Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is it your contention to break this down to the mundane minutiae of semantics?No, he wasn't , a short stop at a check point is NOT considered being detained. SCOTUS has ruled on this, take it up with them if you don't like it.
You got part of that right, SCOTUS has ruled on it, and they rationalize that it is reasonable to detain people for short periods of time. I would challenge you ro find a single case where they said that stopping a person, and refusing to let him leave, is not actually detaining someone.
To support me, I cite Terry v Ohio.
On the one hand, it is frequently argued that, in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets, the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose, it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search." [n3] Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to "frisk" him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" of the person. This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to a mere "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," [n4] which can properly be imposed upon the [n5]
Terry v. Ohio LII Legal Information Institute
Want to try again?
It's just a reference term....Wisemen. Wisepeople. Get it?random checkpoints are not..
That is your opinion. The 9 Wise people wearing the black robes have the final say.
Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.. Wise? Are you fucking kidding me?
9 unelected dictators deign to ride roughshod on the Constitution, based of usurped powers never granted by the Constitution itself.
This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....
Ive seen this before. It's on youtube. This prick goes out looking for these checkpoints just to give the cops a hard time.
Yeah like asking if he has the right to leave. What a jerk!
It's just a reference term....Wisemen. Wisepeople. Get it?
Do I think those flaming libs are "wise"..Hell fucking no.
In fact, this court did not even rule on the case which made these checkpoints Constitutional.
Only Scalia and Kennedy were on the Court when the ruling was made in 1990
Yee Haw! Do dat mean dem dere Steriod Guys wit guns caint gib me no tikit fer dat? Whoop ! whoop! Whoop! Derp?North Carolina State Statute § 20-135.2A.
(d) Evidence of failure to wear a seat belt shall not be admissible in any criminal or civil trial, action, or proceeding except in an action based on a violation of this section or as justification for the stop of a vehicle or detention of a vehicle operator and passengers.
Are yoo gwina tell me dat der Black man almost loss his lahf fer juss $25?(e) Any driver or front seat passenger who fails to wear a seat belt as required by this section shall have committed an infraction and shall pay a penalty of twenty-five dollars and fifty cents ($25.50)
Oh hay guise look! It's dat dere Northum Carow Lahna Laoooo! Take a looky see here:
GS 20-135.2A
Yee Haw! Do dat mean dem dere Steriod Guys wit guns caint gib me no tikit fer dat? Whoop ! whoop! Whoop! Derp?North Carolina State Statute § 20-135.2A.
(d) Evidence of failure to wear a seat belt shall not be admissible in any criminal or civil trial, action, or proceeding except in an action based on a violation of this section or as justification for the stop of a vehicle or detention of a vehicle operator and passengers.
Hurr up and ansir on accountin' dat der Tursdee Naght Footsbawl uh gettin reddy to starts soon!
Mr Howse you seems lahk en intigint enuf feller, anser me dis if'n yoo wud:
Is a Tikit be uh, Criminal or Civil Offense?
Impounding a vehicle isn't arresting the person, Judge Dipshit.
No, it's carjacking.
Like it or not, a cop can come up with probable cause to impound your car with a minimum of effort if they really want to.
That would require going to the URL, which I haven't since that fateful day in college where I was "corrected" for using such a sewer of a site.Ah yes Wikipedia, the bastion of accuracy and unimpeachable information.
Want to point out what the article got wrong?
This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....
Ive seen this before. It's on youtube. This prick goes out looking for these checkpoints just to give the cops a hard time.
Yeah like asking if he has the right to leave. What a jerk!
oversimplification. The driver WAS being a dick. and he knew he was being a dick. He planned on being a dick. Hence the reason for the dash cam being pointed at himself.
No normal person does this unless they have something predetermined in mind.
This was a planned confrontation.
You are partly correct.
Just because a police officer does not mention the term "arrest" does not exclude the citizen from their 5th amendment right to not be "a witness against himself", Miranda applies under three criteria...
It is more likely that an individual is in custody where:
Sitting in one's vehicle while asked to provide proof of insurance and a valid driver's license is not "custody".
- There is a traditional arrest and constraint (handcuffs, closed room, etc.)
- Detention is long and involuntary
- An individual is placed in hostile and unfamiliar surroundings.
Being asked or commanded to exit one's vehicle and told to go to a certain place restrained or unrestrained would be IMO "custody"
It is less likely that an individual is in custody where:
- There is a routine traffic stop
- Detention is brief and voluntary (as in a brief field interview)
- The police call an individual on the telephone (since the individual is free to hang up)
- When a Miranda Warning is Required Tucker Law Group Philadelphia Pennsylvania Law Firm Miramar Florida Law Firm
Wait a minute.. You claim I lied about something then you demand I prove that I didn't lie....
HUH?
You made the claim. I am under no obligation to provide case law for you. if you can find case law to support your points, have at it.
I'm not doing your homework for you.
A police officer's job is to "violate our rights"?
Where is the hassle you see?
The police are acting within the boundaries of law and precedent as well as case law when they ask for a valid license and other required vehicle documents.
He may ask other questions in the process of "building a case" against the driver. Legal precedent maintains that we as citizens are NOT required to answer those questions.
Questions such as "where are you going?"...."Have you had anything to drink tonight?" "Where are you coming from?" "What are the names of the people you were wioth?"...are outside the boundaries of the law and are quite frankly NONE of the police officer's or the "people's" business. We do not have to answer these questions. Police officers are trained that once they have a motorist stopped, they can begin to profile the person and build a case against them. it is common practice for law enforcement to use deception to encourage a person to make incriminating statements.
This is why legal experts advise people to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. In other words don't do the cop's job for them.
"Public interest in probative value outweighs the minor intrusiveness of the stop".
Reasonable suspicion( that a crime or criminal act has been or is about to be committed) gives rise to probable cause. The courts have given much latitude to law enforcement in these areas.Impounding a vehicle isn't arresting the person, Judge Dipshit.
No, it's carjacking.
Like it or not, a cop can come up with probable cause to impound your car with a minimum of effort if they really want to.
And cops with that mentality need to be removed from the force (and, ideally, the human race).
This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....
Ive seen this before. It's on youtube. This prick goes out looking for these checkpoints just to give the cops a hard time.
Yeah like asking if he has the right to leave. What a jerk!
oversimplification. The driver WAS being a dick. and he knew he was being a dick. He planned on being a dick. Hence the reason for the dash cam being pointed at himself.
No normal person does this unless they have something predetermined in mind.
This was a planned confrontation.
My dash cam is on order...and if I am pulled over, you'd better believe that the first thing I will do when I see the strobes is to turn the camera to point at myself and the driver's window!
That is not a violation of your rights. It is accepted police procedure.A police officer's job is to "violate our rights"?
That is a pretty good summation.
Where is the hassle you see?
The police are acting within the boundaries of law and precedent as well as case law when they ask for a valid license and other required vehicle documents.
Which makes the violation of our rights legal according to the government, but is does not eliminate the violation.
He may ask other questions in the process of "building a case" against the driver. Legal precedent maintains that we as citizens are NOT required to answer those questions.
Questions such as "where are you going?"...."Have you had anything to drink tonight?" "Where are you coming from?" "What are the names of the people you were wioth?"...are outside the boundaries of the law and are quite frankly NONE of the police officer's or the "people's" business. We do not have to answer these questions. Police officers are trained that once they have a motorist stopped, they can begin to profile the person and build a case against them. it is common practice for law enforcement to use deception to encourage a person to make incriminating statements.
This is why legal experts advise people to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. In other words don't do the cop's job for them.
Yet you wonder why people say that the job of a cop is to violate our rights.
