Illinois traffic safety check

[Flyboy]

Must've missed this line, else I'd have responded to it in the previous post:

If you're not a criminal, the police do not have the authority to ... take any property from you

Mmmmm...civil forfeiture.

 

[roo_ster]

To me, your eyes are clouded by conspiracy theories of government coverups, police leading people into gas chambers, wet dreams of the s**t hitting the fan....

Actually, all it requires is a familiarity with human nature. Call it inherent corruption, self-interest, Darwinian adaptation, Original Sin, or whatever. Self-aggrandizement is the rule; restraint is the exception. (How many infants have to be taught to grasp a toy and scream "MINE!" compared to how many have to be taught to share that same toy & play nice?)

In the end, power only respects greater power.

 

[Vex]

Once again, I refer you to the 4th. It is illegal (but accepted) for government agents to forcefully detain you without a warrant.

It's legal for the police to detain for a reasonable period of time to conduct the investigation. It's legal for the police to detain you until a warrant can be obtained. If you're arrested, the officer will sometimes write the warrant while you sit in the back of the car handcuffed, once again as long as it's a reasonable amount of time.

Again, more of the same.... Morals v. Laws. Fine, you keep your good morals and go to jail for breaking the laws. I'll balance both and live my life happy. ($10 says this one gets quoted by someone with no new argument against the adequate proof I've submitted over the past 2 days.).

Mmmmm...civil forfeiture.

It's pretty obvious what my point was. If you spent as much time researching the law as you do trying to find a way to contradict my posts, you'd have alot better arguments than this. Don't play this game, especially with the clever editing.

 

[chas_martel]

Vex,

I implore you to read a book called Flatland. Here are a couple
of links to internet versions of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/eaa/FL.HTM

An understanding of this classic will point to the heart of why I originally said it would be a waste of time to have discourse with you on this topic.

The root problem is at the heart of why many discussions which go on and on
ad nauseum with stalemate like results. The real problem is not the answers
people are giving in discourse such as we have. The actual problem is the questions being asked.

We aren't even in the same ballpark so to speak.

 

[Art Eatman]

August West & SomeKid:

Philosophically, I'm in accord with the both of you, as well as others.

Two things, however: First, these traffic stops have a long history, and I'm a bit puzzled why they're suddenly attracting attention at this late date. After all, I first heard a defense attorney refer to the "One-Fourth" Amendment a couple of decades back, thanks to Congress and SCOTUS working together in the War on Drugs.

Second: Once the Nine Penguins have spoken, we're stuck with it unless somebody with more money than I have is willing to seek some change via a new SCOTUS decision.

ARt

 

[Gunpacker]

I served as a reserve police officer for 15 years. Sneer at me if you wish, but we performed a service to the community, and I do have a lot of road patrol experience. I never participated in a license check roadblock during that time, but was detained by one, and have been through a couple since. I felt it an infringement of my liberty, and at the time was late, made later by the stop. As for providing for the public safety, they suck IMO. If all the officers involved were on the road observing traffic, they would have collectively been able to observe far more vehicles and probably made as many or more arrests. Drunks even if not weaving, will do plenty to warrant attention on the road, whether driving agressively, slowly, no signals, improper lane usage or other violations. Yes, normal citizens do some minor infractions too, and should not be ticketed for BS stuff. I can only speak for the guys I worked with and the general attitude of road patrol folks I worked with, but most didn't want to write tickets except for egregious violations. However, when we stopped vehicles, even though we might have been trying to apprehend DUIs, there was a legitimate reason for a stop, the nature of which was a ticketable offense, or driving behavior indicating impairment. Drunks were arrested, others were usually happy to have a cheerful, "signal your turn next time, and have a good night", or some such, receiving a verbal warning instead of a moving violation. It was never a problem to make DUI arrests. Citizens going about their business without PC for stops were never inconvenienced. Those officers were looking to provide for removal of drunks, but did not infringe on anyone's rights.
IMO, an officer can easily find all the drunk drivers he has time to process with only a bit of an effort. Traffic blocks don't allow officers to arrest more drunks IMO, and are certainly an intentional infringement on the rights of drivers that warrant no detention for anything.
Those days seem long gone. It seems today that governments can find an excuse for whatever they want to do, and courts willing to allow it.

 

[deanf]

You're right that your car is your property, and it can't be searched at random anytime LEO thinks he wants to. There are other ways around that... such as the Terry stop, as outlined in Terry v. Ohio.

Ah hah! We've finally got to the meat of the issue, which is that much of the criminal justice system is trying to find ways "around" this or that Constitutional protection.

From the cop on the street making "creative" observations, to the chief/administrator ordering troops to enforce a policy/law he knows is against the law (only to tell them in the same breath never to arrest or detain based on it, so it never gets to court), to the prosecutor pressing victimless-crime cases, to the judge on the bench finding a "compelling government interest" to uphold some unConstitutional law; there runs through the system a vein of corruption which I fear we will not soon extract.

 

[LiquidTension]

If all the officers involved were on the road observing traffic, they would have collectively been able to observe far more vehicles and probably made as many or more arrests.

Exactly. Take it an extra step and have the patrols concentrate on areas around bars and you further increase the chances of catching DUIs without inconveniencing people that have done nothing wrong.

My main problem with checkpoints is that it shifts burden of proof from the state to the individual. Instead of an officer having to prove that you committed a crime, the individual must prove to the officer - on the road - that he/she is NOT breaking the law by presenting license/registration/insurance. Also, if I miss the first 10 minutes of Stargate because of a checkpoint, that's more than a "minor inconvenience" - that's the time when the plot is laid out!

 

[deanf]

Also, if I miss the first 10 minutes of Stargate because of a checkpoint, that's more than a "minor inconvenience" - that's the time when the plot is laid out!

Well I guess that's why the government lets us have Tivo - so they can detain us at their leisure, knowing they will not interupt our entertainment schedule.

 

[GruntII]

Vex wrote

I'm sorry, but I think you're all way too extremist libertarian for me. Sobriety checkpoints take 30 seconds to go through, and they keep roadways safe. They're not taking law abiding citizens to jail. Don't want to be afraid of check points? Don't break the law. They're not asking you for "papers" to be a citizen... and in case you didn't know, checking your driver's license is not a civil rights violation: Driving on public roadways is not a right, it's a priviledge, and you have to prove you have that priviledge.

Nice little grass eater attitude you have there. Trading any freedom for imagined security and safety is insane. You have already been conditioned to accept a police state at least that is what I can tell about you from your post.

 

[GruntII]

Vex wrote

Personally, I think sobriety checkpoints are well within reason. If you're not a criminal, the police do not have the authority to search you, search your vehicle, search your passengers, take any property from you, or jail you for an unextended period of time. All of these things were practiced by the Nazi regime that police checkpoints have been compared to, and it's ridiculous. The police at these checkpoints are not doing anything different than they do on the street. They run your license plates. They check your driver's license. If all is clear, then you're free to go. How many times do you think your license plates are run every year, and you don't even know it?

Actually since there is no probable cause to articulate the stop in and of itself should not pass the test of constituionality.Anything after the stop is Fruit of the Posion tree. Did y'all know that the US Dept of Transportation has or had strict guidelines ofr these checkpoints and they are routinely ignored. To be legal the checkpoints are supposed to follow the guidelines. These guidelines cover scheduling,locations, times, safety equipment and prior notice.After I was off probation I never particpated in one of these little Party gatherings when I worked the street. As a rookie I bit my lower lip, did the legal research to insure they were legal if not constitutional and used my discretion to the max. Most of the other cops used this as a chance to ogle the girls,and strut around showing had bad they were.

And they are doing something different , when they stop you they must have probable cause or articulable supsicion , at a check point they don't. No wonder our society is going in the toilet people can't even tell when their rights are bieng violated and if someone points it out instead of standing up for their rights they get warm and fuzzy over how safe it makes them feel .It dont'make them any safer but it feels good.

 

[Vex]

Nice little grass eater attitude you have there.

Didn't your mother teach you to catch more flies with honey? How do you expect me to reply to legitimate posts when you're slinging mud?

Hm. Well, since you don't want to discuss the current topic of legality of sobriety checkpoints or their purpose and effectiveness, then allow me to change the topic. How about fishing? What's the name of that little motor on the front of a bass boat?

Exactly. Take it an extra step and have the patrols concentrate on areas around bars and you further increase the chances of catching DUIs without inconveniencing people that have done nothing wrong.

This would require more money than the usual budgeting allows. Remember, in one of my earlier posts I stated that the sobriety checkpoints are manned and operated by volunteer sheriff's deputies. Volunteer deputies don't go riding around in cars, because 99% of the time all the cruisers are on duty and responding to 911 calls.

If the socriety checkpoint are different in your neck of the woods, then it needs changed. Do I think my home state of Ohio has the best technique? No. But I think it's better than alot of other places.

Ah hah! We've finally got to the meat of the issue, which is that much of the criminal justice system is trying to find ways "around" this or that Constitutional protection.

It's the name of the game, and unfortunately the law has become a big game with real life players and real life circumstances. Thus is the way of politics. Want to change this? You figure out a way (that does not involve a revolution, anarchy, or people being injured/killed) and I'll be right behind you.

I implore you to read a book called Flatland.

Alright, I'll bite. I haven't read the book, but based off the summary, I have a question. How does a book about Victorian society play any part in a conversation about sobriety checkpoints, or the methods we're using to discuss such methods?

Regardless if your answer, I promise I'll read it.

 

[GruntII]

This will add fire to this fuel but drivers licenses are unconstitutional. I have money taken by force from the state to pay for roads, more taken by force topay for the license and tags.The right to drive a wagon, or ride a horse never ever required a license. We can still legistlate and control behavior but requiring a license ot drive a non commercial vehicle while traveling for my personal non business reasons is just unconstitutional. The Supremes early in the last century even ruled that the state could only require a license if you were engaged in commerce with your vehicle. The case came out of California and envolved issues of a man who as a favor carried a load of fruit in his vehicle for a local business. I used to have the case cite but can't find it now.IF anyone here has it please post it.

What Vex and several others here seem to be missing is that the constitution and bill of rights did 2 things established a framework for the federal government placing limits on it's power and affrimed what the founding fathers felt were creator endowed rights of the individual. Now today the bliss ninnies seem to believe that rights are something the government can give or take away but they are not. In this country we are fast approaching a point where I really think we will have to fight the government to maintain our freedom. Government is like a vicious dog. it must be kept on a short leash and weak to control it.

 

[GruntII]

Didn't your mother teach you to catch more flies with honey? How do you expect me to reply to legitimate posts when you're slinging mud?

I call a spade a spade. People with your attitude are a threat not only to their liberty but mine also mine. I've got 15 years wearing a badge both local and federal and i can tell you one thing about my profession give it an inch and it will take 1000 miles. Cops are not to be trusted. The idea that these sort of opperations make us safer is insane. It might make some people feel good but they aren't any safer.

 

[sctman800]

My my, what did I start here? Actually I am a little suprised the thread hasn't been locked, it seems there has a fair amount of arguing and drift off topic. At least we all should know where Vex stands on the matter.

Quote.
Actually since there is no probable cause to articulate the stop in and of itself should not pass the test of constituionality

Thank you GruntII. That is pretty much the point I had in mind. I guess I am showing my age by complaning about these "stops." I allways have and allways will feel that anyone driving or walking on a public thorofare that is not doing anything oboviously Illegal should be LEFT ALONE.
This was not meant to bash LEO's either, at least not street cops, I will give them the benifit of a doubt that their bosses have told them what to do. On the other side of the coin I hope they don't take anything personal if I am not happy about being delayed and inconvienced. And I will keep right on driving around to avoid the "stops" as long as I can turn off in a manner that breaks no traffic laws. Read my signature line for how I feel. Jim.

 

[Vex]

In this country we are fast approaching a point where I really think we will have to fight the government to maintain our freedom.

A little OT, but what happens if the revolution starts and the government wins? Think you'll have the same freedoms you do today after losing? I doubt it.

This is why we need to fight things from inside the system, and not sit around and complain about what's morally right or wrong. I've tried to point out the balance the law gives society. There are some that want more authority for the government. I'm not one of them. There are some that want unchecked anarchy. I'm not one of them either. Based on your post, I guess you're the latter, and that, in my mind, is a threat to the country I've sworn to protect. Am I any more or less a patriot than you? No. We're on the same team, playing two different games.

This was not meant to bash LEO's either, at least not street cops, I will give them the benifit of a doubt that their bosses have told them what to do.

FWIW, I never felt this thread was cop bashing. Cop bashing is saying something bad about all cops based on the immoral actions of other cops. This is merely a discussion about lawmakers... it's attorney bashing! Quick everyone grab a bat, haha....

Anyway, please remember that cops are checked, too. There's a little something called "Dereliction of duty," and it's constantly hanging over the heads of cops everywhere.

 

[LiquidTension]

Actually, the checkpoints in my neck of the woods ARE different. Highway patrol usually works with local agencies, and nights like New Year's Eve county brings in extra officers that would normally be off that night. County has take-home cars, so there's no vehicle shortage. Just because things are handled differently in your area doesn't make it any less intrusive to the people that are pulled over.

We have AET (Alcohol Enforcement Team) that goes around in plain clothes to bars to catch underage drinkers and such. Officers from several agencies work together. A program like that, that has officers actually in the bars, can catch a whole lot more drunks than a checkpoint. An intoxicated person leaves the bar and gets in a car, AET calls a marked car to pull them over. Once again, innocent people are not inconvenienced. The bars around here are clustered in two areas - Five Points and the Vista. There are at least a dozen ways out of each one, so a checkpoint will not catch nearly as many people as an AET type program will.

 

[GruntII]

A little OT, but what happens if the revolution starts and the government wins? Think you'll have the same freedoms you do today after losing? I doubt it.

This is why we need to fight things from inside the system, and not sit around and complain about what's morally right or wrong. I've tried to point out the balance the law gives society. There are some that want more authority for the government. I'm not one of them. There are some that want unchecked anarchy. I'm not one of them either. Based on your post, I guess you're the latter, and that, in my mind, is a threat to the country I've sworn to protect. Am I any more or less a patriot than you? No. We're on the same team, playing two different games.

Politically the fight is lost,but we owe it to our selves and our children to fight this fight politically though. Every means must be exhausted before the culture war in this country goes hot again. I do not want to see it happen and I don't know if it will happen but I truely believe the only way this country will be set back on the course set by the founders is a blood letting.I don't want it because it will be a stem winding double barrel cluster bringing out the worst in both sides but I feel it is the only thing that will change the course of this nation. This issue involves so much more than just morality, right and wrong. It has to do with social issues, economic issues and constitutional issues. It has to do with the comfort zone of the average citizen and how far they will let the government go to give them a false sense of security, and it involves the those who burden society with their entitilement mentality. Unchecked anarchy is not what I am looking for , a small federal government that does the 25 or 28 things it is specifically allowed to do in the various articals of the constitution would be a nice start. You cannot examine just this one issue without looking at them all as they are related and intertwined.
As you advocate trading liberty for security,(It's For the Children after all)
I cannot see where we are on the same team at all. If you could sign a social contract that allowed the authorities to stop you without regard to your rights, and I didn't so they would leave me alone We might be on the same team problem is right now when you give up your liberty, you pull me into the give up also.

 

[Walt Rauch]

Local departments get Federal Grant money to do the DUI checks. It is a money maker in more than one way.

 

[chas_martel]

Vex,


Thanks for being willing to take time to read Flatland. You ask
some of us to take ride alongs is what made me think of
Flatland. I agree, if I put myself into your shoes I do
indeed agree with all your arguments about traffic stops.
You on the other hand do not seem like you would do the
same should you be placed into my shoes.

One point I want you to see in Flatland is that there is another dimension to the things we are talking about regarding "traffice stops". As another posted pointed out a few pages ago, some of us here
are discussing "rights" and some of use are discussing "legal" issues.

Another is that some people are not capable of seeing certain issues
because they are, thru no fault of theirs, looking at things in a dimension which has no reference point to the topic of someone sitting in a different dimension has.

In my line of work - over the last 25 years or so - I have had to take into consideration the representation and modeling of problems to solve very complex problems. I've seen this analogous problem
many, many times.

While this thread is about traffic stops it is also about a broader and more important topic(s). We seem at odds on what that point is and its relative importance. I think it is because some of use are dealing
with issues which occuppy problem spaces with different cardinalities
relative to the data points at hand.

As to it seemingly being about Victorian society, you do realize
that "Alice in Wonderland" was not a kids story right?

 

[scout26]

Rush
Moving Pictures (1981)
Red Barchetta

My uncle has a country place
That no one knows about.
He says it used to be a farm,
Before the Motor Law.
And on Sundays I elude the Eyes,
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire,
Where my white-haired uncle waits.

Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the Borderline.
Run like the wind,
As excitement shivers up and down my spine.
Down in his barn,
My uncle preserved for me an old machine,
For fifty-odd years.
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream.

I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car.
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better, vanished time.
I fire up the willing engine,
Responding with a roar.
Tires spitting gravel,
I commit my weekly crime...

Wind-
In my hair-
Shifting and drifting-
Mechanical music-
Adrenalin surge...

Well-weathered leather,
Hot metal and oil,
The scented country air.
Sunlight on chrome,
The blur of the landscape,
Every nerve aware.

Suddenly ahead of me,
Across the mountainside,
A gleaming alloy air-car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide.
I spin around with shrieking tires,
To run the deadly race,
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase.

Drive like the wind,
Straining the limits of machine and man.
Laughing out loud
With fear and hope, I've got a desperate plan.
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded at the riverside.
Race back to the farm, to dream with my uncle at the fireside.

 

[k_dawg]

Those who would trade away their liberties for safety... what was it again?

oh yes.

PAPIEREN BITTE!!! Macht Scnell!!!! :banghead: