Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/6/2003 3:45:28 AM EDT
sorry for using the communist news network [url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/05/scotus.roadblocks.ap/index.html[/url] Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality of police roadblocks WASHINGTON (AP) --The Supreme Court agreed Monday to clarify when police may use roadblocks to catch criminals. The high court has already said that officers may set up sobriety checkpoints to randomly detect drunken drivers and border roadblocks to intercept illegal immigrants. But justices ruled in 2000 that random roadblocks intended for drug searches are an unreasonable invasion of privacy under the Constitution. At issue in the latest case is whether police can set up checkpoints to seek information about a recent crime -- then arrest drunk drivers, people with drugs and others for wrongdoing. The case stems from a 1997 checkpoint in Illinois, where officers were passing out leaflets seeking information about a fatal hit-and-run when they arrested a man for drunk driving. The Illinois Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the roadblock amounted to an unconstitutional search of drivers, and that police could not stop drivers at random every time they needed tips about a crime. The court voided Robert Lidster's conviction. Illinois asked the high court to throw out that decision. Attorney William Browers argued in court filings that police should not be barred from "performing their historic, normal and necessary functions of trying to find witnesses to a known crime." Lidster's attorney, G. Joseph Weller, told justices that if the police wanted to seek information, they could have used other ways like radio and television stations. Police set up the roadblock that caught Lidster at the same spot and time of day that the hit-and-run took place. They hoped to find someone who used the route and had seen the accident. Police stopped each car for 10 to 15 seconds -- long enough to mention the accident and hand out a flyer asking for help. Authorities said that when Lidster drove up to the checkpoint in Lombard, Ill., he nearly hit an officer. The case is Illinois v. Lidster, case no. 02-1060.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 3:52:12 AM EDT
Illinois, huh? Why does this not surprise me? Somebody just nuke us already and put us out of our misery.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 3:57:58 AM EDT
Well That is just great, let the LEO'S receive a report of 10 Kilo's of Cocaine going to a neighborhood filled with children so the bastard drug dealers can it sell to them. I hope everyone of those kids using the shit are the Supreme Court Justices Kids and it could have all been prevented if the road blocks could have been used. Sorry for the rant, just getting sick of this shit.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 4:38:40 AM EDT
One thing that ticks me off is these roadblocks for drivers' license checks. It's like in a police state: "Show me your papers." It's casting a wide net to catch a couple of small fish. It's like "Let's assume everybody is driving with an expired/suspended license so we can stop them all, then we can sort out the innocent people and let them go." IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion), so long as I (individually) am not suspected of a specific crime, the government agents have no right to impede my free travel. [soapbox]
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 6:03:52 AM EDT
Let's get rid of warrantless searches as well. How about we permit door-to-door searches of people's homes because they live in known, high crime areas. What's the difference?
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 6:07:05 AM EDT
In Ohio, possesion of a drivers license is your consent to be stopped. You sign the form, you agree to be stopped for checkpoints. Not absolutely sure if that's sobriety only, or all roadblocks, but hey... what's the diff? Scott
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 6:54:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nwatson99: Well That is just great, let the LEO'S receive a report of 10 Kilo's of Cocaine going to a neighborhood filled with children so the bastard drug dealers can it sell to them. I hope everyone of those kids using the shit are the Supreme Court Justices Kids and it could have all been prevented if the road blocks could have been used. Sorry for the rant, just getting sick of this shit.
View Quote
drug warrior: "do it for the children" bwa ha ha you know what else could prevent it? good parenting. It doesn't take a village.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 6:58:36 AM EDT
You got it Red Beard- It takes a PARENT to raise a child! I get compliments all the time on my kids, and it doesn't happen by chance. It took years of hard work, dedication, sacrifice, and love (not necessarily being their buddy!). It's not that complicated, but it does take some effort.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 7:14:02 AM EDT
I have always held that simply driving down the road does not constitute probable cause for detaining and questioning me. I hope SCOTUS feels the same way.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 7:25:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Brohawk: One thing that ticks me off is these roadblocks for drivers' license checks.
View Quote
They piss me off too. But i can see how they get away with them. Driving is a privilage, on the public roads. So the state can attached just about any conditions they want to that privilege. every year more & more items are added to the implied consent laws. Additionally, the location of the checkpoint is broadcast before hand, with an available "escape" route, so anyone driving through one has CHOSE to drive through it.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 7:27:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Emoto: I have always held that simply driving down the road does not constitute probable cause for detaining and questioning me.
View Quote
Police need Probable Cause to arrest. They only nead Reasonable Suspicion to detain. Which is a much lower standard.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 7:34:35 AM EDT
Let's throw the Seat Belt check lanes in there too! Just another fund raiser function.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 7:36:07 AM EDT
That would be great if the SC would put an end to these random searches. I'm sick and tired of them.z
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 8:23:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 8:24:10 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Did ANY of you numbskulls even read the article? Never mind based on the comments it's obvious you didn't. Fatal Hit and run, car vs pedestrian happened. The next day at appx the time of the hit and run the cops set up a roadblock to pass out pamphlets, and try to find witnesses. Each stop lasted 10-15 seconds. I'll rephrase for those that like to take in little to nothing before they post a comment, this was not a dui, license, or drug checkpoint. The police were trying to contact witnesses that might have seen a FATAL hit and run that occurred on the same stretch of road, at appx the same time, the day before. If you outlaw 90% of "roadblocks" or "checkpoints" this isn't one of the ones that should be outlawing.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 8:44:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 8:45:23 AM EDT by DriftPunch]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Fatal Hit and run, car vs pedestrian happened. The next day at appx the time of the hit and run the cops set up a roadblock to pass out pamphlets, and try to find witnesses. Each stop lasted 10-15 seconds.
View Quote
Not material!
I'll rephrase for those that like to take in little to nothing before they post a comment, this was not a dui, license, or drug checkpoint. The police were trying to contact witnesses that might have seen a FATAL hit and run that occurred on the same stretch of road, at appx the same time, the day before.
View Quote
Not material!
If you outlaw 90% of "roadblocks" or "checkpoints" this isn't one of the ones that should be outlawing.
View Quote
When you get into deciding when something is or is not appropriate, you get into the habit of deciding when it is "worth" violating accepted norms (and even the constitution). It's no different than saying "But it protects children!" I've got no sympathy for Mr. Drunk, but neither he, nor the scale of the prior days event, is the crux of the matter in this case.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 8:53:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Fatal Hit and run, car vs pedestrian happened. The next day at appx the time of the hit and run the cops set up a roadblock to pass out pamphlets, and try to find witnesses. Each stop lasted 10-15 seconds.
View Quote
Not material!
I'll rephrase for those that like to take in little to nothing before they post a comment, this was not a dui, license, or drug checkpoint. The police were trying to contact witnesses that might have seen a FATAL hit and run that occurred on the same stretch of road, at appx the same time, the day before.
View Quote
Not material!
If you outlaw 90% of "roadblocks" or "checkpoints" this isn't one of the ones that should be outlawing.
View Quote
When you get into deciding when something is or is not appropriate, you get into the habit of deciding when it is "worth" violating accepted norms (and even the constitution). It's no different than saying "But it protects children!" I've got no sympathy for Mr. Drunk, but neither he, nor the scale of the prior days event, is the crux of the matter in this case.
View Quote
I'll type slower because obviously someone isn't getting it. This was not a "random" roadblock. This was not a roadblock to check for licenses, drugs, illegal aliens, or anything else on a RANDOM basis. This was a roadblock to attempt to contact witnesses of a vehicular HOMICIDE, at the scene of a crime, appx 24 hrs after the crime, since many people drive the same route at the same time every day. Now, the case before the Supreme Court is about THIS roadblock. Or a roadblock such as this one that is put up for a specific purpose, finding witnesses to a vehicular homicide. Motivation counts. It's like the difference between shooting someone for looking at you funny, and shooting back at a person that breaks into your house, shoots your dog, then starts shooting at you. Both involve someone getting shot, one is murder, one is lawful self defense. The reason for the roadblock absolutley counts.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:03:14 AM EDT
So since they weren't looking for the driver, doesn't that mean they didn't have PC to arrest him for DUI? Theoretically, he can't be forced to testify against or incriminate himself. Isn't this more like a drug bust that turns up nothing more than evidence of illegal leaf burning?
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:12:08 AM EDT
I got it. I just went off on a tangent since we were on a related topic.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:13:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 9:14:43 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Torf: So since they weren't looking for the driver, doesn't that mean they didn't have PC to arrest him for DUI? Theoretically, he can't be forced to testify against or incriminate himself. Isn't this more like a drug bust that turns up nothing more than evidence of illegal leaf burning?
View Quote
I think that he was one of the obvious drunks. He almost hit a cop as he pulled up to the roadblock. I would bet as soon as the officers talked with him they recognized him as Otis, or Foster Brooks. What he's claiming is that the roadblock looking for witnesses to a vehicular homicide, shouldn't have been there, so he shouldn't have been seen if the officers weren't there. Because from the sounds of it once he was seen by the officers Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, legal threshold for a stop, was there, and PC for DUI was very close behind.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:19:39 AM EDT
I LOVE IT!!! Why don't the Police have bakesales for cruisers, uniforms, weapons? Who'd buy a $125 brownie? It's easier for them to "pull" somebody for a seatbelt "Crime" and let the local jurisdiction extort them for the $$. [moon]
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:20:35 AM EDT
That's kind of what I figured, but I just thought I'd bring it up.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:24:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TUMOR: I LOVE IT!!! Why don't the Police have bakesales for cruisers, uniforms, weapons? Who'd buy a $125 brownie? It's easier for them to "pull" somebody for a seatbelt "Crime" and let the local jurisdiction extort them for the $$. [moon]
View Quote
Nobody likes to pay taxes either, but you do have a point. People tend to like firefighters and paramedics more than cops for that very reason. There is a reason why people cringe and tap the brakes when they see a cruiser, even if they are doing nothing wrong. The public sees the police as revenue collectors for the most part, and they resent it.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:27:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TUMOR: It's easier for them to "pull" somebody for a seatbelt "Crime" and let the local jurisdiction extort them for the $$.
View Quote
Seatbelt fine is $25.00 in my juristiction. It cost the state significantly more than $25.00 to process that ticket. If it goes to court I make $200.00 in ovetime to "win" that $25.00 case. The state loses money on every seatbelt ticket they write. But by writing $25.00 seatbelt tickets, it encourages people to wear their seatbelts. Which lowers our rate of injury traffic collision. Which saves tax money, keeps insurance rates down for the rest of us, and saves lives.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:28:39 AM EDT
Well, I go through several police road blocks each and every day. They are called scal houses and trucks have to go through them in each and every state. OK, truck enters and gets each and every axle weighed, then they check your log book to make sure you are not driving out of hours, then check you license and paperwork. And then, if they get a wild hair up their you know what, they pull you around back and do a complete inspection on your truck and trailer. If you have one little marker light out on the top of your cab, you get a $150 citation for an equipment violation that could cause a hazard for the motoring public!!!! So, in this case I say too bad. Deal with the BS I have to put up with on a daily basis and then you can cry about this little road block.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:34:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PsyWarrior: Well, I go through several police road blocks each and every day...Deal with the BS I have to put up with on a daily basis and then you can cry about this little road block.
View Quote
The minute I start getting paid to haul, I'll agree. That BS is part of YOUR job description, not part of MY drive to church.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:47:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TheHappyBlaster: Illinois, huh? Why does this not surprise me? Somebody just nuke us already and put us out of our misery.
View Quote
Except in this case, the Democrat Party-controlled Illinois Supreme Court ruled AGAINST these jack-booted thugs.
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Did ANY of you numbskulls even read the article? Never mind based on the comments it's obvious you didn't. Fatal Hit and run, car vs pedestrian happened. The next day at appx the time of the hit and run the cops set up a roadblock to pass out pamphlets, and try to find witnesses. Each stop lasted 10-15 seconds. I'll rephrase for those that like to take in little to nothing before they post a comment, this was not a dui, license, or drug checkpoint. The police were trying to contact witnesses that might have seen a FATAL hit and run that occurred on the same stretch of road, at appx the same time, the day before. If you outlaw 90% of "roadblocks" or "checkpoints" this isn't one of the ones that should be outlawing.
View Quote
Are you actually DEFENDING this practice?! The police have [b]no right[/b] to stop people if they do not reasonably believe that they have comitted a crime, unless they have a warrant, FOR ANY REASON. How can possibly stopping people to give them pamphlets be legal? What crime did they commit to be stopped? That's waaaay over the line, it doesn't matter what the circumstances are or of the intentions of the cops were honest, it's illegal and frankly, arrogant. Those who support this conduct are part of the problem.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:00:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kroagnon: Are you actually DEFENDING this practice?! The police have [b]no right[/b] to stop people if they do not reasonably believe that they have comitted a crime, unless they have a warrant, FOR ANY REASON. How can possibly stopping people to give them pamphlets be legal? What crime did they commit to be stopped? That's waaaay over the line, it doesn't matter what the circumstances are or of the intentions of the cops were honest, it's illegal and frankly, arrogant. Those who support this conduct are part of the problem.
View Quote
Yes I am. Just like if a dead bod is found in the middle of a residential street the police would knock on the doors of nearby houses to ask the occupants there if the saw anything. If you say, Oly are you in favor of RNADOM roadblocks? The anwser would go like this. I have worked in some form of LE for 16 years. From MP to Corrections. When I was an MP we would do roadblock for traffic going into the post. I think that access to a military post is different than a roadblock on a public street. Other than that I have NEVER participated in a random checkpoint/roadblock. Nor do I intend to. The dept. I work for has also indicated that random checkpoints won't be done. A non-random roadblock, to check for prison escapees, is that legal in your opinion? The people driving aren't suspected of being the escaped criminal, prior to the stop, yet those roadblocks are allowed. They were investigating a serious crime, and were apparently seeking witnesses, not trying to incriminate anyone that came through in crimes. But than someone that was stupid drunk comes through. The simple minded can't comprehend anything other than simple rules so I guess they have to work from roadblocks=bad. Others of us, that can actually understand more than 3 words at a time don't live in a world that requires such simple rules.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:28:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
Originally Posted By nwatson99: Well That is just great, let the LEO'S receive a report of 10 Kilo's of Cocaine going to a neighborhood filled with children so the bastard drug dealers can it sell to them. I hope everyone of those kids using the shit are the Supreme Court Justices Kids and it could have all been prevented if the road blocks could have been used. Sorry for the rant, just getting sick of this shit.
View Quote
drug warrior: "do it for the children" bwa ha ha you know what else could prevent it? good parenting. It doesn't take a village.
View Quote
Red-Beard I agree with you a lot but you are wrong on this comment, but that is your right to comment and have your opinion as well as this is my right to my opinion. Every time drugs and kids are mentioned parenting is the blame. Parenting is not always the blame, yes generally kids using or trying drugs breaks down to these factors 25/25/50, [b]Parents/Kids Themselves/Peer Pressure[/b] The parents are not forcing the drugs down their throat, up the nose, or in a vein. Most and I said most of the Parents that do drugs will openly say they do not want their kids to follow in their footsteps and then there is the few that will say it is their choice. I have worked with hundreds of guys in the past who smoked dope, took pain killers and not for pain either, 99% percent of those guys said they would kick their child's or children's ass if they did the drugs. Roadblocks and Check Points are a good tool for Law Enforcement in the War on Drugs, taking drunk drivers off the road, convicted felonies who might be wanted by Law Enforcement, etc. etc.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:54:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 11:57:37 AM EDT by AR15fan]
Originally Posted By Kroagnon: The police have [b]no right[/b] to stop people if they do not reasonably believe that they have comitted a crime, unless they have a warrant, FOR ANY REASON. .
View Quote
Partially correct. The Police cannot detain you unless they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed, or are about to commit a crime. However, the courts have ruled that investigative stops are sometimes permitted. For example, the court ruled that stopping a man at 2AM who was riding a bicycle and carrying a hatchet, was permitted, even though not axe crime had been reported in the area. Additionaly, many police encounters are not "detentions" at all, and therefore requires no reasonable suspicion. For Example, if cop walks up to you and says "Sir, could I talk to you for a minute?" and you stick around and chat, It's not a detention. Anything the cop learns from the consentual encounter can be used to develop reasonable suspicion to detain, or probable cause to arrest. So by announcing the ocation of a DUI checkpoint in advance, and leaving a "escape" route around the DUI checkpoint, anyone who still drives through the checkpoint is doing it voluntarily and it's not a detention.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 12:07:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 2:00:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 2:03:37 PM EDT by Kroagnon]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Just like if a dead bod is found in the middle of a residential street the police would knock on the doors of nearby houses to ask the occupants there if the saw anything.
View Quote
Big difference: if a cop comes to your door and asks if you've seen anything, you do not have to answer the door or answer any questions or show any ID. Happened to me about a year ago, a couple of robbers parked their car in front of my house and a cop knocked on the door to ask me if I knew who's car that was. In the case of these "fact finding roadblocks", motorists who have done nothing wrong are [b]forced[/b] to stop and [b]forced[/b] to ask questions. The equivalent to that would be my local PD blocking my street to ask anybody driving past if they knew who's car that was. What about the stopping of all traffic on the VA interstates during the Malvo shootings? Do you support that too?
If you say, Oly are you in favor of RNADOM roadblocks? The anwser would go like this. I have worked in some form of LE for 16 years.
View Quote
Yeah, I thought I remember that you were LEO. You guys always stick up for your own no matter if they're right or wrong. Kinda like a Mafia crime family.
From MP to Corrections. When I was an MP we would do roadblock for traffic going into the post. I think that access to a military post is different than a roadblock on a public street.
View Quote
We're not talking about a military facility here, we're talking public streets.
Other than that I have NEVER participated in a random checkpoint/roadblock. Nor do I intend to. The dept. I work for has also indicated that random checkpoints won't be done. A non-random roadblock, to check for prison escapees, is that legal in your opinion? The people driving aren't suspected of being the escaped criminal, prior to the stop, yet those roadblocks are allowed.
View Quote
Where is the roadblock? How close was it to the last known sighting of the escapee? The details are everything.
They were investigating a serious crime, and were apparently seeking witnesses, not trying to incriminate anyone that came through in crimes. But than someone that was stupid drunk comes through. The simple minded can't comprehend anything other than simple rules so I guess they have to work from roadblocks=bad. Others of us, that can actually understand more than 3 words at a time don't live in a world that requires such simple rules.
View Quote
As much as it may pain us to see a drunk driver go free, the fact of the matter is that police must work within the boundaries of the law in order to make an arrest. If the circumstances leading to the arrest were illegal you lose the conviction. That's how our legal system works, it's called checks and balances. See 4th Amendment, US Constitution. Read it some time.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 2:30:45 PM EDT
The 4th Amendment protects the individual from UNREASONABLE Searches or Siezuers by the government. It doesn't prevent REASONABLE Searches or Seizures. In this case the police were investigating a fatal hit and run. They set up a roadblock appx 24 hours after the H+R. They said that they were attempting to locate witnesses, as people often drive the same road at the same time every day. The stops were 10-15 seconds in lenght. Some drunken dope drove to the roadblock and almost mowed down a cop. He was contacted and arrested for DUI. His defense is that the police roadblock was UNREASONABLE. In determining reasonableness the SCOTUS will look at a few things. 1) Severity of the crime, being investigated. 2) Lenght of the stop. 3) Manner of the stop. 4) Area of the stop. 5) Proximity to the crime. I'm sure they will also look at other things. Remember though the SCOTUS has said things in the past like, if you are the pasenger in a vehicle stopped by the police, the stop is reasonable short in duration, so the police CAN detain you in order to deal with the driver. So the SCOTUS may say, if the stops were truly 10-15 seconds long, that they wern't suffecient to even be considered a Siezure. From my factor listed above: 1) The police were investigation a death, which seems pretty serious. 2) Again if the stops were 10-15 seconds long, the SCOTUS may say that doesn't even rasie to the level of a Siezure. If they say it is a Seizure, I think they may say 10-15 seconds where the police passed out pamphlets seeking info about a death investigation, is not unreasonable. Especially since in 10-15 seconds the police probably weren't questioning about anything, only seeking information. 3) The way the police carried out the stop would also have an effect. If it becomes a "fishing expidition" for expired DL's, insurance etc. 4) What if the officers were standing near a stop sign where motorists had to stop anyway, trying to pass out the pamphlets? Much different than shutting down the Interstate. 5) The stops were at the scene of a fatal hit and run, the day after the hit and run, at appx the same time as the hit and run. Seems like that would be kinda tough to call random. [red]Big difference: if a cop comes to your door and asks if you've seen anything, you do not have to answer the door or answer any questions or show any ID. Happened to me about a year ago, a couple of robbers parked their car in front of my house and a cop knocked on the door to ask me if I knew who's car that was. In the case of these "fact finding roadblocks", motorists who have done nothing wrong are forced to stop and forced to ask questions. The equivalent to that would be my local PD blocking my street to ask anybody driving past if they knew who's car that was.[/red] So it's ok for the cops to ask questions near a crime scene for people walking by, or in their houses but it is totally different if they are in a car? Nowhere in the article does it say the forced people to ID themselves or answer questions. If the stops were 10-15 seconds, handing out pamphlets, there doesn't seem to be much time for anything other than seeking witnesses to the hit and run.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 7:20:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 8:33:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By TUMOR: It's easier for them to "pull" somebody for a seatbelt "Crime" and let the local jurisdiction extort them for the $$.
View Quote
Seatbelt fine is $25.00 in my juristiction. It cost the state significantly more than $25.00 to process that ticket. If it goes to court I make $200.00 in ovetime to "win" that $25.00 case. The state loses money on every seatbelt ticket they write. But by writing $25.00 seatbelt tickets, it encourages people to wear their seatbelts. Which lowers our rate of injury traffic collision. Which saves tax money, keeps insurance rates down for the rest of us, and saves lives.
View Quote
Its $86 here, and 10 over is 86, five over is $57, 15 over is $114.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:02:18 PM EDT
I would very much like to see the Supremes rule that ALL police roadblocks, moving or otherwise, are unConstitutional and not allowed except in direct response to a known crime where a roadblock is likely to bring about the apprehension of the criminal in question. Is this a police state, or is it not a police state? That's what the Supremes should be asking themselves. CJ
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:10:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: I would very much like to see the Supremes rule that ALL police roadblocks, moving or otherwise, are unConstitutional and not allowed except in direct response to a known crime where a roadblock is likely to bring about the apprehension of the criminal in question. Is this a police state, or is it not a police state? That's what the Supremes should be asking themselves. CJ
View Quote
So in THIS case are you saying a roadblock as part of an investigation of a fatal hit and run is allowable or not?
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:16:52 PM EDT
That's not quite what I'd define as a roadblock. Stopping traffic for purposes of an investigation of an accident or crime scene isn't at all the same thing as stopping traffic for the purpose of looking for people who MIGHT be drunk, running drugs, or acting in a suspicious manner. CJ
Top Top