New Mexico Gestapo tactics

F

Fourdiamonds

New member
The state of New Mexico is already stopping cars and trucks on I 40 to check for license and insurance documentation.It happened to me last October on my way to Colorado to go hunting.
It took place at 11:45 at night.They had about 30 or 40 police cars plus about 6 or 7 fatigue dressed soldiers with M16s nearby.
It is still being done today as told by many drivers of 18 wheelers.
I have not written in protest to the Govenor yet,simply because I get to infuriated every time I think of it.
Just like pre-WWll Germany-yes?
When I go this year,I will avoid this state and I'm also telling all hunters and sportsman to never spend a penny in New Mexico, better known as Hitlerville!!!!!!

------------------
From my cold dead hands.
 
When/where was this? There recently was an escaped child killer/molester in the Santa Rosa area.

I know that NM has those bull sh*t DWI check points, but I've never been through one.
 
I know "four" and believe this was start of hunting season last year about Oct 30, cause he always misses Great Western if hunting, and Great western is 29-31st this month, if they dont repeal what judge has said so far.
 
It's not just New Mexico. I've been stopped at documentation/sobriety checkpoints in California, South Carolina and Virginia.

Such 100 percent checks are legal. I've never been delayed for more then a few moments. If - and I hope this is true - this tactic get drunks, druggies, and other assorted BGs off the streets, than I believe it's a price we should pay for greater safety.
 
RWK,

It is my opinion that your excuse is as bad as any of the drivel that comes from HCI or the White House.

Why not house to house searches for illegal weapons, illegal drugs, or the harboring of any fugitives? Why not going house to house and asking for insurance papers on vehicles in the garage or parked outside?

I don't give a crap if it's legal. Its WRONG! The presumption of guilt is WRONG. It saddens me greatly that people 'with a dog in the fight' capitulate on other freedoms besides RKBA so easily. No wonder we in the US piss freedoms away in greater quantity each and every day. The enemy truly is us.
 
RWK - just where do you draw the line? Random home searches would also get various BGs off the streets, and would only take a few moments of your time... Roaming phone taps wouldn't take any time, and would certainly help get BGs off the streets...

Me? Leave me the f@#* alone. If I'm observed doing something illegal, fine, but checkpoints are evil.

Keep in mind that the police must provide a place for you to turn around and avoid the checkpoint, and cannot pursue you for such activity.
 
Morgan,

They got a McKinnley Co NM deputy on DWI a couples years ago for that (turning around). He was the DWI coordinator/grant writer for the department.
 
Prichard: do you know if the gentleman was driving erratically when he turned around? I know that if you burn a 180 and tear away you can be stopped, but if you simply turn around and drive away normally it is not reasonable cause for suspicion. I beleive this is per a Supreme Court decision, which I'll try to find.
 
Found something - interesting, but not what I'm looking for. I'll keep searching on the turnaround issue.

From U.S. Supreme Court, DELAWARE v. PROUSE, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, No. 77-1571. Argued January 17, 1979, decided March 27, 1979.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 653-655. [440 U.S. 648, 649]

(b) The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 655-661.

(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 662-663.

(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. Pp. 663.[/quote]

Sounds like they can ask questions, but not search the car? I don't like the strong language used early in the decision being followed by a statement that all oncoming traffic can be stopped.
 
I think, but cannot absolutely know, that "detain" means doing more than just checking for driver's license and proof of insurance. They must get you out of the car and do a search or otherwise restrain your activities.

The law has always been held to be constitutional that police can ask for ID. They cannot do random stops of just some vehicles. They must stop all or none. This is part of the "profiling" ruckus. And a Supreme Court decision of a couple of months ago says they cannot search during a routine traffic stop.

FWIW, Art
 
rwk your statement that its the price we should pay for greater safety.ouch ,that is a sentiment that is to often used by antis why should any of us law abiding citizens be punished detained searched ect for smothing somone elese has done or suspected of doimg

------------------
oneshotonekill
 
How many war movies have you seen where the Gestapo agent stops the hero (spy, escaped prisoner, downed pilot, etc) and said "Your papers please"? Damn scary.
 
RWK,
"Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security."

Benjamin Franklin said this about 200 years ago, and it still rings true today.
 
It is a shame more people do not understand the real intent of these roadblocks being seen in the states already mentioned plus others like North Carolina and i hear in Maryland where the police have blocked the only way out of a subdivision in anne arundel county doing their "safety checks" Klinton ,pushing his seat belt initiative,is giving local police funds to intiate these roadblocks. It is a outrage ,but the masses seem to enjoy it. Many people on the shortwave over the last year have been complaining about these roadblocks across the nation, and it looks like TFL has members now on line to THIS MAJOR THREAT TO OUR LIBERTIES. I have gotten emails saying this forum is mainly about second amendment issue and that everything else is secondary. But,by destroying our first and fourth amendment rights, the powers to be can easily knock off the second amendment rights; a end around so to speak. Lets face it. These many rolling roadblocks would not have been tolerated only 25 years ago by the people.
 
PoiDog - You took the words right out of my mouth.

------------------
Gun control started the Revolutionary War!..."itcta alea est"
 
Where are you fourdiamonds? you didn't turn liberal did ya, looking at the pretty girly pictures instead of responding to inquiries, check out Oz posting by Bruce same same down under. Maybe we should all paint our vehicles light powder blue bet they'd let us pass unmolested.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON
 
Re: the opinion quoted by Morgan;

I think what that says is that such stops are OK so long as EVERY vehicle is stopped. Question came up for me 20+ years ago in TX on Hwy 90 from Del Rio into San Antonio, the stops were in search of illegal aliens enroute from Mexico, and just stopping people who looked Hispanic was a big no-no, so they stopped everybody, then looked into my car (no Hispanics) and waved us through, while harassing the dickens out of anyone who DID appear to be Hispanic.

IOW, complying with the perceived letter of the law while clearly violating the spirit thereof. Such authority has no place in a free nation, IMHO.
 
FWIW, the New Mexico Supreme Court has been pretty good about extending the NM Constitution to guarantee rights beyond those provided under the federal one - at least under present interpretation by federal courts. It's really a pretty nice place to live.

Yeah, there's a lot of hinky stuff that goes on here in NM, but that's sort of understandable. The law on checkpoints is pretty complicated: most practitioners don't get it. I'm pretty familiar with the present state of the law in NM, working as I do doing appeals here. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

I've actually got three consolidated checkpoint cases in front of our Supremes right now (been waiting for a decision for the past 1.5 years!), urging them to extend the NM Const. some more.

[This message has been edited by Erich (edited October 19, 1999).]
 
Did everyone read that line:

"balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests"

So what the hell is a "legitimate" govermental interest? We can forget the 4th as long as we think what we're doing is legitimate for governmental purposes?

This is a pathetic excuse for violating the constitution.
 
I was stopped several years ago in a small town in Texas. The police were supposedly looking for 3 escaped convicts. I was driving a Volkswagen Beetle at the time. When the police started looking under the back seat, I asked them how many escaped convicts they thought I had under there. They were not amused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top