sheriff believes roadblocks ineffective & unconstitutional but sets them up for $$$$$

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by Gilitar

Roadblocks are unconstitutional when used to randomly search people and ask for ID, insurance.

Incorrect.

First, the text:
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 seized.

So first I'll address the asking for ID and insurance. As neither of these are a search or a seizure, the 4th amendment doesn't even apply.

As for the stop itself, this is completely legal and constitutional not only because it isn't a search or seizure, but also because the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional as long as the random or pseudorandom selection method doesn't rely on the driver. So they could stop all cars, or just green cars, or just every fourth car, etc.

When it comes to searching the individual, this will depend on the circumstances. If the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will soon be committed, such as the smell of alcohol on the driver's breath, then he can detain the driver (this is called a terry stop) and perform a frisk of the individual in order to ensure his own safety and the safety of those nearby. The case law for this is solid and stands up very well in court.

As for searching the car, well, they can't. Not unless certain conditions are met. If they have probable cause, a warrant, consent, or perform a search incident to arrest (very limited), or if the vehicle was impounded, or if it's crossing the nation's border then they can search the vehicle. Otherwise they may only look at whatever is in plain view; that is, what they can see without opening any part of the car.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Incorrect.

First, the text:
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 seized.

So first I'll address the asking for ID and insurance. As neither of these are a search or a seizure, the 4th amendment doesn't even apply.

As for the stop itself, this is completely legal and constitutional not only because it isn't a search or seizure, but also because the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional as long as the random or pseudorandom selection method doesn't rely on the driver. So they could stop all cars, or just green cars, or just every fourth car, etc.

When it comes to searching the individual, this will depend on the circumstances. If the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will soon be committed, such as the smell of alcohol on the driver's breath, then he can detain the driver (this is called a terry stop) and perform a frisk of the individual in order to ensure his own safety and the safety of those nearby. The case law for this is solid and stands up very well in court.

As for searching the car, well, they can't. Not unless certain conditions are met. If they have probable cause, a warrant, consent, or perform a search incident to arrest (very limited), or if the vehicle was impounded, or if it's crossing the nation's border then they can search the vehicle. Otherwise they may only look at whatever is in plain view; that is, what they can see without opening any part of the car.

I think you smoked to many joints in law school.
Its very clear that it limits the power of the police, PAPERS are forms of Identification, what is so fucking hard for people to understand about that?

[Czolgosz]

It's not 'unreasonable' to search somebody's car. Agents should pull every person out of their car and go through it.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by 636blurr

I think you smoked to many joints in law school.
Its very clear that it limits the power of the police, PAPERS are forms of Identification, what is so fucking hard for people to understand about that?

Clearly you haven't been to law school nor worked for law enforcement.

The driver's license is property of the state, not the individual. Thus it is not one of their personal papers which is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Secondly, it is not a search. The officer is asking for the license, registration, and proof of insurance. He is not searching through your papers for them. Asking, or even telling someone, to provide you with specific documents is not a search. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Delaware v. Prouse did result in the court finding that the "random" stop of individual vehicles violates the fourth amendment, but this is because it involves the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Traffic stops, where all traffic or truly random traffic, is checked have been found to be constitutional.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Clearly you haven't been to law school nor worked for law enforcement.

The driver's license is property of the state, not the individual. Thus it is not one of their personal papers which is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Secondly, it is not a search. The officer is asking for the license, registration, and proof of insurance. He is not searching through your papers for them. Asking, or even telling someone, to provide you with specific documents is not a search. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Thank god I havnt so I still have a pure idea of the very very simplefact you cannot understand, EVERYTHING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT.
If the drivers liscense is IN MY NAME AND I Have to test to get it then it sure as hell is mine. The car is also mine, or is it becouse I have a liscensee plate on it does that really make it the property of the government.
The only thing is there is no smily face with both those fingers

Do the country a favor, read my signature.

[stryder]

Originally Posted by 636blurr

Thank god I havnt so I still have a pure idea of the very very simplefact you cannot understand, EVERYTHING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT.
If the drivers liscense is IN MY NAME AND I Have to test to get it then it sure as hell is mine. The car is also mine, or is it becouse I have a liscensee plate on it does that really make it the property of the government.
The only thing is there is no smily face with both those fingers

Do the country a favor, read my signature.

Sorry Blur....you are 100% wrong on this issue...just ask your local LEO.
The License is the states, not yours, ...........you drive on roads owned by the state and the Fed govt. As long as they are not profiling drivers during the roadblock, and pulling everyone over, then it is legal.

Another thing, is that who can fault this Sheriff for taking in $ to support his department, by using roadblocks? Last I checked, most PD's and Sheriffs offices are sorely underfunded.

And as far as someone earlier had mentioned that unlicensed drivers pose no threat on the roads................try getting hit by one, then you will understand much better....as you pay for everything.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by 636blurr

Thank god I havnt so I still have a pure idea of the very very simplefact you cannot understand, EVERYTHING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT.

Judging from your English skills, you're the one having trouble with understanding. I never said otherwise, of course the Constitution limits the government. But that doesn't mean the Constitution limits the government to the point where it can't do anything at all.

If the drivers liscense is IN MY NAME AND I Have to test to get it then it sure as hell is mine.

You can go right ahead and believe that all you want. You're wrong, but have fun believing it.

The car is also mine, or is it becouse I have a liscensee plate on it does that really make it the property of the government.

Depending on the state, the license plate usually belongs to them. The car belongs to the person or organization who's name is on the title.

The only thing is there is no smily face with both those fingers

Do the country a favor, read my signature.

Do the forum a favor, get educated.

[Parabellum]

Yeah, your driver's license is STATE property for this exact reason.

If it was not state property, taking it from someone would be more complicated.

[Czolgosz]

Who pays for anything the state and fed do/own? That's right.

And thus if I'm paying I'm part/full owner.

The government is a bully and should be treated as such.

[Parabellum]

Originally Posted by Czolgosz

Who pays for anything the state and fed do/own? That's right.

And thus if I'm paying I'm part/full owner.

The government is a bully and should be treated as such.

Most of what you say in these threads makes sense, but this just does not.

The "I pay taxes, there fore everything is partially mine." is a nonsense argument that has no application in the real world.

What....do you want to divide the total square footage of all the roads in this country by the number of tax paying citizens and claim your piece?

The only way to deal with a bully is to knock him down hard and keep him down, take his spirit, take the power he has over people away from him.

Your 'bully' analogy sounds like a call for anarchy, which is ridiculous.

[mofoiar]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Clearly you haven't been to law school nor worked for law enforcement.

The driver's license is property of the state, not the individual. Thus it is not one of their personal papers which is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

I get that the license is state property. What about proof of insurance? isnt that property of the individual? is anyone going to argue that my insurance card belongs to the state?

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by mofoiar

I get that the license is state property. What about proof of insurance? isnt that property of the individual? is anyone going to argue that my insurance card belongs to the state?

Doesn't matter. As I stated previously, asking or telling you to provide a specific document is not a search.

It is, however, a seizure. But not an unreasonable one. The public at large views the check of both the registration and the insurance as reasonable. The former because it helps stop vehicle theft, the latter because nobody likes to be hit by an unlicensed driver, and both because there's generally a requirement in most states that you have them with you and surrender them for inspection when asked by a law enforcement official.

What would be unconstitutional would be for the officer to either go through your papers without a warrant, permission, probable cause, etc.; or for him to demand that you provide all papers that you have in the car so that he can go through them to find your registration and proof of insurance.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by Czolgosz

Who pays for anything the state and fed do/own? That's right.

And thus if I'm paying I'm part/full owner.

The government is a bully and should be treated as such.

By your "logic," which has no basis in reality nor U.S. law, anyone can walk onto a military installation and borrow whatever weapons he wants which are of equal or lesser value than the total taxes he has paid.