EOSM Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
12-34, I've conceded that the check points may be legal. However, they're still wrong and they're still unconstitutional. The fact that a judge ruled differently doesn't comfort me much. They've also upheld all sorts of unconstitutional gun control for the past few decades, remember? Cindy cited the law that was broken--the 4th amendment to the Constitution. The fact that a court can become so preoccupied with ridding the country of drugs that it would allow the 4th to gutted in such a manner is no reason to be happy.

I do understand your point of view here, 12-34, but it's cold comfort to me. And I don't see what's invalid about the comparison to Nazi Germany.

THEN: The police could stop citizens at any time or at random as they went about their business. No probable cause was necessary, nor were warrants a problem. Citizens were required to submit to searches and to provide information about where they were going and why, plus "papers"--identification documents.

NOW: The police stopped BlueEyeDog at random as she went about her business. No probable cause was necessary, and a warrant was not a problem. She was required to submit to a search (would have been, anyway, had the officer wished to search) and to provide information about where she was going and why. I don't recall if she was asked to provide ID documents, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The ONLY difference in the two scenarios is that, thank God, the police Blue ran into were just fairly decent cops on the job like yourself and had no wish to harass or harm the citizenry, unlike many Nazi police. But that's a pretty thin line and not much comfort to us "civilians." We're glad you're nice guys, in other words, but we don't want that to be our sole protection.

I tried hard to make sure that wasn't a cop-bashing post. I hope it comes across that way.
 
Don :Difference is = The Nazi regime & SS in general were nothing more than a organized criminal conspiricy.

Now, are there bad cops yes there are.

But to infer or compare the majority of police and our goverment to things that occured when Hitler was in power is sheer nonsense and has no basis in fact.

These "Fairly Decent Cops"[as you refered to them] are doing a thankless job and getting kick in the teeth through inuendo and plain falsehoods and misreprentations.

Statements like those that have been made only indacate some here trying to futher the US vs.Them, mentality. By making inflamatory posts and statements without checking facts.

Do you REALLY believe the authorities are as bad as when the Nazi's came to power in Germany??
 
This is a little long. First the links to the cases.

UNITED STATES vs. ALLEGREE. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/983878p.pdf

UNITED STATES vs. Navarrete - Barron, 99 - 115ONE, 192 F. 3d 786 [8th cir. 1999] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/991150p.pdf

UNITED STATES vs. $ 404,905, 98-277ONE,182 F. 3d 643 [8th Cir. 1999]
On this one I search by Docket, Parties, and Full text search, then I reviewed all 100 entires for the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. I could not find this case.

Next what I read in the cases summary view.

UNITED STATES vs. ALLEGREE.
I say NO JOY. The officer stopped the vehicle for a possible traffic violation. Once the driver could not product proper identification of ownership and through observations made and the admission of prior control substance abuse. The officer requested the permission to search the continence of the vehicle. And consent was given. This is built on sound police work.

UNITED STATES vs. Navarrete – Barron
I have to say not even close. Officers earlier in the day confirmed the presents of illegal narcotics in the vehicle through a proper not contested traffic stop and subsequent search. They had prior first hand evidence. With this prior evidence they had more than probable cause for the contested traffic stop and subsequent search and seizure.

The Civil Liberty’s Union has fought for year on the side of African American’s that get rousted. And they win these cases how is this very much different? Regular citizian's in a public place being stopped by law enforcement for no probable cause or reason.

And I have one simple question. When they stopped the vehicles they looked in the vehicles. What is another meaning for looked? Most text editors come up with the work searched.

Now there is an 1800’s ruling on wagons that I believe would apply to cars as well. If the law enforcement office can see in plan site without obstruction violation of the law then they can proceed. I concede that. But this does not allow them to stop wagons for closer inspection. As done here.

I believe the violations are in the Interstate Laws. There are several laws written why law enforcement can stop vehicle and conduct investigations, and visual observations. And I believe they need probably cause in each cases, with the exception for marked freight hailers (Weigh Stations). I guess I would like to see the laws that say law enforcement officers can stop and conduct visual inspections or license check for that and that alone. This would mean all of the hoopla about African American’s getting rousted, and the other cases that get dismissed and the very show cops are all wet! All they would have to clam is license check! And boom they have them. This would mean that law enforcement needs a no reason to stop a vehicle. They can just do it.

The 4th will not stand in this case. No full search or siezer took place. It is relitive but not the primary driver. The primary driver here is does law enforcement have the right and ability to stop anyone at anytime for a license check or inspection of the vehicle with not probable cause.

This is the real issue here, and this is where I need a little legal help I do not know how to find those laws. That web site is great I will go out there and see if I can find them. But the check points should be license check points not drug check points. Because that is all they can check. That is where the investigation starts, without that right the check point is illegal.

I look forward to hearing from everyone. Thanks BK

P.S. History shows that disarming the public was the first step in the Nazi regime. What came before that? Gun registration. What do we have now in this country? There just happens to be more people and more guns here. It will take longer to disarm us. But California has a good start. They sent out confescation letters to owner of AK-47's. Now if the gun registration information is suppose to be deleted after the registration is given how where those letter sent out so precisely? A friend of mine recieved a letter after he moved out of state for several years. He purchased the gun about a half years before moving. So those letter where not just broadcast to everyone the government has lists, and that proves it. We are way off of the subject. This can be another post.

P.S.S. We don't want to bash the officers 99.9% are knight, that get little to know praise. And they should have much, they have probably the hardest most thankless jobs on the face of the Earth. But if there is interstate law proving that probable cause has to be given for a stop. I would hope the officers would file complains, and law suite before violating the public trust. If they do not then they are organized crime and have earned the name Nazi. Now that is harsh but and I don't think any officer would do this. But the government is clearly hedging on the 2nd. And lets face it the current people in power have already stated that the constituion is out dated and not relitive. Another clear indicator of problems in this country.
 
If a representative of the U.S. Gov. says that my shotgun sitting in my closet is affecting interstate commerce then IMO stopping or impeading traffic on an interstate highway definitley is a violation of interstate commerce.Look at the ruling on random Check points and see that the court ruled it illegal the whole way except for the last sentence, where they say that if you stop everyone its ok, but not if you stop a few. What a bunch of BS. I guees there must be equal protection in the violation of rights.

As to the Nazi's they were not violating any laws at the time they demanded papers, so just because you can't point to a violation of a law doesnt mean its lawfull. Slavery was legal, but doesnt mean it was right.
 
"The 4th will not stand in this case. No full search or siezer took place. It is relitive but not the primary driver. The primary driver here is does law enforcement have the right and ability to stop anyone at anytime for a license check or inspection of the vehicle with not probable cause."

I would say HELL NO!! They need to have probable cause to stop anyone!! I have seen these so called "Check Points" all the time where I live. They are called "Inspection and Seat Belt Checks" Seeing how you must acctually STOP to have this done, doesnt that ALONE make it a Traffic stop without cause? The same as if a cop pulled you over with lights & sirens on? The effect is the same.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
In U.S. vs ALLEGREE: main points are that Peace officers in the lawful conduct of thier duties may.

#1. Ask for a drivers license & registration.

#2. Direct the driver from his vehicle and request him to sit inside a patrol car.

#3. inquire about the drivers purpose and destination.

#4 Obtain indentification from all passengers inside vehicle.

If suspicions are raised during these stops from "plain view doctrine" or other legal methods the officer is entitled to expand the scope of his or her investigations and ask questions unrelated to the original traffic stop.

Interstate laws are federal codes. I will have to do some more checking on this issue before commenting.
 
Look, guys, it's real simple.

The government is expressly forbidden by the Constitution from searching people and their property without a warrant based on probable cause. I know, that double-damned Fourth Amendment keeps preventing honest, hardworking government agents from doing their jobs. :rolleyes:

There's the law you keep asking about, Charlie. The Constitution. Read up on it sometime.
 
NO ONE has any right to harass me for no reason - period, the "law" means nothing as we all know there have been various atrocities committed under the guise of law. If that's OK then you wouldn't mind me coming over and rummaging through your car and detaining you for no reason, even, as the threat of a policeman being a bad guy is high enough, putting you at the risk of incarceration ie. planted dope, or fake dope ( ala frenchfry on floorboard ) etc., don't say it doesn't happen, it HAS happened to me before and although it was thrown out it still cost me some $$. You all don't have any right to randomly harass people and I'm disturbed that you think you do.

12-34-hom, think of it this way, we don't know you when you stop us and we have no idea whether or not you are a good cop or a bad cop. We see it as harassment, because that is what it is - period. You wouldn't want to be at the mercy of any person you don't know and neither do we, especially when we have done no wrong and we should not have to put up with it. The .gov simply needs to mind it's own damn business, there are pleanty of crack dealers standing out in the road of every city you all could be concentrating on instead of randomly pulling over regular folks, do you all realize that if you were a bad cop you could plant something on us and ruin our lives for years, i mean that's pretty stressful and when I had the frenchfry experience the cop was over joyed that my car was paid off and was laughing and telling me how he was going to confiscate it ( it happened when the confiscation laws just went into effect >10 years )? Imagine if that was you, would you think checkpoints are OK then ? And I realize this cop was not normal and in fact he was fired shortly after but how do we know whether or not we'll run into a guy like this ?




[This message has been edited by scud (edited August 29, 2000).]
 
Explain to me then why are there warantless searchs allowed, and why a canine "search" does not require a warrant to perform.

To bad it's not simple, then everyone would understand the law and all of its loopholes and this discussion were having would not be nessacary.

The law is intricate & is interpreted by legal scholars & judges & citizens by interelating facts from cases that lead to findings of law.

Are you a attorney Coinneach?

Or do you only see what you want to see when dealing with laws that apply to all?

Or are you one of those who think there above the law & only have to obey the law when it fits your agenda?


Would that constitute criminal behaviour or patriotic duty?



[This message has been edited by 12-34hom (edited August 29, 2000).]
 
Blacknight: after futher research i have come up with these facts.

#1. A roadblock is a siezure of a person.

#2. Random road blocks violate the 4th amendment. [Delaware vs. Prouse].

#3. Set roadblocks with breif detention may be constitutional. The following criteria for constitutionally have been set forth in Iowa.
A. Checkpoint/ roadblock location selected for saftey and visability to oncoming motorists.
B. adequate advance warningsigns, illuminated at night, timely enough to inform approaching motorists of nature of impending intrusion.
C.Uniformed officers and offical vehicles in sufficient quantity and visability to show police power.
D. Predetermination by policy makers administrative officers of roadblock location, time, procedure, pursuant to carefully formulated standards and nuetral criteria.
Futher. The United States supreme court upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints where the above criteria were met. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE vs. SITZ.

A roadblock to systematically stop traffic to check equipment, drivers licenses, and registrations, which incidentally results in the apprehension of drunk drivers does not violate Iowa's statute on road blocks.

The nuetral criteria requirment for establishing a roadblock that satisfies the FOURT AMENDMENT does not require police to have empirical data to support the rationale for the roadblock, nor does the FOURTH AMENDMENT require the police to have a written plan.
 
No, I'm not a lawyer. I have studied the Constitution more than about 99.44% of the people in this country, though, which seems more and more every day to include those who enforce it.

Simply saying "That's the law, deal with it" is (pardon the pun) a cop-out. The law is in violation of The Law, that is, the Constitution. NOWHERE in that document, upon which our Republic is founded, is any branch of any level of government expressly given the right to waylay travelers and paw through their stuff. Put simply, you don't have the power. Deal.

As for questioning the integrity and patriotism of those who refuse to accept laws simply because those laws exist, well... look in the mirror first.

Coinneach, trying extremely hard to stick to the High Road...
 
Just a thought.
It's my understanding that the Jews in Nazi Germany were required to wear the Star of David because it "WAS THE LAW".

But that damn sure did not make it RIGHT!

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
12-34hom;
You are conceding a little to what I said up top. Due to the situatation of drugs and alcohol in this country the government is suspending parts of the 4th to catch criminals. And I guess I say the law is the law. If random stops or random road blocks are illegal why is a marked designated one legal? Explain to me what is the real difference. You are stopped or siezed, your papers are siezed and searched for what probable cause? Can I say the same for all laws. I can speed a little or a lot and its OK but I go like HELL say 80 over the limit and I am bad? O'Can I please do this one I would like to retire. If I steal say 5% or 20% of the worth of something is that OK and if I steal 50% I am bad?

This is what I and the Civil Liberties Union are saying the government is not following its own written laws. Even in you own posting it says "may be constitutional". No one will put the subject to bed in the government. This ability gives the power a lot of power and a big weapon to use against whatever they wish to oppose.

I just don't see anyway any search or siezer with prior probable cause is constitutional. The courts are simply side stepping the law.

Last point.

On your points up top.
In U.S. vs ALLEGREE: main points are that Peace officers in the lawful conduct of thier duties may.

#1. Ask for a drivers license & registration.

I think you are missing the point. The officer stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation. Reason - Probably cause where established during the stop for the traffic stop.

If I where speeding, or breaking any law of the road and an officer pulled me over for that I would not have any re-course. But that is not and was not the case. My person was siezed and my papers where siezed and searched (Drivers License and sub-sequest check) for no reason other than being siezed and searched. This is my issue and the American Civil Liberties Union's issue with Road Blocks and the governments flat out denial that this is against the constitution.
 
12-34, the difference you pointed out between these cops and the Nazis was exactly the same one I had already pointed out--the Nazis were corrupt men bent on crime and harassment, while those cops were not. Now, if you can understand that's the only difference, take it a little further--why should we accept that cops have the right to harass us without cause simply because they're nice guys doing a thankless job so we can trust them? By that logic we should all be volunteering to register our guns, since I'd say the average federal LEO is also just a nice guy with a thankless job. We can trust MOST of them--so will you be the first to register with 'em?

As for thankless jobs, we ALL do thankless jobs. I worked for Hardee's this summer. That's a thankless job. Now I'm a teacher--the definition of thankless, especially today. NONE of which justifies violations of the Constitution in the least. Laws which contradict the Constitution are void. Having a thankless job or doing it well does not change that or allow anyone to abuse or harass fellow citizens.
 
I was going to stay out of this but......
The difference is that the police are acting on what the public supposedly wants......enforcement of laws set down by their elected officials. The Nazi party after Hitler had completely taking over once he was in power were acting on the whims of a mad man.....not the will of the people.
Many police functions are not popular....even with the law abiding. Yet in order to affectively perform that function they must some times do that which is unpopular.
I personally do not like check points. Yes, in my mind they hint at Nazi Germany or some such example. But the same people that will complain about being stopped themselves will shout for action when something illegal is taking place on their block. If there is a crack house next door these same people will ask the police to violate those peoples civil rights by stopping and questioning the stream of cars in the neighborhood. Our job is thankless because no matter what we do we will be condemned by one faction or another. There is never a situation in which everyone is happy about the way we did our job. They want the crime to go away but do not want the enforcement to interfer with them or their lives. If we have a DWI check point and you are drinking you do not like it because you may go to jail. If we have a DWI check point and you are not drinking you are pissed because you were stopped and we should be using our time (we are reminded by the person at this point that the time is paid for by their tax dollars) to catch the real criminals. But if a drunk driver kills someone in their family then they want to know why we aren't doing something to get them off the street.



------------------
Gunslinger

I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
 
Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. There seems to be no disagreement that the ownership of a car requires legal documents. There seems to be no disagreement that a driver must be licensed, and this driver may at any time when driving a car be stopped and asked to show proof of his licensing.

It is reasonable under law that vehicles may be stopped at a safe point for a roadblock and such paperwork be checked, so long as it's all drivers during the period, not just "at random". No "selective enforcement".

None of the above is any violation of anything in the way of "Rights". It is part of the contract one makes with the State when getting a driver's license.

Any further search, by law, must be in concurrence with "plain sight" or "probable cause". Probable cause can reasonably include the behavior of the driver or other occupants of the vehicle, or a drug-dog's reaction.

No, I'm not a lawyer. This information has been made publicly available for decades and multiply iterated in newspapers, magazines and on television. And now on the Net.

FWIW, Art
 
Just because there is a law on the books somewhere, does not make it right.

Being forced to stop for any reason other than visual observance of illegal activity or a sworn warrant is wrong.

I am no hypocrite; I would not call the police to demand they stop and search everyone in my neighborhood, because that is clearly illegal (read: unConstitutional).

There are other atrocities in America that are arguably "legal"- an easy example is the outright seizure of "large" sums of money. In many areas, these can be seized without the victim even having been charged with a crime. So, I have this to say, and listen carefully:

If anyone, regardless of what they are wearing, attempt to steal from me, I will treat them like any other armed criminal threatening my life and livelihood.

You have been warned; my conscience is clear. Feel free to violate rights at your whimsy, but do not think you can do so forever, and remember you, ultimately, are stealing your own future.
 
So I guess house-to-house searches will be OK as long as:

1. They search every house.

2. Police give "adequate advance warning...timely enough to inform approaching motorists (or dwelling occupants) of nature of impending intrusion. That is, as long as they tell you they're coming and that they're coming to search your house.

3. Uniformed officers and offical vehicles in sufficient quantity and visability to show police power (are present). That is, as long as they come in large numbers, in uniform, and in their squad cars, just so you'll know it's them.

4. Predetermination by policy makers (administrative officers) of roadblock (search) location, time, procedure, pursuant to carefully formulated standards and neutral criteria. That is, as long as they do it like the chief said to.
 
Oh-Gunslinger-

I encountered a "sobriety checkpoint" on July 4th, or thereabouts. I had consumed nothing more stiff than cough syrup that day. I was pissed. I was going to ask the officer why I was stopped, but I knew there was a high chance that some bogus charge would then be levelled against me. I had a long day, and was tired and sick, so I refrained.

No arguable "safety" is worth my freedom. None.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top