Road blocks lead to arrests

A drivers license checkpoint led to several arrests Friday night on U.S. Highway 11W. via Rogersville Review

[A Local]

These roadblocks are so unconstitutional. What ever happened to america that random stops and searches without probable cause would be accepted by the timid populace and corrupt judges?

[wildkarma]

I am not doing anything illegal or hiding anything I do not have a problem stopping showing my license or what ever they are asking for.

[Lol]

wildkarma wrote:

I am not doing anything illegal or hiding anything I do not have a problem stopping showing my license or what ever they are asking for.

The point isnt I have nothing to hide so I dont care. The point is you are going somewhere and have to stop and be searched by the government. You should be able to drive to your destination without having to stop in the middle of the road to be checked by big brother. Its not a case of im not hiding anything so you can do with me as you please because im not doing anything illegal.If it was the case you had nothing to hide then you shouldn't have to be accused and checked by the government to make sure you are doing their bidding.

[okay]

If these stops save a life from a drunk driver then what is the problem? Quit whining and get off the pity party! If you are doing nothing wrong, then it takes about 20 - 30 seconds and you are on your way.

[anything good]

I'm glad they do it. They may have saved someones life by getting a drunk driver off the road before he could kill someone, like mine or your family member! Drunk drivers should spend alot of time in jail, even for the first offense.

[Dru7nk Steve]

Mqybve I have a constitutuionalrightto bve drunk anc crive?

Eh?

whon are you to ruin my funb?

[nakedlobo]

okay and anything good, yes, you have a valid point. Drunk drivers should not be on the road. But I have one question... why should I, who never drives drunk, be subject to a search without probable cause?
This, again, is not a case of... well, you should only object if you have something to hide! This is a case of the government overstepping their permissions (granted by the Constitution) and completely ignoring the Bill of Rights.
This is not a fight to enable drunks to stay on the road... this is a fight for Constitutionally granted liberties and freedoms.

[Lol]

nakedlobo wrote:

okay and anything good, yes, you have a valid point. Drunk drivers should not be on the road. But I have one question... why should I, who never drives drunk, be subject to a search without probable cause?
This, again, is not a case of... well, you should only object if you have something to hide! This is a case of the government overstepping their permissions (granted by the Constitution) and completely ignoring the Bill of Rights.
This is not a fight to enable drunks to stay on the road... this is a fight for Constitutionally granted liberties and freedoms.

Exactly my point. You can stop drunk drivers countless ways besides setting up a roadblock for everyone on the road. Yes it is good they caught someone that was drunk but doing normal patrols you can do that too. You could catch more drunk drivers by sitting and watching in parking lots. Lets be logical about this a roadblock is not set up to catch that one drunk driver who happens to get stopped at it. Its used to stop EVERYONE that happens to be going through that area. It is not logical to use the "what if" factor in this situation. "What if" that drunk driver just happened to kill you. There is no such that as "what if" there is only reality. Its good that guy was caught yes but reality is there is still thousands of drunk people on the road. Assuming that not having roadblocks means we would inevitably get killed by drunk drivers is an idiotic assumption. Not driving drunk stops drunk driving looking for drunk drivers gets drunk drivers off the road for that moment. Roadblocks do not stop drunk driving.

[sober]

What if the three people that wrecked on 11W would have been stopped at a road block?

[Shocked at stupidity]

A Local wrote:

These roadblocks are so unconstitutional. What ever happened to america that random stops and searches without probable cause would be accepted by the timid populace and corrupt judges?

I think you mean the right to unreasonalbe search and seizures. They can not search your car without probable cause but you are driving is a privilege not a right. I do not think even our great forefathers were smart enough to envision the right to operate a motor vehicle when the Constituion was drafted and I do not recall an amendment ever being made that guaranteed you the right to keep and bear cars!

[Lol]

sober wrote:

What if the three people that wrecked on 11W would have been stopped at a road block?

Well they weren't. "what if" they werent driving at all? What if they didnt drink? What if the police pulled them over before? What if the earth suddenly exploded? What if I asked what if about everything? What if they had ran through the road block? What if alcohol was illegal? What if alcohol didn't exist?

[A Local]

Shocked at stupidity wrote:

<quoted text>I think you mean the right to unreasonalbe search and seizures. They can not search your car without probable cause but you are driving is a privilege not a right. I do not think even our great forefathers were smart enough to envision the right to operate a motor vehicle when the Constituion was drafted and I do not recall an amendment ever being made that guaranteed you the right to keep and bear cars!

You are not correct. The Constitution's meaning is clear. There are no exceptions to the fourth amendment as you describe.

Most Constitutional scholars find that roadblock searches, absent specific information about suspects being sought, are unconstitutional.

However, this did not stop the U.S. Supreme Court from ruling in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) that sobriety checkpoints could be Constitutional, but only as long as very particular procedures are followed exactly. These procedures MUST include the following for a checkpoint to be legal:

1. Policy-making administrative officers of the law enforcement agency determined the location of the checkpoint
2. The time and location of the roadblock was adequately publicized to the public at large
3. The location was marked with adequate advance warning signs
4. A number of uniformed officers were present to demonstrate the official nature of the roadblock
5. The selection of the motor vehicles to be stopped was not arbitrary, but based on probable cause of criminal acts.
6. The roadblock was conducted to assure the safety of and to minimize the inconvenience to the motorists involved.

#4 was followed, but the rest were not. This road block was an illegal violation of Constitutional rights. Any one who was arrested, lacking obvious probably cause of criminal behavior such as swerving, can get this case thrown out, and are completely entitled to sue the police for false arrest and imprisonment. Schemes where people are randomly stopped to see their ID or license are illegal. In addition, Tennessee is NOT a stop and identify state, nor should it be.

[jane]

I don't mind stopping for a check point at all. The police are doing their job. If you're not doing anything wrong you don't have to worry. Everytime one of your loved ones leaves the house, think about how many drunk and drugged drivers who are out there just in our county alone. Will they make it back alive or will they be killed by an impaired driver before you see their sweet smile again?

[nakedlobo sux]

nakedlobo wrote:

okay and anything good, yes, you have a valid point. Drunk drivers should not be on the road. But I have one question... why should I, who never drives drunk, be subject to a search without probable cause?
This, again, is not a case of... well, you should only object if you have something to hide! This is a case of the government overstepping their permissions (granted by the Constitution) and completely ignoring the Bill of Rights.
This is not a fight to enable drunks to stay on the road... this is a fight for Constitutionally granted liberties and freedoms.

No, you prefer to drive around with improper vehicle safety requirements with a 1/2 pound of dope. Guess your Constitutionally granted liberties and freedoms were second choice to the rest of the public's safety and rights. Oh, and by the way, your "right" to drive is just a privilege and I'm sure you and Bubba had quite a nice time chatting about that (ROTFLMAO!).

[decepticon]

If you aren't doing anything illegal, then you should be fine with road blocks. I don't really like getting stopped but it's a have to situation. They get lots of drunks off the road and they show people how to properly install and buckle their child safety seats. Some road blocks are set up because of amber alerts, that is a great thing. Remember freedom isn't free. Getting drunks, drug dealers and possibly finding some lost children, is worth the few minutes that I have to spend at road blocks.

[nakedlobo]

deceopticon, so you wouldn't have a problem with police invading and searching your home every day? That is the slippery slope you are asking for. The statements of the Constitution were put in place for a particular reason. That reason was to ensure that we were not forced to submit to a "highly-supreme" police force. There is no room for facism.

[decepticon]

I have never had police come to my house and search my home and if they did, we have nothing illegal here.
Wasn't the topic about road blocks? Oh well if you disagree with road blocks, it's still going to happen. There are some pros, some cons but mostly pros.
Is your life so busy, that spending 10 mins waiting at a road block is that big of a problem?
If you answer yes, then I would beg to differ because you spend alot of useless time on topix.

Road blocks are not a form of facism. Annoying, inconvenient and a hassle maybe, but not facism.
You should start protesting road blocks, see how far that gets you.

[nakedlobo sux]

nakedlobo wrote:

deceopticon, so you wouldn't have a problem with police invading and searching your home every day? That is the slippery slope you are asking for. The statements of the Constitution were put in place for a particular reason. That reason was to ensure that we were not forced to submit to a "highly-supreme" police force. There is no room for facism.

The United States is only fascist when an anti-establishment Moron feels to be above the law. I myself don't have any problem with search of my home - however, you are simply trying to take the subject off-topic to CYA. A car may be private property, but when used on public roads, the police have the authority to inspect to ensure the public safety. Hard to believe you haven't figured that out after getting nabbed for dope. My guess is that your car reeked of reefer and probable cause was unquestionable.

[A Local]

nakedlobo sux wrote:

<quoted text>
A car may be private property, but when used on public roads, the police have the authority to inspect to ensure the public safety.

This is not correct. Cars can not generally be stopped and searched by government officials without either the permission of the operator or probable cause. There's no debate about this, it's an established legal fact.

In the United States, the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the appropriate warrant procedure. In most instances, failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances. There should be circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent man to believe that the person stopped had committed or was committing an offense. Intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights must be based on more than unarticulated hunches, and simple good faith on part of the officer is not enough. The facts should prove reasonable inferences derived from unusual conduct.

nakedlobo sux wrote:

<quoted text>
Hard to believe you haven't figured that out after getting nabbed for dope. My guess is that your car reeked of reefer and probable cause was unquestionable.

Alas, ad hominem arguments are a poor substitute for an intelligent response.

[At last the truth]

A Local wrote:

These roadblocks are so unconstitutional. What ever happened to america that random stops and searches without probable cause would be accepted by the timid populace and corrupt judges?

I think you will find the majority will gladly put up with the delay, in order to catch the filth that drives the roads transporting drugs, driving DUI (redundant) no license, no insurance, warrants outstanding, etc. I'm quite happy more trash is off the street and they are a little safer for it!