No refusal DUI Roadblocks

Discussion of this practice should not end with the passing of the weekend. Apart from what I see as an egregious violation of rights, what a horrible waste of public resources. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-03-12/no-re...

Forums (1):Discussion Forum

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Penteller wrote on March 22, 2011 at 4:03 pm

If you believe these things,

If you believe these things, then you should be utterly outraged and calling your local law enforcement and judiciary, because all of this is currently outlawed under our constitution and tort laws. Yet they ignore those laws and through the ambivalence of the population, expand their practices in violation of those laws.

If you resist in any of these roadblocks by questioning the legitimacy of your stop, you will be pulled and probably arrested. If you record in any manner your stop, or any one else’s encounter with our ENFORCMENT officials, you will be fined at the least but more probably arrested, after they have confiscated your recording device.

In short, our liberties are under assault, our laws are being ignored or marginalized as ENFORCEMENT becomes ever stronger in controlling our lives. Probable cause is no longer relevant when you drive as driving has become a “privilege” endowed by the state and therefore a lesser right in the eyes of those who ENFORCE their will upon us.

But it’s all a matter of training, teaching the good citizens that they have nothing to fear as long as they do as their told and take the mandatory shots being provided.

Meanwhile the population, especially our young, are being programmed to accept this New World Order through a mass media which coordinates the message. With the current high priestess initiating untold millions by arriving at the Grammy’s in the egg that Ra (Egyptian Sun God) arrived in.

It was a world wide introduction to the newest hypnotic programming that takes us into a world where the hypnotized do not lie. Produced by those who practice the fine art of Monarch programming and are devout Lucifer worshipers.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/lady-gagas-born-this-way-the-il...

Heil

Penteller wrote on March 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm

Thechampaignlife From an

Thechampaignlife

From an earlier post the warning sirens went off for me big time and is the primary reason why today, our ENFORCEMENT community enjoys such a wide berth in limiting American freedoms.

I’m assuming you’re an upright, tax paying, productive citizen who has enjoyed the America life that countless others have laid down theirs for us to enjoy. One of the primary tenants of those sacrifices was that as citizens, we could go about our daily life without being stopped and questioned by our ENFORCEMENT systems.

That tenant and tort law was called “probable cause”, which stated that unless ENFORCEMENT had direct knowledge of you committing a crime, they could not snoop, peek, intercept, stop or detain you in any fashion.

And here we see, you, an American citizen who I’m sure (and rightly so) proudly claims the freedoms and liberty entitled to us through our Constitution, subversively endorsing the powers of a police state. Finding no problem in letting ENFORCEMENT stop us at will to question us, thus belittling those deaths of previous hero’s who died in opposing such practices.

Can we also assume that you believe in the latest legal developments, wherein you can be arrested at one of those stops for making an audio or video recording of your encounter? Or, that you can be fined and imprisoned for filming police at work, in public places and on public streets? If you support being stopped and interrogated in your travels, are not the public’s scrutiny of ENFORCEMENT off limits as well?

These things have already had massive sociological affects. For years our towns and cities have been alive and thriving centers of Friday and Saturday night activities. Today as soon as the stores close, our communities are barren, deserted places, because few wish to endure the faux curfew imposed by outlying roadblocks. Road blocks manned by both our ENFORCEMENT and now the quota’s based judiciary who are suppose to be separate, but are now nose deep in the death stench of our decaying liberty.

Of course today’s young people think nothing of it.

Standing in line at a local McD’s at 12:30 last night the conversation among the high school and junior collage aged young people, were of the road blocks they had just got through, the alcohol they had consume and the alcohol they were yet to consume.

No question of the police state they just danced through, because it’s all around them every day, just jocularity in how they were still getting away with the crimes they were committing. Personally I can’t wait to see how all this turns out when they become adults and expand their practices in all things, how about you?

As for your last post what you said is quite true, although we should be able to make investments through any kind of financial vehicles with an assurance that some sort of oversight is in place to reduce fraud. And therein lay the most obvious discrepancy in today’s ever widening gap between a population growing poorer and the oligarchy growing stronger.

So much of the corporate world, especially the financial world, can pillage and plunder with complete immunity. The unplugging of many financial oversight organizations and the corpocracial belief that all business is good and does not require a watchdog, led to the housing bubble and subsequent tax payer indebtedness for those crimes.

A financial industry that at the height of the collapse, as millions were loosing their homes and we were dumping billions into “their” system, they were giving themselves the highest bonus’s ever recorded in banking history.

It was a ponzi scheme of unprecedented proportions that we will be paying for generations yet to come. And did anyone at the highest levels loose their jobs or go to jail? Of course not, because punishments and incarcerations are left for those of no financial means, just ask Bernie Madoff.

Today’s regressive have screamed so long and so much about Governmental involvement that much of our safety net has been reduced, so that massive disasters are almost guaranteed. Yet at the same time they ignore and in many cases promote the increase in ENFORCEMENT of the common man, but like the biblical passage goes, “they know not what they do”.

And what does all of this have to do with ENFORCEMENT road blocks and mandatory blood work?

It’s simple, to make the public believe that they are being protected, you make them feel the pain of ENFORCEMENT’s strong arm. It’s a classic mind control tactic, so that when the oligarchy does commit a crime the peasants believe it must have been an institutional weakness, because if ENFORCEMENT is so strong on us, then they must be strong on them. Right?

Once again it all comes back to the master plan, wherein the small number of those who control, do as they please in reaping the rewards of a world wide industrialized machine. Meanwhile, those who toil in its bowls are mere disposable pawns to be held accountable for others debt, as they are watched, confined and are being taught to herd through road blocks for future use.

thechampaignlife wrote on March 21, 2011 at 9:03 am

I'm not saying that I think

I'm not saying that I think these roadblocks should be allowed. In fact, in my first post in this thread I said I take the most issue with the roadblock itself. What I was saying in my other posts was that, though I don't agree with the roadblocks in their effectiveness or in following the spirit of civil liberties, I don't think they're unconstitutional for the reasons I explained above. That just means we need a law or constitutional amendment which protects us from these acts. And I certainly don't think recording of police activity in a public setting is illegal. That I do find protected by the first amendment as a form of speech and citizen journalism.

Penteller wrote on March 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Amerika – land of the police

Amerika – land of the police state.

Stop and think about this for a moment and tell me what our founding fathers would think about what is done to us today.

You cannot live without the mark upon your head and hand. We even have to serialize our children before getting a tax credit on them. You cannot have any kind of financial services without your SS number that you can recite off your head, and/or hand them in person.

Any transaction over $10,000 requires a special federal form stating how the money was spent. And all transactions of even smaller amounts have to be maintained for years by your bank for future reference by the Feds.

Our emails and phones are regularly filtered for specific words of interest. Law Enforcement can tap, peek, intercept without warrant. While anyone who is “a threat to the government” falls under the PATRIOT Act and can be detained and questioned without due process.

Law Enforcement is given complete powers to put up roadblocks that everyone passing that way must go through. Once stopped you will be asked questions about your life as to where and what you've been doing. If any verbal protest is offered you will immediately become a person of “interest” and an escalation of compliance will occur.

To help expedite the ENFORCEMENT process at the roadblock, prosecutors and a judge are there to ensure swift justice, should you question your right as a free citizen, to be left alone until they have probable cause in their interference with your travels.

At airports you have the choice for you and your family to be irradiate with radiation that shows you, your wife and kids nude, as men look at the images. Or if you don’t want your DNA shredded by the nudie radiation machines, you can choose to have you, your wife and kids fondled by a complete stranger.

These Gestapo tactics are now taking to the rails with the TSA using portable scanning systems to randomly be used at rail stations, where armed personnel using swat tactical perimeters, now interrogate any and all traveling through that location.

Law enforcement can no longer be monitored by the citizenry as much of their communications is secured digital transmissions. There are no citizen reviews of law enforcement and therefore no real oversight into the daily operations of our armed civilian force.

Today our children are programmed from an early age to conform in school with zero tolerance for any behavior outside the norm. Uniformed officers regularly go to schools to indoctrinate children and may walk the halls to ensure compliance. It is a world where children are programmed to obey or be subject to adult arrest, detention and punishments. To say nothing of the widespread practices of drugging our children to make them more easily managed.

It is a generation that now thinks nothing of submitting to any authoritarian demand. See nothing wrong in the government knowing about everything you do and who you do it with. Who see no dangers in saying or texting anything to anyone, as they have been programmed to believe that all government enforcement good all who question such things are bad.

DUI trends have remained steady and in some areas actually risen over the last several years, even though ENFORCEMENT practices have become increasingly more draconian. Proving once more that you cannot legislate morality and that kicking in doors always looks good on the evening news for the hypnotized population.

So with all of this said, will someone please tell me how all of this helps our people become a more loving, caring and socially constructive society?

thechampaignlife wrote on March 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm

I agree that we're

I agree that we're over-legislated and over-enforced. You can't hardly do anything without violating some obscure law and it's only at someone's whim to enforce that law. We get so tied up catching every last bad guy and fixing every last problem so that it will "never happen again" that we end up as sheltered drones who can't think for themselves. Why bother reading the mortgage document when I can simply make the government protect me so I don't have to? Why bother researching my investments to ensure I don't buy shares of some shell company when the government will protect me so I don't have to?

Alas, I think we do it to ourselves, though. In our quest for quick transportation, quick communications, and other modern conveniences, we've lost sight of the simple things in life.

buzorro wrote on March 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm

I and millions of others are

I and millions of others are in complete agreement with you. However, it wouldn't matter if 99% agreed, the Supreme Court has ruled that those practices are Constitutional. Ain't Amerika great?

thechampaignlife wrote on March 15, 2011 at 1:03 pm

Do you take issue with the

Do you take issue with the roadblock itself, officer discretion in identifying drivers to conduct passive testing (walking a straight line, etc), the passive testing itself, the capability to impose active testing (bloodwork/breathalyzer) upon a failed passive test, the active testing itself, and/or the presence of the judiciary to expedite their review?

I'm asking out of curiosity at potential alternatives to this method which could still help reduce DUI fatalities (assuming roadblocks actually are effective but I suppose research discounting that would be good to know too).

Personally, I'd take the most issue with the roadblock itself and don't find much trouble with the rest. However, I can't say that it's overly invasive or onerous (or necessarily illegal/unconstitutional), just inconvenient. Then again I've never been stopped by one unless you count customs checkpoints from international travel. I have to say I was more worried about getting back into the U.S. than getting into another country - our Customs agents strike much more fear in my heart and I'm not even sure they try to!

eddie z wrote on March 15, 2011 at 2:03 pm

Good reply Champaign. I take

Good reply Champaign. I take issue with all of your mentioned points, as I see these no denial stops as nothing more than legalized entrapment (felony obstruction of justice?...get real), and a huge waste of resources...however as buzz points out, it does not make one bit of difference cause the Supreme says so...which is disturbing in itself, as the justices have become more and more just rubber stamp tow the line pols for whatever party nominated them. America...Land of the Free...unless stopped at a no denial!

thechampaignlife wrote on March 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Entrapment means that you

Entrapment means that you were forced to commit a crime so I don't think that applies here. A sober person simply pulls up, talks to an officer for a couple seconds, and drives off. The stronger checks only occur if the officer detects slurred speech, smells alcohol, etc. At least that's how I read this.

It is quite likely a waste of resources to staff a single location with at least a couple cops, prosecutor, judge, and signage when those cops could be on the move looking for violators that don't happen to drive along that route but it would be helpful to have data to back that up. I wonder if a study has ever been conducted on the effectiveness of these.

Regardless of the Supreme Court's interpretation, something can be done legislatively or constitutionally to stop them so I don't think it's a moot point to discuss alternatives. Heck, a well-reasoned alternative with sound data might even get the cops to drop this tactic without any legislative or judicial changes needed.

buzorro wrote on March 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Although I've never felt the

Although I've never felt the need to, a friend long ago said that he had a sure-fire way of not being charged with a DUI. He said to always carry a small bottle of unopened liquor in your car. If you've had a few drinks at a bar or a party and get pulled over for any reason on the way home, simply grab the bottle of liquor, immediately get out of the car, and drink all of it in full view of the police officer and squad car camera. His theory being that there would be no way to prove in a court of law that you weren't sober while driving.

Anywhooo... Put me down as a vote against DUI checks, both in principal and in practice. Stopping everyone strictly on the hope of arresting a drunk driver violates the 4th Amendment, clearly and unconditionally.

thechampaignlife wrote on March 15, 2011 at 5:03 pm

An even more sure-fire way to

An even more sure-fire way to not get charged with a DUI is to not drink or to drink in small enough quantities over enough time prior to driving as to not even approach the limit. Honestly, that sounds like far less work and safer than keeping the car stocked with alcohol (probably quite skunky in triple digit temps), executing this plan flawlessly, and potentially actually driving while impaired while feeling unstoppable by the police and end up hurting someone.

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches but I don't think this constitutes a search, constitutionally. They stop you without cause but that's not a search (maybe it violates some other law but not this one). They ask you for your license, insurance, and registration but those can be demanded at any point to verify your privilege to drive so it's again not a constitutional search. Assuming those look okay and you don't sound or smell drunk (not a prohibited search, they can only go off what is in plain sight/smell), you're on your way. If you sound or smell drunk, they have probable cause to request a search warrant in order to scientifically determine if the driver is impaired. The fact that the person is not detained while a cop rushes to a judge's house at 3am to get the warrant doesn't change things. It may give the impression of a potential conflict of interest and would generally be best avoided but it isn't proof of a conflict nor is it specifically prohibited under current law.

Again, I'm not saying I support these from a personal liberty or effectiveness standpoint. I just don't think they violate the constitution. But laws are meant to change so if we want these actions stopped, we can do so with enough willpower. Heck, you could even change it at the state, county, or local level and it doesn't have to be a national thing at least to start with. Personally, I've got bigger fish to fry but I'm open to support it if data shows it doesn't work or if they are used more draconianly than I see happening here.