- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just got through an inspection checkpoint, how are these constitutional again?
Posted on 7/29/17 at 10:52 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 7/29/17 at 10:52 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 7/29/17 at 10:54 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:Your understanding is incorrect.
My understanding is that they need reasonable suspicion to stop someone like that.
The U.S. Supreme Court said that "random" stops to inspect vehicles is unconstitutional. Police can't randomly select cars to stop while letting other cars pass without inspecting them.
However, the court said that license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.
Delaware v. Prouse was the case.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 10:54 am to The Don
quote:
I firmly believe,support and hold firm to the constitution. Just hate these idiots.
I agree with that viewpoint. I wasnt rude to the troopers, and was on my way in no time.
Its just the idea of being stopped without cause because the town wants to raise money irks me.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 10:58 am to Breesus
Were they checking for valid insurance? That used to be the thing driving New Orleans Car insurance rates up.
Please tell us that the battered cardboard "Tags applied for" no longer pass as valid tags.
Please tell us that the battered cardboard "Tags applied for" no longer pass as valid tags.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 10:59 am to Bmath
quote:
I have the right to travel
You must however do so legally. Some of the legal requirements are you must have a valid registration, license and insurance.
If you Are speeding, they have methods of determining that you are breaking the law and you get pulled over. There is no method of knowing you do not have the above required items. The only way to know is to pull you over.
Now they could just wait until that driver gets in a wreck but then it it too late. Then one would bitch because the driver did not have insurance. Then all of our insurance rates go up...
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:16 am to LSURussian
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court said that "random" stops to inspect vehicles is unconstitutional. Police can't randomly select cars to stop while letting other cars pass without inspecting them.
However, the court said that license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.
Thanks
This post was edited on 7/29/17 at 11:40 am
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:20 am to BHM
The fourth amendment grants protections from unjust search and seizure.
Stopping someone for no crime to check paperwork is assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.
Stopping someone for no crime to check paperwork is assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:24 am to NYNolaguy1
You need to do a FOIA request to see the location of such checkpoints over the last 3 years
I think you will find that it is more of a money grab than a safety service....by that, I mean that the checkpoints will be few and far between in low income areas
I think you will find that it is more of a money grab than a safety service....by that, I mean that the checkpoints will be few and far between in low income areas
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:26 am to Rouge
quote:
that it is more of a money grab than a safety service
This is my problem with it. If they need more money raise taxes rather than claiming its for my safety.
Eta: keep up the downvotes
This post was edited on 7/29/17 at 11:30 am
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:27 am to NYNolaguy1
Part of my regular life. I go through at least one between every city.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:31 am to Bmath
quote:
Stopping someone for no crime to check paperwork is assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.
This happens every day in every airport. Not arguing with you but this is really the same thing yet one has to show id, ticket and subject themselves to random searches.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:33 am to fishfighter
quote:
Had a cop do the swing around and tail gate me last night driving thru Simsport. He had his bright lights on. Just looking for a reason to stop me. I will make a complaint today.
Friend of mine visited BR last night, and had a cop tail him for about 8 miles last night, shining his brights.
It's harassment, plain and simple.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:38 am to NYNolaguy1
Go study 4 th amendment and fine your answer.
They are legal and constitutional as long as the legal conditions are met.
They are legal and constitutional as long as the legal conditions are met.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:41 am to TaderSalad
quote:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Constitution protects rights.
So you don't have rights when you are driving? What the frick are you trying to say?
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:44 am to ItTakesAThief
quote:
Go study 4 th amendment and find your answer.
quote:
Delaware v Prouse
quote:
1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.
2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.
(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.
Page 440 U. S. 649
(b) The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. 3. 873; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.
(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.
(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.
Justia
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:53 am to NYNolaguy1
No inspection stickers are required in Indiana, and it's great.
The whole process is a racket.
The whole process is a racket.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:58 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
State Police were stopping every vehicle making sure registration and inspection were valid/up to date.
And they didn't check your insurance? I don't think so. I personally don't mind them having check points for insurance since plenty of shitty drivers don't have it and need to have their cars impounded.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 11:58 am to Box Geauxrilla
quote:
fricks with no inspection..... off the road
Explain how this protects you.
I'll hang up and listen.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 12:01 pm to NYNolaguy1
Georgia doesn't have inspection stickers but they link your insurance, emissions testing and registration with your license plate. LA can do the same and they can tell via the tag office if the cars inspection was done. Then no need for stickers or checks.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 12:03 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
quote:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Constitution protects rights.
So you don't have rights when you are driving? What the frick are you trying to say?
Driving insinuates doing commerce. The majority of people are simply traveling, which does not, by law, require license insurance or registration.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News