I got stopped in a roadblock today!

[Soloflecks]

This was on a small and narrow side street that is used only for cutting through to the next major street. The roadblock was by a local police dept. Each motorist was asked to produce driver's license and proof of insurance. Some were told to pull onto the grass (it's only a narrow 2 lane)and wait. Don't know if they were going to get tickets or what. After the officer looked at my papers I was "dismissed".

Here's an article about the SCOTUS ruling (and I DON'T feel like reading the actual decision!). I'm not at all certain this roadblock fits in the parameters of the decision. What do you think? If it was out of line, to whom would I complain? Should I have asked them what they were doing? (As if they'd tell me.)

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/01/14/a1.scotusroadblocks.0114.html

[Bluzmann57]

1. Do they have mandatory insurance and seatbelt laws

where you live? If so, thats probably what they were looking for. If you didn't get a ticket, forget it and go on with your life. I have actually been ticketed in a couple of those things, and there's nothing that can be done about it. As I said, just move on and forget about it.

[el_gato]

2. oh yea, just move on and accept the police state! gimme a break

You have every right to feel negatively towards this type of bullshit
and you should complain.

[Bluzmann57]

3. I am sorry

I am sorry that you seem to have no grasp of reality. This "police state" that you describe has been going on for many years. I hate seat belt laws, but there doesn't seem to be a damn thing I can do about it. And what about cops running radar on the highways and by ways of America? Is this a police state too? Or are they trying to enforce speed laws? The police in this case did not enter this persons car illegally, nor did they break down his or her door. All police forces in every city over 50000 or so do this kind of thing. As I said, I have had two tickets because of these type of roadblocks. It may be right to feel negatively about it, but the police are perfectly within their rights to do this. And after all, we must have law and order, or we will have chaos. Then how long would you survive? My guess is not too long.

[FeebMaster]

4. Wow.

We go from the police asking for your papers at a roadblock to outright chaos where no one will survive without it. I guess we're better off with the police asking for your papers. Maybe we should expand these programs to include pedestrians. We don't want to take any chances and end up in total chaos. :eyes:

[FeebMaster]

40. I think I might be a prophet.

It turns out the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear a case on something like this next week.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040222-103500-1117r.htm

<snip>

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether or not all Americans must have identification on them at all times. The case has been brought by a cowboy in Nevada who was asked to show ID while he was leaning against his pickup truck on the side of the road near his ranch. The police officer did not offer any specific reason why he demanded proof of identity. Having committed no crime, Dudley Hiibel, the cowboy, refused — and was arrested. He was later convicted for "Delaying a Peace Officer."

<snip>

The argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether requiring identification at any time is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures or an invasion of privacy by the government.

<snip>


I am less than optimistic on the outcome.

[slackmaster]

41. What would happen to nudists?

I remember a SciFi novel (was it by P.K. Dick???) in which concientious nudists were given free run of society just like clothed people, with one concession: They had to carry an ID card like everyone else. Nudists carried their IDs in small holsters that hooked to their shoulders, largely hidden in their arm pits.

[FeebMaster]

43. That's a good idea.

I think I'll start a company to manufacture ID holsters for nudists. Get an early start, maybe corner the market. Then I can retire in luxury.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

5. "...used only for cutting through to the next major street"

They have a big problem with that in Colorado Springs, where I work. Seems people have been driving too damn fast on those side streets, and running over too many kids.

[FeebMaster]

6. Have they implemented

checkpoints and started checking people's papers yet? That will certainly slow things down.

[CO Liberal]

7. I Know They Were Using Radar Guns

Don't know about the check points.

[RoeBear]

10. that's a good time for radar...

...I don't like it when they pull over everyone regardless of what they are doing

[slackmaster]

11. Have you ever driven in Berkeley, CA?

Residents in the more conspicuously wealthy sections of the city wielded their political power to get big concrete barriers installed to stop all traffic on their residential streets. It can be a challenge navigating across town.

[Exgeneral]

18. Yeah, everyone knows kids should play in the streets

with guns.

[MrSandman]

19. No, No, No...

There are plenty of guns in the streets without children.

[CO Liberal]

44. It's Very Common...

...for kids to play on residential streets where the speed limit is 25 MPH. And when some yahoo uses their street as a shortcut and comes barrelling through at 45 or 50, kids get hurt.

And some kids die.

[FeebMaster]

45. My parents always told me

not to play in the street.

[CO Liberal]

46. So Did Mine...

...back when the street I grew up on was a through street with a 50-MPH speed limit. But after it was split into two cul-de-sacs by I-287, it becaue our private roller skating rink.

[Soloflecks]

9. Were they or were they not within their rights?

This is Texas; we do have mandatory seatbelt and insurance laws, but the police cannot pull you over for the express purpose of seeing if you do or not.

Here's the excerpt from the article:

The 6-3 decision allows officers to block traffic and ask motorists for help in solving crimes. Critics have complained that authorities might misuse the power, disguising dragnets as ``informational checkpoints.''

I think both incidents I was caught in prove the critics complaints!
And that just means we're screwed and there's nothing we can do?

In the other incident there was an officer in the middle of the road (one of the ways out of my burb)with the obvious intention of stopping any approaching motorist. When I stopped he walked to the window and stared at me and my son then waved us on.

[MrSandman]

15. From WVSP website FAQ

CHECKPOINT-LICENSE/REGISTRATION

Q: CAN A MOTORIST IN WEST VIRGINIA BE STOPPED FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN EXAMINATION OF LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS?
A: YES. PURSUANT TO STATE V. FRISBY, A 1978 WEST VIRGINIA CASE, MOTORISTS MAY BE STOPPED FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN EXAMINATION OF LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS WHEN SUCH EXAMINATIONS ARE DONE ON A RANDOM BASIS PURSUANT TO A PRECONCEIVED PLAN, SUCH AS THE STOPPING OF EVERY CAR AT A CHECK POINT.
State v. Frisby, 161 W.Va. 734, 245 S.E.2d 622 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1127, 99 S.Ct. 1043, 59 L.Ed.2d 87 (1979).

[Baclava]

12. We have them all the time...spring break, ya know...

Usually at night - they call them "vehicle checks" but you know they are sobriety checkpoints cause the local MADD contingent is usually with them - looking for anything they can get you for. These are local cops in city traffic...they ask for your "papers" and have you do the lights/wiper/horn check thingie and ask if you've been drinking.

Plus they stop all traffic for a mile or so with orange cones, checking every driver and have about 20 cars around waiting for the fool trying to escape.

The local radio stations sometimes announce where they are though, you can miss them if you hear it in time.

[CO Liberal]

13. When I Used to DJ in Bars Back in NJ....

...from time to time, someone would come up to me and say "I just saw a sobriety check being set up on Rt. 15 north of here." So I'd announce it and suggest alternate routes.

[Columbia]

22. Is that like... a... gasp!... loophole??

[Spentastic]

23. Would you do the same now?

That's horribly irresponsible.

[CO Liberal]

25. I Probably Would Do The Same Today

NJ had just enacted stiff insurance surcharges for many violations, including DUI. I don't consider what I did advocating driving while intoxicated - it was giving people the option of avoiding thousands of dollare in surcharges.

[iverglas]

28. rationalization

I don't consider what I did advocating driving while intoxicated ...

No; that, of course, would just be exercising free speech.

What you did was facilitate driving while intoxicated, and I'm with Spentastic on that one. Horribly irresponsible.

it was giving people the option of avoiding thousands of dollare in surcharges.

Yes; and giving a murderer a plane ticket to Liberia would be giving him/her the option of avoiding life imprisonment.

There was certainly another way of exercising the option of avoiding thousands of dollars in surcharges. That would be: not driving while impaired. And a way to facilitate that one would be to offer to call taxis or facilitate ride sharing with sober drivers (leaving the customers to drink all they wanted until they left, and the bar making money).

I Probably Would Do The Same Today

And if the customers drove off in evidently impaired condition, the bar might find itself in court: for not just allowing them to drive away in that condition, but assisting them in doing it.

I gotta say I'm disappointed, CO. Speaking as a person who gets to share the road with drunk drivers, and all.

.

[slackmaster]

29. In defense of CO's past checkpoint announcements

Just one quick observation/comment regarding Iverglas' statement:

And if the customers drove off in evidently impaired condition, the bar might find itself in court: for not just allowing them to drive away in that condition, but assisting them in doing it.

The bar or club is always liable for bad behavior by intoxicated customers regardless of anything a disk jockey told them.

It's not the DJ's responsibility to monitor the level of intoxication of nightclub patrons. That job falls squarely on the shoulders of bartenders, who are (at least here in California) required by state law not to serve alcohol to anyone who seems intoxicated.

I'm ambivalent about this; it's one reasonable interpretation to say that his announcing police checkpoints might have facilitated some people driving drunk and not getting caught, OTOH such an announcement might also cause some people who are borderline intoxicated to think twice about driving at all, perhaps wait a while before driving or call a cab. It's just passing along information, and up to the customers what to do with that information.

[CO Liberal]

36. I Felt I Was Giving People Information

Information they could use to make a choice - keep drinking and face getting stopped and facing huge surcharges, or switch to coffee or change their plans.

I believe that those announcements actually kept a lot of impaired drivers OFF the road. You see, Route 15 led to Lake Hopatcong; it was in the next county and the bars stayed open until 4AM. If people knew there was a sobriety checkpoint along the way, many would not make the trip to Lake Hopatcong, staying off the road completely.

[demsrule4life]

24. It is ok for drunks to be out driving

but it is not ok for a sober person to carry a gun. I just don't know why I'm so confused.

[CO Liberal]

26. Apples and Oranges, Dems

:-)

[RoeBear]

30. You're quite right...

...Apples (drunk drivers) kill thousands of innocent vitims every year.
...Oranges (CCW permit holders)have committed what, maybe 3 murders?

[CO Liberal]

31. Use The Same Scope, RoeBear

Drunk drivers is a large group. CCW permit holders is a very small subset of gun owners in general.

We post stories here every day where gun owners in general kill people. So they're quite common.

A more accurate comparison would be to equate the large groups (drunk drivers and gun owners), and equivalent subsets (such as champagne drinkers and CCW permit holders).

[RoeBear]

33. Are you trying to tell me I have bad breath?

"Use The Same Scope, RoeBear"


CCW permit holders can be compared favorably to any group.
One study showed them being more law abiding then the police.

[CO Liberal]

34. Listerine is Just as Good.....

:-)

All I was saying is that CCW holders are a subgroup of all gun owners, just as champagne drinkers are a subgroup of all drunk drivers. So if you're gonna make a comparison, compare large group to large group, and subgroup to subgroup.

Otherwise, you qualify as an intern for John Lott/Mary Rosh.

[RoeBear]

35. It was one thing to say i have bad breath

it's quite another to compare me to John Rosh. :)

Here's the rub, you argue against CCW (the old blood in the street arguement) and I show you that they are the safest sub-set of people in the country.

[CO Liberal]

37. But Your Comparison Was Illogical

You were comparing a small subset of one large group to another large group.

John Lott may be able to get away with bogus comparisons like that....

[CO Liberal]

38. Show Me Where In This Thread....

...that I argued against CCW. We're talking about roadblocks.

[RoeBear]

39. Ok, this is the COLiberal that posts at DU right?

You haven't been taken over by some freeper have you?

[CO Liberal]

42. I Still Don't See Anywhere IN THIS SPECIFIC THREAD...

...where I've argued against CCW permits. I have in other threads, but not in THIS SPECIFIC THREAD.

So show me where it is, RoeBear...

[CO Liberal]

47. But I DO Hear Crickets Chirping....

*** chirp chirp ***

[RoeBear]

48. I'm busy pretending I'm Irish...

...I'll go have another Guiness and get back to you tomorrow.

[MrSandman]

49. Bbbbut...

Drunk drivers are a small subset of drivers.

Ed for diction...s

[CO Liberal]

50. However...

Gun owners are a subset of people in general.

RoeBear was comparing two dissimilar groups, so he comparison was invalid. That's why I called "foul".

[MrSandman]

51. Likewise,

Drivers are a subset of people in general.
I don't follow the logic, or maybe I am blided by prejudice.

[RoeBear]

52. I don't think your example works very well...

drunk drivers and gun owners for instance

Drunk drivers, as a group, are automatically breaking the law 100% of the time (assuming they are on public streets).

Gunowners, as a group, are generally law abiding. Nearly 100% of the time.

[slackmaster]

27. Drunks in general aren't really a problem

It's the AMATEURS you have to watch out for.

:freak:

[CO Liberal]

32. Which is Why I Stay Home on New Year's Eve

It's "Amateur Night".

:-)

[jburton]

14. what is the neghborhood like

Are drivers more likely to be minorities than the makeup of the residents?

I was stopped at a roadblock once, but there was a big sign that said what it was for (seatbelts and insurance).

[valuesenvironment]

16. I have been there as well

roadblocks are OK if they are looking for drunks and 1 other thing in particular..maybe a fugitive i believe...i am not in agreement with roadblocks..they are a big safety hazard and i dont like the fact it mimics what stalin and hitler did...the idea of showing your papers is absurb

[MrSandman]

17. I am asked for DL, DMV reg, Insurance...

More than my CHL. Never been stopped and asked to see that. It is a lesser hazard.

[Liberal Classic]

20. Your papers, please!

What happened to dragnets being used to catch fugitives? In America, when you see a police roadblock there's supposed to be a reason for it. At least in theory. Someday, we'll have internal passports. It's only a matter of time, Democrats and Republicans not withstanding.

[slackmaster]

21. Sorry, man

I've only got a pipe.

:smoke:

[MrSandman]

53. Any officer can...

Obtain any information on criminal history, CCW, etc. from DL or state ID. Even if you do not drive, it is almost necessary to obtain a state ID. You are just not required to show a state ID, unless judicial notice has been taken that only a state ID will satisfy the requirement of reasonable ID.

[analogman]

54. Your papers please!

It's amazing the intrusion into their private lives that some people are willing to accept. Here we have the perfect example of the improper search. You've done nothing wrong, the police have no reason to suspect that you have committed a crime, yet they stop you, demand proof of compliance with various laws, and then decide that you're a good enough citizen to allow you to continue on your business. Sounds pretty much like a police state to me.