Police State Checkpoint Nullification in Upper Moreland, PA

[finchfeeder]

What gripes my ass, is that police officers who operate above the Constitution, know full-well, that the average American can't afford to spend 1000s of dollars to go through the process of paying a lawyer, and taking the time off work, to prove that their Constitutional rights were violated....and, that, those who qualify for a public defender, probably, won't be represented, effectively.

So, the officers know, that instead of going through the expense of taking the cast to court, these people will most likely opt to plead guilty, at the preliminary hearing, and accept a lesser sentence.

So, even though Constitutional law isn't in the officers' favor...the laws of probability, are.

[Gates of Eden]

NOTICE TO CHECKPOINT AGENTS
For both of our safety, and to discourage criminal abuse of authority, a video recording of this stop is being made.
UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U. S. 543 (1976)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Page 428 U. S. 566
In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth
Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant. [Footnote 19] The principal protection of Fourth
• I have stopped as required.
• My attorney has advised me never to speak to law enforcement personnel under any
circumstances.
• I hereby assert and exercise my constitutionally-protected Right to remain silent.
• I WANT TO GO ON MY WAY IMMEDIATELY. PLEASE ADVISE ME AS SOON AS I AM
FREE TO LEAVE.
Page 428 U. S. 567
Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S.
24-27; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 881-882. We have held that checkpoint searches are
constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975).
• Probable Cause or Consent is required to conduct a search.
• Since this is a suspicion-less checkpoint, you do not have Probable Cause to search.
• I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES.
And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention . . . must be based
on consent or probable cause." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 882.
• Any further detention requires Probable Cause or Consent.
• Since this is a suspicion-less checkpoint, you do not have Probable Cause for detention.
• I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY FURTHER DETENTION.
Page 428 U. S. 563
We further believe that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente
checkpoint […] for the brief questioning involved.
• The sole permitted purpose of referral to secondary inspection is for “brief questioning.”
• I ASSERT MY 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND WILL NOT ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS.
• No other lawful basis remains for a referral to secondary inspection.
• I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY FURTHER DETENTION.
I WANT TO GO ON MY WAY IMMEDIATELY.
PLEASE ADVISE ME AS SOON AS I AM FREE TO LEAVE.
If you conduct any unlawful search, detention, or other violation of my Rights (all of which I reserve), I
intend to see that criminal charges are filed, and civil action instituted against you, to the greatest extent
permitted by law.
I WANT TO GO ON MY WAY IMMEDIATELY.
PLEASE ADVISE ME AS SOON AS I AM FREE TO LEAVE.

This notice is designed to be used at suspicion-less checkpoints operating within the United States, not at international border crossings. Keep a
copy of this notice in your vehicle and present it to the law enforcement agent if you are stopped at one of these checkpoints. Keep your car
doors locked and do not open the window more than is necessary to hand the agent a copy of this notice. DO NOT SPEAK to agents without an attorney present, except to repeat the phrases shown in capital letters on this notice.

[darrenlobo]

The question of what rights we have under the law is a tricky one. Cops are usually "Just Making It Up As They Go Along":

Just as people commonly attribute magical powers to police to know that someone is lying or has committed a crime despite the absence of evidence, people also attribute a certain amount of knowledge of the law to police. When a cop says you're breaking the law, we assume he knows.

What this encounter shows is that they just make it up as they go along. Sure, they find a dead body with a bullet hole through the forehead and they are likely to be correct in calling it a murder, but that's the rarity. The basic encounter between police and the citizenry entails far more mundane situations, Like this. Like telling someone they can't stand on a public sidewalk. No horrendous crime. No act of violence. Just people doing stuff that cops think, for whatever reason, they shouldn't do.

Lawyers and judges recreate these scenarios in legal terms, parsing them to an extreme degree to ascertain whether the actions were lawful. Of course, the police have some huge loopholes to use to their advantage, ranging from disorderly conduct to interference with governmental administration to failure to obey a lawful order. Ironically, these are laws used to punish people not for the underlying "crime", the purported wrong that police make up to get people to do as they are told, but for the disobedience of the citizen. The crime is not obeying the cop, even if the cop is pulling his justification for his command out of thin air.

Courts may offer the consolation that we have the right to be left alone, but that right apparently ends upon a police officer's decision to not leave us alone. Don't try to reconcile the concept. It only exists on paper, and has no bearing on the real world.

In other words the govt's noise about respecting our rights is nothing but a ruse to get us to obey them.

[Nativeson]

It's really no different than a police officer standing on a sidewalk and stopping each pedestrian to see whether they have been drinking, too much, and then demanding that they empty their pockets, to boot.

The difference is that driving is a privilege; walking is a right.

[Martin Riggs]

The difference is that driving is a privilege; walking is a right.

No someone talking to you isn't a violation of your rights.....being detained by the police without PC is. If you come to the scene of and accident and you are stopped in traffic if a police officer was walking along the line of cars talking people would that violate your rights?

[Nativeson]

Not so long as he's asking for possible witnesses.

Food for thought; how do our rights compare with those of the men in this scenario. After General Cornwallis's men were defeated at Yorktown officers from both sides met at the Moore house and drew up terms of surrender. Get a load of this one, and consider that these men have been killing you and your friends for years:

[darrenlobo]

abc

[DiamondLil]

[darrenlobo]

Thanks for the video. This is the guy that was tasered & beaten at a checkpoint in '09. He's got brass ones for sure:

[Martin Riggs]

What gripes my ass, is that police officers who operate above the Constitution, know full-well, that the average American can't afford to spend 1000s of dollars to go through the process of paying a lawyer, and taking the time off work, to prove that their Constitutional rights were violated....and, that, those who qualify for a public defender, probably, won't be represented, effectively.

What gets me is that people seem to think that some kind of "perry mason" thing on the street is going to " secure " their rights....ah no. If you are having your rights violated you need to cooperate with the police tell them that you are cooperating under protest....document to the maximum extent possible and file a formal complaint, video is best.....audio is next best. You will never "win" by resisting in the street.



So, the officers know, that instead of going through the expense of taking the cast to court, these people will most likely opt to plead guilty, at the preliminary hearing, and accept a lesser sentence.

If that's the case then they are opting out of their rights, doing nothing about it is passing the buck





So, even though Constitutional law isn't in the officers' favor...the laws of probability, are.

If you go to all the trouble to get arrested and then just plead out you have no one to blame but yourself. In my LEO days I made totally illegal searches of vehicles....knowing that I would find contraband ( drugs ) but then I did not arrest anyone either the drugs were booked as found evidence of destroyed at the scene. I knew that nothing that resulted from such a search could be used in court but no one has a constitutional right to possess contraband so it was a wash, and I never had a single complaint. I have had the "wannabe" perry mason types that would whine.....no problem then it went strictly by the book and any evidence recovered was used in pressing full charges with no consideration of " being cool". I should point out that these detentions were always legal and the "search PC " was more shaky.

[darrenlobo]

If you go to all the trouble to get arrested and then just plead out you have no one to blame but yourself. In my LEO days I made totally illegal searches of vehicles....knowing that I would find contraband ( drugs ) but then I did not arrest anyone either the drugs were booked as found evidence of destroyed at the scene. I knew that nothing that resulted from such a search could be used in court but no one has a constitutional right to possess contraband so it was a wash, and I never had a single complaint. I have had the "wannabe" perry mason types that would whine.....no problem then it went strictly by the book and any evidence recovered was used in pressing full charges with no consideration of " being cool". I should point out that these detentions were always legal and the "search PC " was more shaky.

Martin, thanks for the enlightening post. In '09 I wrote about police & the war on drugs. What do you think of the article?

Drug Prohibition: Law Enforcement Is The Problem

....A key point here is that the source of the problem is not the War on Drugs, that is merely the symptom. The problem is that the government has the means to enforce laws like the drug prohibition. Once it had the power it then passed the bad laws. (Of course, once they had these bad laws to enforce they then used the higher crime rates these bad laws created to justify more, and more powerful, police.) The only way to ensure that there won't be a repetition of the War on Drugs fiasco is to abolish policing as we know it today......

.....We need to move to a system of private security. There is no need for local police. History has already proved that private security is better at protecting us than the government is......

....There is no need for national level law enforcement. Agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and the Drug Enforcement Administration are merely instruments of oppression enforcing mostly unconstitutional laws.....

....the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, and property is the government. This is due to their tremendous police power. The only way for us to preserve (restore?) our rights is to take that power away from the government......

[Jimmy Biggs]