Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FBplmmr on January 22, 2008, 05:30:32 PM
-
Today in Charlotte county FL a Drivers license checkpoint was held at 4pm on a local road.
I found no link on the local news website although it was advertised on the news this morning and featured tonight on the news.
How do you feel about a 'drivers license checkpoint'?
My first thought is 'Is that legal?'
A friend pointed out 'It's for your protection.'
I suppose it is, but a camera in my home linked to the PD would also insure I was not becoming the victim of a home invasion, again for my protection, but I am sure I don't want that.
-
are they rounding up illegals?
-
If the illegals 'are just here to work' shouldn't they then go to the jobsites?
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
A friend pointed out 'It's for your protection.'
Next time you see him ask him this question for me.
"Protection from exactly what?"
I can get killed just as easily by an unlicenced driver as I can from a licenced one.
If the police worried as much about the people going 90 MPH in a 55 and 20 MPH in a 60 as they do about checking licences or if your wearing a seatbelt at roadside extortion...errr I mean check points.
Everyone would be alot more protected.
-
privilege, not a right?
-
no probable cause to stop cars, the check point is not legal, but they do lots of illegal things and the SC backs them up. For your "protection".
It's really a revenue producing thing and it gives the cops something to do so they don't get bored.
-
Free/............. were not free in the US anymore.....and what we do/did have is fading quick!:noid
-
Originally posted by Russian
privilege, not a right?
That's a good point, but I don't have right to own a home or rent an apartment.
Should they be able to knock on my door to just 'check around"?
-
"Your papers, please."
Regards,
Sun
-
I don't remember reading in the constitution...."right to drive a car"
What they are checking for....as it seams...is to make sure there are liscense drivers on the road.
If you are driving a car without one you are in violation of the law. If you wish to travel "without papers" you may walk to and from your desitination.
If they are busting liscense drivers for other things than I find it highly disturbing. However, if they find a car with a non-liscense driver in it and decide to search and find drugs well then that's up for the courts to decide.
point being you need a liscense to drive a car in the US.
With out a link this is all a guess.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't remember reading in the constitution...."right to drive a car"
What they are checking for....as it seams...is to make sure there are liscense drivers on the road.
4th amendent.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
-
Could be searching for escaped convicts.
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
"Your papers, please."
Regards,
Sun
Exactly what my first thought was....:furious
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't remember reading in the constitution...."right to drive a car"
What they are checking for....as it seams...is to make sure there are liscense drivers on the road.
If you are driving a car without one you are in violation of the law. If you wish to travel "without papers" you may walk to and from your desitination.
If they are busting liscense drivers for other things than I find it highly disturbing. However, if they find a car with a non-liscense driver in it and decide to search and find drugs well then that's up for the courts to decide.
point being you need a liscense to drive a car in the US.
With out a link this is all a guess.
Actually, it is in there. The constitution gives the right of the government to check commerce. Provided you are not doing business with or out of your car, they have no right to tell you what you can do with it.
-
If ya haven't a license, then you have no insurance---prolly 1/3 of ALL the salamanders driving around in FLA have no insurance (and many of them cannot speak English).
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
"Your papers, please."
Regards,
Sun
Bingo
Texas outlawed "license checkpoints" while Ann Richards was in office.:aok
-
BJ great point!................but thats not what there looking for.........
-
Originally posted by bj229r
If ya haven't a license, then you have no insurance---prolly 1/3 of ALL the salamanders driving around in FLA have no insurance (and many of them cannot speak English).
In FL you need to register your vehicle to get a 'tag', to register you need proof of insurance.
In theory if you have legal tag on your vehicle you have insurance.
Tallahassee gets a letter/notice if your insurance expires and you are required to turn in your 'tag'.
As a side note you are not allowed to have an un registered vehicle on our property. I also disagree with the legality of that, if I own a vehicle I should be able to have it in my garage or driveway 'tagged' or not..it's my vehicle and my property. (this may be a local ordinance)
btw
I own one car and it is 'tagged' and legal.
-
I think they should do the same for those driving without insurance as well. Non-licensed drivers are the same threat factor as uninsured drivers.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't remember reading in the constitution...."right to drive a car"
What they are checking for....as it seams...is to make sure there are liscense drivers on the road.
If you are driving a car without one you are in violation of the law. If you wish to travel "without papers" you may walk to and from your desitination.
If they are busting liscense drivers for other things than I find it highly disturbing. However, if they find a car with a non-liscense driver in it and decide to search and find drugs well then that's up for the courts to decide.
point being you need a liscense to drive a car in the US.
With out a link this is all a guess.
I was actually under the same impression untill I started arguing that exact point with Laz.
then I went to look up info to back my arguement and found that more and more court cases nation wide are finding that driving is indeed not a priviledge but a right.
I dont feel like looking it all up again but it had something to do with the right to travel the highways I beleive. Or something to that effect.
While I agree that driving without a licence is against the law I disagree with the roadside checks. As there 99% of the time is no probable cause.
If someone is stopped due to a violation, or due to some legitimate probable cause and it is found the driver has no licence. Or is carrying drugs, or whatever other illegal thing. then by ll means. Turn the thumbscrews.
But if there is no cause to stop and check then there is no probable cause
And lets face it
Stopping someone who is otherwise doing nothing wrong and demanding to see their licence just to be sure they have one consitutes a "search" And an unreasonable one at that other then just to check.
As there is no "probable" reason to do so.
Main Entry: 1prob·a·ble
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'prä-b&-b&l, 'prä(b)-b&l
Etymology: Middle English, provable, from Middle French, from Latin probabilis commendable, probable, from probare to test, approve, prove -- more at PROVE
1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof
Main Entry: 2probable
Function: noun
: one that is probable
And the all important
Main Entry: probable cause
Function: noun
: a reasonable ground for supposing that a charge is well-founded
To stop people to check for licences. One would have to have "a reasonable ground for supposing that a charge is well-founded"
If a driver is doing nothing wrong. Then there is no reasonable ground nor is one well founded for supposing a charge.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Non-licensed drivers are the same threat factor as uninsured drivers.
you are assuming that licensed drivers are skilled enough that they will not run into you, but if they do they will have insurance to fix your car.
having a drivers license has nothing to do with driving skill, it's just another tax and a way to control the people.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you are assuming that licensed drivers are skilled enough that they will not run into you, but if they do they will have insurance to fix your car.
having a drivers license has nothing to do with driving skill, it's just another tax and a way to control the people.
It certainly does not have anything to do with driving skill, but AT LEAST they are required to take some sort of written and physical test to get one. That's better than learning via accidents IMO.
Besides, there is a reason they suspend drivers license. Enforcing it (via check point) is good IMO.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I was actually unbder the same impression untill I started arguing that exact point with Laz.
then I went to look up info to back my arguement and found that more and more court cases nation wide are finding that driving is indeed not a priviledge but a right.
I dont feel like looking it all up again but it had something to do with the right to travel the highways I beleive. Or something to that effect.
It has to do with the part where the powers of the Legislatures and Federal Governments are set out. It says that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Constitutionalists and fans of the Bill of Rights realize that this means that they do NOT have the right to regulate non commercial travel.
Basically, if you're not doing business with your car, (not traveling to your business) then the government has no right to tell you what you can or can't do with it.
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
In FL you need to register your vehicle to get a 'tag', to register you need proof of insurance.
In theory if you have legal tag on your vehicle you have insurance.
Tallahassee gets a letter/notice if your insurance expires and you are required to turn in your 'tag'.
As a side note you are not allowed to have an un registered vehicle on our property. I also disagree with the legality of that, if I own a vehicle I should be able to have it in my garage or driveway 'tagged' or not..it's my vehicle and my property. (this may be a local ordinance)
btw
I own one car and it is 'tagged' and legal.
I lived in Tampa for 20 years, and a goodly % of the cars there (more so near the hood) had their tag (FLA only requires tag on back) LAYING in the rear window deck, or mebbe a piece of cardboard where tag was supposed to be with some number written in sharpie, along with 'lost tag' written underneath....many others had 90 day temp tags that were so squealing wore out that the ink was gone, and even many of THEM were also laying under back window (the TINTED, back window) Maybe is a big-city thing, the kind of stuff they tolerate. (In hood, homeys actually sat in LOUNGE CHAIRS on street corner holding up crack baggies for sale) You also could actually get a 30-day insurance policy (I left in '95, maybe this is gone) which would allow you to get a tag. Stolen cars could be driven at will for WEEKS in the hood and cops would never notice--This tells me that verifying insurance info prolly isnt being done, although the info is available to them if they want it
I move to Roanoke, can't get to 7/11 and back with bad tail-light without getting pulled over.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Besides, there is a reason they suspend drivers license. Enforcing it (via check point) is good IMO.
i can see setting up checkstops down the street from bars during holidays...
randomly stopping people to see if they have a license...hard to justify.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It certainly does not have anything to do with driving skill, but AT LEAST they are required to take some sort of written and physical test to get one. That's better than learning via accidents IMO.
Germany is a country that takes its driving very seriously. This is understandable when you realize that a German driver’s license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and such a license is good for life.
now that is a drivers license. The USA should have a license like that, then maybe there would not be 42000 auto deaths per year in the US.
Side note, alcohol "related" deaths are 16000, the rest are caused by sober drivers.
-
Wow I wish the 2nd A was this easy and civil to discuss. Very good and thought provoking thread so far. Thank you guys.........:aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
Germany is a country that takes its driving very seriously. This is understandable when you realize that a German driver’s license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and such a license is good for life.
now that is a drivers license. The USA should have a license like that, then maybe there would not be 42000 auto deaths per year in the US.
Side note, alcohol "related" deaths are 16000, the rest are caused by sober drivers.
Wow, 16,000 deaths a year by alcohol. The number is very similare by firearm. This is too weird of a corolairy to think about...licensing and such due to fatalities by operation of an inanimate object. Starting to see where licensing gets its mues for nonauto inanimate objects........hmmmm
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It certainly does not have anything to do with driving skill, but AT LEAST they are required to take some sort of written and physical test to get one. That's better than learning via accidents IMO.
Besides, there is a reason they suspend drivers license. Enforcing it (via check point) is good IMO.
Think back ot the last driving test you saw.
Think about it. Any 7 year old kid who has ever driven a go cart can pass most driving tests..
The most difficult part on most driving tests is parallel parking :eek:
-
thats 16000 alcohol "related" deaths, if a sober driver hits and kills a drunk pedestrian it is alcohol "related", if alcohol was in any way involved in the accident it is reported as alcohol "related", along with things like time of day, road conditions, wet, dry, snow, ice, etc.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Besides, there is a reason they suspend drivers license. Enforcing it (via check point) is good IMO.
whats that phrase again?
"he who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security...."
Enforce it when you catch someone doing something wrong. then throw the book at em for all I care.
Just dont set up these checkpoints which really amounts to the states and townships sending armed gunmen out on the road to stop everyone one by one to try and find something wrong even if you were doing nothing wrong so they can demand your money.
I have all the respect for cops in the world.
Checkpoints is thew one duty they pull I have no respect for whatsoever.
But Im sure most cept the militant types would rather be off doing their regular routine.so I cant really blame the cops. Its the people who give the cops their orders to do this that need to be condemned
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i can see setting up checkstops down the street from bars during holidays...
Now in THAT instance. Probable cause can be reasonably argued.
Particularly if they are monitoring the traffic comming out of the bar.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It certainly does not have anything to do with driving skill, but AT LEAST they are required to take some sort of written and physical test to get one. That's better than learning via accidents IMO.
Besides, there is a reason they suspend drivers license. Enforcing it (via check point) is good IMO.
Then you would have no problem with a random search of your home just to make sure you have a copy of your paid property tax reciept.
-
In addition to the many fine points already made above, I would like to add that this would appear to be an example of presuming guilt and requiring proof of innocence. If I have not driven illegaly, then I should be accorded treatment due my law abiding status. If police investigators picked random citizens and secretly investigated them "just to be safe", going through garbage and interviewing neighbors and tapping phones, we would presumably be outraged.
How does a random checkpoint differ?
-
I do have a right to own a gun.
Should the police be able to enter my home to see if I have any unregistered or illegal guns?
Alot of households probably do [have unregistered or illegal guns], better just pick an area and check all of the houses?
What will it be like in 20 years? fifty?
Will my grandkids even know what freedom is?/was?
:(
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
In addition to the many fine points already made above, I would like to add that this would appear to be an example of presuming guilt and requiring proof of innocence. If I have not driven illegaly, then I should be accorded treatment due my law abiding status. If police investigators picked random citizens and secretly investigated them "just to be safe", going through garbage and interviewing neighbors and tapping phones, we would presumably be outraged.
How does a random checkpoint differ?
it does not.
but then, how do you feel about sobriety checkpoints?
-
all checkpoints come up against the same thing, probable cause.
what probable cause do they have to stop and check you? Just the fact you are driving a car? Is driving a car now probable cause to stop you?
when i was a kid i would watch old black and white movies about Germany during WW2 and the gestapo would randomly stop people to "check their papers". I thought "I'm really glad i live in America where this does not happen"
land of the free and home of the brave are just words to a song that no one sings now.
-
I think the courts have looked at sobriety checkpoints and decided that it enhances public safety and therefore is allowed.
Other than that... stopping for license checks, or vehicle safety inspections, etc. are a violation of the 4th Amendment, IMHO.
As for driving being a "right". California considers driving a privilege. AFAIK, the DMV can revoke a license at their discretion, without a court decision, and no appeal. In the cases of DUI, they will revoke a license even before the court date.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think the courts have looked at sobriety checkpoints and decided that it enhances public safety and therefore is allowed.
Other than that... stopping for license checks, or vehicle safety inspections, etc. are a violation of the 4th Amendment, IMHO.
As for driving being a "right". California considers driving a privilege. AFAIK, the DMV can revoke a license at their discretion, without a court decision, and no appeal. In the cases of DUI, they will revoke a license even before the court date.
Just a nitpicking observation but, sobrity checkpoints are legal, but license checkpoints are not. Ok then why arent they just lieing and pulling people over for anytime sobriety checks rather than tipping thier hand about licenses. Once you are pulled over for the sobriety check, isn't refusing to show your license getting cops on youtube video acting like gestopo anyway these days? I think youtube has a whole section showing police at stops acting out our worst fears of badly behaving tyrants.
-
Here In Oz we have:
Random Breath Testing check points
Vehicle registration and road-worthiness check points
Licensing check points
We also have double demerit seasons at the beginning and end of any holiday period. You get a 10 point allowance on your license, and points gained take 2 years to be removed from the date of the offence.
Police used to need probable cause to pull people over, but that rather marginal protection was removed with the advent of portable hand held breath testing devices in the late '80's.
-
If they want to check for drivers licenses, then set up a BAT checkpoint. They automatically then ask, "Drivers license and proof of insurance please." No legality problem there, just a breath alcohol test checkpoint.
-
Originally posted by AGM65
If they want to check for drivers licenses, then set up a BAT checkpoint. They automatically then ask, "Drivers license and proof of insurance please." No legality problem there, just a breath alcohol test checkpoint.
If they set up a sobriety checkpoint down the block frm a bar. then I would have no problem with that.
But setting up sobriety checkpoints just any old place I have a problem with as there still in all likelyhood may be no probable cause.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bingo
Texas outlawed "license checkpoints" while Ann Richards was in office.:aok
At least she got one thing right :aok
-
Ok.. but if they are searching for.. er.. stopping for license check then that is all they should be able to check for.. it the car smells like pot.. if the driver or passengers are not wearing seatbelts.. none of that should be any of their business.
They need a reason and that has to be the only thing they can check for.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bustr
Just a nitpicking observation but, sobrity checkpoints are legal, but license checkpoints are not. Ok then why arent they just lieing and pulling people over for anytime sobriety checks rather than tipping thier hand about licenses. Once you are pulled over for the sobriety check, isn't refusing to show your license getting cops on youtube video acting like gestopo anyway these days? I think youtube has a whole section showing police at stops acting out our worst fears of badly behaving tyrants.
I think the sobriety check negates the need for probable cause.
Doing a license check alone lacks probably cause.
But... I'll defer to Maverick.
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
If the illegals 'are just here to work' shouldn't they then go to the jobsites?
NO! they should go home and fix there country and work there! was the check point in the north or south bound lane?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It certainly does not have anything to do with driving skill, but AT LEAST they are required to take some sort of written and physical test to get one. That's better than learning via accidents IMO.
Besides, there is a reason they suspend drivers license. Enforcing it (via check point) is good IMO.
I would contend that most unlicensed drivers are safer drivers than those licensed. If a licensed driver is pulled over for speeding or whatever, they get a ticket. If an unlicensed driver is pulled over (for any offense), they will go to jail. It stands to reason that the unlicensed driver will obey all traffic laws to avoid that eventuality.
-
Originally posted by JB88
are they rounding up illegals?
Originally posted by FBplmmr
If the illegals 'are just here to work' shouldn't they then go to the jobsites?
Originally posted by Bingolong
NO! they should go home and fix there country and work there! was the check point in the north or south bound lane?
Sorry, by 'they' I meant the checkpoint folks. In other words if they are looking to bust illegals, go to the places the illegals are working.
-
OK, here is where the train jumps the tracks....
If sobriety checkpoints are kosher with you guys (in the name of public safety) why not install breathalyzers in every new vehicle? Drunk driving problem solved.
(Sits back and grabs popcorn)
-
:rofl
Oh it's been tried , I think the pollies here toss the idea around every time an election looms. They so far have erred on the side of common sense (imagine that! a politician using common sense!:O ) and decided it would probably cost them more votes that it gets them not, unfortunately, that it would be cost prohibitive to force manufacturers to fit them to new vehicles. That and the problem of the cops not being able to start their cars after lunch...:t
-
Originally posted by rpm
OK, here is where the train jumps the tracks....
If sobriety checkpoints are kosher with you guys (in the name of public safety) why not install breathalyzers in every new vehicle? Drunk driving problem solved.
(Sits back and grabs popcorn)
that would mean more speed traps.
-
Afriend of mine sent me this link.>> http://www.roadblock.org/ (http://www.roadblock.org/)
A typical morning where I hear about a checkpoint involves me ranting and raving for at least a half hour.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I can get killed just as easily by an unlicenced driver as I can from a licenced one.
Yeah who cares about licenses.. Would you ride with an unlicensed pilot?
-
Simple, make a statement....
Drive thru the checkpoint....
When they ask to see your Drivers License, Tell them NO!!!
When they start to get Pizzy with ya...
Ask, What is your reason, aka probable cause???
If they say, "Just Cuz we said so".... Tell em to FO!!!
Hopefully it will end up a, "Don't taze me bro" moment...
Just make sure you have a buddy with a Cell camera handy...
Any decent ambulance chaser would LOVE that!!!!
CHA CHING!!!!! Cops learn best, when ya put a ding in their funding!!!
Ya know, its a real shame when a cop is shot or killed...
And I have to ask... What kind of cop was he????
Because there are some real Arrogant jerks with delusions of granduer
Carrying Badges out there....
That situation seems to be growing worse too
TH
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Yeah who cares about licenses.. Would you ride with an unlicensed pilot?
Have many, many times.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Yeah who cares about licenses.. Would you ride with an unlicensed pilot?
I believe I have though I cannot confirm nor deny any such allegation :p
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Yeah who cares about licenses.. Would you ride with an unlicensed pilot?
get serious, even a private pilots license is much more difficult and expensive to get than a US drivers license.
US drivers license qualifications.
A. knowledge of road signs
B, ability to park a car.