Local Law Enforcement

[BlueLineFish 615]

It is about safety too. Jules a word of advice. Don't bother arguing. It's not worth the frustration.

[NJDrew1 0]

Do you even realize how many criminals are caught by simple motor vehicle stops? Do you? Did you know the Son of Sam murderer was caught because of a parking ticket?

 

I love how the OP said that police employing a check point is an abuse of their powers..Go to China, or Pakistan or Mexico and let me know about police abusing their powers.Your worried about a little mild inconvenience of sitting in some traffic while the PD does their job? Please....

 

Guess you set us all straight.

[Justjules 0]

Oh, so the Constitution only applies to being in your dwelling or in Ohio. Man I was looking at things all wrong. Thanks for the correction!

 

Also, suspiciousness checkpoints are only legal under specific circumstances, and violations of them could nullify citations or make searches in some circumstances illegal.

 

These checkpoints primary purpose is NOT safety, but rather revenue generations, as BLF so aptly pointed out.

 

Go be mad at the politicians they are the ones who:

#1) created the laws

#2) created the checkpoints

#3) spend the generated revenue on what they see fit...

[Soju 153]

1) because they can

 

 

And there it is. Not surprising though. Because they can. Because there is no accountability for them, so they can just do whatever they want. Glad you at least admit to it.

 

Do you even know your own rights? Apparently not..

could you point me to the part of the constitution that says the Government can not enforce laws to protect their citizens driving motor vehicles?

 

Judging from your posts, I know them significantly better than you do. The fact that you are both avoiding what was posted, and twisting it to mean something different, and irrelevant, my response would be futile. But that hasn't stopped me yet.

[Justjules 0]

It is about safety too. Jules a word of advice. Don't bother arguing. It's not worth the frustration.

It is about safety too. Jules a word of advice. Don't bother arguing. It's not worth the frustration.

I see most people on here are clueless sheep..They dont even know their own rights.

[BlueLineFish 615]

And if it is about generating revenue so what. If you take care of what needs to be taken care of than you won't be fined. But I guess enforcing anything you don't agree with is unconstitutional. I swear the saying unconstitutional gets used way too much. It diminishes its meaning when it is the basis for all arguments

[leahcim 680]

Oh, so the Constitution only applies to being in your dwelling or in Ohio. Man I was looking at things all wrong. Thanks for the correction!

Yes of course it still applies, but your expectation of privacy is diminished outside of your dwelling. SCOTUS has ruled that your expectation of privacy is diminished in an autombile on public roads. Check out Pennsylvania vs. LaBron and United States vs Ludwig

[Justjules 0]

And there it is. Not surprising though. Because they can. Because there is no accountability for them, so they can just do whatever they want. Glad you at least admit to it.

 

 

 

Judging from your posts, I know them significantly better than you do. The fact that you are both avoiding what was posted, and twisting it to mean something different, and irrelevant, my response would be futile. But that hasn't stopped me yet.

 

 

What exactly were you even asking?

[Soju 153]

Go be mad at the politicians they are the ones who:

#1) created the laws

#2) created the checkpoints

#3) spend the generated revenue on what they see fit...

 

I am. I am not accusing police officers, but you seem fit on defending checkpoints, which if you haven't gathered yet, is what I have an issue with.

 

Yes, your expectation of privacy is diminished outside of your dwelling. SCOTUS has ruled that your expectation of privacy is diminished in an autombile on public roads. Check out Pennsylvania vs. LaBron and United States vs Ludwig

 

Please point to me where I even mentioned an expectation of privacy.

 

There is a difference between the constitutionality of a suspicionless checkpoint and what you are saying. Thank you, I am aware.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Hence why arguing with some people is pointless. I buy guns shoot them have fun and talk about it. If I wanted to argue laws with the public who mostly hate me then I will just go to work.

[Justjules 0]

Also, suspiciousness checkpoints are only legal under specific circumstances, and violations of them could nullify citations or make searches in some circumstances illegal.

 

Ahh, so let me ask you, do you have factual knowledge if it was indeed a suspiciousless checkpoint and the criteria you claim has to be met, was indeed not met? Or do you know for a fact that it was not a state approved DWI or safety check? or that it was indeed advertised in the local paper some time prior like is required? So your just assuming that the cops were just out to violate peoples constitutional rights??

 

These checkpoints primary purpose is NOT safety, but rather revenue generations, as BLF so aptly pointed out.

 

Once again Lawmakers make the law, politicians approve it, and cops only enforce it.

[Soju 153]

Sometimes I feel like when people argue with you, you take it as if they are hating on police in general. That is not always the case. Maybe they just don't like you personally.

 

[Justjules 0]

Hence why arguing with some people is pointless. I buy guns shoot them have fun and talk about it. If I wanted to argue laws with the public who mostly hate me then I will just go to work.

 

I know dude, I know...I dont know why I bother.

[Soju 153]

Ahh, so let me ask you, do you have factual knowledge if it was indeed a suspiciousness checkpoint and the criteria you claim has to be met, was indeed not met? Or do you know for a fact that it was not a state approved DWI or safety check? or that it was indeed advertised in the local paper some time prior like is required? So your just assuming that the cops were just out to violate peoples constitutional rights??

 

 

 

Once again Lawmakers make the law, politicians approve it, and cops only enforce it.

 

I didn't say anything to the legality of this specific checkpoint. I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I didn't say anybody was violating peoples rights. I did point out that there are criteria that needs to be met, and that doesn't always happen. I am saying that this is a possibility, and not everything, even if 'legal', is constitutional, or necessary.

[Justjules 0]

I didn't say anything to the legality of this specific checkpoint. I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I didn't say anybody was violating peoples rights. I did point out that there are criteria that needs to be met, and that doesn't always happen. I am saying that this is a possibility, and not everything, even if 'legal', is constitutional, or necessary.

 

I joined this forum yesterday and I have heard the word "constitution" thrown around more in the past 24 hours than in my entire life...

[leahcim 680]

 

 

Please point to me where I even mentioned an expectation of privacy.

 

There is a difference between the constitutionality of a suspicionless checkpoint and what you are saying. Thank you, I am aware.

You didn't, but you were responding to a post wherein JustJules spoke of a diminished expectation of privacy when you leave your dwelling, I understood your response "Oh, so the Constitution only applies to being in your dwelling" as challenging the whole "diminished expectation of privacy (4th ammendmend penumbra) outside your dwelling" concept. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

[Justjules 0]

You didn't, but you were responding to a post wherein JustJules spoke of a diminished expectation of privacy when you leave your dwelling, I understood your response "Oh, so the Constitution only applies to being in your dwelling" as challenging the whole "diminished expectation of privacy (4th ammendmend penumbra) outside your dwelling" concept. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

Thats how I interpreted it as well...

[Justjules 0]

Lets test your knowledge:

 

60 year old man shows up at a swim meet for 8-9 year old girls, has a telephoto lens on his camera and proceeds to take pictures of the girls at the swim meet, despite having no children of his own. When asked by one parent what he is doing, he tells them " I think young girls are sexy".

 

Did he break the law??

[Soju 153]

You didn't, but you were responding to a post wherein JustJules spoke of a diminished expectation of privacy when you leave your dwelling, I understood your response "Oh, so the Constitution only applies to being in your dwelling" as challenging the whole "diminished expectation of privacy (4th ammendmend penumbra) outside your dwelling" concept. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

 

Apology accepted. See I interpreted his response as being both broader than that (hence his 'move to Ohio' quip), as well as being sarcastic in general about the Constitution. Last time I checked, that was suppose to be like, the most important legal document we had. I know I swore an oath to it, and people like the President do, and other government officials. Found it odd someone who I assume to be a LEO cared so little about it...

[Soju 153]

Lets test your knowledge:

 

60 year old man shows up at a swim meet for 8-9 year old girls, has a telephoto lens on his camera and proceeds to take pictures of the girls at the swim meet, despite having no children of his own. When asked by one parent what he is doing, he tells them " I think young girls are sexy".

 

Did he break the law??

 

And this relates to checkpoints how?

 

Did he break the law? Only if he is convicted of something.

 

But since these are fun, I have one for you.

 

I am walking down the sidewalk with my camera. I notice you on a traffic stop, and stand by and film it. You approach me, ask me what I am doing, and for my ID. I continue filming while saying nothing. I don't comply with anything you say. This frustrates you. What happens next?

[Justjules 0]

Apology accepted. See I interpreted his response as being both broader than that (hence his 'move to Ohio' quip, as well as being sarcastic in general about the Constitution. Last time I checked, that was suppose to be like, the most important legal document we had. I know I swore an oath to it, and people like the President do, and other government officials. Found it odd someone who I assume to be a LEO cared so little about it...

 

I care about it, what i was saying is him sitting in traffic was NOT a constitutional issue, in fact none of it was any issue. He dont like sitting in traffic, move to Ohio where the population is less dense.

[Justjules 0]

And this relates to checkpoints how?

 

Did he break the law? Only if he is convicted of something.

Im just curious to see your answer...It will tell me alot about you.

 

Do you think he broke the law?

[johnp 45]

And this relates to checkpoints how?

 

Did he break the law? Only if he is convicted of something.

 

But since these are fun, I have one for you.

 

I am walking down the sidewalk with my camera. I notice you on a traffic stop, and stand by and film it. You approach me, ask me what I am doing, and for my ID. I continue filming while saying nothing. I don't comply with anything you say. This frustrates you. What happens next?

 

I'd like to hear the answer to this as well.

[joshroz2 4]

Common sense would say a checkpoint during rush-hour would be extremely inefficient and ineffective.

[alec.mc 180]

Common sense would say a checkpoint during rush-hour would be extremely inefficient and ineffective.

 

Or on the other hand :

 

rush hour = more cars = more probable violations = more revenue

[joshroz2 4]

Or on the other hand :

 

rush hour = more cars = more probable violations = more revenue

 

I don't even think that would be true honestly.

You might get a few cellphones or seat belts but I would think most people would see it coming. It would probably be more effective to hide and watch the traffic for those types of tickets.

The people you would get during rush-hour would be unlikely to commit the high paying or more serious violations that you might get later in the evening like DWI and visible illegal objects in the car.

[alec.mc 180]

 

 

I don't even think that would be true honestly.

You might get a few cellphones or seat belts but I would think most people would see it coming. It would probably be more effective to hide and watch the traffic for those types of tickets.

The people you would get during rush-hour would be unlikely to commit the high paying or more serious violations that you might get later in the evening like DWI and visible illegal objects in the car.

 

Most the checkpoints I've seen lately have been for inspection stickers, no hiding that.

[Murphy4570 15]

If I wanted to argue laws with the public who mostly hate me then I will just go to work.

 

A much more interesting and intriguing question than the current discussion in this thread is related to this statement.

 

Why is it that a cop is perceiving that the public "mostly hate [him]" in his own words? What has caused this? Is public perception towards cops mostly negative, and if so, what has caused such ire?

 

If I had the time and inclination, I do believe that I could easily pen a lengthy study of the above questions. Too bad I'm not a social historian, hah!

The causes for the reasons behind such strong perceptions are no doubt myriad and complex. I'd wager that the more the civil enforcers (police) are despised and hated by the populace as a whole in any given society, the less "free" that society becomes. It is inversely proportionate. What might such a crude and uninformed hypothesis show if applied to America? I fear that this nation is becoming more draconian as of late.

[johnp 45]

I just came upon this and thought I'd share.

 

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded, after numerous field studies, that the number of DUI arrests made by roving patrols is nearly three times the average number of DUI arrests made by officers at a sobriety checkpoint."

[silverado427 10,827]

You know what cracks me up, they post a DUI check point in the paper like three days before and dumb azz's still drive through it.