Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

I'm curious as to how this can be legal. Aren't you entitled to some kind of legal representation when a judge is involved?

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Whereweheaded
... remember until people start taking personal responsibility, there is necessary evils of point checks it's a sad fact...

People will NEVER take personal responsibility for anything as long as someone else will take responsibility for them. That's why we're in the situation we're in---we've been taught from birth by society that we don't have to take responsibility for anything. Nothing is our fault, everything is somehow the fault of someone else, from bad grades to losing our houses to chopping off our fingers because we were dumb enough to put them underneath a running lawn mower. Not our fault, and we're gonna sue over it. Government just makes it easier to not take personal responsibility.

Bah humbug.

Originally posted by willie9696
Just don't drink and drive and I think you will be fine.

When does it stop then? How far must they reach? How much must they take? Will your answer be, just don't eat red meat and you will be fine, just don't water your lawn on Tuesday and you will be fine, just don't say anything negative about the government and you will be fine...............

reply to post by budaruskie

What will stop them from making everyday a "no refusal" day in the near future...for every search and seizure procedure?

Nothing.

As far as the government of the USA is concerned we only have the rights the elite are willing to grant us. We do not even have the "RIGHT" to choose what we eat anymore. That "Right" has just been taken from us too.

I am very afraid we will see "no refusal" check points with TSA groping increasing quite soon as I tried to explain that in my last post

The short sighted Sheeple who have been wrapped in cotton wool all their lives and taught not to think will certainly not stop it as you can tell by bleating on this thread.

We have tried to warn of this for years. The USDA explains the US government's position on citizen's rights quite clearly: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

...In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.” The arrogance of the agency has only grown.... Linda Fallice, "Mad Sheep" www.vtcommons.org...

The FDA echos that position, Unfortunately S-510 has just become law.

FDA’s Views on Food Freedom of Choice

S510 would give FDA significantly more power to regulate food, particularly food in intrastate commerce....

....these are direct quotations from the agency’s response to a lawsuit the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund filed earlier this year challenging the interstate ban on raw milk for human consumption:

* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [A--p. 25]

* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [A--p. 26]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [A--p. 26]

* "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [A--p. 27]...

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

In addition to increasing FDA's power, S510 would increase involvement in food regulation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), further integrating food and agriculture into the "national security state." The bill would implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9, a 2004 executive order which appointed the DHS Secretary as "principal Federal official to lead, integrate, and coordinate" among federal, state, local and private sector elements [E--p. 13].
www.farmtoconsumer.org...

We should alway heed H. L. Mencken's words.

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.

Welcome to the beginning of the new Dark Ages.

Warrants, in my opinion of the founding fathers' intentions at least, were intended to be issued when there is probable cause testified to under oath or affirmation by a responsible, credible party. By responsible, credible party, I mean someone reliable, honest, trustworthy, and who knows and will uphold the constitutional rights of their fellow citizen. At least that's my personal opinion of what that should mean. I doubt they foresaw a day when there wouldn’t be a sufficient number of people on the honor system (more on what I mean by the honor system below) that would stop a corrupt few and tell a judge, “No, your honor. I disagree. There is not probable cause to issue a warrant in my considered opinion.”

Unfortunately, and again this is only one person's opinion, the officers testifying to the judge on the need for the warrant to be issued in this case no longer meet those criteria. Their intentions are admirable, in that they want to save lives, in my opinion. Nevertheless, they are likely going to tell the judge that they need a warrant regardless of whether or not they have reasonable suspicion that the driver is intoxicated. That is a violation of the sacred trust that allows a Democratic Republic to function fairly and justly, in my opinion.

In a Democratic Republic under the rule of law, those in power - from lesser degrees of power such as traffic cops, right on up to those with much more far reaching power, such as elected representatives and military commanders - are on their honor. Unfortunately corruption, personal bias, agendas, and a philosophy of the ends justifying the means often result in those on the honor system electing to fudge the honor, if not literally rules.

Technically, as far as I know, this is "legal." Technically, they can do this. But there will be times when people have warrants issued without "real" probable cause. Unfortunately, the law only requires that someone on the honor system (in this case the police) testify to the need for a warrant, not (usually at least) a thorough finding as to whether or not probable cause or reasonable suspicion actually exists. Again, the honor system. And this is just a microcosm of a much, much larger problem endemic to our country at this time.

Just my thoughts/feelings. Feel free to disagree. Peace.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


The SS is here to ensure the police state can take away your right and use EXTREME force to ensure you do not resist.

Welcome to a new Germany.

Ladies and gentlemen of ATS, the core of all these statements is about freedom. We are having our freedoms taken away at a breakneck pace, all under the guise of protecting the citizens. If I am a law abiding citizen who has not been drinking alcohol and am not driving in a reckless matter, should be pulled over and forced to take a series of tests and answer to a series of interrogations? I am not drinking and am not reckless, but if I refuse as a free man, I will be held down and have someone take blood forcefully from my body?????? WTF people of ATS!

reply to post by AceWombat04


We used to have such a thing as probable cause. The PTB could not arbitrarily stop you while driving and force search your person or vehicle. That was up until the later 1980's. Then they shifted to random inspections set up at various checkpoints. They used to be held responsible for proving these checks were at random. Now they no longer need to make a case for probable cause. When did these laws change? Now its pull over, get out of the car and take the test. You have no representation by counsel. Heil Hitler.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

They will claim "driving on public roads" is a "privilege" and not a right, and therefore does not fall under the 4th amendment. They would be wrong, because it is also unconstitutional to "restrict travel" on public lands. Our tax dollars pay for those roads and lands and the government is an agent of the people, not vice versa, but until someone takes great sacrifice and expense to challenge the law, they will continue to get away with it.

Actually the already claim that having a driver's license is a privilege not a right. This means that driving is considered a privilege. The problem with claiming that something is a privilage rather than a right means it can be taken away at any time for any reason!

reply to post by dreamseeker


You are absolutely correct. Where in our wonderful constitution does it state that traveling in the United States is a priveledge and not one of our freedom rights? DO NOT GET ME WRONG HERE, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. I AM NOT!!! However did you know that you can be charged for driving while impaired, even if you are well below the state imposed limit. No, I am not out of my mind. They can make the charge stick if you have as little as one drink just by stating you were slower at answering their questions, or appeared confused while under interrogation. Nice!

I wish everyone on ATS a very safe and Happy New Year. If you decide to imbibe, please arrange for a designated driver or stay overnight at a dedicated site. Keep safe and I will see you all in 2011. Happy New Year!

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


A concern that I heard and now I have myself is if their is a supposed judge on site at the checkpoint. How do you have a chance to have a lawyer present??

Nice post! But I think it's ridiculous that this has to even go into a topic that has "conspiracy" in the name. This is FACT! We have a criminal government that is rolling hard HARD CORE Tyranny. They are sticking their hands down your pants and now they want to jab you with needles and take your blood. It's all insane. Everybody needs to go get 5000 friends on Facebook and post ATS stories there like this. Wake up the Sheeple. They can't stop us all!

People are still gonna drink and drive and just hope that they don't get pulled over.

It's a little unfair to those who dont drink and drive though.

"Oh I got pulled over sober better hope the cop isnt a ***** and wants a breath test because Ill have to do it or get an automatic warrant"

Lame lame.

Originally posted by niceguybob
Hey,guy with the parrot? Don't let him bite a cops finger..They HATE that.

True. But what are they going to do? Whine about it? Press charges? The other boys/girls in blue will fall down laughing at them. It has about as much tough factor as being taken down by a Chihuahua.

A 4th amendement in a constitution dosent protect you from being dumb and irresponsible. Imagine this guy driving in a neighbourhood while people are talking a walk after dinner

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Not quite on topic but this reminds me of an event that took place in Germany while I was stationed on one of the Air bases. An army soldier was out on the economy and to put it mildly got rather drunk. He was pulled over by Polizei. This fellow was rather large and beat up the two Polizei officers who were about to take a blood sample on site. He sped off and some miles down the road a roadblock was setup. When his vehicle approached the road block officers lit into his vehicle with automatic weapons fire. He was of course killed.

We are treading on a very slippery slope.

Originally posted by crimvelvet

* * * *
As far as the government of the USA is concerned we only have the rights the elite are willing to grant us. We do not even have the "RIGHT" to choose what we eat anymore. That "Right" has just been taken from us too.

* * * *

I keep reading references to the mysterious unnamed unidentified "elite" on these boards.

Who are these "elite"?

What do they do?

Where do they live?

How do they remain anonymous and so untouchable?

Isn't it time for the people to reach out and touch them? Expose them? And, if warranted, prosecute them and bring justice for what they have done and are doing here and abroad?

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone

Police have always had the power to take you to station if you refuse a road-stop breath test here in NZ

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone

We recently had 1 week when 5 cyclists were killed by drunk and or drugged drivers.

So obviously your harsh penalties in NZ are working. The enhanced penalties has cut your drunk driving down to zero. Thank you NZ, now if I can just get these laws passed in my country and state and municipality...I will finally see the all drunk drivers have been taken off the road thanks to NZ's fantastic laws. Think you before you post.

Originally posted by george_gaz
reply to post by romanmel

 

This is barely an invasion in any way shape or form. It is simply eliminating due-process by having the judge on hand.

Ding Ding Ding!!!! Thank you....Now, maybe England doesn't abide by this....but in America, we have a thing called due process. Get rid of it, and guess what, it is against the Constitution. Thank you. Now thanks to your comment, the defense lawyers for these drunk drivers have a leg to stand on when they take these charges to the Higher Courts.

This just proves that this checkpoint thing is ILLEGAL. Due-process.....For Crying Out Loud. This is what protects you as an individual from molestation and abuse from a tyrannical form of government.