Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Checkpoint loopholes

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 6:26:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

it is, you don't have to answer any questions, ever. lot's of youtube footage of people doing exactly that, some explain how and what makes a checkpoint legal. it's not a loophole, it is your right.
my position is rarely answer any questions regardless of the situation.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 8:26:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 6:26:46 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

it is, you don't have to answer any questions, ever. lot's of youtube footage of people doing exactly that, some explain how and what makes a checkpoint legal. it's not a loophole, it is your right.
my position is rarely answer any questions regardless of the situation.

This is one where I agree with you fully on the concept, but the SCOTUS has already said it is completely legal.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 8:35:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 8:26:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 6:26:46 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

it is, you don't have to answer any questions, ever. lot's of youtube footage of people doing exactly that, some explain how and what makes a checkpoint legal. it's not a loophole, it is your right.
my position is rarely answer any questions regardless of the situation.

This is one where I agree with you fully on the concept, but the SCOTUS has already said it is completely legal.

with limits and for only specific things, I think they can't set them up to search for drugs, anyway it's probably been over 20 years since I've seen one, not sure. So yes there are legal checkpoints, and no you don't have to say a word. There are also illegal checkpoints. Maybe still useful in some places and certain instances, but I think the cost, and man power needed far out weigh their usefulness. I mean why set up a dui checkpoint in the middle of no where, take all those officers and have them patrol close to bars.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 8:37:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 8:35:22 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:26:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 6:26:46 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

it is, you don't have to answer any questions, ever. lot's of youtube footage of people doing exactly that, some explain how and what makes a checkpoint legal. it's not a loophole, it is your right.
my position is rarely answer any questions regardless of the situation.

This is one where I agree with you fully on the concept, but the SCOTUS has already said it is completely legal.

with limits and for only specific things, I think they can't set them up to search for drugs, anyway it's probably been over 20 years since I've seen one, not sure. So yes there are legal checkpoints, and no you don't have to say a word. There are also illegal checkpoints. Maybe still useful in some places and certain instances, but I think the cost, and man power needed far out weigh their usefulness. I mean why set up a dui checkpoint in the middle of no where, take all those officers and have them patrol close to bars.

To fill the coffers, nothing more.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 8:44:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 8:37:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:35:22 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:26:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 6:26:46 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

it is, you don't have to answer any questions, ever. lot's of youtube footage of people doing exactly that, some explain how and what makes a checkpoint legal. it's not a loophole, it is your right.
my position is rarely answer any questions regardless of the situation.

This is one where I agree with you fully on the concept, but the SCOTUS has already said it is completely legal.

with limits and for only specific things, I think they can't set them up to search for drugs, anyway it's probably been over 20 years since I've seen one, not sure. So yes there are legal checkpoints, and no you don't have to say a word. There are also illegal checkpoints. Maybe still useful in some places and certain instances, but I think the cost, and man power needed far out weigh their usefulness. I mean why set up a dui checkpoint in the middle of no where, take all those officers and have them patrol close to bars.

To fill the coffers, nothing more.

yeah that's very true +1 for you sir
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 8:50:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 8:44:38 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:37:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:35:22 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:26:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 6:26:46 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

it is, you don't have to answer any questions, ever. lot's of youtube footage of people doing exactly that, some explain how and what makes a checkpoint legal. it's not a loophole, it is your right.
my position is rarely answer any questions regardless of the situation.

This is one where I agree with you fully on the concept, but the SCOTUS has already said it is completely legal.

with limits and for only specific things, I think they can't set them up to search for drugs, anyway it's probably been over 20 years since I've seen one, not sure. So yes there are legal checkpoints, and no you don't have to say a word. There are also illegal checkpoints. Maybe still useful in some places and certain instances, but I think the cost, and man power needed far out weigh their usefulness. I mean why set up a dui checkpoint in the middle of no where, take all those officers and have them patrol close to bars.

To fill the coffers, nothing more.

yeah that's very true +1 for you sir

We have made a big mistake associating fines (parking, moving violations etc.) with income, and almost directly tied to funding some level of police. It is a recipe for corruption and does little for public safety.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 9:05:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 8:50:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:44:38 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:37:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:35:22 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 8:26:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/27/2016 6:26:46 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

it is, you don't have to answer any questions, ever. lot's of youtube footage of people doing exactly that, some explain how and what makes a checkpoint legal. it's not a loophole, it is your right.
my position is rarely answer any questions regardless of the situation.

This is one where I agree with you fully on the concept, but the SCOTUS has already said it is completely legal.

with limits and for only specific things, I think they can't set them up to search for drugs, anyway it's probably been over 20 years since I've seen one, not sure. So yes there are legal checkpoints, and no you don't have to say a word. There are also illegal checkpoints. Maybe still useful in some places and certain instances, but I think the cost, and man power needed far out weigh their usefulness. I mean why set up a dui checkpoint in the middle of no where, take all those officers and have them patrol close to bars.

To fill the coffers, nothing more.

yeah that's very true +1 for you sir

We have made a big mistake associating fines (parking, moving violations etc.) with income, and almost directly tied to funding some level of police. It is a recipe for corruption and does little for public safety.

absolutely! their time would be better spent in high crime areas, even just being seen as a presence, these type of things only fuel the distrust of government and law enforcement, which correlates to many other topics as well.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 9:20:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 9:11:10 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I am under the impression that they also have to advertise where they set a checkpoint.

yes there are certain criteria they are SUPPOSE to follow for it to be legal, but like so many things they are so vague it really doesn't matter if they are followed or not.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 12:54:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 9:11:10 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I am under the impression that they also have to advertise where they set a checkpoint.

They legally have to advertise the checkpoint with at least one legal turnoff between the warning and the checkpoint. They also are not supposed to pursue anyone that makes that legal turn, but that isn't really listened to. They will us any BS law to pull you over and pretty much do the checkpoint anyway (saw a video where someone got pulled over for not using his turn signal for 100 feet before turning when he turned away from the checkpoint).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:45:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/28/2016 12:54:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 9:11:10 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I am under the impression that they also have to advertise where they set a checkpoint.

They legally have to advertise the checkpoint with at least one legal turnoff between the warning and the checkpoint. They also are not supposed to pursue anyone that makes that legal turn, but that isn't really listened to. They will us any BS law to pull you over and pretty much do the checkpoint anyway (saw a video where someone got pulled over for not using his turn signal for 100 feet before turning when he turned away from the checkpoint).

lol, loop holes every were.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 2:15:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

There is just one problem. There are methods they can use to detain you legally, such as get a dog to give a minor indication that it smells marijuana or drugs. They now have probable cause and can drag you out and search your car.

We are truly entering an age of being in a police state. some departments are leveraging a tool which forces peoples cell phones to go through their device before going to your carriers cell tower. It is more important then ever that we support the ALCU, the only organization trying to take on these grave injustices.

Other than the miss use of dogs as I describe, checkpoints are the lease of our worries.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 5:42:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 2:15:25 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

There is just one problem. There are methods they can use to detain you legally, such as get a dog to give a minor indication that it smells marijuana or drugs. They now have probable cause and can drag you out and search your car.

Only if they have the K9 unit there. The Supreme Court has determined that if they do not have suspicion you have committed a crime, they cannot legally detain you to wait for a K9 unit to arrive.

We are truly entering an age of being in a police state. some departments are leveraging a tool which forces peoples cell phones to go through their device before going to your carriers cell tower. It is more important then ever that we support the ALCU, the only organization trying to take on these grave injustices.

Other than the miss use of dogs as I describe, checkpoints are the lease of our worries.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 9:36:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 5:42:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/29/2016 2:15:25 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/27/2016 3:26:09 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The Supreme Court has upheld that certain checkpoints are constitutional, but I have heard arguments about legal loopholes.

When you are stopped at a checkpoint they can detain you for questioning. In this period they try and get to either detaining due to suspicion of crime or letting you go.

Once questioning has been finished, they have to let you go or have suspicion you have committed a crime.

Using the 4th or 5th Amendment is not grounds for suspicion of crime.

This means that at a checkpoint, all you technically need to do is stop, say you do not answer questions (which ends the ability to detain for questioning), and then they can either detain you illegally or let you go.

Is this argument accurate?

There is just one problem. There are methods they can use to detain you legally, such as get a dog to give a minor indication that it smells marijuana or drugs. They now have probable cause and can drag you out and search your car.

Only if they have the K9 unit there. The Supreme Court has determined that if they do not have suspicion you have committed a crime, they cannot legally detain you to wait for a K9 unit to arrive.

It is not uncommon to have a K9 at a check point.

We are truly entering an age of being in a police state. some departments are leveraging a tool which forces peoples cell phones to go through their device before going to your carriers cell tower. It is more important then ever that we support the ALCU, the only organization trying to take on these grave injustices.

Other than the miss use of dogs as I describe, checkpoints are the lease of our worries.