.jpg)
Yesterday, Texas' highest criminal court took more of your civil rights away. Roadblocks to check for drivers license and insurance have always been legal so long as the sole purpose of the stop was to check for drivers license and insurance. That's why you never see them. If the purpose was truly to check for DWI or crime in general, they were illegal. That's what made the checkpoints no fun, and that's why the cops didn't do them. They could never establish, with a straight face, that they weren't setting the checkpoint up to look for other crime.
But yesterday the Court ruled that those checkpoints are legal even if the cops stopping the cars was a unit of six to seven officers including a drug dog! And so what if one of the deputies testified that they were "there for any violations they came across"! The trial judge, when asked to declare the checkpoint illegal, obviously didn't believe him and must have believed the other deputy that testified they were there solely to check for DL and insurance. At least that's what your highest court said.
So how did this guy get in trouble? He didn't have a license, had an outstanding warrant, and cocaine in the car. Ah ha!!! You say! Big deal. He deserved to get caught!
But you're missing the big picture. It is you they will be stopping next. And an attitude of "I don't care because I have nothing to hide" is exactly why we are in the sorry state we're in.
60 comments:
all that is required for evil to prevail is for those who know the truth to do nothing.
The sorry state of...nabbing criminals? That's what the case is about. That's what the checkpoints are about
People who want smaller government sometimes get caught without a valid license, or without insurance, or sometimes even get a DWI. It happens. You take your punishment and you move on and learn. Everyone should suffer the consequences when they are doing something wrong. Stop thinking the crooks are getting a raw deal!
Smaller government doesn't equate to not enforcing current laws, especially when they are for the collective safety of others on the road.
"License and insurance, please. I smell pot/alcohol on your breath, but I can't do anything about that because we are only checking for license and insurance. Move on."
If a cop was driving down the road and saw a crime being committed, he would act on that. How is this any different?
So encouraging people to obey the law and not engage in criminal activity is a "sorry state"? You make it sound as if the guy in this case was a good guy. Why is it that you do not want bad guys taken off the street?
So what you are telling me is you believe that criminal behavior is fine and should go unpunished and that criminals have not created the "sorry state" we're in?
This is the problem with you people (lawyers), you look at folks that obey the law, who are indifferent to changes in law such as this as the problem with society and the justice system.
I dissagree with you. these checkpoints could save lives, possibly yours or your family's. law enforcement has been forced to play with one arm tied behind their back and the law-breakers know it. i don't know which pisses me off more, the people who trhumb their nose at our laws or the lawyers who work so hard to get them off the hook.
I agree with you Barry, and I have nothing to hide or protect but my civil rights! There is no probable cause in a road block and to search and seize they must have probable cause. If they're going to do away with that, which of our rights will they trample on next!
We don't scream because we didn't know about it till now.
does it matter in how they were caught? If you do something wrong, you should expect that sooner or later you're going to get caught.
When a Def is asked how they feel about their offense, all I ever hear is that they're sorry because they got caught. They never say they were sorry for what they did.
Damn Barrister,your liberal assed thinking is waaaay outta whack.
I just started studying 4th and 5th Amendment in Law School...this should be interesting!
Barry, You have something to hide?
How is being proud of "not having anything to hide" put us in a sad state?
Looks like the system just worked, but you found a way to make it look evil.
I love how so many people on here ignore the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Some left-leaning folks love the 1st Amend., but don't think the 2nd grants individual rights. Most right-leaning that love the 2nd aren't so willing to accept the 4th as actually being important.
I don't understand the problem. People who aren't doing anything illegal have nothing to hide. Are we supposed to howl in protest for the rights of criminals to continue with their illegal activity? Be upset that a drug dealer might get caught even though he wasn't doing anything wrong--except DEALING DRUGS? Or perhaps I'm supposed to be upset at the time I might have to wait while the cops get drunks and druggies out of their cars and off the street, where they might hit me or one of my loved ones?
Sorry, BG, but even though I lean left I just don't see the big problem here.
We all want criminals to get caught, but.....
1. Your money will be paying for the additional roadblocks, fees, overtime etc.
2. We are leaving even more of our rights into the hands of government. When you have a bigger inefficient government like we have now, what happens?
3. I have to commute to work, I do not want to be stopped at a "checkpoint" everyday to prove I have insurance while being sniffed by a German Shepard. Even if it is in the name of "safety". (Gestapo, comes to mind)
4. When you open laws to interpretation like this has become, then there are fewer checks and balances of our current judicial system.
But then again our public officials are flawless, selfless, always right and always fair and balanced so who cares.
In my opinion, it's better that one criminal go free rather than our liberties be stripped away one-by-one.
ok,so which civil liberty was violated?
Do the crime.....Do the time!
And its a privilege to drive...not a right. (on public roads).
In my opinion, it's better that one drunk driver gets taken off the streets even if I have to give up a few precious minutes of my time.
What will keep Mr.Lawman/ Government man from coming to our homes asking to search just to see what we may have that the Government deems illegal. Seems farfetched doesn't it, but our rights are slowly being taken away and no one is standing up against it. Thank you Mr lawyer man, someone or something needs to keep the Government in check, without it we would be like sheep following blindly into slaughter.
what is the "sorry state we're in" currently
A poll was taken of 100 African Americans and asked if they have ever had sex in the shower. 86 percent said yes and 14 percent said that they have never been in prison.
"I have never been proud of my country until now."
That is what EVERYONE seems to forget... IT IS NOT YOUR RIGHT TO DRIVE. It is a PRIVELAGE that you get if a) you get trained to drive and b) you sign saying that you agree to abide by all these State Laws. If you don't like this, move somewhere else!!
:)
I disagree in principle with the government's right to stop every vehicle without regard to probable cause of some sort. So this case adds to my attitude, even if a bad guy was taken off the street as a result.
That having been said, the decision seems to be based on the idea that the Texas Supreme Court is forced to respect the trial court (and not the appeals court) in matters of credibility and believability. The trial court believed the one deputy who said the roadblock was "only" to check for DL and insurance, so the SCOTX had to go along. I don't know if this is a legal concept or simply protocol. (To me, the presence of the non-traffic unit, including the K9, would void the deputy's claim.)
That makes me so mad I wanna smash another black & white!
Skippy, Won't this be good for your ambulance chasing business?
If this state is so sorry why are you here!!! I don't care if Iam next to be pulled I over I have nothing to hide!! And I feel safer on the highway knowing that they will be checking for drunk drivers or stoned drivers it makes for safer highways.
Home run BG!! Good job! They are really getting twisted about this one.
AL
Barry, sometimes you miss the mark so badly I think you must be blindfolded and someone spun you around before you shot. If holding me up for a couple of minutes for me to prove I'm sober keeps my family from getting hurt, I have no problem with it. Judging from the responses here, you're in the minority of those would WOULD care.
1:48 No thanks my friend. I prefer to live in a society where the proving happens in court, not on the side of the road.
The most important line is found in the next to last paragraph:
The checkpoint's primary purpose of license and insurance verification does not prohibit police from considering other unrelated offenses that they discover during the stop. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 48.
Had the suspect produced a driver's license and insurance, he would never have been arrested for the other offenses. He also voluntarily allowed the police to search his vehicle, something you are not required to do.
Sorry, I don't agree that this is a 4th Amendment issue, and I'll have to side with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2:00, I felt the same way until the OJ trial.
According to the story behind this case, if a stopped driver showed DL and insurance, he was waved on through. (This actually was an important part of the state's case.) Any number of drunks might have been ignored, able to kill someone on the other side of the roadblock. If the cocaine smuggler had proper documentation, they say, he would have been waved through also. (Note: this is how my non-legally trained mind understood it. YMMV.)
2:00 WOW.
So you don't have a problem with going to jail?
As for me. No thanks. I'm smart enough to know NOT to drink and drive or carry illegal substances in my car.
I agree BG.....There has to be boundaries that they can't cross and there's not......All of these "they deserve it" folks will change their tunes when it's them or their families.
I think I'm a closet liberal hiding in a brainwashed world.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed."
That my friends is the fourth amendment. If they can search your car without probable cause then they can come in your house without probable cause and arrest you without probable cause.
Does the word Gestapo ring a bell?
The law departments have enough power already. They do as they please for the most part. Just wait until they just think you have been drinking or look nervous, they will have you on the side of the road for a hour or more and then you will be hiring good ol' Barry for your defense lawyer.....Thanks for beating my ALR hearing
Barry's issue is Civil rights and legal precedents. During the Vinson Court (1946 - 1953)existing personal (civil) rights were being challenged, primarily by Marshall and the NAACP. With the formation of the Warren Court, civil rights expanded and were not limited strictly to race. Arguably, one of the most important changes affecting the common citizen besides Brown, (the overturn of Plessey v. Ferguson) was Miranda. Since the Rehnquist court, the direction has been to ignor previous court precedent (stare decisis) and to challenge many of those civil rights that came from the Warren Court. The same manner in which the courts chipped away at product liability and civil rights is now being used to reverse many of those precedents. One of the prevailing theories is that we could afford those civil rights for the minorities after WW2because we were a wealthy nation, but as we grow poorer, we find that we can not afford the financial cost of those liberities. Note: Chief Justice Vinson had a young clerk who wrote a brief supporting the Plessy seperate but equal doctrine, in essance saying there was no legal reason to over turn the decision, and it should not be overturned. His Name? William Rehnquist.
2:00 Okay, so in court the damage is already done. Someone in your family is mangled or dead, but that's ok with you because the drunk that ran over them is innocent until proven guilty..even though had the checkpoint been allowed he'd have been stopped 5 minutes prior to the accident and arrested? Do you get pissed when, at the polling location, you have to prove you are who you say you are? Better yet, do you get pissed if, when trying to cash a check at a bank, you have to prove who you say you are? You may not have a hot check...but the guy beside you might and the clerk asking for it is trying to make sure a crime isn't happening.
"1:48 No thanks my friend. I prefer to live in a society where the proving happens in court, not on the side of the road."
Ok, when one of your family members is killed by a drunk driver you should remember your comments here today. You can be thankful the state will do its proving in court for the driver and that they did not check him on the side of the road because his civil liberties are obviously more valuable to you than that of a loved one!
I hope everyone in favor of these DWI checkpoints will be happy to let the police rifle through their trunks, glove compartments, wallets/purses, luggage and Christmas presents headed to grandma's house during a checkpoint stop (all of which could contain contraband).
After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why not let the police spend an hour or two checking you out, as long as everyone gets the same treatment?
Hell, why don't we INSIST that the legislature require cops to stop every car on the highway and give it a thorough search.
Isn't that a small price to pay for catching the bad guys?
Shouldn't we let the well-intentioned police decide what constitutes a reasonable search?
Surely they would never unreasonably harass us whitefolk when the next car in line is a '77 Caddy with tinted windows.
Oops, is my registration expired? Dammit!
Well then Goober he should post this topic on a blog designed for other legal professionals, not for laypeople! There is a huge disconnect in this country between lawyers and laypeople as far as what is needed to protect honest people from injustice and there damn well should be!
3:03 I sure hope your not as dumb as you sound.
3:03, I want to know what you are getting grandma for Chistmas, sounds like she is going to have one happy time!
We could have caught that drunk if:
If we had checkpoints
Earlier: We watched him leave the bar, house or liquor store
Earlier: We gave him a breathalyser before he got in the car
Earlier: We tracked his behaviors of drinking from his home. (ie what he buys, consumes, interests, etc
Now that we caught him even before he even left the house we are good, right? Well, since it is too difficult to track just one person. Everyone should be tracked this way. In the name of saving a life.
I know, test every child for chemical imbalances that would be more prone to addiction and track them for the rest of their life....
Just in Case
2:26 I've got family in prison. And, they deserve every minute of that lovely stay. Maybe, when they get out, they won't be such an idiot.
So, what's your point?
3:23 -- I am precisely as dumb as I sound, Ossifer. No more, no less.
PS: It should be "you're" or "you are," not "your as dumb as you sound."
3:28 Wow! Holy crap are you from Chico?? Your whole family is in the Pen??
I wonder what Barry's ideas would be to fight crime. Apparently everything that law enforcement officers do is (1) wrong, (2) unconstitutional, (3) biased, (4) racial motivated, or (5)dumb.
And by the way, we aren't in a "sorry state." You should know, better than most, that criminals get smarter. So law enforcement must get smarter as well. Finding new ways to catch criminals isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing Barry has the constitutional right to his opinion...but that doesn't mean that his opinion is correct, just biased from his defense attorney mentality.
It's curious that everyone keeps mentioning the police needing "Probabl Cause" to stop a vehicle. This is a perfect example of the lack of legal knowledge the general public has. You don't need probable cause to stop a vehicle. The police only need "reasonable suspicion." It's a lower standard and its been putting criminals in jail for decades.
Does anyone remember how Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) was caught? I'll give you two guesses, but you'll only need one. Yep, off of a traffic stop for speeding. Victimless crime? Perhaps. But if Barry had his way, we'd need an order from the Supereme Court to stop a vehicle in the first place. Seem stupid? That's because that line of thought is....stupid
You people have no real grasp over the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
In my opinion, it's better that one criminal go free rather than our liberties be stripped away one-by-one.
I agree.
As a conservative/libertarian who fervently supports the whole BOR, including both the 2nd and the 4th, I prefer to live as a sovereign citizen in this [once] Republic, rather than as a sheeple person being herded through this or that checkpoint, on the off chance that the "authorities" may find some infraction to hold over my head or with which to extract wealth.
So, what would I do instead?
Well, instead of checkpoints, how about you lose your license, the first time you crash your car drunk? Injure someone - jail. Kill someone(s) - longer jail sentence.
Won't happen though. Puts responsibility on the individuals. Big government has spent nearly a century absolving people of responsibility so that they can become proper wards of the state.
Not to mention the lawyers' lobby.
Oh, the one with the Chippendale chairs and the nice fern plants?
No.
I know a drunk that pulled in behind a highway patrol that had another car stopped.When the officer asked what he wanted he replied; here is my license and isurance card this is a license check is'nt it?Got off because he should have been told no,go on home you drunk bastard.True story.His wife could have drove the car but she's dumber than he was drunk.
4:23
McVeigh was arrestd bedause he did not have a licnese plate or id. Only after he was in jail was it discovered what he had done. Not having a license plate is a violation, not probable cause.
Remote, you left one out.
Make alcohol illegal.(Look at what a great job we've done with pot!)
No, you doorknob. McVeigh was caught because a heads-up patrolman saw the "print" that his pistol made through his shirt (pistol was in a shoulder holster). McVeigh never gave the patrolman a CHL or anything identifying himself as a concealed holder. That what got him caught. A simple traffic stop, followed by a patrolman with his mind in the right place.
P.S. - Not having a license plate IS probable cause to stop a vehicle. The point is that law enforcement doesn't need probable cause to stop, they only need reasonable suspicion. Find a library...educate yourself before you make an even more ass out of yourself.
those who would choose safety over liberty deserve neither. one of our founder said that, this one of the very few times ive agreed with barry.
If we made Homeowners insurance manditory they could go door to door checking for it. If "they" suspected drug use should they be able to search your house?? You have nothing to hide DO you? Drugs after all kill people just like alcohol don't they?
Just sayin'
8:28
Seriouly? You don't know the difference between stopping a vehicle for probable cause and stopping a vehicle for a violation?? You are the one that needs a library.
"even more ass of yourself"? Might pick up a book on grammer while you're there, bozo.
Post a Comment