Militarized Police

[chair]

No, because you glossed over the done properly portion of the decision. Not to mention Rehnquist has been wrong on more than one occasion. The Michigan Supreme Court got it right, and the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong.

That is a reasonable opinion, but not the law of the land.

I think we have all wasted enough time on this foolishness. I'm done.

If you want to wallow in the mud some more, be my guest.

 

[Christ's Word]

That is a reasonable opinion, but not the law of the land.

I think we have all wasted enough time on this foolishness. I'm done.

If you want to wallow in the mud some more, be my guest.

I agree with the majority opinion, but the checkpoint must be properly conducted. This checkpoint was not properly conducted. You avoided the question.

"how does it advance the State's interest in preventing drunk driving, by detaining a person who does not drink?"

It is a simple question, why be a coward?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I agree with the majority opinion, but the checkpoint must be properly conducted. This checkpoint was not properly conducted. You avoided the question.

"how does it advance the State's interest in preventing drunk driving, by detaining a person who does not drink?"

It is a simple question, why be a coward?

In what way was it not properly conducted?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Most normal folks cite a source when they post ridiculous opinions like that, and different states have different laws, you need to get a clue.

wikipedia, look it up and you can also verify it with a google search very easily at tons of law firms.

Again, let us know how special you are when you get that officer fired for making you and your husband follow the same laws everyone else has to follow.

 

[Christ's Word]

In what way was it not properly conducted?

The initial screening before detention was almost nonexistent, and the officer was combative and unprofessional, and more importantly per the Supreme Court ruling, to be a legal checkpoint, they must stop every car, which they did not. We saw 3 cars drive right through as we approached, and a 4th drove through while my husband spoke with the 2nd group of officers.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Here is the Wikipedia article about the legality of these Random checks.

A few excerpts:

...
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances....

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.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."​

I marked one sentence in bold.

The point is: The Supreme Court found that these checks are in fact constitutional.

Are we done here?

A DUI checkpoint is not just a random checkpoint, it has to be announced in advance - which is why its NOT against the 4th amendment.

If you know in advance its happening and still go out there, you have already consented.

 

[Christ's Word]

wikipedia, look it up and you can also verify it with a google search very easily at tons of law firms.

Again, let us know how special you are when you get that officer fired for making you and your husband follow the same laws everyone else has to follow.

You are an idiot, no one said they wanted the officer fired, just that his behavior was combative, and unprofessional. If his behavior continues to be unprofessional, then he should be let go. It was also stated that this checkpoint was not being run in a constitutional way, which you have not responded to, because you are a coward who refuses to address the subject of the OP.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The initial screening before detention was almost nonexistent, and the officer was combative and unprofessional, and more importantly per the Supreme Court ruling, to be a legal checkpoint, they must stop every car, which they did not. We saw 3 cars drive right through as we approached, and a 4th drove through while my husband spoke with the 2nd group of officers.

Did every car stop? In other words, did an oficer talk to every car that went through? Was there some sort of through lane where cars were not stopped at all?

 

[Angel4Truth]

You are an idiot, no one said they wanted the officer fired, just that his behavior was combative, and unprofessional. If his behavior continues to be unprofessional, then he should be let go. It was also stated that this checkpoint was not being run in a constitutional way, which you have not responded to, because you are a coward who refuses to address the subject of the OP.

No, its because i believe you are a liar. Plain and simple.

 

[Christ's Word]

Did every car stop? In other words, did an oficer talk to every car that went through? Was there some sort of through lane where cars were not stopped at all?

No every car was not stopped, a few were driving straight through in the far left lane. No, an officer did not talk to every driver of every car.

 

[Christ's Word]

No, its because i believe you are a liar. Plain and simple.

You are an idiot, just leave the thread. Or be a big girl, and answer the question:

How does it advance the State's interest to prevent drunk driving by detaining a driver who does not drink?

 

[Rusha]

No every car was not stopped, a few were driving straight through in the far left lane. No, an officer did not talk to every driver of every car.

Then obviously something about you made the nice officer suspicious. Were you your usual calm, rational, sugary, sweet self when they stopped you?

That had to be it ...

 

[Rusha]

No, its because i believe you are a liar. Plain and simple.

That ... and she has issues with authority.

 

[Christ's Word]

Then obviously something about you made the nice officer suspicious. Were you your usual calm, rational, sugary, sweet self when they stopped you?

That had to be it ...

You are an idiot, i was in the passenger's seat and said nothing.

 

[Rusha]

You are an idiot, i was in the passenger's seat and said nothing.

YOU ... *CW* ... said nothing. Uh oh. This "story" keeps getting deeper and deeper.

 

[Christ's Word]

YOU ... *CW* ... said nothing. Uh oh. This "story" keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Some of us are secure enough to let our husbands handle some things. Of course you probably ran yours off years ago, being such a shill and all.....

 

[bybee]

Some of us are secure enough to let our husbands handle some things. Of course you probably ran yours off years ago, being such a shill and all.....

Oh dear!

 

[bybee]

You are an idiot, just leave the thread. Or be a big girl, and answer the question:

How does it advance the State's interest to prevent drunk driving by detaining a driver who does not drink?

No doubt it was a random stop.

 

[Rusha]

Some of us are secure enough to let our husbands handle some things.

Not. Buying. It. You don't behave one way here and like a wallflower elsewhere.

Of course you probably ran yours off years ago, being such a shill and all.....

Oh no. He stayed. I left. With both children. However, I did allow him to keep his two pit bulls. He was an example of why stupid drunks shouldn't be allowed to own firearms OR drive cars.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You are an idiot, just leave the thread.

Make me.