Are police checkpoints compatible with freedom?

[thenwoiscoming]

Are random police checkpoints around town compatible with a free society?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWAB_OaAprQ

Can you say 'papers please?'

How does it feel, Hampton Roads, to be slaves to the State?

Who is really serving whom?

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Sam Adams

 

[amy31416]

No.

 

[powerofreason]

No, no, and NO. A free society assumes we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Police checkpoints assume guilt, and are an invasion of privacy.

 

[pcosmar]

NO !

Read my sig line.

,

 

[Matt Collins]

The problem is this... driving is not a right in all States, it's a "privilege". One difference between a right and a privilege is that a right cannot be denied without due process (going to court, etc). However a privilege is granted from the government to the citizens. Therefore, if you want to continue the privilege of driving, you must submit to unreasonable searches such at random DUI checkpoints. You are free not to submit to the DUI checkpoint, but you will lose your privilege of driving on government roads. Unfortunately the lunatic courts have upheld this nonsense.



From an attorney friend of mine:
"Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, is one of the leading cases opening the door to these suspicionless stops. Before Michigan the Court required at least the presence of reasonable suspicion of some criminality before approving even a minimally intrusive stop, such as these sobriety checkpoint stops purport to be. Individualized suspicion is a core component of the protections of the Fourth Amendment against arbitrary governmental action. After Michigan, the Court seemed to forget all about the suspicion and probable cause requirements and focused instead entirely on the reasonableness of the stop itself. And, in determining reasonableness it employed a skewed balancing test that heavily weighted the asserted social benefits to be derived from the government’s desire to protect the public from the scourge of drunk driving against what it regarded as a minimally intrusive imposition upon the publics' right to be left alone. In the meantime, of course, it utterly failed to protect the public from the government."

 

[pcosmar]

The problem is this... driving is not a right in all States, it's a "privilege". One difference between a right and a privilege is that a right cannot be denied without due process (going to court, etc). However a privilege is granted from the government to the citizens. Therefore, if you want to continue the privilege of driving, you must submit to unreasonable searches such at random DUI checkpoints. You are free not to submit to the DUI checkpoint, but you will lose your privilege of driving on government roads. Unfortunately the lunatic courts have upheld this nonsense.

snip

The real problem is that they have little to do with "DUI" and nothing to do with driving.
The "right v privilege" argument is a Red Herring.
The whole purpose of these stops is to condition the public into compliance.
There have never been enough convictions or significant safety improvements to justify them. And as recent checkpoints have shown, they are dropping the pretenses of any prior crime and are only using it as a means of social control.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DC_checkpoint_plan_latest_police_state_0604.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24992510/
And This
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57733

 

[UnReconstructed]

I have no use for the men with guns that are manning the checkpoint. Leave the checkpoint and send the thugs home so I can ride right on through.

 

[andrewh817]

Funny, I don't remember buying my cars from the government I think I got it from General Motors.... If I am breaking the law I should be pulled over otherwise stay the fuck out of my life! I'm paying this cocksucker's wages as it is.

 

[Matt Collins]

Funny, I don't remember buying my cars from the government I think I got it from General Motors....

Actually Michael Badnarik talks about this in his Constitution Class Video. The State has the Mfg Statement of Origin (MSO) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer_Statement_of_Origin

Badnarik basically says that the State is co-owner of your vehicle. You don't get a title to your vehicle, you get a certificate of title.