cop suspended after ticketing mayor’s son during checkpoint stop
#47
BahHumBug
iTrader: (10)
also i'd like to point out that the court cases previously mentioned stipulated the right to TRAVEL on public roads, not to DRIVE on them.
ie-you can't be restricted (without due process) from being in a vehicle/horse drawn carriage on a public road. DRIVING said vehicle however is NOT a right. BEING DRIVEN by someone ELSE (provided they're licensed/insured/sober) is.
#48
For those that watch "COPS" do you really think they act that way when they're off camera, or think they're off camera? The police officers on COPS are well aware they're on camera and I'm sure being more reserved. I don't think the officers that "spoke" with Rodney King would have done the same had they been on TV.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's just life... if someone can't abuse a little power once they get to the high chair, then why go there?
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's just life... if someone can't abuse a little power once they get to the high chair, then why go there?
#50
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
nothing wrong with asking for a license/reg for breaking the law. But in the original post, it seems as though the cop went out of his way purposely to stop the kid (in hopes of handing out a ticket?) since the story doesnt state whether he left someone else in charge or not.
and i have no problem with the officer giving him the ticket, (for if he wasnt legal to drive/ no insurance its not good.) and once again thats the law.
But if the mayor flipped out to this point and was heated im sure there was a reason. We have yet to hear the sons side of the story.
And im gonna just make an assumption here, the fact that:
"he’s convinced he handled the situation correctly."
seems to imply what i said earlier, no matter what, he thinks hes right
Then again its just an assumption
TLR
we have yet to hear sons side of the story to justify or reprimand mayors action.
if officer just did a straight routine stop + ticket, mayor is at fault.
and i have no problem with the officer giving him the ticket, (for if he wasnt legal to drive/ no insurance its not good.) and once again thats the law.
But if the mayor flipped out to this point and was heated im sure there was a reason. We have yet to hear the sons side of the story.
And im gonna just make an assumption here, the fact that:
"he’s convinced he handled the situation correctly."
seems to imply what i said earlier, no matter what, he thinks hes right
Then again its just an assumption
TLR
we have yet to hear sons side of the story to justify or reprimand mayors action.
if officer just did a straight routine stop + ticket, mayor is at fault.
Routine stop? As others have said, why do you think the cops leave a way out at the checkpoints? If there's a line of 5 cars waiting and one pulls out to avoid the checkpoint, 9 times out of 10, it's not because they're being impatient.
Kid got what he deserved and hopefully the mayor will as well.
#51
F is for Fraud
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Québec
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#53
I would prefer no DUI checkpoints which violate my rights, the 4th amendment in particular. DUI checkpoints are required to have a turn out and are allowed to be bypassed. Unfortunately, most law enforcement agencies do not abide by the law.
Last edited by pingu; 10-29-09 at 07:02 PM.
#55
Lexus Fanatic
Incorrect. Courts have held (even the Supreme Court itself) that most checkpoints DO NOT violate 4th-Amendment rights. That is because driving, in all 50 states, is not legally a right, but a privedge.
#56
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Sorry he's right and the Supreme Court DID say (in a split decision) that the checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment BUT they are a necessary violation for the greater good.
Although it's a silly argument to make in public to claim that you'd rather see drivers driving drunk than to submit yourself to a checkpoint search.
The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”
Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2
Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.
Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2
Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.
#57
Lexus Fanatic
Although it's a silly argument to make in public to claim that you'd rather see drivers driving drunk than to submit yourself to a checkpoint search.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-30-09 at 12:47 PM.
#59
Lexus Fanatic
In CA to help sidestep the legal issues mentioned, checkpoints are well advertised in advance and clearly marked considerable distance from the actual checkpoint to allow alternate routes and detours. Amazing that the drunks still get snared as they should, but then maybe that's expected, they are wasted.
#60
Lexus Fanatic
I can think of one exception, though. If I overdid it, not with alcohol, but with Tex-Mex, and had diarrahea or colitis, and needed to get to a toilet fast, I wouldn't want to be held up unnecesarily, waiting in line, just to prove to some cop that I was sober, when I'm in fact a teetotaler and never drink in the first place.
Sometime nature calls...and calls fast.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-30-09 at 12:48 PM.