That might be an urban legend, kinda like an undercover policeman has to tell you if he's a cop if you ask him.

 

It may be. Just heard it and wasn't sure so I figured I'd ask the people of BGP. (Although I didn't really ask anything.)

Clyde, keep in mind that there is a difference between probable cause & reasonable suspicion.

 

A police officer only needs "reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over (whether it's a vehicle or a pedestrian). "Reasonable suspicion" is enough to justify a pat down of the outer clothing to check for weapons. It's enough to pull over a motor vehicle. It is NOT enough to obtain a warrant or arrest someone, though.

 

If your goal is to apply a legal theory to DUI checkpoints, perhaps it is clearer to think of the officers as having "reasonable suspicion" that a motor vehicle operator is intoxicated between the hours of 11 p.m. & 2 a.m. The "reasonable suspicion" allows a brief detention of the motor vehicle which minimally invades one's privacy for the greater good (i.e. getting drunk drivers off the road).

 

I don't think a court would ever adopt the concept that police have reasonable suspicion to assume that all motor vehicle operators are under the influence from 11 pm to 2 a.m, which is why it's a difficult issue to understand.

 

The truth of the matter is that DUI checkpoints get drunk drivers off the road (which is a popular concept) and it increases revenue (another popular concept) while momentarily affecting the rights of a very small portion of the population.

 

I admittedly use them interchangeably.

 

A checkpoint has does not meet "reasonable suspicion " any more than being black does.

What a crazy story. What were these cops thinking?

 

Also I watched the video on the link mex posted and it was hard to watch indeed.

Nobody said anything of the like, in any thread. :lol2:

 

No shinola?

Related.

 

Based on this article I would say 'gaining a tactical advantage' is not a right to use a home. From original article:

 

Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house.

 

But this is not on the list of this article about the Boston bomber searches.

 

Boston bomber manhunt: Is the Watertown door-to-door search by police for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev legal? - Slate Magazine

 

 

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

 

The visibility thing remains fuzzy for me. While I thought they could be hidden, I have also heard that they must have a light on (inside or outside) so people know they are there. Who knows though. :idunno:

 

Not true. Police can hide and don't have to have anything letting you know where they are. In KY I mean...

Related.

 

Based on this article I would say 'gaining a tactical advantage' is not a right to use a home. From original article:

 

But this is not on the list of this article about the Boston bomber searches.

 

Boston bomber manhunt: Is the Watertown door-to-door search by police for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev legal? - Slate Magazine

 

 

I don't think the example here is "exigency circumstances".

No, no, no. There was no probable cause here just like there was no probable cause when I'm driving down the road and have to stop at a checkpoint.

 

So, again, can they force me to the ground "just to make sure" I have no explosives in my pocket?

Check points are an obvious offense against the constitution that the public lives with for a false sense of security.

Checkpoints should be illegal. I have nothing to hide but I hate being stopped and searched for no specific reason.

 

That's not completely accurate. Police don't need a warrant for a vehicle if they have probable cause. For example if they see a joint in your passenger seat or smell marijuana, they can search your car without a warrant and without your permission.

 

I've been told by a cop that he smell marijuana in my car twice. Total bull.

 

I've never touched it in my life so each time I laughed and said go ahead.

 

I've been told by a cop that he smell marijuana in my car twice. Total bull.

 

I've never touched it in my life so each time I laughed and said go ahead.

 

Okay.

I dont mind checkpoints. They keep everyone safe when they find the drunken drivers. If I have nothing to hide, I don't mind the little hassle

I dont mind checkpoints. They keep everyone safe when they find the drunken drivers. If I have nothing to hide, I don't mind the little hassle

 

You willing to let the police send in a team in the middle of the night to check your house for explosives?

You willing to let the police send in a team in the middle of the night to check your house for explosives?

 

I'm sorry I don't see how that's related. Checkpoints keep people safe. Catches th drunk drivers before they kill someone or themselves. If the officer follows the law, I don't see the issue with them. What those guys did was going beyond what there job that night was to do.

I'm sorry I don't see how that's related. Checkpoints keep people safe. Catches th drunk drivers before they kill someone or themselves. If the officer follows the law, I don't see the issue with them. What those guys did was going beyond what there job that night was to do.

 

I want the police to keep my neighborhood safe from bombs. Don't you? I also don't want drugs in my neighborhood. I assume you don't either. So by your logic you are fine if the police show up at your house to search for both.