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 mactheaxe
reply to post by grey580
ive had that same thought all through my adult life, being nice is effective and does work. i say from my own experience. But my principles have evolved. Im not being mean, just exercising my rights. If he is decent, he will understand and applaud. i dont have to be nice to anybody looking for a reason to arrest me. Its not a game. Nor are our own rights in the constitution.
Originally posted by grey580
I got a better idea.
Don't be a jerk.
I'm not kidding. This one works real good. And in all situations.
If you greet the cop with smile and say. Hi how are you.
Usually you get a great response back from the cop.
He might even let you go on your way with a minimum of fuss or trampling of any of your civil rights.
I can guarantee this is 100% effective.
Why just the other day I was pulled over by a cop. And my license was expired.
I just was pleasant and courteous and treated the guy like a human being with a job to do. The cop didn't give me a hard time he just warned me and let me keep going and the best part was that I didn't even get a ticket.
So to sum up.
It's nice to be important. But it's more important to be nice.
Originally posted by seeker1963
Your right! It does pay to be nice! However, what the OP is talking about are gestapo road blocks basically asking for you papers and violating your rights as a citizen.
Originally posted by mactheaxe
reply to post by grey580
they still have to have a reason to stop you. random roadblocks are not reasons.
In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:
A checkpoint in the United States
Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.
Sorry, those don't apply here. You're not under arrest. And you can't tell the police what they can't say.
I invoke and refuse to waive my fifth amendment right, the right to remain silent. Do not ask me any questions.
I invoke and refuse to waive my sixth amendment right to an attorney of my choice. Do not ask me any questions without my attorney present
I invoke and refuse to waive all privileges and rights pursuant to the case Miranda V. Arizona. Do not ask me any questions or make any comment to me about this decision.
That's fine, but why not wait until they ask?
I invoke and refuse to waive my fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not consent to any search or seizure of myself, my home, or of any property in my possession.
They already know that, nobody likes to be detained.
I do not consent to this contact with you.
Sorry, as the Supremes have ruled, temporary stops or detentions at roadblocks are constitutional (with my proviso above).
If I am not presently under arrest, or under investigatory detention, please allow me to leave.
I suppose that may be true (except for the duress part), but it doesn't mean anything legally.
Any statement I make or alleged consent I give in response is hereby made under protest and under duress, and in submission to your claim of lawful authority to force me to provide you with this information.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by mactheaxe
Choose your battles is what I say. If you're at a highway immigration check or a traffic stop that had no issues before and drop THAT on the cop, you're likely going to jail if you stick to the letter of it. Failure to cooperate, failure to follow a lawful order, resisting arrest (when it comes time) and on and on.
If it's already gone bad or looks like it will, that isn't a bad letter...and I may just print one myself for the hell of it and toss it in the glove compartments of my vehicles for just such a 'already going to hell' situation. You never know...
I sure wouldn't turn an otherwise normal thing into a direct confrontation that way though....not when it could have been a 'have a nice day' at the check point or even a verbal warning on the traffic stop. Such a nightmare to start...IF ...it wasn't necessary.