A Tennessee man was subjected to what he calls an unconstitutional search at a DUI checkpoint while participating in a planned exercise of his rights. Who was more in the right?
Everyone should know that the Supreme Court applied the search and seizure laws of the high seas, that was used to catch pirates, to the inside of cars. They don't need cause to look in the cabin. But they do need cause to look in the trunk.
It's a wrong use if the maritime laws and it needs to be changed.
The driver is at fault because at a traffic stop failing to follow a cop's instructions is a crime. I saw the video, and the cop was aggressive. If he had followed orders he might of had a case in court. He didn't and that trumps the cop's behavior.
But the question then becomes, 'Is the law requiring compliance with any police directive just?'
I say no. Any directive by any person, whether private individual, or President of the United States, which violates the Constitution demands civil disobedience. The police knew that they were on shaky ground, and then went ahead with the search.
1. The window was down, he had complied, just not to the cop's preference. Nothing wrong or illegal there.
2. Checkpoints are bullshît
Why would somebody vote this question down?
Because they suck the government's côck
I dunno. I tried to make it reasonably unbiased. Oh well. Water off a duck's back to me. I post what I want. :)
Good for you pinky!
I have followers who vote my question down regardless of whether they think it's good or not
Marcel - I know you do. I think tony purposely posted how we rate others polls so that people would be discouraged from down voting. I, personally wish the poll rating would go away.
The part of this I get tired of is when people purposefully act suspicious just to make an ass of the cops on film.
"(He is) perfectly innocent and he knows his rights.”
Yeah, what an asshöle. Seriously? Someone stands up for their constitutional rights and you think they're wrong? But you probably thank the troops for fighting for "freedom" right?
I don't understand where the hostility is coming from. I never said anyone who does this is an assh*le or in the wrong. I'm generalizing based on many of these videos I have seen: It's great if you know your rights and defend them; it's not great if
you set out to cause trouble on purpose, for instance you ACT intoxicated or suspicious just to be able to prove someone wrong in the end. It's just childish.
That I can agree with
I see it as a reasonable test of our law enforcement's knowledge of the Constitution, and their limits under it.
We cannot merely trust that those in authority have our best interests at heart.
We must trust AND verify by means such as this.
I understand that view, but it seems as if the goal is to make the police look bad either way. What is your viewpoint for if someone actually is driving under the influence? Should we still leave them alone, or find other means to enforce safety?
If someone is all over the road, pull them over.
Checkpoints are Gestapo bullshît.
There's a big difference between the two.
@taylor, Most people do not drive at a sufficient B.A. level to be a danger to others. Those that do should be stopped based on their driving, or prior, definitive probable cause by the officer that they were intoxicated.
If the person is falling down drunk, coming out of a bar, and getting into the driver's seat, pull them over. If they're weaving all over the road, pull them over.
But a DUI checkpoint operates under the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven, and targets people, not based on their manner of driving, but on the sole fact that they happen to be driving at that particular moment.
That runs directly contradictory to the rest of our legal system. Sure, it's more convenient for the officers to blanket the area and inspect everyone. But it's unconstitutional.
And as for making the police look bad, that's not the goal. The goal is to exercise one's rights freely, and to continue to do so regardless of what anyone, police or otherwise, feel about you doing so.
And there are good cops out there who handle things in a Constitutionally proper way. And they absolutely deserve recognition for that.
Here's an example where I think police did their job, and stayed within the Constitutional limits while doing it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UMdniHWkI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I'd like to see a video but its usually the cops in the wrong. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional searches and should be illegal. Well, they are, they're unconstitutional, but cops can't be bothered by that.
My bad, meant to post this before:
Just as I suspected
Great video, also great time to say I lost all respect for law enforcement!
Unfortunately, TN cops have had several bad apples like this guy. At least, I hope they're just bad apples.