Unreasonable search and seizure

Last night the Gestapo in Oregon stopped over 770 vehicles wholesale and without probable cause just to check IDs and harass the occupants. The result was TWO arrested for DUI, which was the ostensible reason for the stops.

I do not understand how this practice of searching people who just happen to be in a certain area is even remotely legal, but I understand that the Supreme Court has o.k.'d it. This seems to be part of the pattern of the erosion of our constitutional rights in this country. I thought we fought a war with England over this.

As for me, I'll stay out of Oregon, not because I drink and drive, but because I value my rights.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070805/NEWS03/70...

No votes yet

Considering that the checkpoint was advertised before it actually occurred, I'd hope that they didn't net too many drunk drivers.

These were police in proper vehicles with proper uniforms and with advance notice given that they would be set up and they are Gestapo, as in secret state police who would act to secure any and all attacks against the state?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Who cares what uniforms (or not) they were wearing. Such searches are completely antithetical to the US Constitution and our rights as we have understood them for 200+ years. Maybe you don't mind getting stopped for NO reason, but many of us do. These are the practices of a police state.

This is important. I don

Old South End Broadway

That discussion can take place?

I did not stake out any positions. I like to discuss that's all.

I think it might be safe to say that the founding fathers did not foresee the driving of an automobile in the time in which they lived.

And then on the flip side is there a right that is conveyed in the constitution that allows us to do as we will without regard to others.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

It does bother me that

Old South End Broadway

Is a choice at the outset. The way I see it, if your are drunk or druged out or chemicly altered..you got there of your own free will. Just because you suffer the side effects of that choice, doesn't mean you are any less guilty that if you did the crime sober. It's a chocie to get intoxicated, it's a choice to get high..it's a choice to commit a crime. Justice is not served by a lot of the laws on the books.

Nice choise of words chad - 'addicted'. Has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, as most people caught for duis are not 'addicted' or even, 'alcoholics' (I assume) - but rather, people out for the night & drinking more than they should for how much they consume. It also needs to be pointed out, that the legal alcohol limit would mean that ONE drink would put me at, or over my legal limit. One drink does not make me an alcoholic, or addicted. 1 1/2 glasses of white wine may do the same for some. But I see where your brain is going............

This dui checkpoint was announced - however, I don't think the police should be able to pull anybody over unless they exhibit driving behavior that'd be associated with drinking. Seems a waste of manpower to me to randomly stop any or all drivers for no apparent reason - which it clearly was, if they only netted 2 duis. THAT, is an infringement on rights I think. I do agree that they are too lenient with dui offenders. My daughter & her friends take a cab home - or don't go out. (I know, because I've gotten more than a few calls to take them back to pick up their cars in the morning.).

The Supreme Court which was put in place by the founders has made a ruling on the issue as it relates today's world.

If it is un-American to abide by the laws as they are handed down, then I am guilty as charged.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Just seems to me, they'd have busted more drinking drivers if they did NOT announce the checkpoint, or where it'd be. And, to not focus on one small area, but instead, squad cars be on the lookout all over the city (oh, yeah, that's what they're already supposed to be doing.) Announcing or publishing where & when the check points will be seems silly - it's like telling drug dealers 'Don't go to this street tonight, they're looking for drug dealers'.

"At the checkpoint, police diverted 33 vehicles for further inspection and cited six motorists for driving with a suspended license or for not having a license. Two people were cited for drug abuse violations, and five were cited for not wearing a seat belt or for violations of child restraint laws. Police cited one person for giving false information."

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

...there's a bunch of scoff-laws out there who got caught.

Old South End Broadway

The commentary is there, I posted what was on the Toledo Blade web site.

You may or may agree with the concept of posting what was reported but that is just fine.

If this irritates you, you should know that it is not intended too, which I hope realize and do not seek to infringe on my "right" to post the way I want too, as we do not live in a police state.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Of course we do.

And of Bloomturd runs for prez, watch and see if he doesn't get a ton of votes. MANY people want a police state, because that way, they don't have to do that nasty concept-thinking.

The ONE AND ONLY REASON these 'checkpoints' were invented was to make money for the state. PERIOD.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

From the State Patrol site comes this information, a bit dated, but;

"Through September 2001, 19 sobriety checkpoints were conducted by the Patrol for the year. In these, 18,988 vehicles passed through the checkpoints, 16,014 were checked, and 884 vehicles were diverted for additional testing, resulting in 126 DUI arrests and 341 other arrests. Again, the true effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints does not lie in individual arrests, but in their deterrent effect."

http://www.statepatrol.ohio.gov/programs/SOBCH.HTML

Seems that it could be a money looser if there was over time paid and so on based on the outcome of the stops.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

I HAVE-several. They ask you if you've been drinking, yeah, but that's about it. They're far more concerned as to whether or not your turn signals work, your muffler is loud, your license plate light is out, etc;etc. If you don't pass muster, you're waved over into a frowing pool/parking lot full of those who will recieve a ticket-for something. I stick by my guns on this. WHO is telling you they're losing money on this? The government? And you believe them?

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

I believe most of these stops and overtime hours are paid by grants from the Feds. But what difference does it make who pays for them or how? The real point is that they are violations of the constitution as Chief Justice Rehnquist himself acknowledged when he wrote for the Supreme Court majority allowing them to continue, thereby violating his oath to uphold the constitution.

The greatest threat to our liberties comes not from terrorists or other countries, but rather from our own government officials, who are willing to violate their sworn oaths to uphold the laws. The Bill of Rights was written as a protection for the people from the government itself. Read the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers were very worried about the government itself becoming an instrument of repression. That's why the first ten amendments were attached to the constitution... to protect the rights of citizens from the government.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Well, another person claimed that the impetus behind the stops is monetary.

And I have read the documents you noted and like most documents, time and history defines the view in the present and not the past.

Looking at the Supreme Court case;

REHNQUIST, C.J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

496 U.S. 444
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
No. 88-1897 Argued: Feb. 27, 1990 --- Decided: June 14, 1990

In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

We see that the court ruled in a way to respect the rights of the citizens and further there has to be well grounded reason for a stop at the sobriety check.

And it is also noted that a citizen is expected to maintain a vehicle with the equipment it is equipped with at all times. So if someone gets stopped at a sobriety check and has a light out, which is plainly seen and recognized by the operator of the motor vehicle to be required, is the infraction therefor invalid and an intrusion on the person's rights?

The former Chief Justices comment could also be construed to be personal commentary.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

There are three type of people: those who don't care what the government does, those who are distrustful of government and want to implement checks and limitations on it, and those who trust the government implicitly and want it to run everything. You seem to belong to the last group.

If you don't watch out for and fight for your freedoms, you won't have them much longer. A lot of people are trying to take them away from you.

Old South End Broadway

Fines paid through traffic court are surely to be high if there are a high number of violations.

Here we were referring to sobriety checks and the amount of people stopped and fined and the reported percentages of fines are low.

But it is interesting and a digging I will do.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

The Criminal / Traffic Division of the Clerk of Court's Office is responsible for processing over 92,000 criminal and traffic charges per year. The Division collected $4,665,300.82 in 2004, $2,709,480.86 of which was deposited into the City of Toledo

Yes, good point and one that is not easily deduced from the stats listed.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

"Such searches are completely antithetical to the US Constitution and our rights as we have understood them for 200+ years."

Well, as you stated the Supreme Court has ruled them to be constitutional and we could then suppose that the Supreme Court is a tool of the Police State, yes?

The term Gestapo is out of reference to what was done, the sobriety check point and with the recent discussions about Neo-Nazi's the usage of Gestapo seemed a bit over the top.

Could it be that when people are unable to control their own actions the police shall monitor the actions of a few for the safety of us all?

I know that I have to pay more for car insurance and when there are less accidents and deaths caused by people who get behind the wheel after having too much to drink, having them caught might not be a bad thing.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

"For example, if someone who was drinking killed someone on the highway by acting irresponsibly the survivors, or witnesses could draw their CCWs, and kill him on the spot."

We would advocate going back to mob rule or vigilantism?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

NO right exists or is conveyed in the constitution that allows us to do as we will without regard to others. Do you think if we uphold the constitution in regard to unreasonable searches, chaos will ensue? That seems to be your position and that of the government. Sounds unAmerican to me.

OldSouthEnd said, "some drunk who kills someone, and isn

"Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means." http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/921.asp

This is where we have come to after 200+ years of the constitution...it's wrong and a constitutional violation, but it's a small wrong. I hope this farcical interpretation of the law is overturned by a more *conservative* and less radical court in the future.

And your point is what? Here you are quoting the newspaper again without any commentary. You have got to learn to stop doing this.

AND MILLIONS of dollars are made through traffic court. And they give out a LOT of tickets at these things-and hardly ANY are for the claimed purpose -DWI.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Sure. And I sailed through, a momentary delay and my vehicle was not inspected.

"I stick by my guns on this. WHO is telling you they're losing money on this? The government? And you believe them?"

Can you supply information that validates the conspiracy the agency in charge is not truthful?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Well, there are more than one way to look at things, yes?

I do not belong to any groups, and I understand the basis of your assertion.

If we look at other Supreme Court decisions then we will see that while what appears to be a restriction is merely deemed necessary because we as citizens or some of us, act in ways that make the rulings necessary.

It is really about discussion, that's all.

There is no motivation on my part to convince anyone of anything.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

that back when I still read the blade, they would have a feature-can't recall if it was each quarter, or perhaps only twice a year-but it was always buried. Since I read EVERYTHING, I'd find it. They reported how much was made by the city through traffic court. I simply couldn't believe my eyes...it was in the MILLIONS the last time I saw it. Nah, they don't make anything LOL

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

...that the money collected includes fines AND court costs that get paid to the city. Fines under the city code go directly to the city...court costs (which are usually more than the fine for basic traffic offenses) get split between the city, the state (public defender fund and victim of crime fund), and special funds of the court (like for computerization or building).

Yes, I would agree that the Supreme Court is part and parcel of a police state when it sanctions these blatantly unconstitutional practices. And I suppose you would agree with just about any infringement of your rights if it lowers your car insurance.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

~Benjamin Franklin

The Highway Patrol sets up random traffic check points, a favorite one was at the Fire Station on Crissey Road, where they would randomly pull vehicles in to issue citations for such criminal acts such as not having a front license plate, even for cars that did not have a location for one. These are not announced a head of time and basically were used to harass people as well as increase the citation numbers of the Highway Patrol. This has gone on for years and it is not being done to try to find drunk drivers since it is always during the day. They get away with it because if you complain then people assume that you must be doing something wrong else you wouldn't mind giving up a bit of your liberty to ensure all of those pesky people out there without front license plates or with a burned out light are strongly dealt with...

Every time I think about police shortages and long response times in Toledo, I can't help but wonder about the over glut of law enforcement coverage in the suburbs compared to Toledo. A one car accident in Springfield almost always nets the Holland Police, the Lucas County Sheriff and one or more Highway Patrol, yet in Toledo, a one car accident is handled by one lone police car. Even such things as a seat belt violation can end up having three or more cars on the scene in Springfield.

We don't remember days only moments...

"They get away with it because if you complain then people assume that you must be doing something wrong else you wouldn't mind giving up a bit of your liberty to ensure all of those pesky people out there without front license plates or with a burned out light are strongly dealt with..."

And when large amounts of drugs are found or something similar was it worth the stop?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

In a word, NO. Nothing is worth jeopardizing our hard-won constitutional rights. Ask the people who lived in the Soviet Union or other totalitarian states.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.