Quoted: 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"?

I believe most are saying that the 'right to travel' falls under pursuit of happiness.

The end result of all that has been put out so far is that it is Constitutionally unsound, to the point of being able to challenge it to the SCOTUS, but has been consistenly upheld 'for our own good.'  Like many arguments, it is made FOR THE CHILDREN!!!  It seems that this is a case of slow erosion vs. intentional violation.  Not having heaps of spare cash laying around to fight a court battle with . . .

The righteous man has noting to fear from the law justly administered.  But when the laws begin to be abrogated by those who should be administering them . . .


But what about the stated event:   Terrorist attack, escaped convict?  Are checkpoints legal in such cases?  Or is that, too, bending the law past its rated stress points?