Jump to content

Illegal search and seziure on bethel tonight


Trouble Maker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Driving down the road is not probable cause.

 

 

5th amendment

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Why should anyone have to take a breath test? I am not a lawyer but that seems to be in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

 

Just another example of the government over stepping its bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th amendment

Driving down the road is not probable cause.

 

 

5th amendment

Why should anyone have to take a breath test? I am not a lawyer but that seems to be in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

 

Just another example of the government over stepping its bounds.

 

 

 

Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th amendment

Driving down the road is not probable cause.

 

 

5th amendment

Why should anyone have to take a breath test? I am not a lawyer but that seems to be in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

 

Just another example of the government over stepping its bounds.

 

I can see that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th amendment

Driving down the road is not probable cause.

 

See my statement above. DUI checkpoints in Ohio are legal.

 

5th amendment

Why should anyone have to take a breath test? I am not a lawyer but that seems to be in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

 

Just another example of the government over stepping its bounds.

 

It's an option. In Ohio you don't have to take any field sobriety tests at all. They will likely take you to the station, arrest you, etc...but if you've been drinking, that's likely going to happen anyway and when you go to court, they will have to have probable cause to have even arrested you. Don't give them the test results to make that happen. You don't have to walk the lines, blow in the field meter and in the end are better off NOT doing any of that. All it's there for is so the cops can collect evidence in their investigation against you.

 

If you refuse the one at the station, you will be assigned six points, be fined and lose your license, but who cares. Again, better than bringing a DUI upon yourself along with the evidence against you. Lawyer up and wait until they get their. Key is don't give up the goods as when you go to court, nothing puts a hammer in your coffin like your own willingness to give up your .08+

 

Key is to lawyer up ASAP so that they can not only go over your rights and tell you about the process that's forthcoming, but so that they can determine if the police followed proper procedures. DUI has a lot of technicalities associated with it and a lot of subjectiveness about it early on. Let them do their job and pick that shit apart.

 

I'm not a lawyer or 100% about the above, but I know enough not to give up the goods. I'd lawyer up the same as anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my statement above. DUI checkpoints in Ohio are legal.

I realize as of now they are legal. Just because we have a law in place does not automatically mean that the law is in the spirit of the constitution. Just look at the struggle with the government and the 2nd amendment.

 

It's an option. In Ohio you don't have to take any field sobriety tests at all. They will likely take you to the station, arrest you, etc...but if you've been drinking, that's likely going to happen anyway and when you go to court, they will have to have probable cause to have even arrested you. Don't give them the test results to make that happen. You don't have to walk the lines, blow in the field meter and in the end are better off NOT doing any of that. All it's there for is so the cops can collect evidence in their investigation against you.

 

If you refuse the one at the station, you will be assigned six points, be fined and lose your license, but who cares. Again, better than bringing a DUI upon yourself along with the evidence against you. Lawyer up and wait until they get their. Key is don't give up the goods as when you go to court, nothing puts a hammer in your coffin like your own willingness to give up your .08+

 

Key is to lawyer up ASAP so that they can not only go over your rights and tell you about the process that's forthcoming, but so that they can determine if the police followed proper procedures. DUI has a lot of technicalities associated with it and a lot of subjectiveness about it early on. Let them do their job and pick that shit apart.

 

I'm not a lawyer or 100% about the above, but I know enough not to give up the goods. I'd lawyer up the same as anyone.

I understand I could refuse the BA test, but the law has been designed to punish you for exercising your rights as provided by the constitution. Take the test or face the penalty. I doubt that is what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind.

Remember in a criminal case the state has the burden of proof. A citizen should not have to help the state prove its case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize as of now they are legal. Just because we have a law in place does not automatically mean that the law is in the spirit of the constitution. Just look at the struggle with the government and the 2nd amendment.

 

It's because they post that they will be having a sobriety check point. In going the route that takes you through it, you have consented to being possibly stopped. Quite simple if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because they post that they will be having a sobriety check point. In going the route that takes you through it, you have consented to being possibly stopped. Quite simple if you ask me.

 

That is a stretch if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a stretch if you ask me.

 

 

It's what a lawyer told me, and you said you aren't a lawyer.

 

So therefore, his opinion>yours.

 

Aren't you the one who was making up things about veterinarians? Oh I see, you have used a vet before, so you are an expert. Sorry, I'll leave these things up to people who are actual doctors and lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's what a lawyer told me, and you said you aren't a lawyer.

 

So therefore, his opinion>yours.

 

Aren't you the one who was making up things about veterinarians? Oh I see, you have used a vet before, so you are an expert. Sorry, I'll leave these things up to people who are actual doctors and lawyers.

 

So I guess citizens should not have an opinion? I hope you stay out of the voting booth.

 

BTW it is lawyers that write laws that sometimes get overturned as unconstitutional. Lawyers may be smart guys, but it does not make them right all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess citizens should not have an opinion? I hope you stay out of the voting booth.

 

Citizens can have as many opinions as they want, you just push yours a little too hard, as in, your act as if yours is the only right one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize as of now they are legal. Just because we have a law in place does not automatically mean that the law is in the spirit of the constitution. Just look at the struggle with the government and the 2nd amendment.

 

 

I understand I could refuse the BA test, but the law has been designed to punish you for exercising your rights as provided by the constitution. Take the test or face the penalty. I doubt that is what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind.

Remember in a criminal case the state has the burden of proof. A citizen should not have to help the state prove its case.

 

I also doubt the founders of this country realized the shit we'd be facing hundreds of years later. It's not quite the same now as it was then. They didn't have thousands of idiots driving drunk or trying to hide behind loop-holes in the law like we do today.

 

I'm all for the spirit of the constitution, but I also don't believe that we can live without changing with the times. Likewise, the people of this country don't have the same respect or attitude of the people back then either. Society is complete different and thus we have to govern and manage society differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also doubt the founders of this country realized the shit they'd be facing hundreds of years later. It's not quite the same now as it was then. They didn't have thousands of idiots driving drunk or trying to hide behind loop-holes in the law like we do today.

 

I'm all for the spirit of the constitution, but I also don't believe that we can live without changing with the times. Likewise, the people of this country don't have the same respect or attitude of the people back then either. Society is complete different and thus we have to govern and manage society differently.

 

Please dont take what I am saying as an endorsement of drunk driving. It is not.

 

We tend to go down a slippery slope when it come to law enforcement. Justification of bending the bill of rights seems like an ok thing in situations like drunk driving. When the law and the courts make the next step to start entering homes just because a few people are growing pot in a certain area of town. People may think different when the po po come knocking at the door.

Maybe we should do crack check points next. Anyone that is traveling on E. Main St. will be stopped and searched. We could get the drug dogs out and have them walk up and down the line of cars.

Then after the crack check points, we could do illegal firearms check points too. And so on.

Over time what is acceptable seems to degrade as people become more comfortable with the government stepping on their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can go cry to my gf, at least she can call herself Doctor.

 

oh wow... congratulations you have a girlfriend that is a doctor. Maybe we should all send you a card in the mail, some chocolates too, throw you a party, get you a bottle of wine, a box of cigars. On second thought, again,no one cares but your mommy.

 

Get on topic or get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please take what I am saying as an endorsement of drunk driving. It is not.

 

We tend to go down a slippery slope when it come to law enforcement. Justification of bending the bill of rights seems like an ok thing in situations like drunk driving. When the law and the courts make the next step to start entering homes just because a few people are growing pot in a certain area of town. People may think different when the po po come knocking at the door.

Maybe we should do crack check points next. Anyone that is traveling on E. Main St. will be stopped and searched. We could get the drug dogs out and have them walk up and down the line of cars.

Then after the crack check points, we could do illegal firearms check points too. And so on.

Over time what is acceptable seems to degrade as people become more comfortable with the government stepping on their rights.

 

 

You've obviously never driven through the checkpoints in Southern Cali or Texas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazy isnt it!!! I was shocked on my first trip through when they made me pull over and pop my trunk to make sure I didnt have a couple Mexicans in there...

 

I have spent a lot of time in southern cali. My Family lives in Carlsbad, Hemet and Temecula. I have went through them many times and never had them ask me to search my car.

 

I did think it was funny the first time I saw the illegal immigrant crossing sign.

http://www.cahighways.org/images/i5crossing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh wow... congratulations you have a girlfriend that is a doctor. Maybe we should all send you a card in the mail, some chocolates too, throw you a party, get you a bottle of wine, a box of cigars. On second thought, again,no one cares but your mommy.

 

Get on topic or get out.

 

Waahhhh...

 

The CPD says they are doing a DUI checkpoint. They announce it on the news and so on. If you go that route you are giving the implied consent to be stopped. At that point, they will determine if there is probable to investigate further. It's simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spent a lot of time in southern cali. My Family lives in Carlsbad, Hemet and Temecula. I have went through them many times and never had them ask me to search my car.

 

I did think it was funny the first time I saw the illegal immigrant crossing sign.

http://www.cahighways.org/images/i5crossing.gif

 

 

LOL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please dont take what I am saying as an endorsement of drunk driving. It is not.

 

I know...I don't think you nor anyone here is endorsing it.

 

We tend to go down a slippery slope when it come to law enforcement. Justification of bending the bill of rights seems like an ok thing in situations like drunk driving.

 

I agree....it is a slippery slope and that point has been debated and will likely continue to be debated. That's why 11 states don't have DUI Checkpoints. However, I just happen to feel that in society today, they are a good thing.

 

Maybe we should do crack check points next. Anyone that is traveling on E. Main St. will be stopped and searched. We could get the drug dogs out and have them walk up and down the line of cars.

 

We already have that really...that's why cops bust people for burnt out lights, not signaling, driving 1mph over the limit, crack windshields, etc....hell, I don't see anything wrong with it. I'll catch hell for saying it, but profiling....works and like it or not, simple stops bust lots of really bad guys.

 

Over time what is acceptable seems to degrade as people become more comfortable with the government stepping on their rights.

 

I'm not comfortable with losing rights, but I also realize that we need to bend things a little in order to protect our families. If a DUI checkpoint in the area takes even one person breaking the law off the roads, then it could potentially save the lives of those around them. I'm fine with allowing the cops to stop me and smell my breath to make that happen. I also am prepared to protect myself by either not drinking and driving. I see nothing about that as harming my rights. What "could happen" or come next....let's deal with that if and when it does. Just as we did with the laws around DUI checkpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...