I Just Stood Up for the Constitution

you should also look into the laws regarding "obstruction/ delaying a police officer" in addition to the checkpoint laws (dont forget to find out what type of checkpoint it was to determine the differences in them mentioned by ex post facto so you know you dealing with things correctly or you may find yourself in a bad spot
 
You probably should get an attorney, and don't let anyone question you without one.
 
You probably should get an attorney, and don't let anyone question you without one.

if the punishments are severe i would agree i posted the earlier advice assuming it was not a severe punishment being that he said he recieved a citation and i doubt a lawyer is cheaper than a ticket
 
Last edited:
Great job! I wish more people would stand up for their rights with regard to these check-points.

I and a few friends and lawyers have begun drawing up plans to create a check-point citizens watch group. We have found cameras on the 'net that will allow us to transmit the A/V up to 1000 feet. Many are really inconspicuous.

Under the guise of an emotionally driven issue DUI laws have trampled Constitutional rights, and I believe can become a good rallying point.
 
We are having a problem in my town also. They also site case law as their justification. They have stopped our talk radio guy 3 times, so he and some others who have been stopped formed this group Bay Patriots...that focuses on the Constitution. We are going to fight this and other situations through this group. We have about 100 members so far. We have a committee which will go to every city council meeting and who will investigate the private meetings also. Our talk radio guy has been hammering the police on the radio every day about the 4th amendment.

The real purpose of these random stops is to make dough...they will look for any infraction, like a tail light that is out, or some charge that you don't even know you have, and write a ticket. The local government makes a lot of money off these stops. That is the true reason for it.

Here is another bunch of bull crap we are fighting. Code Enforcement. These barstards ride around and write tickets if you are violating any city ordinance. Some of them are doing it illegally. There has been a case of a man and woman who cut some trees down on their own property...because they were building a parking lot for their business...code enforcement fined them 250,000 dollars for the several trees they cut down. The man said he would pay to re plant the trees, but no go. he has been fighting this in court for 2 years. He is in our group as well..and we are going to fight city hall. tones
 
Last edited:
Here is another bunch of bull crap we are fighting. Code Enforcement. These barstards ride around and write tickets if you are violating any city ordinance. Some of them are doing it illegally. There has been a case of a man and woman who cut some trees down on their own property...because they were building a parking lot for their business...code enforcement fined them 250,000 dollars for the several trees they cut down. The man said he would pay to re plant the trees, but no go. he has been fighting this in court for 2 years. He is in our group as well..and we are going to fight city hall. tones

I am out on the streets of our town all day everyday. I have noticed since last month that our city now has three brand new Code Enforcement trucks. I noticed one slowly driving down the street, stopping, looking at the houses through binoculars and making notes in front of every house.

It is my belief that governments, local to national, have reached a breaking point in sustainable growth. They do not have the resources available to continue growth. Therefore they must create these resources which of course is revenue.
 
We are having a problem in my town also. They also site case law as their justification. They have stopped our talk radio guy 3 times, so he and some others who have been stopped formed this group Bay Patriots...that focuses on the Constitution. We are going to fight this and other situations through this group. We have about 100 members so far. We have a committee which will go to every city council meeting and who will investigate the private meetings also. Our talk radio guy has been hammering the police on the radio every day about the 4th amendment.

This sounds like a great group! That would be great to have 100 citizens go through a check point while questioning the tactics used all the while broadcasting it on public radio. I bet as it was broadcast 100s' of others would show up and the police would wrap it up for the night.

What radio station is it? Do they have a web site with any info regarding this effort?
 
No. It is not constitutional. Remember, we the people have the last say even over the Supreme court...due to jury nullification. tones
 
The real purpose of these random stops is to make dough...they will look for any infraction, like a tail light that is out, or some charge that you don't even know you have, and write a ticket. The local government makes a lot of money off these stops. That is the true reason for it.

In California, I have heard news reports on DUI checkpoints. They will literally report that there were "98 arrests, 4 of them for DUI". Obviously, in these cases, they set these up near bad areas, and they are arresting people on outstanding warrants. And yes, they like the money it brings in too...

All of this is a violation of the intent of the 4th Amendment. But like someone said, the Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints are ok, as long as it's "for the children".

For the OP, will the ACLU help you?
 
Thanks tones for the links. This write up by Burnie I believe is spot on.

The writer hosts "The Burnie Thompson Show" on Talk Radio 101.1 FM weekdays from 6-9 a.m.
E-mail him at [email protected].
By Burnie Thompson

Twice recently the Florida Highway Patrol asked me to show my driver license. Well, they didn't exactly ask me. They seized me.
Not just me - they're setting up roadblocks all over Florida and demanding you show your papers.

They call them driver license and vehicle inspection checkpoints. They say it keeps us safer. It's for our own good.

Here's how it went Aug. 2 on Lisenby Avenue near Grace Presbyterian Church at 3:30 p.m. I'm on my way to get groceries when a trooper standing in the road directs me to stop and tells me to show my license.

Sure, I say, but first I ask if he's familiar with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. He looks perplexed. I tell him it protects us from unreasonable seizures of our persons. He tells me I haven't been seized.

Really? I ask, "If I prefer not to show my driver license, am I free to go?"

His demeanor changes. He's no longer waving at children in the backseat as he did to the car ahead of me. Instead, he says, "Absolutely not. You will relinquish your driver license right now!"

He's clearly ticked.

I hand him my license. He walks to the front of my car and tells me to honk my horn. He says, "I know my rights very well."

I reply, "It's not yours I'm talking about; it's ours."

He walks to the back of my car and eyes my license plate. When he returns he slaps my driver license on my car door for me to pick up, and says, "Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right."

Actually, that's up for debate. After we've demonstrated our competence to drive, we've earned a state-granted right, which can't be revoked unless we do something wrong. A privilege can be given or taken on a whim.
After a couple minutes, I was a free man again. But why was I seized in the first place?

Just governments exist to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty and property so we can pursue happiness.
If our Creator grants us freedom - as our Declaration of Independence insists - then nobody has
the just power to make us unfree even for a few moments. Troopers who take an oath to support
and defend the Constitution should protect and serve within constitutional guidelines.

It's always wrong to begin a dialogue with someone who has done nothing wrong by initiating force
against them. And let's be honest: Preventing people from making their way around public roads
they supposedly own is an initiation of force.

The Fourth Amendment protects our right from unreasonable searches and seizures; it specifically
requires "probable cause."
Think about it: If seizing us for doing nothing wrong (no probable cause) is reasonable, what would
be an unreasonable seizure?

The FHP says it can "temporarily detain" us in order to keep the roads safer. They say there are
nearly 8,000 out of almost 153,000 drivers in Bay County with suspended or revoked driver
licenses. Why do the irresponsible 5 percent justify creating a police state for the rest of us?

The FHP claims it has state statute and case law on its side. But since when did lawmakers in
Tallahassee and Florida judges supersede the U.S. Constitution?

Ben Franklin warned that those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve
neither. I argue those who make that trade will end up with neither.
I wonder how much safer we would be if those three highway patrolmen standing around Lisenby
Avenue were out catching red-light runners and reckless drivers rather than detaining people for
no probable cause.

The trooper was angry that I questioned his authority. He was close to showing me who was boss. I
may have been moments away from being arrested for failure to exhibit my license even though I
showed it to him within a few seconds.

I was presumed guilty until I proved my innocence.

Many argue it's a minor inconvenience for the public good. But doesn't the Constitution already
settle the matter? Perhaps government is conditioning us to be good subjects rather than
empowered citizens.
If you find yourself ensnared in an FHP roadblock, you can show your papers without question
and the trooper might smile and wave at your children. Or you can read him the Fourth
Amendment as I did before relinquishing your license.

Even troopers need to be reminded of our
liberty and the supreme law of the land.
 
That took guts, but I'm a little up in the air about this...no offense, but by your comments on "miranda rights" you sort of show you don't have a full understanding of criminal procedure.

I don't know if it's a great idea to risk your liberty to prove a point when you don't fully understand your point. None the less, gutsy.

Reading Miranda rights are simply a way to assure that a statement will be allowed at trial and nothing more. You don't have some sort of "right" to have them read to you, beyond the fact that they can't use your statements at trial if they don't.
 
Back
Top