Pulled over and stopped at a DUI checkpoint

[Billybob]

Judge rules Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms merely a privilege

[Judge Cummings' rationale is especially . . . interesting:

"The Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” the ruling states. “The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.

But wait a second--"by those not disqualified from the exercise" of a Constitutional right? If the government can arbitrarily deem some citizens "unworthy" of a right, and "disqualify" them from its exercise, how can it even be a right? What distinguishes it from a mere privilege, to be granted or denied at whim? If 18-year-olds are unworthy of the right (or privilege) of self-defense, who else might be so deemed some time in the future? He continues:

It is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition...]

http://www.examiner.com/article/jud...ranteed-right-to-bear-arms-merely-a-privilege

 

[bettingpython]

Travelling is a right, and the choice of how to travel is a right, but operating a motor vehicle off ones personal property is a privilege.

Driving on public roads is a privilege granted to you by the government that built the roads.

I don't think a DUI or actual physical control charge should be enforceable until you leave private property. In the parking lot of the bar sleeping off a drunk while in possession of your keys even with the vehicle running,(middle of winter too drunk to drive) should not be enforceable.

So your right to travel is not being infringed upon, but your privilege to drive is being questioned and verified.

 

[KOPBET]

Travelling is a right, and the choice of how to travel is a right, but operating a motor vehicle off ones personal property is a privilege.

Driving on public roads is a privilege granted to you by the government that built the roads...

So your right to travel is not being infringed upon, but your privilege to drive is being questioned and verified.

So then by this argument Border Patrol/DHS interior checkpoints fall into the same category as DUI checkpoints.

 

[bettingpython]

So then by this argument Border Patrol/DHS interior checkpoints fall into the same category as DUI checkpoints.

IMHO yes. You should be US citizen licensed to drive in the state of your residence, or in the country legally to drive on public roads.

 

[reddog1]

Lets not forget about body cavity searches.

 

[otis147]

Travelling is a right, and the choice of how to travel is a right, but operating a motor vehicle off ones personal property is a privilege.

Driving on public roads is a privilege granted to you by the government that built the roads.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith

I don't think a DUI or actual physical control charge should be enforceable until you leave private property. In the parking lot of the bar sleeping off a drunk while in possession of your keys even with the vehicle running,(middle of winter too drunk to drive) should not be enforceable.

agree, this happened to my cousin a few years back. they got him for public intox and dui, for trying to not endanger himself and others.

 

[henschman]

It seems like the young man in the video was trying to do everything that was legally required of him, and not a thing more. I fully support that; but if that is what he was trying to do, he needs to learn the laws better first. First of all, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of suspicionless checkpoints, if conducted for compelling reasons of public safety, like stopping DUIs. That means the stop is legally justified, which means the same laws that apply to any traffic stop are in effect.

For one thing, on a stop, the officer legally has wide latitude to control the stop, which would include things like having the driver roll down the window, having the driver pull the car over to a particular spot, and having occupants of the vehicle get out. By refusing to do these things, you make yourself vulnerable to obstruction charges. In fact, unless you are trying to be a test case or engaging in civil disobedience, you should do everything they order you to do, even if you think it is illegal. You can certainly protest it verbally, and make sure it is clear that you are doing it against your will, but it is generally smart to go ahead and follow their orders promptly.

Also, there is the issue of showing a driver's license. State laws vary to some degree, but generally, every state requires you to show at least a license and insurance on any stop. I am not aware of any state that requires this for regular stops but not for suspicionless ones like a checkpoint. If he was trying to stay within the law, he should have shown his license.

Generally, the guy is right that you are not legally required to answer any questions. The exception is that half of the states do have "stop and identify" laws, which require you to tell cops your name and sometimes other identifying info like DOB. These have been upheld by the Supreme Court (at least for mandatory name disclosure). Thankfully Oklahoma does not have any such law.

The video also incorrectly states the law on searches when it says "cops can't legally search you without consent." In fact they can search a motor vehicle without either consent or a warrant when they have probable cause a crime is being committed. And as unreliable and prone to abuse as drug dogs are, courts commonly uphold car searches based on them for having probable cause.

If the fellow in the video wanted to be as big of a pain in the ass as possible while still staying within the law, he should have probably rolled down the window when told to, pulled over when told to, got out when told to, and shown his driver's license when told to. Other than that, he should have not answered any of their questions, and frequently asked if he is free to go or whether he is still being detained. He should also have given every cop there an earful about how disgraceful and reprehensible it is to participate in something like a suspicionless checkpoint.

That is probably the best nonviolent thing we can do about this problem... all of us here who are against this sort of thing should not be shy about our opinions on suspicionless checkpoints and those who participate in them if we are ever caught up in one.

Also, several states have outlawed suspicionless checkpoints. We should try to put Oklahoma on that list.

 

[BroMalik]

Damn, for a bunch of bad asses, don't you know the police going to screw you over any time they can?

 

[reddog1]

BroMalik my bawls.

 

[BroMalik]

BroMalik my bawls.

Keep your gay stuff to yourself. I don't roll that way.