EOSM Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BlackKnight

Inactive
Hi I am Blueyedog's brother from the EOSM. We had an interesting encounter on the way home from the EOSM. I would tell the story but I want the instigator to tell the story. We will have to pry the correct story from Blueyedog. I will say this no harm, no foul. But it is a good story especially if you know or can think of the reasoning behind it.

I will start the story off. – BlackKnight was in the lead with Blueyedpup. Blueyedog and Mr. Blueyedog where following close behind. We had two way radio’s and I hear the words “!!!EXIT NOW!!!" so in threat of my life I exited wandering what was wrong. Could it be something with the little yellow signs we pasted saying DRUG CHECK POINT ???

P.S. This may be my last posting because Blueyedog may become Redeyedog and shoot BlackKnight.
 
:confused: George, I agree -- some of this stuff is just too complicated for mt feeble mind to grasp. FUD :confused:
 
Guys hold on I am having Blueyedog tell the story. Blueyedog was not going to tell the tall. If Blueyedog does not post the story I will tell it. It is not a big deal just an interesting twist that happened at the EOSM.
 
Hang on to your horses, Indy 1500 gun show is this weekend, and BED is probably there, and will be most of the weekend. BTW Black Knight, where abouts was this, and when? I never saw Checkstation Charlie.
Eric
 
I'm guessing a deliberate provocation of unConstitutional "law enforcing"? These "checkpoints" appear to be flagrant violations of the 4th Amendment.
 
OK, OK, OK! Sheesh! Who let family members on here anyway? :p Is there now no safe place where I can keep my blunders to myself??? ;) Yes, I have been working my butt off at the Indy 1500 all day. Wait a minute ... Drat! Most of it's still back there. ;) Anyway, here's the story ...

On the way home from EOSM on Monday morning, we are nearing Highway AH, there were cones on the side of the road as if you may eventually be detered to the side of the road, and a sign saying "Drug Check Point Ahead". I told the guys to "Exit" because ...
A. I had to find a little girls' room before we hit a traffic jam ...
B. I would have liked to avoided the whole thing since we had a small armory in the back of each vehicle.
And of course, the drug check point was at the top of the exit. :rolleyes:
My husband says "Don't you ever watch COPS? That's how they do these things."
I say that no, I don't usually have the time or desire to watch COPS. AND, might I add, that even though I said the word "exit" I was not driving either of the two vehicles - they are the ones that actually exited! :p I wish they were that well trained when it came to other things!

So anyway, they checked our IDs, asked a few questions, and sent us on our way. They were cool about the guns and very polite ... but, as Spectre pointed out, clearly a violation of our rights.

I feel really stupid for causing the whole situation, but it was a learning experience. I think I now know what it felt like to be in Germany 60 years ago and hear the phrase "Papers please!"

....Oh, yeah, welcome my brother, PainInThe- ... oops ... I mean BlackKnight. DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING HE TELLS YOU!!! It's all lies! :D

------------------
Refuse to be a "helpless" victim.
Knowing Your Rights Hand-gun Control Inc. - Come see OUR truth!
 
I'd like to know how [exactly] how your civil rights were violated. Spectre, Please enlighteen me.

Now you know what what it smust have been like in Germany 60 years ago! Give me a break.. :(
 
What i want to know = what laws were broken [be specific please] or what civil right violations were made by the agency that stopped you and you passengers.

Did you consent to any kind of search? And if so, why?

Were any threats made against you, verbally or otherwise? How were you treated as a indidvidual and your passengers?

Just wondering...




[This message has been edited by 12-34hom (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
12-34Hom;
You are right I don’t know the specific laws or civil rights violations that where broken. Maybe there is a lawyer that can help address this specific issue. I do know that law enforcement is being sued the state of Indiana by Civil Liberties for Forth Amendment Rights violations for Check point like the one setup my the Missouri State Hi-way Patrol. I am not a lawyer but I do think there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from randomly stopping anyone in public and basically demanding identification papers, where you are coming from where you are going to, and what is the reason for the journey. That is the information they pretty much point blank demanded. And I think that kind of activity is typical of a police state not a free state, and I am offended by these actions.

Now I also understand the position the police are in they are trying to protect the public. And I do not want to blame or hurt and office doing their best to protect us. But this to me is not the way to do it. This I feel is a violation of our privacy and freedom. Also may I add the law enforcement lost the case mentioned above, but due to the extreme amount of time it takes to push a case through our justice system I do believe it is still in the appeals court. So much for quick justice… Back to the main topic…

I did a little research on this subject and found that it appears the government is trying to severely limit or negate the Forth Amendment. The Civil Liberties basically is taking the Forth Amendment where it says effects and applying it to any personal effect you may be carrying or you have in your direct possession of. Which a car I would think would fall in that category. The government appears to be taking the approach that any possession that is not concealed on your persons is not covered by the Forth Amendment and open to local and state law to dictate search and seizure policy.

Web Sites: http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/library/weekly/aa062899.htm
http://www.aclu.org/
 
Side note I forgot. If the government can win the cases and say that something not concealed on your person is not covered by the 4th, especially something that is registared with the state. What is next? They could start making the arguments that even homes are open for local search and seizure policies. They are all really rented with imitate domain laws. They could make the argument civilian's have no permint home and that is the only home recognized by the Bill of Rights. So you would have to be a home owner or direct decendent of a home owner with your original land to be covered by the 4th.

Now this is extreme but that could be what is next.
 
12-34, you seem to be assuming that had BED and her family said "no, officer, we'd prefer not to be searched or questioned" they'd have been sent on their way with a good-natured wave. I doubt that's the way it goes or there'd be no point in the checkpoint.
In Illinois, at least, that's not the way it goes. You stop for a drug checkpoint here, you can refuse the search--but your refusal is generally considered a reasonable excuse to search without your consent. If you try to go through without stopping, of course, you're automatically a candidate for a felony stop.
That is NOT the American way. The simple fact that you're there is NOT a reasonable excuse for a search. Police are only supposed to search and/or question those they "reasonably suspect" of criminal activity, aren't they? Well, how can anyone claim that they "reasonably suspected" BED's group when the only reason they were stopped was that they were the next in line to use the road?
 
A stop used to require reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred or was in progress. Random stops were not allowed, and truly random stops are still not allowed. BUT, in the early 90s, with our wonderful "conservative" composition of the Supreme Court, the Court gave the OK to police checkpoints where either every car is stopped, OR where the stops occur at regular, bjective intervals.

Before these totally bogus SC opinions (in my view), a police checkpoint stopping every car would have (and did in the eyes of the law pre-90s) violated our 4th amendment rights to privacy (i.e. freedom from unreasonable search and seizure), where reasonableness before the war on drugs required at least "reasonable suspicion" of a crime for either a detention of someone for questioning/investigation, or a "Terry v. Ohio" type patdown. This requirement still exists in theory, except for these inroads upon exceptions being added year by year with this "conservative" court.

So, Hom, the technical answer is, it is NOT a violation under current law. But much like some courts' interpretation of the second amendment, the Supreme Court's "rolling back" of the meaning of the fourth in these cases is "wrong". However, unlike the lower appellate courts' rulings on the second, these rulings by the SC on the 4th cannot by definition be unconstitutional, because what the Supreme Court says is constitutional, IS constitutional, period, absent a revolution or later SC case overruling the earlier opinion.

BlackKnight (Dan) - good to see you here!

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited August 29, 2000).]
 
I submit for your review these cases.

UNITED STATES vs. ALLEGREE.

UNITED STATES vs. $ 404,905, 98-277ONE,182 F. 3d 643 [8th Cir. 1999]

UNITED STATES vs. Navarrete - Barron, 99 - 115ONE, 192 F. 3d 786 [8th cir. 1999]
 
12-34hom;
Could you please provide links to this information. I have searched several legal sites for this information. And I either simply don't know what I am doing or have looked at the incorrect sites. Also the search engines have been down on a couple of sites. Thanks BK
 
what is a drug check point?
According to my MS Word thesaurus, these are the synonyms for "check:"
barrier, arrest, obstruction, damper, impediment,hindrance, control.

Blueyedog's family's rights were violated when they were stopped without proper cause. They were stopped for a drug "check" point, AKA SEARCH. If they didn't give the police a reason to search their vehicle, their rights were violated. Their cars were searched the second the oficer looked into the vehicles.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Amendment IV
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.[/quote]
This isn't a joke, it's exactly what happened to the Jews in WWII. The SS could stop them for no reason and ask to see their "papers." It's a flagrant violation of a person's rights to ask to see their ID when they've done nothing wrong.
 
CindyH: Please cite any legal cases that show any unlawful conduct these officers engaged in?

From thier posts, there car was not searched[ do you know the what LEGAL definition of the word search?] They were legally detained for a SHORT period. Everything was done in a professional manner, no property was seized, and they went about there business.

Then the same tired a**ed reference to the Nazi's and SS to bolster your post and the subtle inferences to the officers conducting this stop.

Before making statements based on "emotion" rather than fact, why don't you check out the cases i've cited for "blacknight" to review. You might LEARN something in the process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top