Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/9/2004 5:01:06 PM EST
On Labor day we were driving into Frankfort (state capital) and on the road leading into two there were two state troopers in the road checking drivers licences. I showed mine (I am not the confrontational type) but I was under the impression that it was not legal for officers of the law to require you to prove who you are unless there is a specific need (traffic violation, search for specific criminal, etc). Or is this a gray area? Or am I completely wrong?

As a point of note- they were actually supposed to be checking for intoxication to ensure the safety of motorists on the roads. There is no objection to this in my book. It pisses me off that some idiots have such little consideration for others as to endager complete strangers simply because they wanted to get buzzed.

Back to the point at hand . . . is this not an unlawful search? There is no particular investigation and they do not 'need' to know who I am. There was no attempt to issue a citation (but they could have . . . I have a headlight out).

Please only give reasonable answers, based on experience and knowledge (yeah . . . like ar50troll won't find something to add, but nice pic of the kitten . . . . even if badly photoshopped).
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:05:28 PM EST




Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:07:06 PM EST
A sobriety/safety checkpoint is perfectly legal and it is fair to insure that the driver is duly licensed.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:10:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:19:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:21:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
As a point of note- they were actually supposed to be checking for intoxication to ensure the safety of motorists on the roads.



Just like checking for seatbelt compliance - if they are really concerned for your safety, then why are they fining you $300? Shouldn't they just be telling you to buckle up and have a nice day? Oh, no, I forgot, it is really about REVENUE!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:21:56 PM EST
www.lrc.state.ky.us/krs/186-00/510.pdf

Kentucky Revised Statue 186.510

License to be in possession and to be shown on demand. The licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall display it upon demand to the circuit clerk or examiner, a peace officer, a member of the Kentucky State Police, or a field deputy or inspector of the Department of Vehicle Regulation or Transportation Cabinet or pursuant to KRS 67A.075 or 83A.088, a Safety Officer who is in the process of securing information to complete an accident report.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:28:38 PM EST
bunch of BULLSHIT, period.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:31:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 5:31:46 PM EST by Hmanjr]
Wonder if they'd detain anyone who didn't have any identification on them, didn't speak (or so claim) English, and was not an elderly man/woman?

Edit to add - - -
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:31:41 PM EST
Ihre papeire bitte...

YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!

Heil {insert governors name here}!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:36:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
As a point of note- they were actually supposed to be checking for intoxication to ensure the safety of motorists on the roads.



Just like checking for seatbelt compliance - if they are really concerned for your safety, then why are they fining you $300? Shouldn't they just be telling you to buckle up and have a nice day? Oh, no, I forgot, it is really about REVENUE!




+1
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:37:16 PM EST

Your Papers, Please!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:43:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 5:44:25 PM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:43:56 PM EST
Driving is not a right it is a privilege. Further more, the license itself is the property of the state. If state officials wish to see its property, you have no right to deny them access so said property. You should do what you’re told without question.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:02:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheLastBoyScout:
Ihre papeire bitte...

YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!

Heil {insert governors name here}!



+1

Bu11sh1t, man.....
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:04:58 PM EST
"Driving is not a right it is a privilege."

Says who? The cops? Politicians?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:20:10 PM EST
Damn good reply EricTheHun. I agree completely.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:34:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:
bunch of BULLSHIT, period.



+1
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:37:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
"Driving is not a right it is a privilege."

Says who? The cops? Politicians?




How can I pursue Life, Liberty or Happiness without driving in America?


Ride my horse down the Freeway? LoL.


Public Transportation?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:50:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
"Driving is not a right it is a privilege."

Says who? The cops? Politicians?



The DMV...

There is no constitutional right to drive it is a privilege regulated and licensed by the state. It is settled law that sobriety checkpoints are perfectly legal.

You have already agreed to all this when you took the licensed.

And for those that are going to do it please do not speciously compare the privilege of driving to the right of gun ownership or even carry… Unless you believe that merely owning or carrying a gun is dangerous this is a stupid argument.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:12:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
On Labor day we were driving into Frankfort (state capital) and on the road leading into two there were two state troopers in the road checking drivers licences. I showed mine (I am not the confrontational type) but I was under the impression that it was not legal for officers of the law to require you to prove who you are unless there is a specific need (traffic violation, search for specific criminal, etc). Or is this a gray area? Or am I completely wrong?

As a point of note- they were actually supposed to be checking for intoxication to ensure the safety of motorists on the roads. There is no objection to this in my book. It pisses me off that some idiots have such little consideration for others as to endager complete strangers simply because they wanted to get buzzed.

Back to the point at hand . . . is this not an unlawful search? There is no particular investigation and they do not 'need' to know who I am. There was no attempt to issue a citation (but they could have . . . I have a headlight out).

Please only give reasonable answers, based on experience and knowledge (yeah . . . like ar50troll won't find something to add, but nice pic of the kitten . . . . even if badly photoshopped).



If checkpoints are legit in your state, than that was part of the checkpoint...

In many states, the police can ask for ID during any contact and you must provide it...

Identifying yourself is neither a search, siezure, or self incrimination...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:25:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 7:26:19 PM EST by toepopper]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
If checkpoints are legit in your state, than that was part of the checkpoint...

In many states, the police can ask for ID during any contact and you must provide it...

Identifying yourself is neither a search, siezure, or self incrimination...



Sounds like Nazi goodness to me. What is the purpose of identifying yourself if the cops don't have a reason to know?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:29:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
This horrible result is the fruition of the U. S. Supreme Court's miserably reasoned decision in the
Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz case in 1990, which upheld Michigan's roadblock scheme after the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, and the Michigan Supreme Court had all invalidated the roadblocks as 'unreasonable' under the Fourth Amendment!

The Majority Opinion simply cited the death and costs of DWIs and the state's compelling interest to limit such horrors, and found that the traffic stops were 'unobtrusive.'

The Dissenting Opinion by Justices Brennan and Marshall was much better reasoned, and this is a part of that Opinion:

"I do not dispute the immense social cost caused by drunken drivers, nor do I slight the government's efforts to prevent such tragic losses. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that today's opinion will be received favorably by a majority of our society, who would willingly suffer the minimal intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint stop in order to prevent drunken driving. But consensus that a particular law enforcement technique serves a laudable purpose has never been the touchstone of constitutional analysis.

"The Fourth Amendment was designed not merely to protect against official intrusions whose social utility was less as measured by some "balancing test" than its intrusion on individual privacy; it was designed in addition to grant the individual a zone of privacy whose protections could be breached only where the "reasonable" requirements of the probable cause standard were met. Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials -- perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens -- may be tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a true balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of "the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)."

As with so many fairly recent US Supreme Court cases, I agree wholeheartedly with the Dissenting Justices.

Eric The(ConstitutionBeDamned,WeWillDoWeWish)Hun



Quoted simply so that everyone will read it again, and again, and again, and again...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:44:40 PM EST

the state's compelling interest


The above will eventully be our undoing..........
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:49:41 PM EST
if it gets another criminal off the street, random searches are OK by me
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:54:14 PM EST
I have never been stopped or ran into any checkpoints.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:01:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Taxman:
I have never been stopped or ran into any checkpoints.


Me either.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:03:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By USPC40:

Originally Posted By Taxman:
I have never been stopped or ran into any checkpoints.


Me either.




Southern thing?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:56:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:59:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 11:59:32 PM EST by Burley]
I hate going through checkpoints. The VSP runs one about a mile from my house several times a year. Just random stops on a half mile straight stretch of road through the national forest.

The county mounties run checkpoints on just about every holiday weekend in the same areas every year. I've probably been stopped 25 times or more in the 11 years I've been driving.

Nothing but fishing expeditions. Gotta pay for those jackboots somehow I guess.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:04:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By Taxman:

Originally Posted By USPC40:

Originally Posted By Taxman:
I have never been stopped or ran into any checkpoints.


Me either.




Southern thing?




I guess because I've never seen any checkpoints either.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:32:39 AM EST
I love the "Driving is a priveledge" argument.

When did it become so!? Before cars you had a right to free travel, uninhindered between cities and states, provided you did not encroach on private property or cause undue stress or tax the land on which you traveled.

When cars were invented, licensing wasn't. It came later, much later. People used to buy a car, drive it and that was that. The states decided licensing would make the roads safer, and with the licesing revenue build better roads, maintain them and setup traffic lanes and laws to reduce accidents. For the common good, your right to free travel was transformed into a "priviledge".

What has happened, in a nutshell, is that we are so many years from that event that we believe it really isn't a right, having never lived in a time where the nanny-state didn't dole out "priviledges" to us for a fee. Same with guns. Our children probably won't know that gun ownership isn't a "priviledge", and for the common good we'll license our firearms. Watch and see, as the frog boils slowly.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:38:09 AM EST
Typical crap from the usual people. An OL check point is perfectly legal and in no way violates any rights.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:42:21 AM EST
We get those around lake mead every now and then. Make sure people don't drive home drunk.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:28:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
"Driving is not a right it is a privilege."

Says who? The cops? Politicians?



So anyone, too young, too old, crazy, blind, ect... Should be able to hop in, crank up and pursue some happiness, eh?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:48:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By RealFastV6:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
This horrible result is the fruition of the U. S. Supreme Court's miserably reasoned decision in the
Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz case in 1990, which upheld Michigan's roadblock scheme after the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, and the Michigan Supreme Court had all invalidated the roadblocks as 'unreasonable' under the Fourth Amendment!

The Majority Opinion simply cited the death and costs of DWIs and the state's compelling interest to limit such horrors, and found that the traffic stops were 'unobtrusive.'

The Dissenting Opinion by Justices Brennan and Marshall was much better reasoned, and this is a part of that Opinion:

"I do not dispute the immense social cost caused by drunken drivers, nor do I slight the government's efforts to prevent such tragic losses. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that today's opinion will be received favorably by a majority of our society, who would willingly suffer the minimal intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint stop in order to prevent drunken driving. But consensus that a particular law enforcement technique serves a laudable purpose has never been the touchstone of constitutional analysis.

"The Fourth Amendment was designed not merely to protect against official intrusions whose social utility was less as measured by some "balancing test" than its intrusion on individual privacy; it was designed in addition to grant the individual a zone of privacy whose protections could be breached only where the "reasonable" requirements of the probable cause standard were met. Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials -- perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens -- may be tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a true balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of "the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)."

As with so many fairly recent US Supreme Court cases, I agree wholeheartedly with the Dissenting Justices.

Eric The(ConstitutionBeDamned,WeWillDoWeWish)Hun



Quoted simply so that everyone will read it again, and again, and again, and again...



and again, and again, and again...
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:01:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:
When cars were invented, licensing wasn't. It came later, much later. People used to buy a car, drive it and that was that. The states decided licensing would make the roads safer, and with the licesing revenue build better roads, maintain them and setup traffic lanes and laws to reduce accidents. For the common good, your right to free travel was transformed into a "priviledge".



I would be more in favor of the privilege argument if licensing actually made the roads safer. If driving exams really were tough and doing really stupid shit caused you to lose your license on the spot for a long time, maybe the system would work. As it is, I feel no safety from the license system.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:08:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
"Driving is not a right it is a privilege."

Says who? The cops? Politicians?



So anyone, too young, too old, crazy, blind, ect... Should be able to hop in, crank up and pursue some happiness, eh?



Yeah, I guess that whole personal responsibility thing is just to much for the sheep to handle.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:08:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 4:11:12 AM EST by wgjhsafT]
.gov -
Its for your safety. We catch people driving under the influence, drug transporters, illegals, etc. If we happen to cite you for not having your papers sucks to be you, follow the law. We also make some money, gotta pay the bills ya know.

Many of us -
Why am I being targeted by simply driving down the road? Is crime that bad that blocking off the highway and performing "safety inspections" is necessary? I don't like to see people DUI and I'm glad they are off the street but can't you find these people another way? This looks like some type of money generating scheme using the tools of law enforement as the tax collector. It also inconveniences me since I will now be late while I had my papers checked.


Edited to add:

PA does these as well and I have been stopped several times by state police blocking the road and inspecting you as you drive by. It is an inconvinience to me. I always have my correct "papers" on me and never have any problems except for one trooper who started asking wayyyy too many personal questions for me. I guess I looked like trouble or was nervous so I set off his alarms (or he was just giving me a hard time because he had to stand in the middle of the road when it was 30 degrees out).
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:18:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:

Back to the point at hand . . . is this not an unlawful search?



I have no idea. The courts have pretty consistantly ruled i favor of DUI check points, so who knows. Are you sure you had to stop for the "checkpoint"?
It may have been voluntary.

If a cop says "may I see your drivers license" that's a request, not a comand. if you hand over your license that was voluntary. I NEVER tell someone to do something that i can get them to do by asking.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:20:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Taxman:
I have never been stopped or ran into any checkpoints.



Neither have I. I have also never participated in a checkpoint. My agency does do them, but i refuse to participate.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:23:18 AM EST
In Ohio, the police are required to publish the locations of the check points before the occur.

So, if you are too drunk to drive, you will probably forget where they are and get caught.

TXL
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:27:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
In Ohio, the police are required to publish the locations of the check points before the occur.




That's how they are done here too. Plus they wleave an escape rout. So anyone driving through 1) Ignored the warnings and 2) Chose to drive through anyway.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:39:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:
A sobriety/safety checkpoint is perfectly legal and it is fair to insure that the driver is duly licensed.



FREE COUNTRIES DO NOT HAVE CHECK POINTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just because the Scotus say something is ok that does not mean it is right. If it's still against the Constitution it's still wrong. Look at the 5th Adm, these check points are clearly illegal. Thoses of us in the Military and most Police taka a oath to up hold and defend the Constitution from all enemines.

I guess if the Scotus says the 2nd adm is no longer valid you would be first in line collecting law abiding gun owners guns. Take loyality to you Country not the Governmet there is a big difference.
Police in this country can be our best friend or our worst enemies. Rember when you go against the Conststution you are a ENEMY of our Country.

I have the upmost respect for most police. The only problem I have is that most can't seem to think for themselves. If you Chief tell you try pull this crap or something really illegal or wrong tell him you think its wrong. If he gives you crap then maybe you should challenge him about his oath to the office. This might get you fired but, at least you did the right thing. Job's come and go you loyality to the USA only has one chance.

Take care & God Blesshug.gif
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 4:41:46 AM EST
Sorry I qouted the 5th I ment the 4th. DA....
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:06:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Taxman:
I have never been stopped or ran into any checkpoints.



Neither have I. I have also never participated in a checkpoint. My agency does do them, but i refuse to participate.




Too bad more LEO's don't take their oath seriously........Thanks

Personally, I don't need some black-robed Communist, telling me what the PLAIN language of the Constitution means........

"Checkpoints", are blatently Un-constitutional.



Period .
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:08:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Burley:
I hate going through checkpoints. The VSP runs one about a mile from my house several times a year. Just random stops on a half mile straight stretch of road through the national forest.

The county mounties run checkpoints on just about every holiday weekend in the same areas every year. I've probably been stopped 25 times or more in the 11 years I've been driving.

Nothing but fishing expeditions. Gotta pay for those jackboots somehow I guess.



I was stopped at a VA checkpoint last year (returning from a vacation) - at the time, I figured there had been a prison escape or perhaps some terrorist thing had happened, I had everything in order so was free to be on my way. They never once indicated what the checkpoint (operating in both directions on a semi-rural road) was for. Didn't realize it was SOP (but from the only state that illegally bans radar detectors, not surprising - and yes, my radar detector gets put away before crossing into Virginia)

If VA does run them as random fishing expeditions (mind you, this was on a Sunday afternoon, not the Friday night drunk sweeps) I might have asked why I was being stopped. Then again, I might have run into someone who takes offense at being questioned and be pulled over for a "special safety inspection"

Nonsense like this destroys trust that people have in law enforcement & government. There is no "probable cause" for setting up a roadblock to *approve or review* Sunday drivers. For all the LEO who say "it's for your own good", would you mind then if we pulled you over at random "just to have a look-see"?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:15:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
"Driving is not a right it is a privilege."

Says who? The cops? Politicians?



So anyone, too young, too old, crazy, blind, ect... Should be able to hop in, crank up and pursue some happiness, eh?



No, they need to get a license. But getting a license does not mean it is not a right. All rights are regulated, ALL. Even the most sacred right, the RIGHT TO LIFE, can be taken away through due process. I have to register to vote, get a permit to have a demonstration, BG check to buy a gun, etc. all rights I can have taken away via due process if I screw up.

Driving is no different. Everyone has a right to drive. Take the test, get a license, obey the laws and enjoy your right. Screw up, and you lose that right via due process.

It would be a privilege if the state could arbitrarily deny me my license, like states where you need a permit to buy/carry a gun.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:30:31 AM EST
I don't like checkpoints. Never been stopped at one, and never worked one after getting out of the Army.

I don't like "safety" checkpoints.

But roadblocks/checkpoints for a specific criminal investigation, escaped prison inmate, felony suspect running from a fresh crime, would be ok reasons if "checkpoints" had to be put up.

But just "willy-nilly", bad.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:37:42 AM EST
What we have here (again) is the same folks with the same shortcomings. You'll throw around phrases such as "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause", (among others) when in reality you have NO idea what those things are.

Bottom line, checkpoints in your state are legal because your state courts have held them so. End of discussion really. Don't like it? You can change it, but that means you'd actually have to get off your duff and work at it. That does not include whining on the internet.

While you guys are at it, could someone show me a cite on this "Right to Travel"?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:52:02 AM EST
Is that Boba Fett? I always knew he was a Nazi!

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top