I Just Stood Up for the Constitution

[rockandrollsouls]

You are perfectly within your rights to question the officer. If you felt they stepped beyond their authority, you might want to complain to their department, the state, or anywhere you can and show them the video. It's our duty to keep them in check.

You can fight it in the courtroom if you wish, but you can certainly apply pressure by a complaint to their superiors.

 

[Ex Post Facto]

The officer who stopped me said it was random
Case closed?

Random? They still need to be able to prove it was random when it is challenged. I say you fight this with everything you got. Random is not every vehicle, read the case law in the beginning of the article I quoted. California stops legally, have the most fairly applied regulations that protect liberty vs. public security issues. That's why the location of a DUI checkpoint cannot be on some long stretch of road which prevents you from avoiding it. If any of the requirements aren't met the case gets thrown out, no matter what they find. The problem is nobody hardly challenges them, which allows police to break the laws, sometimes without realizing it. When I say they don't realize it, is because the cops don't understand the law as well as you may think. They go off previously executed designs and make it up as they go.

Talk to the district attorney and state your case that the roadblock was illegal and request proof of compliance of this case law. Chances are it will be too much work, and they'll drop the charges. Do talk with an attorney though. I've beaten many cases just by simply being polite with a DA and showing them a statute and asking for the evidence to be able to defend myself. Like I said, people don't like to actually have to work, if they have the power to just dismiss the action for something petty.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[Chester Copperpot]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

this is the sort of civil disobedience they need to see from the public.. it IS unconstitutional... They need to have this reinforced into their brains.

If I lived there. I would get a couple of friends and make up some signs and picket the checkpoint.

Granted, I understand theyre trying to keep drunks off the road and all, but they need to get this thru their heads.

 

[RideTheDirt]

The problem is that the Supreme Court have declared sobriety checks as Constitutional for the "good of the community". They are legal as long as every car is treated the same way. Based upon the above, you were in the wrong.

This is not to debate the legality of the checks... I am merely stating the Supreme Court has already ruled on this (incorrectly).

The ACLU also would have advised you to open your window just far enough to reach your hand through with your documents. They have a video on what to do when stropped. By not putting down the window you opened yourself up for other charges/actions too... The officer could say, "Because his window was not down I thought he said he said he had a bomb and was going to kill us all - so I broke the glass and tasered him" "Because his window was down I misinterpreted his words to say that he was going to kill me - So I shot him".

Next time put your window down 4 inches... as screaming brings the encounter to a new level and cops (like dogs) once there is screaming the cops instinctively take it to another level.

-dd



-dd

I did roll the window down, after I asked "Why am I being stopped?"
I got the answer "it is a random stop"
Last time I checked, Random is not a mathematical equation, which is need in this case.
I complied, and handed him the id
Then the officer said "you just about got arrested not interering with police"
A second officer then told me to step out
I did
The charge is obstruction/interfering w/ police
When did I interfere or obstruct?
Am I not allowed to ask why I am being stopped?
As soon as I got an answer, I complied.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[Danke]

2. Because of #1 - the police have the right to ask you for identification and you have to comply. Additionally, part of being able to drive is accepting you can be asked for identification and pulled over in road side sobriety checks. Driving is a privilege - not a constitutional right.

People drive without licenses all the time. I know some and one is a retired cop. Freedom of movement (Travel) is a right. Constitution does not grant rights, it is meant to protects them.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[Danke]

(Queue the detractors)

You, like the original poster, have an issue with the interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS. Your example and the original posters issue are issues with SCOTUS rulings.

I agree with all of your points, BUT they are losers in a court room... and you will lose just like every time they have been attempted in court.

Freedom of Movement is a right, but it has been determined that driving is a privilege that requires responsibility. So you have to be a certain age, have the ability to see, not be inebriated, know the laws, and accept all of the aforementioned before receiving a license. No laws prevent you from being a passenger in a car and no laws prevent you from being a passenger that is a convicted felon who is also drunk.

By your logic I should be able to fly a 747 without any training and no one should be able to infringe that right - I am merely looking to move around and my mode of movement is a 747. Additionally, by your logic, I should be able to receive 27 DUI's with 13 associated vehicular homicides and still be able to drive because anything else would be infringing on my freedom of movement.

This will be my first and last post on tangents that do not apply to the original post.

-dd

Driver's Licenses fall under regulation of commerce. If you are not involved in a commercial activity, you don't need to have one.

Funny you brought up 747, you don't need a license to fly. I do this on a weekly basis.

And the courts have ruled travel is a right.

 

[dude58677]

(Queue the detractors)

You, like the original poster, have an issue with the interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS. Your example and the original posters issue are issues with SCOTUS rulings.

I agree with all of your points, BUT they are losers in a court room... and you will lose just like every time they have been attempted in court.

Freedom of Movement is a right, but it has been determined that driving is a privilege that requires responsibility. So you have to be a certain age, have the ability to see, not be inebriated, know the laws, and accept all of the aforementioned before receiving a license. No laws prevent you from being a passenger in a car and no laws prevent you from being a passenger that is a convicted felon who is also drunk.

By your logic I should be able to fly a 747 without any training and no one should be able to infringe that right - I am merely looking to move around and my mode of movement is a 747. Additionally, by your logic, I should be able to receive 27 DUI's with 13 associated vehicular homicides and still be able to drive because anything else would be infringing on my freedom of movement.

This will be my first and last post on tangents that do not apply to the original post.

-dd

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and not the courts. The Supremacy clause states that all public officials have to abide by the Constitution and if not it is perjury and this applies to judicial officers. The local police are to hold the judical branch in check by issuing fines against them for perjury if they rule against the Constitution.

 

[mport1]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

Excellent job. We need more people standing up for their rights or else we will continue to lose our freedoms.

 

[fr33domfightr]

Everytime I've had to go through one of those checkpoints here in California, I've never seen the signs where I could turn off due to the traffic. Typically, the cars back up and its like a traffic jam, which blocks all the signage.

Once, I almost had to deal with one, but the traffic was so backed up, I managed to turn at the previous traffic signal. I didn't know it was a check point though, until I went parallel to the street I was on, and could see the check point signs and the reason for the backup.

Would it considered interference if I stood a few blocks away with a sign that read, "Police Checkpoint Ahead" ??



FF

 

[socialize_me]

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and not the courts. The Supremacy clause states that all public officials have to abide by the Constitution and if not it is perjury and this applies to judicial officers. The local police are to hold the judical branch in check by issuing fines against them for perjury if they rule against the Constitution.

LOL Have you ever heard of Judicial Immunity??? A judge cannot be "fined" by anyone for their decisions. They may be impeached and removed from office, but that is the only way at least on the Federal Level. State judges, it depends on the state since some states have the Missouri System where judges face election cycles. Regardless, judges on any level are removed from office by the Legislative Branch during their tenure if deemed necessary. They aren't removed by the Executive Branch or punished by it. If you were right then that would mean President Bush could threaten the Supreme Court with fines if they don't rule to his liking. Whether their decisions are Constitutional or not, you are saying that choice is to be made up by the police apparently, or the executive branch. So basically President Bush is now the arbitrator of the Constitution. Looks like you're going WAAAY in the fucking wrong direction on this one, bud. I don't know what you've been drinking or smoking, but keep it the hell away from me.

I honestly don't understand where the hell you're getting any of this shit where judges can be fined for their decisions. That would defeat the entire purpose of the judiciary!! If they fear their decisions will result in being fined or imprisoned, then they're subjects to the executive branch! So with your logic, the President has supreme power over judicial decisions and is the Chief Justice's chief justice. This doesn't make any sense!! So if the Courts rule in favor of the Constitution but the Executive Branch doesn't agree with the decision, the Executive Branch can fine those justices just by stating their decision was unconstitutional?? So who exactly is to "check" that executive power?? The Legistature?? Wow now you're rewriting the entire Constitution! Basically by saying judges face punishment if they rule against the Constitution in terms of being fined by one person or branch means you are giving that branch supra-judicial powers.

So the Executive Branch is to determine what is Constitutional and not? They can fine a judge if the Executive Branch determines a decision is unconstitutional regardless of whether it is or isn't?? Nice fucked up world you live in. That's even WORSE than what we have now!! At least a group of 9 unelected individuals can arbitrate Constitutional Law after several appeals. You somehow think one single person on any level of government at the executive department enjoys powers of punishing judicial decisions.

This takes away the entire purpose of having a separate, objective judiciary. Whether or not you agree with their decisions, there's no where in American Common or Statutory law (or even Constitutional Law) that says the Executive Branch can "check" the Judicial Branch by fucking fining it for its decisions. Sorry, but a police officer cannot bully a district court judge by threatening to fine them if they don't throw the defendant in jail, and they could do so (apparently) by saying the Judge's decision was Unconstitutional as determined by the police officers. Supreme Executive Power, anyone?? That's shit you'd see Saudi Arabia.

 

[jonahtrainer]

So every so often, there are DUI checkpoints right at the end of my street. They block off all the other streets, including mine. So I took out my camera phone and recorded the incident.

I was "arrested" and told they only had to read me my rights if they were going to question me. After about 20 minutes, they cited me and let me go. I was cited with "obstruction/ delaying a police officer"

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HYE8IJurA
So will the judge throw this out?

Good job. Be sure to assert your Constitutional Rights during police encounters in an appropriate way though.

 

[mediahasyou]

Research and use their words and laws against them.

 

[Danke]

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and not the courts. The Supremacy clause states that all public officials have to abide by the Constitution and if not it is perjury and this applies to judicial officers. The local police are to hold the judical branch in check by issuing fines against them for perjury if they rule against the Constitution.

LOL Have you ever heard of Judicial Immunity??? A judge cannot be "fined" by anyone for their decisions. They may be impeached and removed from office, but that is the only way at least on the Federal Level. State judges, it depends on the state since some states have the Missouri System where judges face election cycles. Regardless, judges on any level are removed from office by the Legislative Branch during their tenure if deemed necessary. They aren't removed by the Executive Branch or punished by it. If you were right then that would mean President Bush could threaten the Supreme Court with fines if they don't rule to his liking. Whether their decisions are Constitutional or not, you are saying that choice is to be made up by the police apparently, or the executive branch. So basically President Bush is now the arbitrator of the Constitution. Looks like you're going WAAAY in the fucking wrong direction on this one, bud. I don't know what you've been drinking or smoking, but keep it the hell away from me.

I honestly don't understand where the hell you're getting any of this shit where judges can be fined for their decisions. That would defeat the entire purpose of the judiciary!! If they fear their decisions will result in being fined or imprisoned, then they're subjects to the executive branch! So with your logic, the President has supreme power over judicial decisions and is the Chief Justice's chief justice. This doesn't make any sense!! So if the Courts rule in favor of the Constitution but the Executive Branch doesn't agree with the decision, the Executive Branch can fine those justices just by stating their decision was unconstitutional?? So who exactly is to "check" that executive power?? The Legistature?? Wow now you're rewriting the entire Constitution! Basically by saying judges face punishment if they rule against the Constitution in terms of being fined by one person or branch means you are giving that branch supra-judicial powers.

So the Executive Branch is to determine what is Constitutional and not? They can fine a judge if the Executive Branch determines a decision is unconstitutional regardless of whether it is or isn't?? Nice fucked up world you live in. That's even WORSE than what we have now!! At least a group of 9 unelected individuals can arbitrate Constitutional Law after several appeals. You somehow think one single person on any level of government at the executive department enjoys powers of punishing judicial decisions.

This takes away the entire purpose of having a separate, objective judiciary. Whether or not you agree with their decisions, there's no where in American Common or Statutory law (or even Constitutional Law) that says the Executive Branch can "check" the Judicial Branch by fucking fining it for its decisions. Sorry, but a police officer cannot bully a district court judge by threatening to fine them if they don't throw the defendant in jail, and they could do so (apparently) by saying the Judge's decision was Unconstitutional as determined by the police officers. Supreme Executive Power, anyone?? That's shit you'd see Saudi Arabia.

You got all that from his post?

What are you, clairvoyant?

 

[cien750hp]

California has some strange checkpoints. In Colorado, I have experienced two. Both were in the same place, a main road, with many places you could turn off. I don't remember any specific signage telling you you could turn off, though. Once they just narrowed it down to a couple lanes, a little narrower than a normal lane, and looked for people hitting cones. The second time, they came up to the vehicles, asked how much they have had to drink, and let them go. I was a passenger with my dad that time, he said "I had a beer with dinner" and they said "Okay, Have a nice day" so they were obviously looking for people that were very visibly impaired. And never was traffic really backed up. I didn't have an issue with them because they weren't intrusive at all, not even asking for a license.
I haven't seen any of them in the last few years though.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

California has some strange checkpoints. In Colorado, I have experienced two. Both were in the same place, a main road, with many places you could turn off. I don't remember any specific signage telling you you could turn off, though. Once they just narrowed it down to a couple lanes, a little narrower than a normal lane, and looked for people hitting cones. The second time, they came up to the vehicles, asked how much they have had to drink, and let them go. I was a passenger with my dad that time, he said "I had a beer with dinner" and they said "Okay, Have a nice day" so they were obviously looking for people that were very visibly impaired. And never was traffic really backed up. I didn't have an issue with them because they weren't intrusive at all, not even asking for a license.
I haven't seen any of them in the last few years though.

I experienced a similar checkpoint many years ago a mile from my house... It was late at night and i was real tired wanted to go home.. I rolled down the window to talk to the officer and he didnt ask me any questions, just took one look at me, knew i wasnt inebriated and told me to keep going.. almost all the other cars they were pulling off the road into a parking lot doing whatever they were doing.. I lived right in between two popular dance clubs, so i can understand their checkpoint.. but it was just that one time about 9 years ago

 

[socialize_me]

You got all that from his post?

What are you, clairvoyant?

Clearly I had to point out there is such a thing called "judicial immunity", then I had to explain it to him, and then I further explained to him the repercussions of having police simply fine judicial decisions by basically stating their choice was unconstitutional. That's the most bullshit thing I've ever heard and it's a shame people like that actually think they know something and go around shooting off their mouth to others that don't know any better. Clearly, you're one of those persons.