concept beyond you Mr. "Libertarian"?

 

[Caine]

What was their reason for ordering him out of the vehicle? That he wouldn't roll down the window and talk to them? Let's all cry for the those poor ignored officers. :boohoo:

Considering that rolling down the window to speak to them is also a lawful order during a legal detention.... yes.

And save your childishness for your children. They may be impressed by your fake crying.

Yes, when people with weapons show they are about to kick your ass with those weapons many people will obey. Go figure.

The stupid troll should have just rolled his damned window down.

Dunno what he was trying to prove..... its funny when law enforcement trolls are wrong, they just scream louder.

 

[Henrin]

Yes.

For futhur clarification, contact a lawyer that can explain to you the USSC decision allowing the use of Checkpoints and the legal restrictions set on them.

So being on the road is probable cause to be detained? Is walking down the road probable cause to be detained? How about just being alive? Is that probable cause?

 

[Caine]

And that I have the RIGHT to secure myself, my houses (property), papers (information), and effects (anything else I deem fit) from unreasonable search and seizure.

And the USSC has deemed that detention at a checkpoint is a reasonable seizure.. Next?

It takes warrant or cause to make reasonable search.

And since he never even rolled his window down or complied with any other lawful orders, any complaints about this search you guys keep talking about are.... null and void.
BTW: Consent is also a valid search, or exigent circumstances (neither applied here, but nor did a search apply in this case anyhow).

So without warrant or cause, as I said, property damage and arrest are not warranted.

Considering his refusal to obey the orders at the checkpoint amount to resist/obstruct/delay.....and his refusal to exit the vehicle when asked resulted in officers making him get out using force to effect an arrest... You has nothing.

Here's the full of the 4th because it seems that you don't quite understand it.

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.

Yes... Im sure after attending hours of legal training to become a NC State Certified Police Officer, I don't know anything about the 4th amendment.......

In actually, I not only know about the 4th amendment, but I know more about it than just its plain words.... I know how the court views it via case laws.

So...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

They don't need probable cause. The need reasonable suspicion which is a significantly lower bar .

Wrong, that is for traffic stops not border checkpoints.

Main article: Traffic stop
A brief, non-custodial traffic stop must normally be supported by reasonable suspicion; the investigating officer must weigh the totality of the circumstances to determine whether sufficient objective facts exist to create reasonable suspicion that the driver is engaged in criminal activity.[5] If the investigating officer witnesses the driver committing a traffic violation, the violation supplies reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle but probable cause to support an arrest only exists if the traffic violation is a misdemeanor violation such as not wearing a seatbelt, reckless driving or in some states, running a red light. A minor traffic violation such as speeding, an infraction and not a misdemeanor, does not give the officer probable cause to support an arrest.[6] In Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court held that a drug dog may sniff the exterior of a vehicle during a traffic stop so long as it does not extend the stop; the use of a drug dog is sui generis and not considered a search.[7] Police may set up roadblocks and stop drivers without particularized reasonable suspicion the stopped individual is engaged in criminal activity so long as the stop’s level of intrusion does not exceed the connection of the crime, typically driving while intoxicated, to the roadway

Border Checkpoints
U.S. Customs can do routine suspicionless searches of people and effects crossing the border (including passing through airport customs) without establishing reasonable suspicion. This includes even complicated searches such as the disassembly of an automobile's gas tank. United States v. Flores-Montano. However, there are some more intrusive types of searches, such as body cavity searches of a suspect balloon swallower, that require reasonable suspicion. United States v. Montoya De Hernandez.

But for the sake of argument, lets pretend you were right. What reasonable suspicion did give them?

As far as I can tell he wasn't refusing a search, which is within his rights for a Terry stop. He was refusing to even talk to the cops which is not within his rights.

That's the problem with this soundless video, there are far better examples on Youtube, like from the 4th of July, that have full audio so we need not speculate. Like this one for example:

 

[Caine]

So being on the road is probable cause to be detained? Is walking down the road probable cause to be detained? How about just being alive? Is that probable cause?

You are using the wrong standard.

Probable cause is not required to be stopped.... only reasonable suspicion.... which as long as a checkpoint is conducted under specific guidelines, the law enforcement agency properly following guidelines have met the reasonable suspicion standard.


The rest of your asinine suggestions are childish, and therefore ignored.