Amazon 7 #51 April 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteMy guess is that you did not understand that this is during the course of a conversation that is POLITE. That's quite a guess considering FAIL I was referring to several instances where LEO were wailing on someone who was down... but still being beaten by the LEO's... probably to teach a lesson. I have never had any kind of altercation with LEO's.... even during tail lamps out or low tire.. fishing expeditions... AND since I was doing nothing wrong.... I did not have anything to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #52 April 23, 2009 Quote whenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. some states agree with that, and some states don't. i'm curious if this decision will have an impact in future cases. I agree with you, that causeless stops/fishing expeditions are contrary to the 4th amendment. However, IIRC, the SCOTUS has ruled that a) there is a conflict between the two (suspicionless stops and the fourth) and b) resolving that conflict is their job, and c) that they think these stops are "for the greater good" or "in the public interest". I think that last part is a bullshit standard for violating our founding and primary collection of laws. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #53 April 24, 2009 Quote whenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. some states agree with that, and some states don't. i'm curious if this decision will have an impact in future cases. In Canada the analogous right has been debated in the supreme court vis a vis DUI checkstops. Certain restrictions were put on them. The police do not ask for papers during checkstops anymore. It is not reasonable to delay a law abiding citizen any longer than necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #54 April 24, 2009 I've been thru 3 DUI checkpoint stops, as best as I can recall. Each time was clearly targeted (at least in my case) solely to whether or not I'd been drinking. Never had any papers checked. Each time the actual at-my-window interview with the cop probably took no more than about 15 seconds before I was politely thanked & allowed to move on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #55 April 24, 2009 QuoteThoams did not write the opinion or a separate concurrence. Also, I am NOT surprised that Thomas and Scalia are on this side. This is the essence of the problem - an activist decision. I can't help but giggle at Roberts and Alito being in the minority on this. I recall the persistent questioning of both during their confirmations about respect for stare decisis. Maybe that was fresh in their minds - the dissent indicates as much. This decision had a very unusual split among the justices: For watering down 4th amendment: Scalia Thomas Stevens Ginzberg Souter Against watering down 4th amendment: Breyer Roberts Alito Kennedy It's a little hard to blame this one on Thomas and Scalia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #56 April 24, 2009 How do you see this decision as watering down the 4th? It seems to me that it is doing the opposite. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #57 April 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteLawrocket's hint. Don't consent to searches. Make them get a warrant. In your opinion, what is/are the best way(s) to withhold consent to a search without unnecessarily escalating the situation into one in which a person's safety is at risk? My brother once stood the cops down for 3 hrs, refusing to let them search his car. This was at the Immigration checkpoint on I-5, north of San Diego. He was driving alone in his car, so there was no question of his harboring any illegal aliens. They wanted to search his car because they claimed their dogs "smelled something". My brother refused to consent to a search, claiming that the stop was an Immigration checkpoint and not an open fishing expedition on American citizens. (He also asked them if their dogs talked to them....). They tried every kind of intimidation, but he hheld his ground for 3 hours before they finally gave up. This was on Thanksgiving day and caused him to be late to Thanksgiving dinner. He had presents for his host's children in the front seat and the bastards would've torn those open too. My brother's been gone for 17 years now (cancer), but I've always admired him for standing those goons down. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #58 April 24, 2009 QuoteHow do you see this decision as watering down the 4th? It seems to me that it is doing the opposite. It is.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #59 April 24, 2009 Quote I've been thru 3 DUI checkpoint stops, as best as I can recall. Each time was clearly targeted (at least in my case) solely to whether or not I'd been drinking. Never had any papers checked. Each time the actual at-my-window interview with the cop probably took no more than about 15 seconds before I was politely thanked & allowed to move on. Hey, what's the worry if you have nothing to hide? Would you feel the same way if he was just stopping you to see if you had drugs in the car? Or bloodstains? Fishing for evidence without probable cause is, in my opinion, wrong. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
namgrunt 0 #60 April 24, 2009 If the 3"x3"x2" box was open and in plain sight the evidence would be admissible. ......................... OLd POLICE song If you have the right to Be,you have the right to seee If the officer has the right to be somewhere he has the right to see anything in open view plain view doctrine59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI) www.dzmemories.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
