PDA

View Full Version : Bill 1of3 sent 2 drafting 27Feb: Ban Warrantless & Suspicionless Checkstop Roadblocks




GunnyFreedom
02-27-2011, 01:35 PM
BAN WARRANTLESS AND SUSPICIONLESS CHECKSTOP ROADBLOCKS IN NORTH CAROLINA

Ban Warrantless Checkstops - North Carolina law enforcement officials and officers may not use roadblocks to sweep for random offenses. Roadblocks may be used as cordons for capturing a specifically named offender that has an arrest warrant, but those roadblocks may not ticket or cite drivers for other unrelated violations such as safety inspections or registrations or expired licenses etc, only issue verbal/written warnings without actual citations. Other drivers who have standing warrants for arrest may be arrested, but a roadblock for the purposes of 'sweeping' for violations are not allowed. Roadblocks encountering drunk drivers (DUI) shall advise the drunk drivers to stop and either call someone to collect them, or remain parked until morning, but they may not issue DUI citations unless the driver ignores that advice and continues to drive beyond the roadblock.

Yieu
02-27-2011, 01:49 PM
I'm really liking this one. The only potential weak spot that could be expanded or interpreted to mean more is:


Other drivers who have standing warrants for arrest may be arrested

The right to not identify oneself is important too. If they stop everyone just to run their licenses to check for warrants, that is still a warrantless search. It should require a warrant and probable cause to even identify someone, if they wish to remain private, and intimidating someone into identifying themselves should also be prohibited.

Aside from that point, great text, I like. :) +Rep for the Representative

GunnyFreedom
02-27-2011, 01:57 PM
I'm really liking this one. The only potential weak spot that could be expanded or interpreted to mean more is:



The right to not identify oneself is important too. If they stop everyone just to run their licenses to check for warrants, that is still a warrantless search. It should require a warrant and probable cause to even identify someone, if they wish to remain private, and intimidating someone into identifying themselves should also be prohibited.

Aside from that point, great text, I like. :) +Rep for the Representative

The problem there is that checking identity is almost certainly necessary for people who "match the description" of whatever violent criminal the cordon is trying to catch. No bill that makes it easier for a murderer or a rapist to escape a cordon will receive enough support to pass. Perhaps "no identities may be run through the system which do not match the description of the subject of a cordon" would address that?

Yieu
02-27-2011, 02:01 PM
The problem there is that checking identity is almost certainly necessary for people who "match the description" of whatever violent criminal the cordon is trying to catch. No bill that makes it easier for a murderer or a rapist to escape a cordon will receive enough support to pass. Perhaps "no identities may be run through the system which do not match the description of the subject of a cordon" would address that?

Good point, it is legitimate to check the identities that "match the description" as you say. I like that addition. Here's another possible addition to the addition: "no identities may be run through the system or be requested which do not match the description of the subject of a cordon". That should fix that potential loophole.

Written like that... it would really bring liberty in the streets.

GunnyFreedom
02-28-2011, 03:35 PM
First draft from bill drafting has come out as follows:


GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H D BILL DRAFT 2011-MA-171 [v.1] (02/28)

(THIS IS A DRAFT AND IS NOT READY FOR INTRODUCTION) 2/28/2011 3:23:55 PM

Short Title: Checking Stations Unlawful. (Public) Sponsors: Representative Bradley. Referred to:

*2011-MA-171-v-1*

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT TO MAKE ALL CHECKING STATIONS UNLAWFUL UNLESS THEY ARE ESTABLISHED TO CAPTURE A PARTICULAR NAMED OFFENDER IN A MANHUNT.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. G.S. 20-16.3A reads as rewritten:

"§ 20-16.3A. Checking stations and roadblocks.roadblocks unlawful.


(a) A law-enforcement agency may conduct checking stations to determine compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. If the agency is conducting a checking station for the purposes of determining compliance with this Chapter, it must:
(1) Repealed by Session Laws 2006-253, s. 4, effective December 1, 2006, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.

(2) Designate in advance the pattern both for stopping vehicles and for requesting drivers that are stopped to produce drivers license, registration, or insurance information.

(2a) Operate under a written policy that provides guidelines for the pattern, which need not be in writing. The policy may be either the agency's own policy, or if the agency does not have a written policy, it may be the policy of another law enforcement agency, and may include contingency provisions for altering either pattern if actual traffic conditions are different from those anticipated, but no individual officer may be given discretion as to which vehicle is stopped or, of the vehicles stopped, which driver is requested to produce drivers license, registration, or insurance information. If officers of a law enforcement agency are operating under another agency's policy, it must be stated in writing.

(3) Advise the public that an authorized checking station is being operated by having, at a minimum, one law enforcement vehicle with its blue light in operation during the conducting of the checking station. (b) An officer who determines there is a reasonable suspicion that an occupant has violated a provision of this Chapter, or any other provision of law, may detain the driver to further investigate in accordance with law. The operator of any vehicle stopped at a checking station established under this subsection may be requested to submit to an alcohol screening test under G.S. 20-16.3 if during the course of the stop the officer determines the driver had General Assembly Of North Carolina Session 2011


Page 2 2011-MA-171 [v.1] (02/28)


previously consumed alcohol or has an open container of alcoholic beverage in the vehicle. The officer so requesting shall consider the results of any alcohol screening test or the driver's refusal in determining if there is reasonable suspicion to investigate further.

(c) Law enforcement agencies may conduct any type of checking station or roadblock as long as it is established and operated in accordance with the provisions of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of North Carolina.

(d) The placement of checkpoints should be random or statistically indicated, and agencies shall avoid placing checkpoints repeatedly in the same location or proximity. This subsection shall not be grounds for a motion to suppress or a defense to any offense arising out of the operation of a checking station.


It shall be unlawful for any law enforcement agency or officer to conduct a checking station or roadblock unless the establishment of a checking station or roadblock is to cordon off an area to locate specifically named offender that has an arrest warrant issued for that offender. Any other person passing through the checking station or roadblock shall not be subject to arrest for any reason except when:

(1) The person has an outstanding warrant for arrest.

(2) The person has committed an implied consent offense and has been warned by a law enforcement officer at a checking station or roadblock not to proceed and the person continues through the checking station in contradiction to the warning."

SECTION 2. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

GunnyFreedom
02-28-2011, 03:39 PM
It's going to fiscal research now -- the concern is we will lose lots of federal Highway Fund "Booze It And Lose It" and "Click It Or Ticket" money if we do this... :rolleyes: what better way to 'get around' the provisions of the US Constituion than by attaching billions in tax dollars to unconstitutional compliance... :mad:

I'm willing to bet I'll get all kinds of people who agree with me on principle, but will vote against it becase we stand to lose a billion dollars in highway money....

MozoVote
02-28-2011, 08:01 PM
Wyoming faced this problem with raising the drinking age. They held out for about two years before captulating to get federal highway money.

Montana felt similarly about the 55 mph speed limit. They agreed to have it, but set the fine at $5.

nobody's_hero
02-28-2011, 08:07 PM
Nice work gunny. It's definitely an improvement over how most states handle DUIs.

GunnyFreedom
03-08-2011, 04:27 PM
Fiscal Research just came back -- we will lose NO Federal Highway money by implimenting this. I told Drafting to send it, and it will be introduced when it arrives.

Anti Federalist
03-08-2011, 08:49 PM
Glen Bradley, the Energizer Bunny of freedom.

Bump

jclay2
03-08-2011, 09:33 PM
Fiscal Research just came back -- we will lose NO Federal Highway money by implimenting this. I told Drafting to send it, and it will be introduced when it arrives.

You are truly awesome Gunny. Wish you could be a state rep in illinois. We could really use someone like you to obliterate our gun laws.