Illegals demand and get changes to DUI checkpoint policy in California

"Bible Studies with Satan" > wrote in message
...
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/2011 4:17 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/1/2011 12:16 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
>>>>> don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 1, 2:51 pm, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/sep/01...ulated-driver-...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DUI Checkpoints In California May Soon Be Regulated.By Ruxandra
>>>>>>> Guidi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> September 1, 2011
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SAN DIEGO -- Critics of Assembly Bill 1389, like Santa Rosa Democrat
>>>>>>> Michael Allen, say the current law allows sobriety checkpoints to
>>>>>>> generate revenues for cities at the expense of undocumented
>>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>>> who aren't allowed to get drivers' licenses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The California Senate has voted to restrict cities' ability to
>>>>>>> confiscate cars and charge high towing and impound fees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bill was designed in response to the Southern California city of
>>>>>>> Bell, which filled its city coffers with high impound fees from DUI
>>>>>>> checkpoints. The city of Escondido has also been criticized for
>>>>>>> impounding the cars of drivers without licenses, notably
>>>>>>> undocumented
>>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The bill would require a law enforcement agency that conducts a
>>>>>> sobriety checkpoint program to provide advance notice of the
>>>>>> checkpoint s location to the public within a minimum of 48 hours of
>>>>>> the checkpoint operation."
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent.
>>>>
>>>> Should the police similarly notify burglars 48 hrs in advance that they
>>>> will be canvassing a neighborhood?
>>>
>>> It isn't about theft, it's about search and seizure. Ever heard of the
>>> 4th
>>> amendment?
>>>
>>> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>>> and
>>> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>>> violated,
>>> and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
>>> or
>>> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>>> the
>>> persons or things to be seized."
>>>
>> Sobriety checkpoints have consistently been upheld by the courts for
>> decades. An important part of them is checking papers.
>
> I bet they're very common in red states. We like our freedom in
> California.
> --
> Ezekiel 23:20


No, you like your handouts. you have no freedom in California.

"Scout" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Sancho Panza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/1/2011 4:17 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/1/2011 12:16 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
>>>>> don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 1, 2:51 pm, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/sep/01...ulated-driver-...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DUI Checkpoints In California May Soon Be Regulated.By Ruxandra
>>>>>>> Guidi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> September 1, 2011
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SAN DIEGO -- Critics of Assembly Bill 1389, like Santa Rosa Democrat
>>>>>>> Michael Allen, say the current law allows sobriety checkpoints to
>>>>>>> generate revenues for cities at the expense of undocumented
>>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>>> who aren't allowed to get drivers' licenses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The California Senate has voted to restrict cities' ability to
>>>>>>> confiscate cars and charge high towing and impound fees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bill was designed in response to the Southern California city of
>>>>>>> Bell, which filled its city coffers with high impound fees from DUI
>>>>>>> checkpoints. The city of Escondido has also been criticized for
>>>>>>> impounding the cars of drivers without licenses, notably
>>>>>>> undocumented
>>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The bill would require a law enforcement agency that conducts a
>>>>>> sobriety checkpoint program to provide advance notice of the
>>>>>> checkpoint s location to the public within a minimum of 48 hours of
>>>>>> the checkpoint operation."
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent.
>>>>
>>>> Should the police similarly notify burglars 48 hrs in advance that they
>>>> will be canvassing a neighborhood?
>>>
>>> It isn't about theft, it's about search and seizure. Ever heard of the
>>> 4th
>>> amendment?
>>>
>>> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>>> and
>>> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>>> violated, and
>>> no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>>> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>>> the
>>> persons or things to be seized."
>>>
>> Sobriety checkpoints have consistently been upheld by the courts for
>> decades. An important part of them is checking papers.
>
> Doesn't matter. They are stopping you and conducting a search without just
> cause.

Nope , they arent, they are looking at your eyes and behavior. thats
not a search.

>
> IMO, A sobriety check point should consist of 2 seconds seeing if you're
> sober, and then a wave through. Otherwise, they do a sobriety test, hold
> you for 24 hours, and then the charges are dropped because the search was
> illegal.
>
> That's the only LEGAL way to do this, and still solves the problem.
>
>

"Scout" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers" > wrote in
> message
> ...
>> On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, Sancho Panza > wrote:
>>>>
>>> Sobriety checkpoints have consistently been upheld by the courts for
>>> decades. An important part of them is checking papers.-
>>
>> Everybody puts up with those damn airport searches which are even
>> worse.
>
> I don't.
>
> Nor do I put up with checkpoints. If I can't avoid them, then I protest by
> making them waste as much time on me as possible. In my area I got so well
> known, that they would simply wave me though a checkpoint. Sure it cost me
> time upfront, but eventually I saved time, if enough people did so they
> would find the checkpoints of little value.
>
> Now don't get me wrong. I think the sobriety checkpoints serve a good
> purpose....if used legally......If the objective is simply to get drunk
> drivers off the road then such a checkpoint can accomplish that. It
> shouldn't take more than 2 seconds to decide if you're sober or have been
> drinking...there is no need to get license, registration, check for
> warrants or any of that crap. A simple "Evening officer", <sniff> <sniff>
> "Thank you, have a nice night, drive safe" and wave you through.
>
> Those that show signs of drinking get pulled, given a field sobriety test,
> which if they flunk means they go to jail for 24 hours, at which point
> they are released because the search was illegal, but by that time they
> are sober and you got them off the road while they are drunk.
>
> I mean really? Is that the claimed objective of sobriety checkpoints? To
> get drunk drivers off the road?
>
> Or is it to written traffic tickets, do visual searches of the car, check
> for wants and warrants, and otherwise engage in a number of activities
> that have NOTHING to do with getting drunk drivers off the road?
>
> That could be done, and absolutely no one could really complain about it.
>
> Nope, because right now they are simply checkpoints....looking for drunk
> drivers is just their excuse.
>
>
Its to raise money. But if illegal drivers get caught . great.

"Scout" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "David Ben-Gurion" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/2/2011 3:43 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Franks" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 9/1/2011 9:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers" > wrote
>>>>> in
>>>>> message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, Sancho Panza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sobriety checkpoints have consistently been upheld by the courts for
>>>>>>> decades. An important part of them is checking papers.-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody puts up with those damn airport searches which are even
>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor do I put up with checkpoints. If I can't avoid them, then I
>>>>> protest
>>>>> by making them waste as much time on me as possible. ...
>>>>
>>>> What types of things do you do to get them to 'waste time'?
>>>
>>> Fumbling around looking for license and registration.....talking on the
>>> cell phone and asking them to wait a moment while I finish the
>>> conversation.....misunderstanding directions. 'Accidently' popping the
>>> hood or trunk requiring me to get out and close it again. Stalling out
>>> by engaging the kill switch, then spending 30 seconds cranking it trying
>>> to start it. Getting out of the car and walking around while they are
>>> running the wants and warrants, so they have to look around for me and
>>> walk over to where I'm at. Checking the oil. Basically whatever
>>> opportunity for delays that presents itself, all of which is done at a
>>> slowish pace, involving at many steps as possible.
>>>
>>> For example when he goes to run wants and warrants, I will get out have
>>> the hood up and the air filter in my hand as I see him getting out of
>>> the cruiser, then I walk over to the side of the road and start
>>> "cleaning" the filter naturally I can't move the car until I put it all
>>> back together. Then as I'm getting ready to leave, after getting all
>>> settled in, seat belts, seat adjustment, mirrors, etc reach down to turn
>>> on the head lights, hit the trunk release, then put it in park, shut off
>>> the engine, set the parking brake, undo the seat belt, move the seat
>>> back, get out, walk to the trunk, close it, walk back, get in the car,
>>> readjust the seat, check the mirrors, put on the seat belt, play with
>>> the mirrors some more, start the car, release the parking brake, turn on
>>> the head lights, wash the windshield, put it in gear, then hit the kill
>>> switch....
>>>
>>> The idea is to waste as much of an officers time and you can, and
>>> preferably while keeping your car blocking those behind you for as long
>>> as absolutely possible. Once held them up for nearly 30 minutes, they
>>> had to wave the next 50 cars behind me through simply to try and unclog
>>> the blockage. Which was the point at when they started just waving me
>>> though the checkpoints.
>>>
>>> If enough did this, even in part, the process of a checkpoint would
>>> rapidly get to be such a mess, that they would stop doing them, or at
>>> least doing much more than checking for sobriety which IMO is the only
>>> thing they should be doing. As it is, it is a full blown police stop and
>>> checking for sobriety is just their excuse. Any other stop under such
>>> conditions would be illegal, but as long as they are claiming to be
>>> looking for drunk drivers then suddenly it's all proper and legal?
>>> Bull****. That they are pulling everyone over doesn't make it any less
>>> illegal than if a cop was simply pulling cars over at random because he
>>> wanted to.
>>
>> You do that. I'll stick with the policy of not ****ing off the cop and
>> being as polite and friendly as I can be. It has worked well for me in
>> the past.
>
> Who said I wasn't being polite and friendly?
>
> If he gets ****ed off, then maybe he should figure out a better way to
> enforce the law other than breaking it?
>
>
Its your opinion if hes breaking it. looking at you and watching your
behavior isnt searching or seizing.

Especially when you signed for the privilege of driving.

Its not a right.

"Ramon F Herrera" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 1, 5:51 pm, richard > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT), Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Murderers wrote:
> >http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/sep/01...ulated-driver-...
>
> > DUI Checkpoints In California May Soon Be Regulated.By Ruxandra Guidi
>
> > September 1, 2011
>
> > SAN DIEGO — Critics of Assembly Bill 1389, like Santa Rosa Democrat
> > Michael Allen, say the current law allows sobriety checkpoints to
> > generate revenues for cities at the expense of undocumented immigrants
> > who aren't allowed to get drivers' licenses.
>
> > The California Senate has voted to restrict cities' ability to
> > confiscate cars and charge high towing and impound fees.
>
> > The bill was designed in response to the Southern California city of
> > Bell, which filled its city coffers with high impound fees from DUI
> > checkpoints. The city of Escondido has also been criticized for
> > impounding the cars of drivers without licenses, notably undocumented
> > immigrants
>
> > snip
>

> Solving the problem is easier than that.
> Require any person who is buying a car to show proof of a driver's
license.

What if the buyer does not intend to drive the car?

Then the person who does intend to drive it has to show theirs.

Also: The are states that give DLs to undocumented immigrants.

-Ramon

"Cambridge Ray" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 11:54 am, Peter Franks > wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 9:36 AM, Cambridge Ray wrote:
>
> > On Sep 6, 11:24 am, > wrote:
> > --
> > > they should be found asap and deported by any means necessary
>
> > Any Constitutional (not to mention economical, practical, and
> > political) means necessary.
>

>> The purpose of the law is not to placate your hate.
>
> What hate?

All hate is on the anti-immigrant side. That has been completely
proven.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...files/ideology

-Ramon

No ramon , the hate is on the mexicans that refuse to follow the
Constitution in the country they wish to live in.


borders matter more then people do.

citizens in their own country matter more then foreigners do.

"DogDiesel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bible Studies with Satan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/1/2011 12:16 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
>>>> don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 1, 2:51 pm, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/sep/01...ulated-driver-...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DUI Checkpoints In California May Soon Be Regulated.By Ruxandra Guidi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> September 1, 2011
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SAN DIEGO -- Critics of Assembly Bill 1389, like Santa Rosa Democrat
>>>>>> Michael Allen, say the current law allows sobriety checkpoints to
>>>>>> generate revenues for cities at the expense of undocumented
>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>> who aren't allowed to get drivers' licenses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The California Senate has voted to restrict cities' ability to
>>>>>> confiscate cars and charge high towing and impound fees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bill was designed in response to the Southern California city of
>>>>>> Bell, which filled its city coffers with high impound fees from DUI
>>>>>> checkpoints. The city of Escondido has also been criticized for
>>>>>> impounding the cars of drivers without licenses, notably undocumented
>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> "The bill would require a law enforcement agency that conducts a
>>>>> sobriety checkpoint program to provide advance notice of the
>>>>> checkpoint s location to the public within a minimum of 48 hours of
>>>>> the checkpoint operation."
>>>>
>>>> Excellent.
>>>
>>> Should the police similarly notify burglars 48 hrs in advance that they
>>> will be canvassing a neighborhood?
>>
>> It isn't about theft, it's about search and seizure. Ever heard of the
>> 4th
>> amendment?
>>
>> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>> and
>> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>> violated, and
>> no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>> the
>> persons or things to be seized."
>>
>> --
>
> Stopping cars looking for drunks doesnt violate anything . its
> not a search or seizure.

"looking for drunks"

If they aren't searching, then how do they find the drunks?

What cause did the police have to pull them over in the first place?

It is an illegal search, but that doesn't mean we can't hold the drunks for
24 hours and then release them after they are sober because the search was
illegal.



> Driving a car isnt a right.

Nope, but you can't search it, or stop it, without cause.

> the fourth doesnt apply.

The 4th always applies.

"DogDiesel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scout" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "Sancho Panza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 9/1/2011 4:17 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/1/2011 12:16 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
>>>>>> don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 1, 2:51 pm, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/sep/01...ulated-driver-...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DUI Checkpoints In California May Soon Be Regulated.By Ruxandra
>>>>>>>> Guidi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> September 1, 2011
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SAN DIEGO -- Critics of Assembly Bill 1389, like Santa Rosa
>>>>>>>> Democrat
>>>>>>>> Michael Allen, say the current law allows sobriety checkpoints to
>>>>>>>> generate revenues for cities at the expense of undocumented
>>>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>>>> who aren't allowed to get drivers' licenses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The California Senate has voted to restrict cities' ability to
>>>>>>>> confiscate cars and charge high towing and impound fees.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bill was designed in response to the Southern California city
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Bell, which filled its city coffers with high impound fees from DUI
>>>>>>>> checkpoints. The city of Escondido has also been criticized for
>>>>>>>> impounding the cars of drivers without licenses, notably
>>>>>>>> undocumented
>>>>>>>> immigrants
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The bill would require a law enforcement agency that conducts a
>>>>>>> sobriety checkpoint program to provide advance notice of the
>>>>>>> checkpoint s location to the public within a minimum of 48 hours of
>>>>>>> the checkpoint operation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the police similarly notify burglars 48 hrs in advance that
>>>>> they
>>>>> will be canvassing a neighborhood?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't about theft, it's about search and seizure. Ever heard of the
>>>> 4th
>>>> amendment?
>>>>
>>>> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>>>> and
>>>> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>>>> violated, and
>>>> no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>>>> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>>>> the
>>>> persons or things to be seized."
>>>>
>>> Sobriety checkpoints have consistently been upheld by the courts for
>>> decades. An important part of them is checking papers.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. They are stopping you and conducting a search without
>> just cause.
>
> Nope , they arent, they are looking at your eyes and behavior. thats
> not a search.

It certainly is. They are searching for drunks by your own admission.

>> IMO, A sobriety check point should consist of 2 seconds seeing if you're
>> sober, and then a wave through. Otherwise, they do a sobriety test, hold
>> you for 24 hours, and then the charges are dropped because the search was
>> illegal.
>>
>> That's the only LEGAL way to do this, and still solves the problem.
>>
>>
>
>

"DogDiesel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scout" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers" > wrote in
>> message
>> ...
>>> On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, Sancho Panza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Sobriety checkpoints have consistently been upheld by the courts for
>>>> decades. An important part of them is checking papers.-
>>>
>>> Everybody puts up with those damn airport searches which are even
>>> worse.
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> Nor do I put up with checkpoints. If I can't avoid them, then I protest
>> by making them waste as much time on me as possible. In my area I got so
>> well known, that they would simply wave me though a checkpoint. Sure it
>> cost me time upfront, but eventually I saved time, if enough people did
>> so they would find the checkpoints of little value.
>>
>> Now don't get me wrong. I think the sobriety checkpoints serve a good
>> purpose....if used legally......If the objective is simply to get drunk
>> drivers off the road then such a checkpoint can accomplish that. It
>> shouldn't take more than 2 seconds to decide if you're sober or have been
>> drinking...there is no need to get license, registration, check for
>> warrants or any of that crap. A simple "Evening officer", <sniff> <sniff>
>> "Thank you, have a nice night, drive safe" and wave you through.
>>
>> Those that show signs of drinking get pulled, given a field sobriety
>> test, which if they flunk means they go to jail for 24 hours, at which
>> point they are released because the search was illegal, but by that time
>> they are sober and you got them off the road while they are drunk.
>>
>> I mean really? Is that the claimed objective of sobriety checkpoints? To
>> get drunk drivers off the road?
>>
>> Or is it to written traffic tickets, do visual searches of the car, check
>> for wants and warrants, and otherwise engage in a number of activities
>> that have NOTHING to do with getting drunk drivers off the road?
>>
>> That could be done, and absolutely no one could really complain about it.
>>
>> Nope, because right now they are simply checkpoints....looking for drunk
>> drivers is just their excuse.
>>
>>
> Its to raise money.

If it's to raise money, then it should be halted immediately as illegal
search and siezure.

> But if illegal drivers get caught . great.

But given it was an illegal stop in that no just cause existed, according to
the 4th we shouldn't be able to prosecute.

"DogDiesel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scout" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "David Ben-Gurion" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 9/2/2011 3:43 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Franks" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 9/1/2011 9:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers" > wrote
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, Sancho Panza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sobriety checkpoints have consistently been upheld by the courts
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> decades. An important part of them is checking papers.-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everybody puts up with those damn airport searches which are even
>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor do I put up with checkpoints. If I can't avoid them, then I
>>>>>> protest
>>>>>> by making them waste as much time on me as possible. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What types of things do you do to get them to 'waste time'?
>>>>
>>>> Fumbling around looking for license and registration.....talking on the
>>>> cell phone and asking them to wait a moment while I finish the
>>>> conversation.....misunderstanding directions. 'Accidently' popping the
>>>> hood or trunk requiring me to get out and close it again. Stalling out
>>>> by engaging the kill switch, then spending 30 seconds cranking it
>>>> trying
>>>> to start it. Getting out of the car and walking around while they are
>>>> running the wants and warrants, so they have to look around for me and
>>>> walk over to where I'm at. Checking the oil. Basically whatever
>>>> opportunity for delays that presents itself, all of which is done at a
>>>> slowish pace, involving at many steps as possible.
>>>>
>>>> For example when he goes to run wants and warrants, I will get out have
>>>> the hood up and the air filter in my hand as I see him getting out of
>>>> the cruiser, then I walk over to the side of the road and start
>>>> "cleaning" the filter naturally I can't move the car until I put it all
>>>> back together. Then as I'm getting ready to leave, after getting all
>>>> settled in, seat belts, seat adjustment, mirrors, etc reach down to
>>>> turn
>>>> on the head lights, hit the trunk release, then put it in park, shut
>>>> off
>>>> the engine, set the parking brake, undo the seat belt, move the seat
>>>> back, get out, walk to the trunk, close it, walk back, get in the car,
>>>> readjust the seat, check the mirrors, put on the seat belt, play with
>>>> the mirrors some more, start the car, release the parking brake, turn
>>>> on
>>>> the head lights, wash the windshield, put it in gear, then hit the kill
>>>> switch....
>>>>
>>>> The idea is to waste as much of an officers time and you can, and
>>>> preferably while keeping your car blocking those behind you for as long
>>>> as absolutely possible. Once held them up for nearly 30 minutes, they
>>>> had to wave the next 50 cars behind me through simply to try and unclog
>>>> the blockage. Which was the point at when they started just waving me
>>>> though the checkpoints.
>>>>
>>>> If enough did this, even in part, the process of a checkpoint would
>>>> rapidly get to be such a mess, that they would stop doing them, or at
>>>> least doing much more than checking for sobriety which IMO is the only
>>>> thing they should be doing. As it is, it is a full blown police stop
>>>> and
>>>> checking for sobriety is just their excuse. Any other stop under such
>>>> conditions would be illegal, but as long as they are claiming to be
>>>> looking for drunk drivers then suddenly it's all proper and legal?
>>>> Bull****. That they are pulling everyone over doesn't make it any less
>>>> illegal than if a cop was simply pulling cars over at random because he
>>>> wanted to.
>>>
>>> You do that. I'll stick with the policy of not ****ing off the cop and
>>> being as polite and friendly as I can be. It has worked well for me in
>>> the past.
>>
>> Who said I wasn't being polite and friendly?
>>
>> If he gets ****ed off, then maybe he should figure out a better way to
>> enforce the law other than breaking it?
>>
>>
> Its your opinion if hes breaking it.

It certainly is, and supported by the 4th Amendment.

> looking at you and watching your behavior isnt searching or seizing.

Certainly it is if that was the sole purpose of the stop.

> Especially when you signed for the privilege of driving.

Just because driving is a privilege doesn't mean I signed over my 4th
Amendment rights.\

> Its not a right.

Sorry, but my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure
certainly is my right.