I Just Stood Up for the Constitution

[RideTheDirt]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

[ClayTrainor]

Great Job Bro!

[Jeremy]

couldnt here what they were sayin

[RideTheDirt]

couldnt here what they were sayin
the window was up, and the audio isn't the best quality but if you turn up the volume you can hear it.

[Anti Federalist]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

Good job!

[Bryan]

This video makes me mad. :mad:

@ 2:07 the officer says: "If you interfere with my job I'm allowed to arrest you"

How is asking a question interfering with his job? OK, he didn't like that you didn't roll the window down but I could hear him fine with poor youtube audio- how could he not hear you? How could he not do his job?


@ 2:23 Officer 2: "Yeah, you made a point, get out of the car" -- based on the condescending attitude, this guy is not someone I would ever give any authority too.

You: "This isn't constitutional"
Officer 2: "Good." -- Seriously?


Officer @ 2:03: "It's a random stop".

You @ 3:22: "I was told there was no reason for me being stopped. It was random."
Officer 2: "You were told wrong" -- so these people admit they don't know what they are talking about?

This is sick- USSA. :mad:

[cybloo]

Welcome to the new Amerika.

[evilfunnystuff]

the window was up, and the audio isn't the best quality but if you turn up the volume you can hear it.

you really shoulda rolled your window down at least an inch or 2 so they could hear you a little better and your camera could hear them a little better + it would be harder for them to attempt to say you were fuckin with them.

as far as whether or not the judge might throw it out im not sure id fight it if i were you and at least give it a shot eat up the courts time and resources.

if everybody fought everything the courts would come to a grinding halt

check these videos out they should help you build your case the first one is really good but i havent watched the second one yet

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5186628884102899588&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6523756098269655754&hl=en

edit btw good on you for taking a stand

[RideTheDirt]

They are still out there, it is almost 1 am.
sirens every 10 minutes
They've been there for nine hours.:mad:

[Ex Post Facto]

Which state did this occur in?

[RideTheDirt]

Which state did this occur in?
California

[Ex Post Facto]

Hmm...I want to college in California (Pre-Law) back when I wanted to be a lawyer.

Did the check point provide you with a legal right turn?

[Michigan11]

Great Job on questioning the right of these clowns. I've seen this happen when I was down in Southwest Florida a couple years ago, and I was mad as all hell. They were making a main road turn off and roll down the window, and answer some questions and show id. People from home didn't believe me.

That would be even more outrageous having it done on your street, and like you wrote you hear the sirens every ten minutes. Unbelievable. I tell others all the time, go to any court house and look at their cases for the day...90% are dui's, this bring them in alot more money than tickets.

[RideTheDirt]

Listen carefully,
the officer said If I did not roll down my window I would be arrested, so I complied
The officer then stated "You just about got arrested for interfering with an officer"
A second officer asked that I step out of the vehicle
I complied
When did I obstruct/interfere with an officer?
They never asked my to pull off to the right etc.

[Ex Post Facto]

My advise:

First find out what kind of stop it was. California, like most states, allow for traffic stops for license checks and DUI check points. There is a difference between the two types.

Second, California mandates that check points have an option to skip them. They must provide you a place to make a right turn and go around the check point. Usually they stage bike cops on the corner though and follow you a bit if you chose to make that right turn.

If they didn't provide the right turn it might be worth looking into as a defense.

[Ex Post Facto]

Ridethedirt: Read this to understand your rights read the case mentioned as it is the guiding case law that determines checkpoints in California.


source: http://www.californiaduihelp.com/dui_investigation/legal_requirements.asp

Police conducting sobriety checkpoints must follow strict criteria laid out by the California Supreme Court in the landmark case Ingersoll vs. Palmer. If police do not follow the protocol described in Ingersoll, the checkpoint is not lawful, and any evidence gathered during a drunk driving arrest may not be admissible in court. A California DUI / DWI defense lawyer can determine whether a sobriety checkpoint was conducted lawfully.

The Supreme Court identified eight factors that minimize the intrusiveness on the individual, while balancing the needs of society to keep drunk drivers off the road.

According to the Ingersoll decision, the establishment and location of sobriety checkpoints must be decided by supervisory police officers, not officers in the field. This requirement is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and random enforcement.

Free ConsultationThe Supreme Court’s ruling also placed limits on the discretion of police to stop drivers at checkpoints. Police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or tenth driver to determine who to stop. This requirement takes away the discretion of the individual officer to choose to stop individual drivers without any legitimate basis.

Police also must give primary consideration to maintaining safety for motorists and officers. In order to minimize the risk of danger to motorists and police, proper lighting, warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are required. The checkpoint should only be operated when the traffic volume allows the operation to be conducted safely.

The locations of roadblocks also are regulated. A supervisory officer must choose a location that will be most effective in actually stopping drunk drivers, such as roads which have a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents and arrests.

The time and duration of sobriety checkpoints also are of key importance. Police are expected to exercise good judgment in setting times and durations, with an eye to effectiveness of the operation, and with the safety of motorists in mind. As long as these considerations are in effect, there are no hard and fast rules as to the timing or duration of the roadblock.

Sobriety checkpoints also must be established with high visibility so that drivers can easily see the nature of the roadblock. The features that promote high visibility include flashing warning lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles, and the presence of uniformed officers. Not only are such factors important for safety reasons, but advance warning will reassure motorists that the stop is duly authorized.

Police operating sobriety roadblocks should detain each motorist only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a field sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.

Police conducting a lawful sobriety checkpoint must provide advance notice of the roadblock to the public, although they are not required to disclose its specific location. Publicity both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock. The thought is that advance notice limits intrusion upon the individual’s personal dignity and security because those stopped would anticipate and understand what was happening. Further, advance publicity serves to establish the legitimacy of roadblocks in the minds of motorists.

The Supreme Court also stated that motorists who seek to avoid a roadblock may not be stopped and detained merely because they attempted to avoid the roadblock. However, if the motorist commits a vehicle code violation or displays obvious signs of intoxication, there is adequate probable cause to pull over the motorist, after which point general principles of detention and arrest apply.

Although the Supreme Court’s Ingersoll decision legitimized sobriety checkpoints, it also established strict guidelines under which the roadblocks must be operated. If law enforcement does not follow the factors set out by the Supreme Court, the evidence gained as a result of the roadblock may be suppressed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the motorist. A DUI / DWI lawyer who is well-versed in the requirements of sobriety checkpoints can determine whether a roadblock was lawfully executed, and whether any evidence gathered is likely to be suppressed.

[hillbilly123069]

you really shoulda rolled your window down at least an inch or 2 so they could hear you a little better and your camera could hear them a little better + it would be harder for them to attempt to say you were fuckin with them.

as far as whether or not the judge might throw it out im not sure id fight it if i were you and at least give it a shot eat up the courts time and resources.

if everybody fought everything the courts would come to a grinding halt

check these videos out they should help you build your case the first one is really good but i havent watched the second one yet

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5186628884102899588&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6523756098269655754&hl=en

edit btw good on you for taking a stand

The courts could care less if they run you into the ground as long as they're not inconvenienced.The private pay lawyer stops that.It's not about justice anymore or we would have honest politicians instead of these money grubbing corporate lapdogs.

[evilfunnystuff]

The courts could care less if they run you into the ground as long as they're not inconvenienced.
i agree

The private pay lawyer stops that.
they are not infallible

It's not about justice anymore or we would have honest politicians instead of these money grubbing corporate lapdogs.
agreed

[RideTheDirt]

Police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or tenth driver to determine who to stop.
The officer who stopped me said it was random
Case closed?

[evilfunnystuff]

The officer who stopped me said it was random
Case closed?

the case is not over until its over you should prepare to argue on every point of the case even if you think you have it locked up on one issue

those vids i linked to have some very good info within them that can help you on your way (i just finished watchin the second one and it was great

[evilfunnystuff]

you should also look into the laws regarding "obstruction/ delaying a police officer" in addition to the checkpoint laws (dont forget to find out what type of checkpoint it was to determine the differences in them mentioned by ex post facto so you know you dealing with things correctly or you may find yourself in a bad spot

[NYgs23]

You probably should get an attorney, and don't let anyone question you without one.

[evilfunnystuff]

You probably should get an attorney, and don't let anyone question you without one.

if the punishments are severe i would agree i posted the earlier advice assuming it was not a severe punishment being that he said he recieved a citation and i doubt a lawyer is cheaper than a ticket

[Dequeant]

Civil disobedience in action.

[phill4paul]

Great job! I wish more people would stand up for their rights with regard to these check-points.

I and a few friends and lawyers have begun drawing up plans to create a check-point citizens watch group. We have found cameras on the 'net that will allow us to transmit the A/V up to 1000 feet. Many are really inconspicuous.

Under the guise of an emotionally driven issue DUI laws have trampled Constitutional rights, and I believe can become a good rallying point.

[tonesforjonesbones]

We are having a problem in my town also. They also site case law as their justification. They have stopped our talk radio guy 3 times, so he and some others who have been stopped formed this group Bay Patriots...that focuses on the Constitution. We are going to fight this and other situations through this group. We have about 100 members so far. We have a committee which will go to every city council meeting and who will investigate the private meetings also. Our talk radio guy has been hammering the police on the radio every day about the 4th amendment.

The real purpose of these random stops is to make dough...they will look for any infraction, like a tail light that is out, or some charge that you don't even know you have, and write a ticket. The local government makes a lot of money off these stops. That is the true reason for it.

Here is another bunch of bull crap we are fighting. Code Enforcement. These barstards ride around and write tickets if you are violating any city ordinance. Some of them are doing it illegally. There has been a case of a man and woman who cut some trees down on their own property...because they were building a parking lot for their business...code enforcement fined them 250,000 dollars for the several trees they cut down. The man said he would pay to re plant the trees, but no go. he has been fighting this in court for 2 years. He is in our group as well..and we are going to fight city hall. tones

[phill4paul]

Here is another bunch of bull crap we are fighting. Code Enforcement. These barstards ride around and write tickets if you are violating any city ordinance. Some of them are doing it illegally. There has been a case of a man and woman who cut some trees down on their own property...because they were building a parking lot for their business...code enforcement fined them 250,000 dollars for the several trees they cut down. The man said he would pay to re plant the trees, but no go. he has been fighting this in court for 2 years. He is in our group as well..and we are going to fight city hall. tones

I am out on the streets of our town all day everyday. I have noticed since last month that our city now has three brand new Code Enforcement trucks. I noticed one slowly driving down the street, stopping, looking at the houses through binoculars and making notes in front of every house.

It is my belief that governments, local to national, have reached a breaking point in sustainable growth. They do not have the resources available to continue growth. Therefore they must create these resources which of course is revenue.

[phill4paul]

We are having a problem in my town also. They also site case law as their justification. They have stopped our talk radio guy 3 times, so he and some others who have been stopped formed this group Bay Patriots...that focuses on the Constitution. We are going to fight this and other situations through this group. We have about 100 members so far. We have a committee which will go to every city council meeting and who will investigate the private meetings also. Our talk radio guy has been hammering the police on the radio every day about the 4th amendment.

This sounds like a great group! That would be great to have 100 citizens go through a check point while questioning the tactics used all the while broadcasting it on public radio. I bet as it was broadcast 100s' of others would show up and the police would wrap it up for the night.

What radio station is it? Do they have a web site with any info regarding this effort?

[powerofreason]

Thanks. That takes a lot of balls.

[powerofreason]

This case has been taken to the SCOTUS, and they ruled in favor of the police. Which means it is constitutional.

Which means its ok? I hope thats not what your saying...

[tonesforjonesbones]

No. It is not constitutional. Remember, we the people have the last say even over the Supreme court...due to jury nullification. tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here is the radio station...

http://www.talkradio101.com/index.shtml

This is Burnie Thompson...who is speaking out against the random stops.

http://www.talkradio101.com/bio-mornings.shtml

[phill4paul]

This case has been taken to the SCOTUS, and they ruled in favor of the police. Which means it is constitutional.


Well its constitutional for the time being, until another case is seen bringing up a valid argument against it.

Thanks for clearing that up.:D

[phill4paul]

Here is the radio station...

http://www.talkradio101.com/index.shtml

This is Burnie Thompson...who is speaking out against the random stops.

http://www.talkradio101.com/bio-mornings.shtml


Thanks for the info. Will check it out.

[Brian4Liberty]

The real purpose of these random stops is to make dough...they will look for any infraction, like a tail light that is out, or some charge that you don't even know you have, and write a ticket. The local government makes a lot of money off these stops. That is the true reason for it.


In California, I have heard news reports on DUI checkpoints. They will literally report that there were "98 arrests, 4 of them for DUI". Obviously, in these cases, they set these up near bad areas, and they are arresting people on outstanding warrants. And yes, they like the money it brings in too...

All of this is a violation of the intent of the 4th Amendment. But like someone said, the Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints are ok, as long as it's "for the children".

For the OP, will the ACLU help you?

[phill4paul]

Thanks tones for the links. This write up by Burnie I believe is spot on.

The writer hosts "The Burnie Thompson Show" on Talk Radio 101.1 FM weekdays from 6-9 a.m.
E-mail him at burnie@talkradio101.com.
By Burnie Thompson

Twice recently the Florida Highway Patrol asked me to show my driver license. Well, they didn't exactly ask me. They seized me.
Not just me - they're setting up roadblocks all over Florida and demanding you show your papers.

They call them driver license and vehicle inspection checkpoints. They say it keeps us safer. It's for our own good.

Here's how it went Aug. 2 on Lisenby Avenue near Grace Presbyterian Church at 3:30 p.m. I'm on my way to get groceries when a trooper standing in the road directs me to stop and tells me to show my license.

Sure, I say, but first I ask if he's familiar with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. He looks perplexed. I tell him it protects us from unreasonable seizures of our persons. He tells me I haven't been seized.

Really? I ask, "If I prefer not to show my driver license, am I free to go?"

His demeanor changes. He's no longer waving at children in the backseat as he did to the car ahead of me. Instead, he says, "Absolutely not. You will relinquish your driver license right now!"

He's clearly ticked.

I hand him my license. He walks to the front of my car and tells me to honk my horn. He says, "I know my rights very well."

I reply, "It's not yours I'm talking about; it's ours."

He walks to the back of my car and eyes my license plate. When he returns he slaps my driver license on my car door for me to pick up, and says, "Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right."

Actually, that's up for debate. After we've demonstrated our competence to drive, we've earned a state-granted right, which can't be revoked unless we do something wrong. A privilege can be given or taken on a whim.
After a couple minutes, I was a free man again. But why was I seized in the first place?

Just governments exist to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty and property so we can pursue happiness.
If our Creator grants us freedom - as our Declaration of Independence insists - then nobody has
the just power to make us unfree even for a few moments. Troopers who take an oath to support
and defend the Constitution should protect and serve within constitutional guidelines.

It's always wrong to begin a dialogue with someone who has done nothing wrong by initiating force
against them. And let's be honest: Preventing people from making their way around public roads
they supposedly own is an initiation of force.

The Fourth Amendment protects our right from unreasonable searches and seizures; it specifically
requires "probable cause."
Think about it: If seizing us for doing nothing wrong (no probable cause) is reasonable, what would
be an unreasonable seizure?

The FHP says it can "temporarily detain" us in order to keep the roads safer. They say there are
nearly 8,000 out of almost 153,000 drivers in Bay County with suspended or revoked driver
licenses. Why do the irresponsible 5 percent justify creating a police state for the rest of us?

The FHP claims it has state statute and case law on its side. But since when did lawmakers in
Tallahassee and Florida judges supersede the U.S. Constitution?

Ben Franklin warned that those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve
neither. I argue those who make that trade will end up with neither.
I wonder how much safer we would be if those three highway patrolmen standing around Lisenby
Avenue were out catching red-light runners and reckless drivers rather than detaining people for
no probable cause.

The trooper was angry that I questioned his authority. He was close to showing me who was boss. I
may have been moments away from being arrested for failure to exhibit my license even though I
showed it to him within a few seconds.

I was presumed guilty until I proved my innocence.

Many argue it's a minor inconvenience for the public good. But doesn't the Constitution already
settle the matter? Perhaps government is conditioning us to be good subjects rather than
empowered citizens.
If you find yourself ensnared in an FHP roadblock, you can show your papers without question
and the trooper might smile and wave at your children. Or you can read him the Fourth
Amendment as I did before relinquishing your license.

Even troopers need to be reminded of our
liberty and the supreme law of the land.

[Danke]

...state-granted right


state-granted right!?!?! :eek:

[phill4paul]

state-granted right!?!?! :eek:

LOL, his words not mine. So maybe he wasn't 100% spot on. By spot on I meant the way the stops go down.

[Goldwater64]

That took guts, but I'm a little up in the air about this...no offense, but by your comments on "miranda rights" you sort of show you don't have a full understanding of criminal procedure.

I don't know if it's a great idea to risk your liberty to prove a point when you don't fully understand your point. None the less, gutsy.

Reading Miranda rights are simply a way to assure that a statement will be allowed at trial and nothing more. You don't have some sort of "right" to have them read to you, beyond the fact that they can't use your statements at trial if they don't.

[powerofreason]

state-granted right!?!?! :eek:

Aren't they such kind people? They grant us rights!

[rockandrollsouls]

You are perfectly within your rights to question the officer. If you felt they stepped beyond their authority, you might want to complain to their department, the state, or anywhere you can and show them the video. It's our duty to keep them in check.

You can fight it in the courtroom if you wish, but you can certainly apply pressure by a complaint to their superiors.

[Ex Post Facto]

The officer who stopped me said it was random
Case closed?

Random? They still need to be able to prove it was random when it is challenged. I say you fight this with everything you got. Random is not every vehicle, read the case law in the beginning of the article I quoted. California stops legally, have the most fairly applied regulations that protect liberty vs. public security issues. That's why the location of a DUI checkpoint cannot be on some long stretch of road which prevents you from avoiding it. If any of the requirements aren't met the case gets thrown out, no matter what they find. The problem is nobody hardly challenges them, which allows police to break the laws, sometimes without realizing it. When I say they don't realize it, is because the cops don't understand the law as well as you may think. They go off previously executed designs and make it up as they go.

Talk to the district attorney and state your case that the roadblock was illegal and request proof of compliance of this case law. Chances are it will be too much work, and they'll drop the charges. Do talk with an attorney though. I've beaten many cases just by simply being polite with a DA and showing them a statute and asking for the evidence to be able to defend myself. Like I said, people don't like to actually have to work, if they have the power to just dismiss the action for something petty.

[daviddee]

...

[Chester Copperpot]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

this is the sort of civil disobedience they need to see from the public.. it IS unconstitutional... They need to have this reinforced into their brains.

If I lived there. I would get a couple of friends and make up some signs and picket the checkpoint.

Granted, I understand theyre trying to keep drunks off the road and all, but they need to get this thru their heads.

[RideTheDirt]

The problem is that the Supreme Court have declared sobriety checks as Constitutional for the "good of the community". They are legal as long as every car is treated the same way. Based upon the above, you were in the wrong.

This is not to debate the legality of the checks... I am merely stating the Supreme Court has already ruled on this (incorrectly).

The ACLU also would have advised you to open your window just far enough to reach your hand through with your documents. They have a video on what to do when stropped. By not putting down the window you opened yourself up for other charges/actions too... The officer could say, "Because his window was not down I thought he said he said he had a bomb and was going to kill us all - so I broke the glass and tasered him" "Because his window was down I misinterpreted his words to say that he was going to kill me - So I shot him".

Next time put your window down 4 inches... as screaming brings the encounter to a new level and cops (like dogs) once there is screaming the cops instinctively take it to another level.

-dd



-dd
I did roll the window down, after I asked "Why am I being stopped?"
I got the answer "it is a random stop"
Last time I checked, Random is not a mathematical equation, which is need in this case.
I complied, and handed him the id
Then the officer said "you just about got arrested not interering with police"
A second officer then told me to step out
I did
The charge is obstruction/interfering w/ police
When did I interfere or obstruct?
Am I not allowed to ask why I am being stopped?
As soon as I got an answer, I complied.

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[Danke]

2. Because of #1 - the police have the right to ask you for identification and you have to comply. Additionally, part of being able to drive is accepting you can be asked for identification and pulled over in road side sobriety checks. Driving is a privilege - not a constitutional right.


People drive without licenses all the time. I know some and one is a retired cop. Freedom of movement (Travel) is a right. Constitution does not grant rights, it is meant to protects them.

[daviddee]

...

[Danke]

(Queue the detractors)

You, like the original poster, have an issue with the interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS. Your example and the original posters issue are issues with SCOTUS rulings.

I agree with all of your points, BUT they are losers in a court room... and you will lose just like every time they have been attempted in court.

Freedom of Movement is a right, but it has been determined that driving is a privilege that requires responsibility. So you have to be a certain age, have the ability to see, not be inebriated, know the laws, and accept all of the aforementioned before receiving a license. No laws prevent you from being a passenger in a car and no laws prevent you from being a passenger that is a convicted felon who is also drunk.

By your logic I should be able to fly a 747 without any training and no one should be able to infringe that right - I am merely looking to move around and my mode of movement is a 747. Additionally, by your logic, I should be able to receive 27 DUI's with 13 associated vehicular homicides and still be able to drive because anything else would be infringing on my freedom of movement.

This will be my first and last post on tangents that do not apply to the original post.

-dd

Driver's Licenses fall under regulation of commerce. If you are not involved in a commercial activity, you don't need to have one.

Funny you brought up 747, you don't need a license to fly. I do this on a weekly basis.

And the courts have ruled travel is a right.

[dude58677]

(Queue the detractors)

You, like the original poster, have an issue with the interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS. Your example and the original posters issue are issues with SCOTUS rulings.

I agree with all of your points, BUT they are losers in a court room... and you will lose just like every time they have been attempted in court.

Freedom of Movement is a right, but it has been determined that driving is a privilege that requires responsibility. So you have to be a certain age, have the ability to see, not be inebriated, know the laws, and accept all of the aforementioned before receiving a license. No laws prevent you from being a passenger in a car and no laws prevent you from being a passenger that is a convicted felon who is also drunk.

By your logic I should be able to fly a 747 without any training and no one should be able to infringe that right - I am merely looking to move around and my mode of movement is a 747. Additionally, by your logic, I should be able to receive 27 DUI's with 13 associated vehicular homicides and still be able to drive because anything else would be infringing on my freedom of movement.

This will be my first and last post on tangents that do not apply to the original post.

-dd



The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and not the courts. The Supremacy clause states that all public officials have to abide by the Constitution and if not it is perjury and this applies to judicial officers. The local police are to hold the judical branch in check by issuing fines against them for perjury if they rule against the Constitution.

[mport1]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

Excellent job. We need more people standing up for their rights or else we will continue to lose our freedoms.

[fr33domfightr]

Everytime I've had to go through one of those checkpoints here in California, I've never seen the signs where I could turn off due to the traffic. Typically, the cars back up and its like a traffic jam, which blocks all the signage.

Once, I almost had to deal with one, but the traffic was so backed up, I managed to turn at the previous traffic signal. I didn't know it was a check point though, until I went parallel to the street I was on, and could see the check point signs and the reason for the backup.

Would it considered interference if I stood a few blocks away with a sign that read, "Police Checkpoint Ahead" ??



FF

[socialize_me]

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and not the courts. The Supremacy clause states that all public officials have to abide by the Constitution and if not it is perjury and this applies to judicial officers. The local police are to hold the judical branch in check by issuing fines against them for perjury if they rule against the Constitution.

LOL Have you ever heard of Judicial Immunity??? A judge cannot be "fined" by anyone for their decisions. They may be impeached and removed from office, but that is the only way at least on the Federal Level. State judges, it depends on the state since some states have the Missouri System where judges face election cycles. Regardless, judges on any level are removed from office by the Legislative Branch during their tenure if deemed necessary. They aren't removed by the Executive Branch or punished by it. If you were right then that would mean President Bush could threaten the Supreme Court with fines if they don't rule to his liking. Whether their decisions are Constitutional or not, you are saying that choice is to be made up by the police apparently, or the executive branch. So basically President Bush is now the arbitrator of the Constitution. Looks like you're going WAAAY in the fucking wrong direction on this one, bud. I don't know what you've been drinking or smoking, but keep it the hell away from me.

I honestly don't understand where the hell you're getting any of this shit where judges can be fined for their decisions. That would defeat the entire purpose of the judiciary!! If they fear their decisions will result in being fined or imprisoned, then they're subjects to the executive branch! So with your logic, the President has supreme power over judicial decisions and is the Chief Justice's chief justice. This doesn't make any sense!! So if the Courts rule in favor of the Constitution but the Executive Branch doesn't agree with the decision, the Executive Branch can fine those justices just by stating their decision was unconstitutional?? So who exactly is to "check" that executive power?? The Legistature?? Wow now you're rewriting the entire Constitution! Basically by saying judges face punishment if they rule against the Constitution in terms of being fined by one person or branch means you are giving that branch supra-judicial powers.

So the Executive Branch is to determine what is Constitutional and not? They can fine a judge if the Executive Branch determines a decision is unconstitutional regardless of whether it is or isn't?? Nice fucked up world you live in. That's even WORSE than what we have now!! At least a group of 9 unelected individuals can arbitrate Constitutional Law after several appeals. You somehow think one single person on any level of government at the executive department enjoys powers of punishing judicial decisions.

This takes away the entire purpose of having a separate, objective judiciary. Whether or not you agree with their decisions, there's no where in American Common or Statutory law (or even Constitutional Law) that says the Executive Branch can "check" the Judicial Branch by fucking fining it for its decisions. Sorry, but a police officer cannot bully a district court judge by threatening to fine them if they don't throw the defendant in jail, and they could do so (apparently) by saying the Judge's decision was Unconstitutional as determined by the police officers. Supreme Executive Power, anyone?? That's shit you'd see Saudi Arabia.

[jonahtrainer]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

Good job. Be sure to assert your Constitutional Rights (http://www.runtogold.com/2008/10/gold-privacy-and-constitutional-rights/)during police encounters in an appropriate way though.

[mediahasyou]

Research and use their words and laws against them.

[Danke]

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and not the courts. The Supremacy clause states that all public officials have to abide by the Constitution and if not it is perjury and this applies to judicial officers. The local police are to hold the judical branch in check by issuing fines against them for perjury if they rule against the Constitution.



LOL Have you ever heard of Judicial Immunity??? A judge cannot be "fined" by anyone for their decisions. They may be impeached and removed from office, but that is the only way at least on the Federal Level. State judges, it depends on the state since some states have the Missouri System where judges face election cycles. Regardless, judges on any level are removed from office by the Legislative Branch during their tenure if deemed necessary. They aren't removed by the Executive Branch or punished by it. If you were right then that would mean President Bush could threaten the Supreme Court with fines if they don't rule to his liking. Whether their decisions are Constitutional or not, you are saying that choice is to be made up by the police apparently, or the executive branch. So basically President Bush is now the arbitrator of the Constitution. Looks like you're going WAAAY in the fucking wrong direction on this one, bud. I don't know what you've been drinking or smoking, but keep it the hell away from me.

I honestly don't understand where the hell you're getting any of this shit where judges can be fined for their decisions. That would defeat the entire purpose of the judiciary!! If they fear their decisions will result in being fined or imprisoned, then they're subjects to the executive branch! So with your logic, the President has supreme power over judicial decisions and is the Chief Justice's chief justice. This doesn't make any sense!! So if the Courts rule in favor of the Constitution but the Executive Branch doesn't agree with the decision, the Executive Branch can fine those justices just by stating their decision was unconstitutional?? So who exactly is to "check" that executive power?? The Legistature?? Wow now you're rewriting the entire Constitution! Basically by saying judges face punishment if they rule against the Constitution in terms of being fined by one person or branch means you are giving that branch supra-judicial powers.

So the Executive Branch is to determine what is Constitutional and not? They can fine a judge if the Executive Branch determines a decision is unconstitutional regardless of whether it is or isn't?? Nice fucked up world you live in. That's even WORSE than what we have now!! At least a group of 9 unelected individuals can arbitrate Constitutional Law after several appeals. You somehow think one single person on any level of government at the executive department enjoys powers of punishing judicial decisions.

This takes away the entire purpose of having a separate, objective judiciary. Whether or not you agree with their decisions, there's no where in American Common or Statutory law (or even Constitutional Law) that says the Executive Branch can "check" the Judicial Branch by fucking fining it for its decisions. Sorry, but a police officer cannot bully a district court judge by threatening to fine them if they don't throw the defendant in jail, and they could do so (apparently) by saying the Judge's decision was Unconstitutional as determined by the police officers. Supreme Executive Power, anyone?? That's shit you'd see Saudi Arabia.

You got all that from his post?

What are you, clairvoyant?

[cien750hp]

California has some strange checkpoints. In Colorado, I have experienced two. Both were in the same place, a main road, with many places you could turn off. I don't remember any specific signage telling you you could turn off, though. Once they just narrowed it down to a couple lanes, a little narrower than a normal lane, and looked for people hitting cones. The second time, they came up to the vehicles, asked how much they have had to drink, and let them go. I was a passenger with my dad that time, he said "I had a beer with dinner" and they said "Okay, Have a nice day" so they were obviously looking for people that were very visibly impaired. And never was traffic really backed up. I didn't have an issue with them because they weren't intrusive at all, not even asking for a license.
I haven't seen any of them in the last few years though.

[Chester Copperpot]

California has some strange checkpoints. In Colorado, I have experienced two. Both were in the same place, a main road, with many places you could turn off. I don't remember any specific signage telling you you could turn off, though. Once they just narrowed it down to a couple lanes, a little narrower than a normal lane, and looked for people hitting cones. The second time, they came up to the vehicles, asked how much they have had to drink, and let them go. I was a passenger with my dad that time, he said "I had a beer with dinner" and they said "Okay, Have a nice day" so they were obviously looking for people that were very visibly impaired. And never was traffic really backed up. I didn't have an issue with them because they weren't intrusive at all, not even asking for a license.
I haven't seen any of them in the last few years though.

I experienced a similar checkpoint many years ago a mile from my house... It was late at night and i was real tired wanted to go home.. I rolled down the window to talk to the officer and he didnt ask me any questions, just took one look at me, knew i wasnt inebriated and told me to keep going.. almost all the other cars they were pulling off the road into a parking lot doing whatever they were doing.. I lived right in between two popular dance clubs, so i can understand their checkpoint.. but it was just that one time about 9 years ago

[socialize_me]

You got all that from his post?

What are you, clairvoyant?

Clearly I had to point out there is such a thing called "judicial immunity", then I had to explain it to him, and then I further explained to him the repercussions of having police simply fine judicial decisions by basically stating their choice was unconstitutional. That's the most bullshit thing I've ever heard and it's a shame people like that actually think they know something and go around shooting off their mouth to others that don't know any better. Clearly, you're one of those persons.

[Danke]

Clearly I had to point out there is such a thing called "judicial immunity", then I had to explain it to him, and then I further explained to him the repercussions of having police simply fine judicial decisions by basically stating their choice was unconstitutional. That's the most bullshit thing I've ever heard and it's a shame people like that actually think they know something and go around shooting off their mouth to others that don't know any better. Clearly, you're one of those persons.

The judiciary is already effectively controlled by the executive. It's called the IRS.

[Conza88]

Thanks. That takes a lot of balls.

Yep.

http://horsesmouth.typepad.com/hm/Beach%20Ball.jpg

[socialize_me]

The judiciary is already effectively controlled by the executive. It's called the IRS.

lol

[Brian4Liberty]

Checkpoints should be fought at the local or state level. Take it to the city council. Run for city council or mayor. Fire the police chief if they put up checkpoints. It's a city policy, so change that policy. Similarly, fight county and state roadblocks at those levels.

Bottom line, the only way to stop checkpoints is to make more noise than MADD...

The original method of identifying drunk drivers was Constitutional, and did not create traffic jams or over-intrusive government: if someone is driving erratically, pull them over. Simple.