Thread: Welcome to our Post-Constitutional America.

I would agree to a police checkpoint during an Amber Alert.

But they can only search for a missing child. If they find narcotics or illegal weapons, they can confiscate but not prosecute.

Amber Alert is missing child?

It sounds kinda shitty but outside of a situation where we need martial law (foreign army at war with us on US soil), I don't think I could get on board with the police stopping every person for questioning and ID checks.

I think if the police wanted to slow down traffic by closing a lane or lanes in order to make it easier to look into cars from the outside I could be agreeable to that.

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

Amber Alert is missing child?

It sounds kinda shitty but outside of a situation where we need martial law (foreign army at war with us on US soil), I don't think I could get on board with the police stopping every person for questioning and ID checks.

I think if the police wanted to slow down traffic by closing a lane or lanes in order to make it easier to look into cars from the outside I could be agreeable to that.

My point was that the search could only be for the missing child. If they found someone possessing something illegal, they couldn't prosecute. that would take away the chance of the roadblock being used for other reasons. Meaning no ID checks, no insurance checks, no going through the glove compartment for example. No child, you're free to go.

Oh I understood that.

My issue is that a citizen is being stopped with zero evidence of that citizen committing a crime. Even in the case of children I don't want to give that up.

It is the indiscriminate police checkpoints that I won't support. I do not think it is possible to write legislation that says checkpoints are legal if a clearly defined objective is stated and all other illegal activities discovered are inadmissible. What if the police have a checkpoint for an Amber Alert and discover a van full of adult body parts or what appears to be homemade bombs? What if the driver is clearly drunk but has no child?

I think it is clear what 4A says and check points that blanket every single person that happens to be passing through qualify as unreasonable.

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

Oh I understood that.

My issue is that a citizen is being stopped with zero evidence of that citizen committing a crime. Even in the case of children I don't want to give that up.

It is the indiscriminate police checkpoints that I won't support. I do not think it is possible to write legislation that says checkpoints are legal if a clearly defined objective is stated and all other illegal activities discovered are inadmissible. What if the police have a checkpoint for an Amber Alert and discover a van full of adult body parts or what appears to be homemade bombs? What if the driver is clearly drunk but has no child?

I think it is clear what 4A says and check points that blanket every single person that happens to be passing through qualify as unreasonable.

You're right that it's not black and white. But I think that in the case of a missing child, the police should have the right to search for that child anywhere.

And just for your interest, here in Germany and France, the police can stop you anytime and ask for ID. The notion that it's a slippery slope to a dictatorship is false.

That's not to say I agree with all checkpoints.

I am not a fan of presuming everyone is guilty in order to find those who truly are. If we, as a nation, are innocent until proven guilty, and if we all agree that the police need probable cause in order to begin the investigation into my guilt, then random mandatory checkpoints are illegal. That being said I am on the fence about the checkpoints at/near the border. I do feel that those checkpoints are valid as ID should be required in order to enter the country. I have been through these checkpoints numerous times while working in south and west Texas, and they are a pain in the ass much of the time, but so is flying into and out of the country.

It just seems that every day we give up more freedoms in the name of "safety". I would be really safe in solitary confinement in prison, but I am sure not many, if any, willfully and consciously choose that option.

Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus

I agree with checkpoints, I view them as a necessary evil, a deterrent, if operated effectively. I get what you guys say about losing rights but I still consider these to be isolate incidents. They seem to occur more and more due to advances in technology but in my mind 9 out of 10 stops are smooth and effective. I still think the kid was a punk but I understand the opposing viewpoint that he has a right not to. I also understand the cop should've been professional like we are all expected to be at our jobs. I just think when I'm situations like that I don't mind complying, it's not worth it to me. IMHO, if he were totally compliant to the cops request and then he still got hassled the. I would be upset. So to answer laz's question I would say at the point of discrimination I would be bothered. But again I think for the most part these instances are isolated and more often than not things go smoothly.

Would you then also support random in-home inspections without search warrants?

So in your opinion how is one different from the other? I would wager that there are more people, as a percentage of the population, that have illegal drugs, guns, or other illegal items or activities in their homes than there are drunk drivers on the streets. Heck, think if the cops had gone house to house in Cleveland. It may not have taken 10 years to find those three kidnapped women. Yes, I know many will say I am shaping the tin foil already, but as we can see with our current collection of politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle one trampled freedom quickly opens the door to many more.