It's not illegal and they're not pulling one person over. They're stopping and checking everyone on a public road, not in their private residence.

 

To pull one person over on a traffic stop an officer needs PC.

 

They do not stop every car at a checkpoint.

 

They do not stop every car at a checkpoint.

 

How do you know this? You haven't been stopped at any, right?

I was stopped a year ago at a checkpoint, and had to wait as every car was stopped. KSP did it and each and every car was stopped.

 

Took a little longer actually because there was one who was being tucked away in a cruiser. Have to assume he was drunk. I have no evidence of that other than he got a free trip in the back of the cruiser.

Just wondered if you were a man of conviction or all talk.

 

 

How does my answer show either?

 

A. I skip the checkpoint.

B. I go through the checkpoint.

 

So what changes? It's still a stop for something without cause WHICH IS MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

It's not illegal and they're not pulling one person over. They're stopping and checking everyone on a public road, not in their private residence.

 

To pull one person over on a traffic stop an officer needs PC.

 

HB, I'm not sure if you understand "with cause."

"It's worth pulling people over without cause or entering their house without cause because stopping (fill in the blank) is good for society , our kids, and our neighborhoods."

 

For those that are cool with checkpoints tell me which felony crime you would NOT put in the statement above and then tell me why it's not to the level of drunk driving.

 

Just wondered if you were a man of conviction or all talk.

 

Your serve, my friend.

Certain rules have been given by the courts such as announcing there will be a check point. I agree that's stupid, but that's the rules in place. Also, there must be some kind of method in place, IE, check every car or every 3rd car. That's in place to eliminate the profiling angle from defense attorneys I would presume.

 

Also, there is nothing illegal about officers going and knocking on a house they suspect or have been tipped off that illegal activity is going on. If they see some paraphernalia or smell something, they can attempt to get a search warrant. If the judge feels like they've done everything correct, then a warrant is given.

 

I think we've gotten off topic in this thread.

 

Your serve, my friend.

 

I'll go with your refuse to answer reply.

Immaterial. Checkpoints are legal. They can't legally search your car without probable cause.

Certain rules have been given by the courts such as announcing there will be a check point. I agree that's stupid, but that's the rules in place. Also, there must be some kind of method in place, IE, check every car or every 3rd car. That's in place to eliminate the profiling angle from defense attorneys I would presume.

 

Also, there is nothing illegal about officers going and knocking on a house they suspect or have been tipped off that illegal activity is going on. If they see some paraphernalia or smell something, they can attempt to get a search warrant. If the judge feels like they've done everything correct, then a warrant is given.

 

I think we've gotten off topic in this thread.

 

I haven't once given an example where there was any reason where there is cause or reasonable suspicion. I'm talking pure random stopping with no cause ie checkpoint.

I'll go with your refuse to answer reply.

Immaterial. Checkpoints are legal. They can't legally search your car without probable cause.

 

 

If that's what it's going to take to get you to show that it's inconsistent and illogical I'll play.

 

I haven never once gone out of my way to avoid a checkpoint. Not sure what that proves but...

 

Your serve.

I'll go with your refuse to answer reply.

Immaterial. Checkpoints are legal. They can't legally search your car without probable cause.

 

And if we're playing "get over it - it's legal" then I never ever want to hear you weighing in on abortion.

 

If that's what it's going to take to get you to show that it's inconsistent and illogical I'll play.

 

I haven never once gone out of my way to avoid a checkpoint. Not sure what that proves but...

 

Your serve.

 

It proves that you would submit to a checkpoint which you are obviously vehemently against.

I would not submit to the police searching my house without a warrant which you say is the same. And I'm willing to be you wouldn't either.

 

And if we're playing "get over it - it's legal" then I never ever want to hear you weighing in on abortion.

 

Never said you couldn't weight in on it, but you continue to compare apples to oranges.

It proves that you would submit to a checkpoint which you are obviously vehemently against.

I would not submit to the police searching my house without a warrant which you say is the same.

 

 

You've completely missed the argument or you're being obstinate.

 

 

Let's say the SCOTUS uses the same logic for stopping black males on the street (public - not private since that seems to be important) as they did for checkpoints ie yeah, it's against the 4th amendment but , hey, we're trying to get drunk drivers off the road."

 

Let's say a case comes before them regarding stopping black guys on the sidewalk and frisking them for crack cocaine and they say "sure it's a violation of the Constitution but , hey, most arrests from crack cocaine selling is for black males so..."

 

You're cool with that just because the SCOTUS said so?

 

You've completely missed the argument or you're being obstinate.

 

Let's say the SCOTUS uses the same logic for stopping black males on the street (public - not private since that seems to be important) as they did for checkpoints ie yeah, it's against the 4th amendment but , hey, we're trying to get drunk drivers off the road."

 

Let's say a case comes before them regarding stopping black guys on the sidewalk and frisking them for crack cocaine and they say "sure it's a violation of the Constitution but , hey, most arrests from crack cocaine selling is for black males so..."

 

You're cool with that just because the SCOTUS said so?

 

 

I believe you're missing the point, and the facts. They can't legally search your car during a routine checkpoint. Why is that so hard to understand?