Feds arrest family for 'refusing to answer questions' Read more at http://www.wnd.com

[Ron Burgundy]

Not a good analogy in a number of ways.

One, owning a gun is a constitutional right. Driving a car is a privilege. You are subjected to all sorts of qualifications before you are legally allowed to drive...you've got to prove you're competent and physically and mentally capable. You agree to carry insurance. You agree to abide by all driving laws. When you accept a driver's license you are voluntarily relinquishing some "rights" in the interest of public safety.

But let's assume you do have some "right" to drive around in your car. You still have a legal responsibility to do it safely and not endanger others. Just like you have a legal responsibility to keep your loaded gun away from a kid.

The right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure is a Constitutional right also.

I...agree...with Elfie...

Elfie and Trog both have a bit of a Libertarian streak that surfaces once in a while. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 21 thinks that the government always knows what's best as long as Democrats are running it.

 

[USDA#1]

ahhh yes, the dog "alert"...one of the 1st things they train the dog to do, which being a dog, is eager to please it's handler.


all of you that want to bet yer freedom on a dog, raise your hand.

 

[oneforthebus]

ahhh yes, the dog "alert"...one of the 1st things they train the dog to do, which being a dog, is eager to please it's handler.


all of you that want to bet yer freedom on a dog, raise your hand.

Once again, the dog alert just raises reasonable suspicion and allows police to search. You have to actually have drugs in your car to lose your freedom.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the police plant that. Because nobody ever actually tries to smuggle drugs in from Mexico.

 

[Elfiero]

Not a good analogy in a number of ways.

One, owning a gun is a constitutional right. Driving a car is a privilege. You are subjected to all sorts of qualifications before you are legally allowed to drive...you've got to prove you're competent and physically and mentally capable. You agree to carry insurance. You agree to abide by all driving laws. When you accept a driver's license you are voluntarily relinquishing some "rights" in the interest of public safety.

But let's assume you do have some "right" to drive around in your car. You still have a legal responsibility to do it safely and not endanger others. Just like you have a legal responsibility to keep your loaded gun away from a kid.

This isn't about driving and privilege(by the way the right to travel freely is a right not a privilege). This is a 4th amendment issue, this is casting a net with the presumption that everyone is guilty.

Again public safety doesn't trump the constitution that's why the supreme court skirted around this by leaving people an out.

It's still unconstitutional the way I understand it, that's why you don't have to comply. It's wishy washy and the justices knew it.

I can think of a million things that would make us all safer....at a great price.

"Those that seek security at the price of liberty, will soon have neither"---Benjamin Franklin

 

[oneforthebus]

This isn't about driving and privilege(by the way the right to travel freely is a right not a privilege). This is a 4th amendment issue, this is casting a net with the presumption that everyone is guilty.

Again public safety doesn't trump the constitution that's why the supreme court skirted around this by leaving people an out.

It's still unconstitutional the way I understand it, that's why you don't have to comply. It's wishy washy and the justices knew it.

I can think of a million things that would make us all safer....at a great price.

"Those that seek security at the price of liberty, will soon have neither"---Benjamin Franklin

We all balance security and safety with liberty to some degree.

The "right to travel freely" has nothing to do with the right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, if it did we'd have no such thing as driver's licensing, age restrictions or laws that ban impaired or dangerous drivers from being on the road.
As stated before, I'm not a fan of inconveniencing innocent people at DUI checkpoints and stop and frisk. I'm simply pointing out that you have nothing to worry about if you're not breaking any laws.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I'm simply pointing out that you have nothing to worry about if you're not breaking any laws.

However the way you create a police state is to have so many laws that everyone is breaking one at some point every day.

 

[oneforthebus]

However the way you create a police state is to have so many laws that everyone is breaking one at some point every day.

Do you believe driving drunk should be legal?

 

[USDA#1]

Police routinely get away with murder in this country...do you really think they are above planting on people?

Anyway, agree strongly with RB.

 

[oneforthebus]

This isn't about driving and privilege(by the way the right to travel freely is a right not a privilege). This is a 4th amendment issue, this is casting a net with the presumption that everyone is guilty.

Again public safety doesn't trump the constitution that's why the supreme court skirted around this by leaving people an out.

It's still unconstitutional the way I understand it, that's why you don't have to comply. It's wishy washy and the justices knew it.

I can think of a million things that would make us all safer....at a great price.

"Those that seek security at the price of liberty, will soon have neither"---Benjamin Franklin

I find it comical that someone who would entrust our entire healthcare system to the feds would post such a quote.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Do you believe driving drunk should be legal?

I believe that drunk driving is like anything else...you have to practice to get good at it.
If the cops have probably cause, and in this day video evidence, to pull you over, then fine. I do not believe they should have checkpoints to pull over everyone.

 

[Elfiero]

We all balance security and safety with liberty to some degree.

The "right to travel freely" has nothing to do with the right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, if it did we'd have no such thing as driver's licensing, age restrictions or laws that ban impaired or dangerous drivers from being on the road.
As stated before, I'm not a fan of inconveniencing innocent people at DUI checkpoints and stop and frisk. I'm simply pointing out that you have nothing to worry about if you're not breaking any laws.

No it doesn't you're right. This has to do with reasonable suspicion/probable cause of which the agency conducting the search has neither, and by engaging in this they are impeding your right to travel freely.

The "you have nothing to worry about don't break the law" is irrelevant to the point I'm making. In your way of thinking the police should go door to door to see if anyone has illegal drugs, or go door to door and search for kidnapped people, on and on.

Where does it end? It's a slippery slope.

Don't believe me? Watch this; from tossing a cigarette to; "you must have pot"; to a cavity search. Maybe when they stop my or your daughter/wife we can tell them that "we don't break the law". Maybe that statement will produce the smallest amount of kindness so that they at least put on a fresh latex glove.

Something they didn't even do for these two.......wake up.

http://gawker.com/5969786/texas-sta...ct-a-roadside-body-cavity-search-on-two-women

 

[oneforthebus]

In your way of thinking the police should go door to door to see if anyone has illegal drugs, or go door to door and search for kidnapped people.

Police do go door to door to investigate crimes, every day. You don't have to answer the door, you don't have to let them in without a warrant, but they can certainly knock on your door and ask you to answer some questions. I don't know where people get the idea that they are not allowed to do this.

If you open the door and let them in and then incriminate yourself with your words and actions, they now have probable cause.

 

[Elfiero]

I find it comical that someone who would entrust our entire healthcare system to the feds would post such a quote.

What does health care have to do with the bill of rights? You do know that the Federal Gov. is mandated with the general welfare of the people right? Maybe we should get rid of free education as well..

Any country that claims to be civilized should provide health care, education, and basic food needs to those that need it.

 

[oneforthebus]

Police routinely get away with murder in this country...do you really think they are above planting on people?

Anyway, agree strongly with RB.

I think it would be a rare border patrol officer who wants to waste his time fabricating a dog alert and then planting a small amount of pot on your average citizen. For what? What does he possibly stand to gain from doing that? Just a little bored that day and wanted to mess with someone? Someone with a wife and a little kid in the car? Really?

I tend to use logic in looking at this kind of stuff.

 

[Elfiero]

Police do go door to door to investigate crimes, every day. You don't have to answer the door, you don't have to let them in without a warrant, but they can certainly knock on your door and ask you to answer some questions. I don't know where people get the idea that they are not allowed to do this.

If you open the door and let them in and then incriminate yourself with your words and actions, they now have probable cause.

What specific crime or suspicious activity that they have witnessed or has been reported to them are they investigating by stopping everyone on the road?

 

[Elfiero]

I believe that drunk driving is like anything else...you have to practice to get good at it.
If the cops have probably cause, and in this day video evidence, to pull you over, then fine. I do not believe they should have checkpoints to pull over everyone.

I had a guy who thought he was funny tell me that this is what DUI school is for........... to teach you how to evade.

 

[oneforthebus]

What specific crime that they have witnessed or has been reported to them are they investigating by stopping everyone on the road?

I've already said I don't like it. I'm just not sure it amounts to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Any more than if they stopped you walking down the street and asked you a question. You've already said, you don't have to open your window, you don't have to answer, you don't have to volunteer anything. If you're drunk and you're stupid and you end up giving them probable cause, that's kind of your problem.

 

[Elfiero]

I think it would be a rare border patrol officer who wants to waste his time fabricating a dog alert and then planting a small amount of pot on your average citizen. For what? What does he possibly stand to gain from doing that? Just a little bored that day and wanted to mess with someone? Someone with a wife and a little kid in the car? Really?

I tend to use logic in looking at this kind of stuff.

Like I said ...wake up. They do it all the time It's about funding, promotions, etc. Go on you tube to see the many, many cases of this. How many don't get videoed?

 

[oneforthebus]

Like I said ...wake up. They do it all the time It's about funding, promotions, etc. Go on you tube to see the many, many cases of this. How many don't get videoed?

That tape shows an informant planting evidence, not a police officer. An informant obviously DOES have motivation to do something like this. He doesn't get his deal if he doesn't come up with anything.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting it never happens. I do not think it is anywhere near as rampant as some of you seem to believe. A couple of youtube videos is not evidence that it happens "all the time".

 

[DBS1970]

That tape shows an informant planting evidence, not a police officer. An informant obviously DOES have motivation to do something like this. He doesn't get his deal if he doesn't come up with anything.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting it never happens. I do not think it is anywhere near as rampant as some of you seem to believe. A couple of youtube videos is not evidence that it happens "all the time".

The fact is that planting evidence happens way more than any of us here want to think about. The advent of small affordable camera systems has made catching bad cops in the act way more common. There is a video on YouTube of a traffic stop search where the camera inside a vehicle catches an officer clearly taking a baggie out of his shirt pocket and planting it in the center console of the car. The cop knew about the front dashcam recording the road but didn't see the rear dashcam recording the interior. Just one instance is way too many and to my way of thinking justification for making the police cease checkpoints. And as I said before the motive for the border patrol planting a bag of pot would be for them to be able to point any go see see we found drugs after all the negative press these checkpoints have gotten in the last couple of years.

 

[oneforthebus]

The fact is that planting evidence happens way more than any of us here want to think about. The advent of small affordable camera systems has made catching bad cops in the act way more common. There is a video on YouTube of a traffic stop search where the camera inside a vehicle catches an officer clearly taking a baggie out of his shirt pocket and planting it in the center console of the car. The cop knew about the front dashcam recording the road but didn't see the rear dashcam recording the interior. Just one instance is way too many and to my way of thinking justification for making the police cease checkpoints. And as I said before the motive for the border patrol planting a bag of pot would be for them to be able to point any go see see we found drugs after all the negative press these checkpoints have gotten in the last couple of years.

Why wouldn't they plant something bigger? A tiny quantity of marijuana isn't exactly the crime of the century. If the idea was to justify the checkpoints that hardly seems like much justification.

Do you think it's the individual agents who are so concerned with PR that they are willing to frame innocent people? Or do you think this is an institutionalized thing, where he has orders from above to frame innocent people? And none of the individual agents ever object to this? They are all just that bad and corrupt?

Does that really make sense to you?

Or does it make a little more sense that this guy had some pot in his car, figured he could use his dashcam to avoid a search, and didn't realize that a dog alert is probable cause?

 

[DBS1970]

I think a small baggie is what a guy could Cary easily to throw down. And I do believe the average Border Patrol Officer would do this for PR based on orders. Look up Lon Horiuchi.

 

[Omar10213245]

I think a small baggie is what a guy could Cary easily to throw down. And I do believe the average Border Patrol Officer would do this for PR based on orders. Look up Lon Horiuchi.

Lol really? I appreciate your passion on the issue, but this is ridiculous. So before their shifts, are BPO's issued a certain amt of baggies of weed per shift to plant, in order to achieve their ends? No way in hell, I dont buy that

 

[DBS1970]

Lol really? I appreciate your passion on the issue, but this is ridiculous. So before their shifts, are BPO's issued a certain amt of baggies of weed per shift to plant, in order to achieve their ends? No way in hell, I dont buy that

Supervisor goes to the dog handler and hands a baggie over with orders to drop it on the next car that refuses search. I'm not saying that happened here but similar things have happened. Think FAST AND FURUOUS the orders for that illegal operation came to the ATF from the DOJ. And I am saying the timing of this incident is suspect.I am also saying that one way put them in check is demanding that the Fourth Amendment be restored and these checkpoints be banned.

 

[oneforthebus]

Supervisor goes to the dog handler and hands a baggie over with orders to drop it on the next car that refuses search. I'm not saying that happened here but similar things have happened. Think FAST AND FURUOUS the orders for that illegal operation came to the ATF from the DOJ. And I am saying the timing of this incident is suspect.I am also saying that one way put them in check is demanding that the Fourth Amendment be restored and these checkpoints be banned.

Fast and Furious involved allowing illegal straw purchasers to purchase guns, in hopes of tracking them to drug cartels. It didn't involve framing innocent people for crimes. Oh and guess who blew the whistle on it? ATF agents. But I'm sure all border agents are just fine with framing your average dad on drug charges just for PR purposes.