|
jammin
MN Adopted
Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 2,844
Loc: Missourah
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: trampis]
#17886454 - 03/01/13 01:53 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
I wish the same thing applied to dui checkpoints.
-------------------- And when I see you coming down the line With eyes wide open Somewhere in between the past and future Where you drift in time And you can see a different point of view
|
k00laid
NEMO
Registered: 05/03/10
Posts: 19,636
Last seen: 8 months, 1 day
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: jammin]
#17886461 - 03/01/13 01:54 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jammin said: I wish the same thing applied to dui checkpoints.
it does.
you dont have to do shit at a dui checkpoint.
the first thing you should ever ask someone at a dui checkpoint is
"why did you pull me over, officer?"
-------------------- AMU - AMU Q & A - MyVideo Teks!
|
Maharishi_2_U
Opt Out Super Fag
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 6,316
Loc: The Streets
Last seen: 9 years, 20 days
|
|
NEVER ROLL YOUR WINDOW ALL THE WAY!!!
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: k00laid]
#17886474 - 03/01/13 01:56 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
k00laid said: care to cite that?
nope
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,722
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 5 hours, 4 minutes
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: k00laid]
#17886478 - 03/01/13 01:56 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
The case law on 4th amendment is that police can only enter a home if they have a warrant, with consent, or the reasonable belief that physical harm to persons can be prevented. A suspicion of illegal activity is not sufficient.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: k00laid]
#17886479 - 03/01/13 01:57 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
k00laid said:
Quote:
jammin said: I wish the same thing applied to dui checkpoints.
it does.
you dont have to do shit at a dui checkpoint.
the first thing you should ever ask someone at a dui checkpoint is
"why did you pull me over, officer?"
they call them road checks for license and insurance and that's what you're required by law to provide if you're driving
|
jammin
MN Adopted
Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 2,844
Loc: Missourah
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: k00laid]
#17886488 - 03/01/13 01:58 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
sadly, it's constitutional in my state.
Quote:
Legality in the United States
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “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.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.
Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject himself to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States
refusal to consent to a B.A.C. test can make you lose your license for up to a year.
-------------------- And when I see you coming down the line With eyes wide open Somewhere in between the past and future Where you drift in time And you can see a different point of view
|
Constantine
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Registered: 05/01/11
Posts: 4,643
Loc:
Last seen: 30 days, 14 hours
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: jammin] 1
#17886501 - 03/01/13 02:01 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jammin said: I wish the same thing applied to dui checkpoints.
Watch this.
--------------------
|
something super extreme
NIGGA YOU A FUCK NIGGA!
Registered: 10/29/12
Posts: 17,397
Loc: TURNT UP!
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: k00laid]
#17886504 - 03/01/13 02:01 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
They can attempt to invade your vehicle at any point on a number of baseless suspicions including but not limited to fear of personal harm, suspicion of illegal substances/weapons/etc. More importantly, under certain circumstances a police officer can search your car without a warrant, as vehicles are subject to a reduced expectation of privacy than your house.
This isn't random bullshit I'm just saying. It is was ruled by the supreme court in Carroll v United states. In 1925. So it's not exactly news either. Arizona v Grant ruled in 2009 that LEOs must demonstrate an imminent safety danger by an arrestee or the imperative to preserve evidence under suspicion that evidence would be otherwise destroyed in order to justify a warrantless search that ended in lawful arrest. However, AZ v Grant does not provide any blanket protection from the ruling of Carroll v United States.
Sorry, you are not as free as you would like to think.
|
trampis
mad hatter
Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 3,545
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: Prisoner#1]
#17886508 - 03/01/13 02:01 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
From our friends at NORML,
Quote:
I invoke and refuse to waive my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Do not ask me any questions. I invoke and refuse to waive my Sixth Amendment right to an attorney of my choice. Do not ask me any questions without my attorney present. I invoke and refuse to waive all privileges and rights pursuant to the case Miranda v. Arizona. Do not ask me any questions or make any comment to me about this decision. I invoke and refuse to waive my Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not consent to any search or seizure of myself, my home, or of any property in my possession. Do not ask me about my ownership interest in any property. I do not consent to this contact with you. If I am not presently under arrest or under investigatory detention, please allow me to leave. Any statement I make, or alleged consent I give, in response to your questions is hereby made under protest and under duress and in submission to your claim of lawful authority to force me to provide you with information.
Anyone ever used that?
I have refused a search before, but I didn't say all that. I just told the cop he could not search my vehicle.
He asked, "Are you sure?"
"Actually officer, now that you mention it, I've changed my mind. Go ahead and dig through all of my personal shit."
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,722
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 5 hours, 4 minutes
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: jammin]
#17886514 - 03/01/13 02:02 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Because the driving is not a right protected by the constitution. You are still protected from searches, but not any driving related activity. Again, as pris said, the reason that driving infractions are the premise for other more serious police stops.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: koods]
#17886519 - 03/01/13 02:02 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: The case law on 4th amendment is that police can only enter a home if they have a warrant, with consent, or the reasonable belief that physical harm to persons can be prevented. A suspicion of illegal activity is not sufficient.
there's Search Incident to Arrest, Exigent Circumstances and Plain View as being the 3 reasons other than consent for a cop to enter your home without a warrant. if they have probable cause then they can get a warrant if needed
Exigent Circumstances covers a variety of things such as pursuit of a suspect, eminent danger or when that front door is unlocked the call about the burglary that allowed them to walk in and look around
|
jammin
MN Adopted
Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 2,844
Loc: Missourah
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: Prisoner#1]
#17886536 - 03/01/13 02:05 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
to be more specific about DUI checkpoints, here's the US Supreme Court Case that proved its constitutionality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz
-------------------- And when I see you coming down the line With eyes wide open Somewhere in between the past and future Where you drift in time And you can see a different point of view
|
koods
Ribbit
Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,722
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 5 hours, 4 minutes
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: koods]
#17886545 - 03/01/13 02:06 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
While sVs is right that a car is not a home, in terms of the expectation of privacy, or reasonableness of searches, opening a car door without consent is pretty fucking analogous to opening a front door to a house.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: jammin]
#17886559 - 03/01/13 02:08 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jammin said: refusal to consent to a B.A.C. test can make you lose your license for up to a year.
as enlil has stated, it's better to refuse because if you consent then you're giving them the evidence for the conviction, if you fight it in court and win then it's not difficult to ensure reinstatement, in my state you're allowed 10 days to appeal a suspension for refusing a BAC test
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: koods]
#17886563 - 03/01/13 02:09 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: While sVs is right that a car is not a home, in terms of the expectation of privacy, or reasonableness of searches, opening a car door without consent is pretty fucking analogous to opening a front door to a house.
if the door was unlocked it's not illegal
|
k00laid
NEMO
Registered: 05/03/10
Posts: 19,636
Last seen: 8 months, 1 day
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: Prisoner#1]
#17886576 - 03/01/13 02:11 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: While sVs is right that a car is not a home, in terms of the expectation of privacy, or reasonableness of searches, opening a car door without consent is pretty fucking analogous to opening a front door to a house.
if the door was unlocked it's not illegal
no. the door being locked is entirely unrelated to the legality of entering the home.
if its legal for them to enter. they will break down the door.
the door being unlocked has nothing to do with it.
-------------------- AMU - AMU Q & A - MyVideo Teks!
|
jammin
MN Adopted
Registered: 03/30/11
Posts: 2,844
Loc: Missourah
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: Prisoner#1]
#17886591 - 03/01/13 02:13 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
jammin said: refusal to consent to a B.A.C. test can make you lose your license for up to a year.
as enlil has stated, it's better to refuse because if you consent then you're giving them the evidence for the conviction, if you fight it in court and win then it's not difficult to ensure reinstatement, in my state you're allowed 10 days to appeal a suspension for refusing a BAC test
I see what you mean. If I was a lawyer, I'd probably refuse to blow, but me not knowing the law to well, I'd probably end up shooting myself in the foot either way I answer.
-------------------- And when I see you coming down the line With eyes wide open Somewhere in between the past and future Where you drift in time And you can see a different point of view
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: k00laid]
#17886679 - 03/01/13 02:27 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
k00laid said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: While sVs is right that a car is not a home, in terms of the expectation of privacy, or reasonableness of searches, opening a car door without consent is pretty fucking analogous to opening a front door to a house.
if the door was unlocked it's not illegal
no. the door being locked is entirely unrelated to the legality of entering the home.
if its legal for them to enter. they will break down the door.
the door being unlocked has nothing to do with it.
really? exigent circumstances... as I stated, it covers a lot of gound
|
k00laid
NEMO
Registered: 05/03/10
Posts: 19,636
Last seen: 8 months, 1 day
|
Re: Checkpoint refusals. . . [Re: Prisoner#1]
#17886691 - 03/01/13 02:29 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: really? exigent circumstances... as I stated, it covers a lot of gound
exigent circumstances allows them to break down your door.
the door being locked or unlocked has nothing to do with the legality of the entry.
-------------------- AMU - AMU Q & A - MyVideo Teks!
|
|