Goodbye Fourth Amendment

[Lost Cause]

U.S. SUPREME COURT APPROVES ROADBLOCKS The U.S. Supreme Court concluded it

is constitutional for law enforcement officers to set up roadblocks to

randomly check motorists and other road users for proper driver's licenses.

Without comment, the justices declined to hear -- and thus let stand -- an

Ohio Supreme Court ruling that concluded roadblocks established by Dayton

police did not violate the U. S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search

and seizure.

The justices handed a victory to Dayton police who set up roadblocks to

catch unlicensed drivers. Dayton officials argued that the checks took

only a matter of moments and that the city had a compelling reason to

determine whether operators were legally licensed to drive.

With its decision not to hear the case, the justices expanded the reach of

two of their earlier decisions that provided police with broader powers to

establish checkpoints without first obtaining a warrant.

This news should be of particular interest to motorcyclists, who typically

are vociferously opposed to unwarranted stop, question and search methods

as a means of profiling bikers, though such roadblocks would certainly

improve on the high percentage of riders who are unlicensed

 

[Valdimer]

Illegial search and seizure????

WTF?

 

[Guest]

WOW!

Actually, this could be a very good thing for the television industry. Now, we will have the honor of being able to watch more and more of those "World's Best Police Chases" shows. I mean, stop and think about it - this is a blessing in disguise. All of those new segments showing people bursting through the roadblocks can now be taped right at the scene because the cameras will already be there and they'll be waiting. It's great! There will be more jobs for the people in the television industry (I know how we've all been worried about those poor TV news people and all of the workers in that industry losing their jobs. lol)

What could possibly be better than this? Oh, yeah.....we'd have to say goodbye to one of our freedoms. Well, Let's Make a Deal....if the shows do well....then let's nix the freedom idea...if the shows don't make it....then we can have our freedom back. Does that sound good to you? If not, we can always ask Judge Judy to help us...I hear she's in need of some fresh ideas.

Enjoy!

 

[StLBob]

Hmmmm.... I wonder if Dayton police wear "SS" on their lapels...

 

[AskACumSlut]

I hate to say it, but maybe no one else will and I wasn't asked but: NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DRIVE. It's a privilege and should be regarded as such. Road blocks enforcing traffic laws are simply making the road safer for everyone. If that pisses off a few ZZ Top looking bikers because they're "carrying" and haven't gotten a new license since the Pen. so be it. Thank you.

 

[LadyDarkFire]

Oh goodie, just what I always wanted, roadblocks on already busy roads. Yeah, the searches themselves take only moments, but the back up of traffic is significant in most areas, and what happens if they catch someone? What does that do to the time line? Sometimes I wonder if it's worth owning a car at all anymore.

 

[StLBob]

I hate to say it, but maybe no one else will and I wasn't asked but: NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DRIVE. It's a privilege and should be regarded as such. Road blocks enforcing traffic laws are simply making the road safer for everyone. If that pisses off a few ZZ Top looking bikers because they're "carrying" and haven't gotten a new license since the Pen. so be it. Thank you.

Maybe I'm a paranoid... Unreasonably so in most cases. But I'd be very surprised if the Drivers License Checks don't lead to abuses where people are searched and arressted for things unrelated.

When stopped for the License Check, all the cop has to do is reasonably suspect any number of other potential violations, and he's clear to do a complete search of the car, person, and all occupants of the car.

"Your license looks fine sir, but is that Marijuana I smell? Please pull over to the side..."

 

[LadyDarkFire]

I hate to say it, but maybe no one else will and I wasn't asked but: NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DRIVE. It's a privilege and should be regarded as such. Road blocks enforcing traffic laws are simply making the road safer for everyone. If that pisses off a few ZZ Top looking bikers because they're "carrying" and haven't gotten a new license since the Pen. so be it. Thank you.

It might not be our right to drive, but it is a right to have the expectation of privacy. Even if there is a privilege in play (driving), where does it say that automatically denys a person a right? As for who it pisses off, it's not just bikers (they also have the same rights as the rest of us, so please respect that), it's stopping everyone, and it ticks me off. For referance, I've never owned nor ridden a motercycle, I own a car, and drive it on a daily basis. I can understand sobriety checks on major holidays, but this I find offensive. Don't automatically assume the people who it will trouble are the people it might catch. It can bothers law abiding citizens as well.

 

[Rollin Fun]

ok, i had to respond. yes driving a car is a priviledge, BUT having the expectancy of right of privacy does apply to the interior of ones vehicle, and ones body (for motorcyclists). no one can search your vehicle, unless they point out probable cause.

yes, the supreme court has made it easier to examine interiors of vehicles, but they did not expand the ability to search a person or vehicle.

on the other hand, WHAT A FRIGGIN PAIN IN THE ASS! to get stopped for simple checks, ughhhhhhh

oh well there is my rant, on the subject

 

[WriterDom]

Where do you people live? We've had roadblocks since before I started driving. It's not an everyday thing. You might get caught in one about every two years.

 

[AskACumSlut]

Maybe you guys haven't been through a roadblock. It only takes a second. They're timed to not impede traffic. That doesn't mean it's not going to occur but you won't find a roadblock up in most areas during rush hour morning or evening.

As far as further abuses. What are you hiding that you don't want to be found out? The car is not your house. I know we like to think of it as such but it's not. You can still refuse to allow the cops to look into the trunk and other areas that are not in plain sight. You still have the same rights as when you are pulled over for speeding. What's the difference?

Regarding the motorcyclists. Yes they have the same rights but they often abuse the privileges. I know a lot of people who ride bikes without proper license. A motorcycle rider requires skills 3X that of a car driver and we're all safer if that state has a separate examination and / or license procedure to ride (few states do but they all should).

Regarding drugs. I'm against all the current drug laws as they stand. But does anyone need to smoke weed in the car?

 

[LadyDarkFire]

Maybe you guys haven't been through a roadblock. It only takes a second. They're timed to not impede traffic. That doesn't mean it's not going to occur but you won't find a roadblock up in most areas during rush hour morning or evening.

As far as further abuses. What are you hiding that you don't want to be found out? The car is not your house. I know we like to think of it as such but it's not. You can still refuse to allow the cops to look into the trunk and other areas that are not in plain sight. You still have the same rights as when you are pulled over for speeding. What's the difference?

Regarding the motorcyclists. Yes they have the same rights but they often abuse the privileges. I know a lot of people who ride bikes without proper license. A motorcycle rider requires skills 3X that of a car driver and we're all safer if that state has a separate examination and / or license procedure to ride (few states do but they all should).

Regarding drugs. I'm against all the current drug laws as they stand. But does anyone need to smoke weed in the car?

With reguards to the rush hour comment, I go to school at night, so often, the times that there are roadblocks are the times when I'm commuting to college. As for the time, in this area, if you are caught in a roadblock, and you look under around 30, you're there for a while, thanks to police officers who assume it is their duty to terrorise the local high school contingent around here.

As to further abuses, yes, they will probably occur, because the cops now have an excuse to stop you, the thing that arguably stopped them before. I have nothing to hide, but I do find the right to my privacy a comforting thing, and I don't like the fact that this could take it away that easily. My car is still my property, bought, paid for, registered, and insured. It might not be my house, but I spend alot of time in the car, trying to get school and back, and that means that I keep alot of stuff in my car (books, emergency kit, etc) that could be searched.

With the Motercycle issue, again, not all bike riders are driving illegally, and the way you are talking is exactly what is raising the hackles on the so called "biker contingent" that you refered to as "a few ZZ Top looking bikers because they're "carrying" and haven't gotten a new license since the Pen." With those words, you do the exact thing that the police should not be allowed to do. Showing bias against a group of people, such as men and woman who ride motercycles, is a dangerous thing, and can go wrong so easily.

This is not about the intent, since the stated intent is honourable. This is about the profiling, the privacy issue, and the Bill of Rights.

 

[AskACumSlut]

LDF,

Like I said before and I'll say it again, bikers are not criminals. I've owned a bike before (although it was sport bike, probably not the contingent opposed to the law). But there are a HUGE number of folks that never took the time to get a motorcycle license or take a course, especially those that have no regard for the law or safety.

There is nothing that a roadblock is going to do that police can't do already. Think about it from the police perspective. They don't want to do it all the time because road blocks demand manpower, coordination, and overtime money. Many times they create chase or violent situations. This is not something a cop wants to think about being a certainty when he comes on duty.

I would much rather have the police run a roadblock and treat everyone the same (license, registration, insurance) than to give one group (Blacks, Latinos, bikers, etc.) all of their attention as they ethnically profile. You have to ask yourself, are these the same bikers that don't want to wear helmets?

 

[LadyDarkFire]

Reguardless of the fact that there Might be that sort of person going through a roadblock, there is the fact that not all bikers should be assumed to be guilty until they show their license.

But there are a HUGE number of folks that never took the time to get a motorcycle license or take a course, especially those that have no regard for the law or safety.

Reguardless, this country has a policy of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" that should be followed, by everyone.

As for thinking about it from a police perspective, if they don't want to do the road blocks, then why did they?

What I see you saying is that, while not all bikers are driving illegally, you assume that the people caught in these roadblocks are going to be only those people, and that they are only going to stop bikers. With this, I don't agree, because I know that I've been held up by a roadblock, since the cop had a problem with me. I had reported him to his supirior officers for stopping me earlier this year, and keeping me with absolutely no cast of suspicion. It was the fact that my car still had the High School parking permit on it. He's done this before, to alot of other people, and continues to do it. He used the roadblock as an excuse to hold me there, run my license, registration, and question me why I was out so late on a school night. (In fact, I was returning from class.) Now, considering that this sort of thing can happen, and does, do you really think alot of people are going to assume that the cops are going to be absolutely perfect in who they pull over? That they can spot a person breaking the law by sheer sense of mind, and only pull them over?

 

[AskACumSlut]

I only spoke of bikers because that's who the original article addressed. And it was posted by L.C., an admitted Harley lover.

Driving a car or bike unlicensed is a crime and a danger.

Spending a little time with the police as they check your license and registration is nothing. Try being Black or Hispanic and getting pulled over 2 or 3 times a month just for a looksie.

Small inconveniences (roadblocks, DUI checks, etc.) make the streets safe for you and me.

What's wrong with stopping high school kids out late? I know you're not in high school but what's wrong with getting stopped for that? It's not like he stopped you for your race, wealth (or lack of), or gender.

 

[LadyDarkFire]

I was stopped because I was a female out after dark who was under 30. Age discrimination is still discrimination. As for what's wrong with stopping high school, and other people late at night, based on age, is that it is a form of profiling, and around here, it borderlines, if not just plain is, Harrassment. As for late at night, it was 9 pm.

You give the reasons that they are justifying these roadblocks. What I am saying is that not all of them are exactly an accurate picture of what can happen so often. in small towns especially.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by StLBob
Maybe I'm a paranoid... Unreasonably so in most cases. But I'd be very surprised if the Drivers License Checks don't lead to abuses where people are searched and arressted for things unrelated.

When stopped for the License Check, all the cop has to do is reasonably suspect any number of other potential violations, and he's clear to do a complete search of the car, person, and all occupants of the car.

"Your license looks fine sir, but is that Marijuana I smell? Please pull over to the side..."

Originally posted by Rollin fun
ok, i had to respond. yes driving a car is a priviledge, BUT having the expectancy of right of privacy does apply to the interior of ones vehicle, and ones body (for motorcyclists). no one can search your vehicle, unless they point out probable cause.

yes, the supreme court has made it easier to examine interiors of vehicles, but they did not expand the ability to search a person or vehicle.

The problem I see is that there is no legitimate reason for them to run the roadblocks as a matter of routine anyway. I can pretty well buy the sobriety checks on the days shown to have a propensity for drinking/drunken drivers because they kill the innocent seemingly more often than themselves.

My major objection is that in a free society, the police have no justification to stop you unless you are in the act of a crime or fit the description of a fugitive/suspect.

As to the likelihood of probable cause arising out of an otherwise innocent stop, the potential for its abuse is too great. Today's courts have become far too lenient in granting the police officer lattitude in declaring probable cause. And with the current crop of civil asset forfeiture laws obviating Constitutional protections from seizure of property without just compensation or due process, the police departments, DA's and judges who share in the plundered property of the innocent have no reason to not use this set of legitimized theft statutes to line their own pockets other than principle.

There are far too many people with the mentality that if the laws says it's okay, then it's morally and ethically right. That has never been valid and never will be but it is the reality.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Can one of the lawyers on the BB clarify a question for me? The 4th Amendment states our right for our "persons, houses, papers, and effects" shall not be violated by "unreasonable searches and seizures" without warrant or probable cause. I assume this protection would extend to our vehicles as the founding fathers probably couldn't have anticipated cars, but what about the "searches" part?

Does the act of a policeman stopping you at a roadblock and demanding to see your license before you may proceed constitute a search? It would seem to me that there's no searching involved. All he would have to do is ask you to produce the license, and if you didn't produce it, I assume he would issue some sort of citation or perhaps arrest you for driving without a license (not sure the . does he have the right to hold you?

I'm inclined to agree with AskaCumSlut here (how weird does that sound?). I don't see the police here as searching anyone for proof of a crime as they would do in more "typical searches" (e.g. looking for weapons or drugs in a car). Instead, here they're looking for proof of compliance with a statutory law. Would anyone say that the health authorities don't have the right to go into a restaurant and ask the management for proof of passing health inspection? Or asking hospital administrators for proof that they have proper licensure relating to health and safety requirements?

Admittedly my legal thinking is pretty unsophistocated, but I don't see what all the fuss is about here. Can the lawyers clear this up?

 

[JazzManJim]

I"m not a lawyer, but I can help.

Does the act of a policeman stopping you at a roadblock and demanding to see your license before you may proceed constitute a search? It would seem to me that there's no searching involved. All he would have to do is ask you to produce the license, and if you didn't produce it, I assume he would issue some sort of citation or perhaps arrest you for driving without a license (not sure the . does he have the right to hold you?

No, that doesn't constitute a search. What an officer can do is look in your vehicle as he approaches and if there's anything illegal in plain view of his approach, he can take action from there. Plain view searches have been upheld by the Supreme Court repeatedly. They can either be a prima facia reason for arrest, or they can be probable cause for a more detailed search. Additionally, your behavior as the officer approaches can be labeled "reasonable suspicion". Many instances of these in one traffic stop can together provide probable cause for a search.

And there is the ever-popular consent to search. An officer may, at any time, ask you if she can search your vehicle. You can always say No, but if you say Yes, then anything she finds can get you into trouble.

Otherwise, if you didn't have your license, the officer would run your name and date of birth through the Motor Vehicle Admin system to see if you had a license and if it was valid. If it is, the most you'd get is a ticket for not having your license with you. If you didn't, you'd be cited for driving without a license and your car could be towed. To my knowledge, driving without a license isn't an arrestable offense.

What would interest me more is the reason the Dayton PD instituted these roadblocks in the first place. Is it just a reason to drum up more tickets or is it because they've had a rash of unlicensed drivers and this is what they concocted to help address that? Remember, the chief of police of a police department is appointed by the Mayor or City Council. If the plan is unpopular enough, protests get to the elected officials and they end up taking action to save their re-election hopes. The Chief is beholden to whoever the appointing official is. So, I can only think that the people of Dayton can't have a huge problem with it, since it's still continuing. If there was a huge ruckus, the Mayor or whomever would have a tailor-made reason to pull the plug ("I'm sorry, Chief. The idea was good, but we're just not going to pour money into a defense of the idea in all the courts. Find another way.")

 

[u2slow13]

Maybe you guys haven't been through a roadblock. It only takes a second. They're timed to not impede traffic. That doesn't mean it's not going to occur but you won't find a roadblock up in most areas during rush hour morning or evening.

As far as further abuses. What are you hiding that you don't want to be found out? The car is not your house. I know we like to think of it as such but it's not. You can still refuse to allow the cops to look into the trunk and other areas that are not in plain sight. You still have the same rights as when you are pulled over for speeding. What's the difference?

Regarding the motorcyclists. Yes they have the same rights but they often abuse the privileges. I know a lot of people who ride bikes without proper license. A motorcycle rider requires skills 3X that of a car driver and we're all safer if that state has a separate examination and / or license procedure to ride (few states do but they all should).

Regarding drugs. I'm against all the current drug laws as they stand.

But does anyone need to smoke weed in the car?

You're from texas huh, lmao

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I'm not sure I get your point, Laurel. What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? Are you saying that this type of roadblock might have been considered a civil rights violation 6 months ago? I suppose it's possible. During times of national crisis, the balance between security and individual liberties tips toward security. No argument there. But what is specifically unreasonable about this particular act?

Jazzman - thanks for the info. I suspect the reason that the Supreme Court chose not to hear this case was because they didn't see a 4th Amendment issue in it as was claimed?

You bring up a good point about alternate means of dealing with use of police power like this. This is just the sort of thing the political process is made for. If the Police is causing too much inconveniece without violating individual liberties, people ought apply political pressure to get changes made.

 

[Lost Cause]

Hey! askacumslut!

I would be lying if I said your comments didn't piss me off. I know they were based on profiling, and ignorance on what a biker is about. The insurance institute found that motorcyclists have a HIGHER percentage of insurance AND licensing! I belong to about six different rights groups that watch for these obvious abuses of our rights under the constitution. The thread I posted came from my state ABATE web site. Germany started this way in the thirties, a simple, "show your papers" wasn't opposed until too late.
Can't happen here? Germany was a republic before the NAZIs.

**Bikers have more fun than normal people**