It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nephalim
I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to happen in the first place.
Originally posted by JBA2848
In Florida they decided if they block a road and check every one they did not infringe on any one persons civil liberties. If they do it in mass they have the right but not if they single out a single person.
Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by jude11
Yea probably. But the guy is siting the fourth amendment there when the law actually works two ways.
If you're DWI you are a "danger to the public." You may have it in your mind that youre not out to harm someone, but just being drunk on the road creates the potential. By removing a drunk driver from the road the officer ensures the eight of the people to be safe in their person, effects and homes. Thats how that one works ya see. lol odd I know.
as to methods, An officer would have no way of knowing whether or not you were dui unless they "checked." a check begins with a visual observation of the vehicles movements and the condition of the person behind the wheel who is in control of the vehicle. Followed by the stop, questioning, and a search if necessary based on all of that.
The cops will tell you hey, just comply and get your ass down the road. Start some mess and youre going to jail and they use "obstruction" to determine whether or not your preventing them from doing their job which is what, protecting the public. O.o
I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to happen in the first place.
Just my two on it.edit on 5-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nephalim
Originally posted by roadgravel
First, without probable cause there should be no search. At least that is how it is in my state. Refuse if feel you can.
Something I am curious as to is his action of only cracking his window when asked to roll it down. I wonder if that made the officer suspicious. It is not unusual for most people to speak through the fully open window. I would not start off a stop doing that as I imagine that just going to get the officer suspicious and to have more attitude. Pick you battles. It's a game both sides can play.
Probable cause can likely be determined by the number the dwi's in the area, especially during holidays. If a state has this many issues with dwi's, they're probably right to do this.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by Nephalim
I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to happen in the first place.
I guess you would not mind it if you were just walking down the street and two cops came up to you and told you to put your hands on the wall and searched you for drugs, and then ran all your numbers just to check if you ever did anything wrong, and then kept tabs on you to see if you hang with any undesirables.
Originally posted by NthOther
Does it matter if it's legal or not? If it was "legal" would it be ok? No. If it was constitutional would it be ok? No.
The time is rapidly approaching (and many, like myself, consider it to be already here) when we will no longer be able to consider, in any way, the legality of an action in making a judgment regarding the morality of that action. Those of us who frequent ATS have, of course, been aware of this for quite some time; others are starting to catch on at an accelerating rate.
Originally posted by JBA2848
I don't agree with it. That is what Florida has decided. I have been caught in three or four of those stop and searches. I only got in trouble for a cracked windshield at one of them. A tiny chip if you ask me.
Originally posted by HauntWok
That could affect many many cases that dog was involved in.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by HauntWok
That could affect many many cases that dog was involved in.
How about every case? I guess there are no numbers on how many "hits" lead to not finding drugs. What if the percentage was less than 10% because they are using the dog as a constitutional go around...how can the drug dog be any different than the cop just saying.. "Boy, I think I smell something funny in your vehicle"
The statement should be...they better be damn right if they do search....edit on 5-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by HauntWok
That could affect many many cases that dog was involved in.
How about every case? I guess there are no numbers on how many "hits" lead to not finding drugs. What if the percentage was less than 10% because they are using the dog as a constitutional go around...how can the drug dog be any different than the cop just saying.. "Boy, I think I smell something funny in your vehicle"
The statement should be...they better be damn right if they do search....edit on 5-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by Bicent76
Hey I agree, you guys should really look at what ive said. But what do you do about the drunk drivers? Just because you dont like the checkpoints and may collectively have a say in whether theyre done or not, doesnt mean the drunks just magically go away too.
would you have your dwi laws taken out? Thats going to be very tough to do when they start pulling up statistics and gory images and saying, now you see why were doing dwi checkpoints?