Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to

[radcen]

Where does the federal government get this authority?

They have a vast array of weaponry that gives them the authority. Having a complicit court system doesn't hurt, either.

 

[radcen]

What makes an imaginary line that is the countries borders any different than any other line someone draws up?

How do we know the sky is blue? Maybe gravity is just an illusion. :roll:

 

[Henrin]

How do we know the sky is blue? Maybe gravity is just an illusion. :roll:

I was simply asking a question that I don't think many people think about all that much. We have lines in the sand that restrict peoples movement, but how many reasons do we really have to do so.

 

[Caine]

You memorized that slogan well!

It's ridiculous of course, but so drilled into people it is just recited.

So you are saying you have the right to drive?

 

[joko104]

I want to agree with you, but I've got the nagging feeling that it may be technically true, but realistically not.

For one thing, I know that in some states, the cops are allowed to detain you for short periods of time, and during that period they are allowed to ask you certain specific questions such as who you are, what you are doing at the time and where you are going. What I don't know is if you are required to answer the questions, particularly the last two. What I do know is that if you don't answer the first one, they can detain you for as long as it takes for them to identify who you are. I don't know if there are any consequences to not answering the other two.

When you are under detainment, you are required to comply with their orders. That doesn't mean you have to answer their questions, but you do have to do what they tell you to do, as long as their orders are "lawful" (I'm not going to get into what should be done if the orders are not lawful). AFAIK, orders like "Please roll down your window" and "Step out of your car" are lawful orders, and a detainee is required to obey them. If you don't, the police are allowed to use force to get you to comply

You do not have to answer where you are going, what you are doing or those questions. Where it gets sticky is "name and address." Same with asking for your DL. They can hold you a long time if you won't answer. And ticket you on the DL. Take you in for not telling your name or address - and while ultimately have to let you go, they'll like think of a reason to take your prints and run them first.

 

[joko104]

The statement "driving is a privilege, not a right" is drilled into everyone, but it is absurd. In my opinion, a citizen has a right to freely move about the country and to engage in commerce about the country - and to do so by traveling on public land, public water and public airways. To claim "but a person can walk" is absurd in light of how modern society and commerce functions now. Besides, it is illegal to walk along many highways and even for more illegal to be on a horse. "Driving is a privilege, not a right" is something dreamed up for driver's ed classes back in ancient history - and is a slogan so drilled into people that people now just chant it as a truism, when it is false in my opinion.

 

[Summerwind]

Yep, I know of a woman traveling from Phoenix to San Diego and got arrested for less than an 1/8th of mj due to those checkpoints and a drug sniffing dog. In the end it's cheaper for her to plead guilty and take the class and community service, but in all honesty, traveling from state to state shouldn't force a checkpoint. I guess actually all entries into CA have checkpoints for fruit and vegetables being brought in, something about trying to keep certain blights out of CA's ag community.

Knowing that the interstate further south (I8, I think) had more concerns than just agriculture, I chose to arrive in CA by a more northerly route, I10, and seriously considered going even further north to Las Vegas and in on I15. Turned out the I10 was fine and no dogs or anything. Even with a 5x8 closed utility trailer hitched on, they just asked if I had any fruits or vegetables, I said no, and off I went. I was stunned. I thought for sure they'd want to see inside the trailer, which would've been fine with me, though I disagree with the legality or should I say constitutionality of check points within the country's borders. At the borders, fine, inside the borders, not okay. Not even the local DUI checkpoints etc, I just don't think they are constitutional. Again, I don't drink and my only worry has been getting caught with the small amount of mj I keep handy for severe cluster headaches, and now in CA no longer conceal carry, so there's no reason for me to be belligerent, and I wouldn't be. That doesn't mean I think it's constitutional, I don't.

 

[joko104]

I mentioned one crossing earlier. On another it turned out we had a curious diversion for which the officer didn't even open up the trailer we were towing that time.

We had a very old taxidermy rattlesnake we had bought. Brittle, we had it very carefully in the open on the back seat until we could spray some clear matt spray paint on it when we got home to preserve it. Very wicked looking - up ready to strike and fangs showing.

The officer saw it and said "do you mind if I borrow that?!" Then he took it into the office to scare the hell out of someone. They all came out laughing, he gave it back and said we could go on our way.

If you haven't done the Florida to So Cal Southern drive via the SOUTHERN route, you should do it once in your life. The change of scenery and settings is incredible. And even the cities extremely diverse. You will understand just how diverse the USA is in every way.

 

[joko104]

I agree that breaking the glass was way over the top, but the guy does in fact have a legal obligation to answer some of the police questions. That is well established law.

No he doesn't, but he can be required to roll down his window and/or to get out of the car.

 

[Gaius46]

No he doesn't, but he can be required to roll down his window and/or to get out of the car.

On what are you basing this assertion?

Every state has stop and identify statutes which require that people seized during Terry stops answer specific questions - name at a minimum. I've already cited, twice in this thread, the relevant USSC decision upholding their Constitutionality.

The SC did not address the self incrimination issue because it wasnt at issue in the case before them. The guy simply didn't want to give the police his name.

 

[d0gbreath]

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 has made it perfectly clear that the answer to all of your questions is yes. So, shape up and quit trying to be free. You were born free. It ended back on day two.

 

[radcen]

I commend the people who will work to ensure that LE is kept in check according Constitutional and legal guidelines, but... there is a point where it becomes absurd. To me, refusing to roll down your window is absurd.

Can somebody please explain why refusing to roll down one's window is rational? Something besides, "Because they can't legally make me", I mean.

 

[lawboy]

I'm sorry but from a legal standpoint you are wrong.

The SC has specifically refused to invalidate a Nevada law compelling people to identify themselves to police during Terry stops. Here's a link to the opinion

HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.

Assuming an internal Border Patrol checkpoint qualifies as a Terry stop, I know if it does but I suspect it does, then you have to give the police whatever information the controlling statutes require.

NO, ANY checkpoint is NOT a Terry stop.

Every state has a law that if a person is stopped in a motor vehicle, upon request, they MUST provide thier Driver License, this is absent Hiibel.

 

[lawboy]

I believe you are incorrect. The SC has ruled internal Border Patrol checkpoints as legal and while they still state probably cause is the standard they called for "low standard" for permanent checkpoints - for example an internal checkpoint stop near the Mexican border is legal if one of the occupants simply looks Mexican.

Checkpoint searches are ADMINISTRATIVE searches, meaning NON suspicionless in nature.

 

[lawboy]

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.

HIIBEL is specific in nature, the person detained MUST be "under investigation", simply refusing when one is not under investigation is legal.

 

[Gaius46]

NO, ANY checkpoint is NOT a Terry stop.

Every state has a law that if a person is stopped in a motor vehicle, upon request, they MUST provide thier Driver License, this is absent Hiibel.

I know. Hiibel essentially says those state laws do not violate the 5th amendment.

 

[Gaius46]

Checkpoint searches are ADMINISTRATIVE searches, meaning NON suspicionless in nature.

BP stops are administrative? I thought adminstrative searches were for regulatory matters like building inspections and the like.

 

[lawboy]

BP stops are administrative? I thought adminstrative searches were for regulatory matters like building inspections and the like.

Both, such as you describe is in;

Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, US SC. (emphasis added), read for legality of refusal.