Are we required to disclose a firearm at a suspicionless DHS internal checkpoint?

[Glocktogo]

That's all I need to know, wrapped up right there in one neat little package: "me first, your rights and the Constitution second."

Officer safety is always 1st, regardless of what you might think. That doesn't mean your rights aren't protected, it just means my right to life supercedes your right to be a jackass. That's the problem with your type. I give a reasoned response, you pick out one narrow little thing, take it out of context, dismiss EVERYTHING else that was stated and go off on a tangent.

Do you honestly think police officers DON'T have a right to life smart guy? Seriously?

Not true. The Constitution imposes limits upon you when you become an agent of the state. Were it otherwise, you could do anything under the guise of officer safety. Go look up government agents (including police officers) who have been sued civilly, and even prosecuted criminally, for violating the rights of suspects, even dangerous suspects. You may not like the man in the video, but I don't see anything that suggests he's dangerous (except perhaps to the idea that people should bow down and do as their masters tell them). Still, without danger, you say he should be jailed. Why? As long as we're submitting to authority, where would you draw the line? Would you let the TSA screener grope your wife and daughter at the airport? A train station, as they're leaving? At a random checkpoint on the highway?

While you're pondering that, you might also keep in mind that you volunteered, even knowing the risk. I didn't. As somebody who goes out of his way to avoid getting into dangerous situations, I don't see why your right to "safety" (again, assuming there was any safety risk here) trumps mine. Tell me, if somebody came up to you, pointed a gun at you, and said to pick someone for him to kill, or else he'd shoot you, what would you do? If your right to safety trumps mine, you should point at me. So...what would you do? Sacrifice me in the name of your own safety?


I do. That doesn't change the underlying premise, though: the fact that a violation occurs. The legislature or the court may permit the violation, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a violation, just that the law won't act in response. My rights come from my Creator, not anybody in Washington or Oklahoma City.

First off, YOU do not get to decide my rights by categorizing me. I have EVERY civil right you have. You don't have to like it, but that's the law and the Constitution and MY CREATOR back that up. YOU can volunteer to drive down a road. Does that mean you don't have rights? NO! I personally don't agree with spd67 that the jackass was committing an arrestable offense. That's the great thing about America, we're allowed to have differing opinions. Contrary to your absolutist beliefs, not every arrest that fails to garner a prosecution is a violation of someone's civil rights. Not every temporary detention is a violation of someone's civil rights either, and this has been ruled on in courts ad-nauseum. You're allowed to have your opinion. You're NOT allowed to tell me I can't have mine and you're NOT allowed to decide the rights of the rest of the country.

In this case, no one's safety was at risk. And so long as you don't act like a fool, it never would be. Keep in mind that you have one more right. If you want to be free of any possibility that someone will ever violate your rights, you have the freedom to move to a deserted island and avoid the rest of the human race. That's about the only way I know of to ensure your absolute freedom against encroachment. The rest of us have to learn to get along.

 

[Double Tap]

WAIT A MIN Glocktogo in post #54 in your response to me, in the last paragraph you say “These checkpoints are not Terry stops and they are being upheld in courts. When you have SCOTUS decisions to back up their use…” and then in post #55 in your response to Henschman your last sentence is “these are not warrantless searches. Saying hello and asking a question is not a search by any legal definition. They are simply field contacts that may be used to develop reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.” Wow, awesome I’ll bet if we let you go in and “just look around a little bit” you’ll get 100% of your search warrants right too

 

[Double Tap]

http://michiganmessenger.com/53438/genesee-county-using-illegal-drug-checkpoints

 

[Double Tap]

I can't believe that Law Enforcement would break the rules for their own gain. http://www.mothersagainstillegalaliens.org/?p=1111 can a dog pick out an illigal immigrant???

 

[Double Tap]

https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/

"Checkpoints Near the Border
Be aware that DHS agents have recently set up constitutionally-questionable "security checkpoints" up to 100 miles inside U.S. territory. If you should drive into one of these roadblocks, you are not required to answer the agent's questions (usually starting with "Are you a United States citizen?"). Nor are you required to consent to any searches. "

 

[Double Tap]

Now here is some more good information...

Q: Are sobriety checkpoints constitutional?
A: Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan v. Sitz, even though the law generally forbids law enforcement officers from stopping drivers unless there is a suspicion that the drivers have violated the law. In the Michigan v. Sitz case, the Court found that the intrusion and inconvenience of to individuals who are stopped is outweighed by the government’s interest in curbing drunk driving.

Q: What procedures must law enforcement officers follow to make sure sobriety checkpoints are legal?
A: In the same year the Sitz case was decided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published recommended procedures for D.U.I. roadblocks. For a D.U.I. checkpoint to be legal, law enforcement must follow guidelines regarding such issues as the location, operation and publicity of the checkpoint, and the extent to which a checkpoint officer has discretion to act.


Q: What if a driver tries to avoid a sobriety checkpoint?
A: So long as the driver does not violate any laws, such as making a prohibited U-turn, purposely avoiding a sobriety checkpoint is not illegal and does not constitute justification for stopping the driver.

http://www.ohiobar.org/Pages/LawYouCanUseDetail.aspx?itemID=582

 

[Glocktogo]

I didn’t think the questions are that hard….

Question 1. Which of the rights afforded to you Bill of Rights is it ok for Law Enforcement to take away from you “in the name of law” or in the “name of security” under the rule of government. If it’s OK for the government to step on the 4th amendment, why not the 1st?

Question 2. How many judges are sued for “their decisions” and how many cops are sued for theirs. Judges are not held responsible for the decisions they make, however cops are.

I aced the law block too, it wasn’t that big of a deal, in fact the questions on the test were beyond basic and a passing score on the test should have been 90% if you are going to be granted a gun, badge and the right to make decisions And the checkpoints that you are so sure the supreme court has upheld and you have case law to protect…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/11/court-trinidad-barriers-not-legal/?page=all

“The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.”

WOW…that’s not a slippery slope is it? Well if that can say “we know we can impose on your right in the name of protecting you from yourself”.
“Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal.”
So…it’s not set in stone and it’s not over like you seem to feel it is.

Wait a min…..Texas doesn’t do DUI check points??? Hmmm could that be why when challenged by the driver of that vehicle, and after she, more than once, gave him what you say was a lawfull order to “pull over to secondary” when he didn’t back off (and because he did have a camera) he was let leave. Because they don’t have a right because there is no probable cause. It is a fishing trip, nothing more.

Now back to my original question. If the can step on the 4th amendment in the name of “protecting you from yourself”, when does it become ok to step on the 1st and tell you to keep your mouth shut for the good of the society or for the good of the government, or for the security of the people. Just because they are “the government” doesn’t make them right.

Cops are frequently sued for their individual decisions. Departments are sued for policy decisions. The BP agent didn't make the decision to set up the checkpoint and staff it, the Border Patrol did. You admit that the SCOTUS has found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. The DC checkpoint wasn't because it WAS a fishing expedition. It was also restricting people's right of free passage (they were denying entry if you didn't live there). This checkpoint was no different than a sobriety checkpoint. It has a narrow focus and the travel delay is minimal, so long as you don't volunteer to sit there longer than necessary by arguing. I thought the BP agent did a commendable job of not crossing the line and issuing orders that weren't backed legally. You and I both know that cases are made frequently when people volunteer information or comply with requests of LEO's when they have the right to refuse. Law enforcement is frequently a matter of pretending you have more authority than you actually do. So long as you don't cross the bright line, you're ok. The SCOTUS has even ruled that you can lie to a subject in order to gather critical information. I don't disagree with that, but I take issue with 1001.g cases against citizens. If I can lie to a subject, why can't the subject lie to me? FWIW, I have never lied to a subject in an investigation. That's a "nuclear option" in my mind.

What you've failed to do is prove cause that anyone's 4th Amendment rights were violated. No one was arrested for not answering. No one was detained. No one and nothing was searched. A disagreement regarding questions asked is not a violation of anyone's 4th Amendment rights. The problem is absolutists who mistakenly believe that an officer stopping someone and asking them a question is somehow a violation of their rights. They're entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

 

[Glocktogo]

WAIT A MIN Glocktogo in post #54 in your response to me, in the last paragraph you say “These checkpoints are not Terry stops and they are being upheld in courts. When you have SCOTUS decisions to back up their use…” and then in post #55 in your response to Henschman your last sentence is “these are not warrantless searches. Saying hello and asking a question is not a search by any legal definition. They are simply field contacts that may be used to develop reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.” Wow, awesome I’ll bet if we let you go in and “just look around a little bit” you’ll get 100% of your search warrants right too

You still have nothing. A checkpoint isn't a Terry stop. If I ask a driver for their DL and insurance at a checkpoint, they have to provide it. If they don't, I can send them to secondary. I can also send them to secondary if I smell alcohol on their breath or see an open container. Secondary is a Terry stop. The initial checkpoint is a field contact and IS NOT in any way, shape or form a search.

Now here is some more good information...

Q: Are sobriety checkpoints constitutional?
A: Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan v. Sitz, even though the law generally forbids law enforcement officers from stopping drivers unless there is a suspicion that the drivers have violated the law. In the Michigan v. Sitz case, the Court found that the intrusion and inconvenience of to individuals who are stopped is outweighed by the government’s interest in curbing drunk driving.

Q: What procedures must law enforcement officers follow to make sure sobriety checkpoints are legal?
A: In the same year the Sitz case was decided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published recommended procedures for D.U.I. roadblocks. For a D.U.I. checkpoint to be legal, law enforcement must follow guidelines regarding such issues as the location, operation and publicity of the checkpoint, and the extent to which a checkpoint officer has discretion to act.


Q: What if a driver tries to avoid a sobriety checkpoint?
A: So long as the driver does not violate any laws, such as making a prohibited U-turn, purposely avoiding a sobriety checkpoint is not illegal and does not constitute justification for stopping the driver.

http://www.ohiobar.org/Pages/LawYouCanUseDetail.aspx?itemID=582

Which are followed to the letter by my agency. The last time I worked a checkpoint, I had a TV news crew standing right next to me, to the point that my field contacts were broadcast on the local news. I am extremely curteous to the drivers at a checkpolint, even when they do not respond in kind. I thank them for their patience when I'm done. I prefer to work primary contact, because I know the sensitive nature of the contact itself. Michigan law doesn't apply to Oklahoma and the SCOTUS has said they're legal, so long as the restrictions are followed.

I continue to fail to see your point.

 

[ripnbst]

I'm not going to chime in on all the specifics of the constitution and legal precedence, but I am in the boat with the OP and a few others. It seems like this thread has all the LEO's on one side and all the non-LEO's on the other, fancy that.

Just because the supreme court says it's OK, doesn't make it so. Not by a long shot. Previous instances have already been referenced.

Consider this, if the robes didn't say it was OK, and this was occurring 50 years ago, how would you feel? Do our rights change with time? I sure as hell hope not or on the path we are on my kid might as well just go sign up at JB's camp now that way he has seniority when it matters.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'm not going to chime in on all the specifics of the constitution and legal precedence, but I am in the boat with the OP and a few others. It seems like this thread has all the LEO's on one side and all the non-LEO's on the other, fancy that.

Just because the supreme court says it's OK, doesn't make it so. Not by a long shot. Previous instances have already been referenced.

Consider this, if the robes didn't say it was OK, and this was occurring 50 years ago, how would you feel? Do our rights change with time? I sure as hell hope not or on the path we are on my kid might as well just go sign up at JB's camp now that way he has seniority when it matters.

Not sure about 50 years ago, but 70 years ago, we were placing Japanese-Americans in internment camps. A lot of Americans were fine with that. That was absolutely a civil rights violation. Funny how civil rights to a lot of folks depends on how it impacts them personally.