Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to

[Ikari]

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

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.


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.

I know a Statist like you will be on the side of the Authority. But there is no necessity to "follow orders" less those orders have legitimate basis. You're just making excuse for Slave Class. If you don't understand that....it wouldn't surprise me.

And I'm sure that after "hours" of legal training (seriously, hours? For ****'s sake, we ain't even training our officers correctly) you have the Cops and Government interpretation of the 4th. I don't argue that point. What I do argue is that you don't actually understand what the 4th entails, and neither has the government for some time since the 4th is so detrimental to their power.

So...

I understand that Statists and authoritarians love when government force works out against the rights and liberties of the individual. But it's not the way it was meant to be, not in a Free Republic. And fascists may at some point find themselves on the other end of the barrel by patriots.

 

[Ikari]

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.

How is it illegal to not talk to cops? If they don't have cause, I don't have any duty to them. They can't go around demanding papers and arresting anyone who refuses, which seems to be what you say.

Why do so many fascist authoritarians try to masquerade as libertarians? I fear you have no concept of the philosophy.

 

[clownboy]

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

Perhaps, but there were no "rights" broken here.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Video @: Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to - YouTube

Man refuses to roll down his window to a checkpoint. He continues to take pictures, as the sheriff comes over they motion him to go to a secondary area and they bash his window in while he is in his car. Is this a bit excessive and goes against our rights? I think so. No warrant was presented.

Unfortunately, his error was in refusing to respond to the police officer when asked to identify himself.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Hiibel v. Nevada 542 U.S. 177 (2004) that a police officer is not violating a citizens Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights when stopping and asking for proof of identification. So, essentially, if you are stopped and asked for ID, you must provide it or you can be arrested if your state has a law requiring that you do so.

You do not have to answer any other questions, but you must invoke your fifth amendment right to do so thanks to another 5-4 ruling that mere silence without invoking, can be used against you. Salinas v. Texas 563 U.S. ___ (2013)

If he had simply rolled down the window when the POLICE OFFICER asked him to, presented ID and said that is all he wished to say...he'd been on the road within seconds. I don't agree we should be stopped, and I don't like this trend at all...but it is the law currently.

Perhaps a test case could change it. Doubtful with the current seated Court.

 

[Jerry]

Video @: Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to - YouTube

Man refuses to roll down his window to a checkpoint. He continues to take pictures, as the sheriff comes over they motion him to go to a secondary area and they bash his window in while he is in his car. Is this a bit excessive and goes against our rights? I think so. No warrant was presented.

I confess that I would like to live in an America where the government is actually kept in check, at the point of a rifle if not the law. Bashing in a window of an occupied car is a forceable felony and the cop who did it should have been shot by the driver, whom the law should have protected.

But I guess America doesn't care about it's rights anymore, and that's why we have the Patriot Act, Czars, TARP, the IRS, the IRS scandle, the ATF, etc, etc...

 

[MaggieD]

Then what lawful order are you presuming that he refused?

"Sir, please roll down your window."

 

[clownboy]

How is it illegal to not talk to cops? If they don't have cause, I don't have any duty to them. They can't go around demanding papers and arresting anyone who refuses, which seems to be what you say.

Why do so many fascist authoritarians try to masquerade as libertarians? I fear you have no concept of the philosophy.

What you believe may be close to accurate if he wasn't operating a motor vehicle at the time. Try reading your state's driver's manual. You have no right to refuse to identify yourself as a licensed operator. Border Patrol checkpoints have been upheld by the courts and thus you have no right to refuse there either.

You appear to have no concept of what your rights actually are.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

"Sir, please roll down your window."

We don't know if this is a case of not entirely rolling the window down, like the 4th of July example. Cracking your window enough that they can hear you, and refusing to open it all the way is perfectly within his rights.

 

[Ikari]

Perhaps, but there were no "rights" broken here.

There was no warrant nor cause to search and seize one's person, property, nor papers. And yet that was what was done. So it seems rather clearly that the 4th was grievously violated. Which is of no surprise, that right is just about dead thanks to the Government.

 

[Jerry]

"Sir, please roll down your window."

That's a request, not an order.

 

[Ikari]

What you believe may be close to accurate if he wasn't operating a motor vehicle at the time. Try reading your state's driver's manual. You have no right to refuse to identify yourself as a licensed operator. Border Patrol checkpoints have been upheld by the courts and thus you have no right to refuse there either.

You appear to have no concept of what your rights actually are.

No, the problem is that I have complete concept of what a RIGHT is. Some of y'all don't. I know what the State says. I'm not arguing that the State isn't trying to circumvent our privacy and rights against search; for they surely are. I'm arguing that despite what the government says, it's still an actual violation of rights that some of y'all privacy hating guys out there seem to champion.

 

[Ikari]

"Sir, please roll down your window."

Not an order, and why would I have to comply? Just because the government wanted me to do something? Do rights mean nothing then?

 

[Henrin]

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.

Ah...so if I'm on the road there is reasonable suspicion I'm a criminal. Why would that be exactly? Because I own a car and happen to be using it to get from place A to place B? Hmmm..yeah they totally meets that standard.

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

Why? Is driving down the road not something I do every single day like walking down the street or being alive?

 

[sangha]

That's a request, not an order.

 

[MaggieD]

We don't know if this is a case of not entirely rolling the window down, like the 4th of July example. Cracking your window enough that they can hear you, and refusing to open it all the way is perfectly within his rights.

Not if you're obstructing his view into your car. Oh, and I just looked it up: "Sir, please step out of your car." and "Sir, may I see your driver's license," both are lawful orders supported by SCOTUS decision.

 

[clownboy]

There was no warrant nor cause to search and seize one's person, property, nor papers. And yet that was what was done. So it seems rather clearly that the 4th was grievously violated. Which is of no surprise, that right is just about dead thanks to the Government.

Funny how you snipped that to ignore the fact that you have no right to refuse to identify yourself as a licensed operator upon request when you are operating a motor vehicle in any state or federal jurisdiction. Again, read your state's driver's manual. The courts have already rung in here - the checkpoints are legal and comport with what rights you actually do have.

The problem appears to be that you don't understand what rights are and which you have and under what circumstances.

 

[Henrin]

Not if you're obstructing his view into your car. Oh, and I just looked it up: "Sir, please step out of your car." and "Sir, may I see your driver's license," both are lawful orders supported by SCOTUS decision.

Why can't I obstruct his view into my car? Does he have any reason to look into my car? When I get stopped for speeding does that somehow warrant an officer asking about the bag in my passenger seat? Well, does it? Does he have any business in knowing what is in the bag?

 

[clownboy]

No, the problem is that I have complete concept of what a RIGHT is. Some of y'all don't. I know what the State says. I'm not arguing that the State isn't trying to circumvent our privacy and rights against search; for they surely are. I'm arguing that despite what the government says, it's still an actual violation of rights that some of y'all privacy hating guys out there seem to champion.

You've demonstrated you've got it wrong. This was a FEDERAL checkpoint, consistent with federal law in accordance with court decisions. IF you had actually read your state's driver's manual, you know the rules you agreed to in order to operate a motor vehicle, you'd know you are required to identify yourself with a license upon request of a state or federal officer. Failure to do so can result in your legal detention and loss of the PRIVILEGE of driving.

 

[MaggieD]

Why can't I obstruct his view into my car? Does he have any reason to look into my car?

It's a checkpoint. Assuming it's legal, it is legal to stop your car. This guy refused to talk to the officer. Refused to even crack his window. Just sat there. The only thing he did do was pull over. This didn't happen in a vacuum.

A person is never right to resist a police officer. The remedy is to allow your rights to be violated and take it up in court -- civil or otherwise.

Now, for all you assholes who want to prove a point? Good luck to you. Me? I'll be going on my merry way in 45 seconds. You? Call your honey for bail.

 

[Henrin]

You've demonstrated you've got it wrong. This was a FEDERAL checkpoint, consistent with federal law in accordance with court decisions. IF you had actually read your state's driver's manual, you know the rules you agreed to in order to operate a motor vehicle, you'd know you are required to identuify yourself with a license upon request of a state or federal officer. Failure to do so can result in your legal detention and loss of the PRIVILEGE of driving.

So it's another one of those deals where the government makes people sign away their rights? Nice. There isn't anything wrong with that, nope.

 

[Henrin]

It's a checkpoint. Assuming it's legal, it is legal to stop your car. This guy refused to talk to the officer. Refused to even crack his window. Just sat there. The only thing he did do was pull over. This didn't happen in a vacuum.

A person is never right to resist a police officer. The remedy is to allow your rights to be violated and take it up in court -- civil or otherwise.

Now, for all you assholes who want to prove a point? Good luck to you. Me? I'll be going on my merry way in 45 seconds. You? Call your honey for bail.

Don't worry, when I get arrested the government will force me to give them my DNA and fingerprints. I love being detained for no reason, being forced to allow the state to search my car when they have no reason to do so, and finally being forced to allow them to have my DNA and fingerprints when I did nothing. What could possibly be better.

 

[clownboy]

So it's another one of those deals where the government makes people sign away their rights? Nice. There isn't anything wrong with that, nope.

No. Nothing signed away. You don't have the right to refuse to identify yourself at a border patrol checkpoint in the first place.

 

[Henrin]

No. Nothing signed away. You don't have the right to refuse to identify yourself at a border patrol checkpoint in the first place.

Really now? Why would that be exactly?

 

[Gaius46]

How is it illegal to not talk to cops? If they don't have cause, I don't have any duty to them. They can't go around demanding papers and arresting anyone who refuses, which seems to be what you say.

Why do so many fascist authoritarians try to masquerade as libertarians? I fear you have no concept of the philosophy.

First point. Don't confuse my personal philosophy with my understanding of what the law allows. I didn't say I agreed with the law - I simply stated what I believe it to be.

See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), where the SC ruled that Nevada laws compelling people to identify themselves to police during Terry stops are legal. Many states have specific statutes detailing what information you must provide police when stopped. If you refuse to even talk to the police you obviously cannot provide that information.

Like it or the reasonable suspicion standard is a pretty low bar and courts give the police huge leeway with what constitutes "reasonable." You can argue it all you want but it's settled law and you will invariably lose.

 

[clownboy]

Don't worry, when I get arrested the government will force me to give them my DNA and fingerprints. I love being detained for no reason, being forced to allow the state to search my car when they have no reason to do so, and finally being forced to allow to have my DNA and fingerprints taken when I did nothing. What could possibly be better.

You don't have to surrender your DNA without a warrant as it stands now. The Constitution is silent on DNA and fingerprint collection so that may change in the future. And, if you can't stand checkpoints or showing your license on law enforcement demand - time to sell the car and give up your license.

On the plus side, it's cheaper without one.