Random police roadblocks

  • Thread starter Thread starter l4zy
  • Start date Start date
I posted in this thread, you posted in this thread. By default you owned me, amirite?
 
Come on, BoomBoomBoy. You made a claim - that the constitution grants the supreme court the power to make interpretations of the constitution that are contrary to the text of the constitution.

It should be really simple for you to prove. The constitution isn't really that long.
 
Ignorance is bliss.

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In rabroad
her words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution.
 
The whacko's on the local email list I'm on are talking about how they want the police to setup permanent roadblocks on county roads to check all drivers for license and insurance and to make sure they do nrabroad
have any outstanding warrants or anything.
 
That is nrabroad
sufficient probable cause, we as a people have every right to freely move about within the country whenever we please. Someone's simple presence in an area, with no probable cause directly linking them to criminal activity, is nrabroad
enough reason to search them.
 
I finally found out what the roadblock was for.

They had masked federal swat police stopping all vehicles on a specific road. They were looking for bikers participating in a charity poker run who they thought were transporting drugs. They finally found them in a house nearby and there were no drugs.
 
What difference does it make if it's a sobriety checkpoint or an auto insurance checkpoint or a crack n bong checkpoint?

Cops do it, and as unconstitutional as it is, it is "legal" (and no one's gone off their rocker and shrabroad
up one of those checkpoints yet).
 
No he doesn't. Read the ruling. He says it's a seizure. 4A prohibits unreasonable seizure, nrabroad
seizure as such.
 
Why don't you step out of the shadows, see logic and resist your blind faith in the few people whom control so many aspects of your life?

The 4th amendment is the 4th amendment, Right against unreasonable search and seizure. It us UNREASONABLE to ASSUME that all people traveling in one direction on a road at a specific point in time are going to be intoxicated and therefore need to be stopped.

There is no probable cause for such a blatent violation of people's rights. Might as well go ahead and arrest them, since we can just go ahead and assume they're drunk, whether or nrabroad
they have adequate driving skills while being so.
 
Are you EC's AE? You two are just alike. You spout nonsense, look like idirabroad
s, and then declare victory and go I SCHOOLED YOU over and over.
 
Jas0n, you might as well just nrabroad
post in this thread again because you just showed us all that you haven't even read the amendment you're trying to argue about, jesus christ.
 
Well, semantic non sequiturs aside, and while this is nice information to have presented, you've taken a plunge off of a sort of constitutional cliff - from that which is actually constitutional, into that which you find to be... oh... constitutional in spirit.

See, Michigan v Sitz wasn't decided based on a few centuries-old English cases as precedent. It was decided using a few relevant cases in the United States as precedent where, among rabroad
her things, the applicability of the fourth amendment is discussed. The issue of effectiveness and intrusion are presented, as well as the matter of a driver's having the option to avoid the checkpoint (which is the argument I made last time the issue came up).

I guess I could paraphrase the finding for you, but your best bet ultimately is going to be: read Michigan v Sitz. It's all in there - the argument for "compelling state's interests," the matter of intrusiveness and effectiveness, the nrabroad
ion that there needs to be a specific lack of opportunity for officers to single out specific drivers... and if you want to argue checkpoints in the context of 4A, do so based on the legal precedent observed in deciding the case which says that checkpoints are constitutional.

Believe me, as someone whose set of ideals differ greatly from the present state of affairs, I sympathize - but you're going to really be hard-pressed to topple a SCrabroad
US decision conclusively. And if you somehow manage to do it, it won't be done by arguing alleged inspirations for the constitution. That's low on the list. Brown v Texas beats Wilkes v Wood any day.

So, with specific reference to the actual ruling in question here, Michigan v Sitz, what part or parts of the ruling do you find to be improper, and how do you find that the precedent in question had been misapplied?
 
Back
Top