OT: question about legality of "license check" in NC

[sultan62]

It's been a few months since the discussion last appeared, but I'm pretty sure there's no requirement to show your CHP if you are not carrying, nor if you are carrying openly. I could be wrong, but I believe the final verdict here was that disclosure of your CHP was only required if you were carrying concealed.

That is my understanding as well, and I'm certainly not going to volunteer the information if I am not concealing.

 

[elixin77]

I have to argue that I don't believe that a check point is a "search". Correct me if I'm reading it wrong but plain view during a lawful observation isn't a search according to the Constitution.

We have this rule on the forums:

Cite please.

I don't know what constitution your reading, but I believe the U.S. constitution says "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." That is pretty cut and dry, and doesn't allow anyone to search at all, without permission or a warrant

As to the CHP question, if you are not carrying, or not carrying concealed, you are not obligated to inform anyone you have a CHP

 

[papa bear]

first, no license should be required to travel. As it is the most common form of travel, and we undoubtedly have the right to travel unrestricted, it should have become a right, as opposed to a licensed privilege, long ago.

Furthermore, the fact that a court or courts have determined a few ways to sidestep the intent of the law does not affect the fact that i should not have to identify myself in any way without cause.

If an officer walked up to you on the street and asked you for id, what would you do?

amen

 

[WTFOVER]

If your question has to do with the legitimacy of stopping you in the first place (the mere implementation of a checkpoint) refer to the earlier post with the URL attached discussing the conditions for an upheld-as-constitutional checkpoint stop. Has to be programatic, non-discriminatory, for a valid purpose, etc.
If your question has to do with showing your license which contains more information than is required to "identify yourself," you're engaging in the exercise of a government authorized privilege (operating your vehicle on the public road), so yeah, you're required to show that you have the permit to do that.
The folks who seem to be saying "the government shouldn't be able to make me do anything I don't want to do" are correct in a way: Nobody forces you to operate your motor vehicle on the public road, or agree to abide by the rules that go along with exercising that privilege. Don't agree to show the police a card with your home address on it? Don't drive.

I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Smith45acp]

If your license is revoked or suspended you're supposed to turn it in to the DMV.

But unless those guys are running everyone in the computer they would have no real way of knowing the validity of the license you show them.

I'm against DUI, license checks, equipment checks etc. IMO they brazenly violate the 4A, but they have copious precedence to do so... So what are you gonna do about it right?

The worst thing about them to me seems to be the 4A being sacrificed without any real effect. DUI checkpoints for example have been proven to be far less effective than roving patrols specifically looking for DUI's. And those roving patrols (as long as the officers are honest folks) don't violate the 4A since RAS must be established before they pull you.

I've been pulled twice for my window tint. Both times were weekend nights. The pretext for the stop being an equipment violation. One time the officer didn't even gauge the windows, the second time he did, they failed, and he didn't bother to cite me for it.

I hate to complain about NOT getting a ticket, but it did piss me off to be forced to accompany the officer on his fishing trip.

 

[JoeSparky]

I have to argue that I don't believe that a check point is a "search". Correct me if I'm reading it wrong but plain view during a lawful observation isn't a search according to the Constitution.

Forcing me to stop, Interfering with my ability to travel, Interfering with my ability to freely assemble--- ALL without any RAS that I have, am, or am about to COMMIT a crime IS A VIOLATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.

I fully recognize that certain courts have ruled that a check point is a MINIMAL intrusion and is therefore "legal'... IT IS STILL AN INTRUSION and that is what I object too!

 

[Citizen]

SNIP But since we're all law abiding citizens here and if you guys got nothing to hide, then why complain about a license check point?

Because it is a seizure absent particularized suspicion or probable cause.

The first clue is the government's own spin terminology: checkpoint. Suuuuure. Lets just call it something innocuous like checkpoint so fewer people will feel impinged. Lets not call it what it really is: roadblock. Oh, no. Roadblock might alert the mundanes that something is up, that government is encroaching some more.

Any time government has to twist or pervert the language in order to reduce resistance, you know something is up.

Do you know the government has so twisted 4A rights law that you can actually be involuntarily seized in a roadblock so police may seek your voluntary cooperation with an investigation? Google "informational roadblocks".

If you really want a fast education on what is left of our 4A rights, check out this blog by an experienced attorney: www.fourthamendment.com He reports two or three cases each day from around the country. The hard part is reading it and watching our rights get narrower and narrower practically right before your eyes.

 

[alispissed]

No one forced you to go that route.

Forcing me to stop, Interfering with my ability to travel, Interfering with my ability to freely assemble--- ALL without any RAS that I have, am, or am about to COMMIT a crime IS A VIOLATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.

I fully recognize that certain courts have ruled that a check point is a MINIMAL intrusion and is therefore "legal'... IT IS STILL AN INTRUSION and that is what I object too!

Check point roadblocks are posted in the media. Pay attention and stay out of the area.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I fully recognize that certain courts have ruled that a check point is a MINIMAL intrusion and is therefore "legal'... IT IS STILL AN INTRUSION and that is what I object too!

Yeah, funny how that minimal intrusion gets used, isn't it? Courts are lately saying a blood draw on the side of the road for suspected drunk driving is not unconstitutional.

Why, one court even recently ruled that is was not unconstitutional for a cop to order a driver to shut their car windows and turn their blower on high so the inside air pressure would push out while the cops walked one of those 50-50 false-positive drug dogs around the car.

http://www.drugwarrant.com/2011/03/...estroy-the-fourth-amendment-logic-and-reason/

 

[alispissed]

I'm sorry if this is too off-topic, but thought there might be some opinions here. I was driving home from work today and had the pleasure of being stopped (along with everyone else driving along Johnson Dairy road ,near NC 3) by an Iredell County Sheriffs deputy. They were just doing a "license check", with which I complied, along with showing my CHP and telling him I did not have a gun with me (trying to follow CHP requirements).

Is such a "license check" legal in NC? I thought not due to NC not being a "stop and identify" state, but does being in the car make a difference?

Thanks for any opinions.

NOT FOR ME>>>Why did you stop me Officer? Oh, you dont suspect me for any violation? Thank you, have a good day. VAROOMMMMMMmmmmm.

 

[WTFOVER]

Forcing me to stop, Interfering with my ability to travel, Interfering with my ability to freely assemble--- ALL without any RAS that I have, am, or am about to COMMIT a crime IS A VIOLATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.

You do realize that the Chapter 20 motor vehicle law in NC is very very thick. You can be stopped for just about anything pertaining to something on your vehicle.

I'm against DUI, license checks, equipment checks etc. IMO they brazenly violate the 4A

Not according to the USSC

The worst thing about them to me seems to be the 4A being sacrificed without any real effect. DUI checkpoints for example have been proven to be far less effective than roving patrols specifically looking for DUI's. And those roving patrols (as long as the officers are honest folks) don't violate the 4A since RAS must be established before they pull you.

Stats please

I've been pulled twice for my window tint. Both times were weekend nights. The pretext for the stop being an equipment violation. One time the officer didn't even gauge the windows, the second time he did, they failed, and he didn't bother to cite me for it.

I hate to complain about NOT getting a ticket, but it did piss me off to be forced to accompany the officer on his fishing trip.

So because the officer decided to enforce the law and stop you because of your tint its a fishing trip?

And for those of you that like to moan and complain about being stopped for traffic violations, here is a few people that were caught when stopped for simple traffic violations, I'm sure you've heard of them;

1. Randy Kraft, Arrested for Driving While Impaired on May 14, 1983 in Orange County, California. Kraft was stopped under suspicion of drinking and driving. After failing the roadside tests, Kraft was placed under arrest and his vehicle searched. The body of a young man was found in the front seat of his vehicle. Kraft, an ex-Marine and computer programmer was titled “The Southern California Strangler” and was convicted of the murder of 16 men, mostly Marines, but is a suspect in about 67 murders total.

2. Theodore “Ted” Bundy, arrested August 16, 1975 for driving without headlights and
trying to elude police. He was investigated due to his vehicle matching a description of one used in a kidnapping and this resulted in a conviction for kidnapping. He was transferred to Colorado to stand trial for murder when he escaped. He was again arrested on June 13, 1977 for erratic driving and possession of a stolen car. He escaped again in December of 1977. Bundy was arrested again in Pensacola, Florida for driving a stolen vehicle and was later convicted of several murders in Florida. He was executed on January 24, 1989.

3. David Berkowitz: Arrested in New York in 1977, the “Son of Sam” killer had
murdered six men and women and wounded nine others before he was investigated and arrested. The evidence that brought him down? A parking ticket issued to him on the night and at the time of a murder that was left on his vehicle in the parking lot where he killed one of his victims. He was convicted and sentenced to 364 years in prison.

4. Timothy McVeigh, was stopped for not having a license plate on his vehicle by a State Patrol Officer in Oklahoma and charged with no plate and possession of a loaded firearm hidden in the vehicle. Three days later, the FBI came to get him in connection with the death of 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing. He was put to death on June 11, 2001.

I'll be more then glad to continue on if ya'll would like me to.

 

[elixin77]

1. Randy Kraft, Arrested for Driving While Impaired on May 14, 1983 in Orange County, California. Kraft was stopped under suspicion of drinking and driving. After failing the roadside tests, Kraft was placed under arrest and his vehicle searched. The body of a young man was found in the front seat of his vehicle. Kraft, an ex-Marine and computer programmer was titled “The Southern California Strangler” and was convicted of the murder of 16 men, mostly Marines, but is a suspect in about 67 murders total.

Didn't happen at a checkpoint, which is what we're discussing right now

2. Theodore “Ted” Bundy, arrested August 16, 1975 for driving without headlights and
trying to elude police. He was investigated due to his vehicle matching a description of one used in a kidnapping and this resulted in a conviction for kidnapping. He was transferred to Colorado to stand trial for murder when he escaped. He was again arrested on June 13, 1977 for erratic driving and possession of a stolen car. He escaped again in December of 1977. Bundy was arrested again in Pensacola, Florida for driving a stolen vehicle and was later convicted of several murders in Florida. He was executed on January 24, 1989.

Also doesn't pertain, since he was driving, not at a checkpoint

3. David Berkowitz: Arrested in New York in 1977, the “Son of Sam” killer had
murdered six men and women and wounded nine others before he was investigated and arrested. The evidence that brought him down? A parking ticket issued to him on the night and at the time of a murder that was left on his vehicle in the parking lot where he killed one of his victims. He was convicted and sentenced to 364 years in prison.

Still not pertaining to checkpoints

4. Timothy McVeigh, was stopped for not having a license plate on his vehicle by a State Patrol Officer in Oklahoma and charged with no plate and possession of a loaded firearm hidden in the vehicle. Three days later, the FBI came to get him in connection with the death of 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing. He was put to death on June 11, 2001.

Not a checkpoint

I'll be more then glad to continue on if ya'll would like me to.

Sure, why not. Maybe find some that deal with people getting arrested at actual checkpoints, not when cops are driving around.

 

[WTFOVER]

It pertained to the quote that I quoted. Don't really care if it pertained to a checkpoint or not as the point is mute because the USSC has ruled its not a violation of your 4A rights. I responded to a quote about the officer on a "fishing trip" because he stopped the poster for having tinted windows.

Its actually pretty simple, USSC says departments can setup checkpoints. There are certain rules that need to apply for certain checkpoints. Since you have a drivers license you are now required to stop at these checkpoints. You have only three options 1. stop at the checkpoint, do what your told, come on a internet forum and complain about it, or 2. turn around at said checkpoint and get stopped anyways for avoiding that checkpoint 3. stop driving, or move to a state that has outlawed certain types of checkpoints.

/thread

 

[sultan62]

It pertained to the quote that I quoted. Don't really care if it pertained to a checkpoint or not as the point is mute because the USSC has ruled its not a violation of your 4A rights. I responded to a quote about the officer on a "fishing trip" because he stopped the poster for having tinted windows.

Its actually pretty simple, USSC says departments can setup checkpoints. There are certain rules that need to apply for certain checkpoints. Since you have a drivers license you are now required to stop at these checkpoints. You have only three options 1. stop at the checkpoint, do what your told, come on a internet forum and complain about it, or 2. turn around at said checkpoint and get stopped anyways for avoiding that checkpoint 3. stop driving, or move to a state that has outlawed certain types of checkpoints.

/thread

Hmm...I guess I should start with [thread].


I'm guessing you're one of those "ends justify the means" kind of guys, aren't you?

 

[elixin77]

It pertained to the quote that I quoted. Don't really care if it pertained to a checkpoint or not as the point is mute because the USSC has ruled its not a violation of your 4A rights. I responded to a quote about the officer on a "fishing trip" because he stopped the poster for having tinted windows.

Its actually pretty simple, USSC says departments can setup checkpoints. There are certain rules that need to apply for certain checkpoints. Since you have a drivers license you are now required to stop at these checkpoints. You have only three options 1. stop at the checkpoint, do what your told, come on a internet forum and complain about it, or 2. turn around at said checkpoint and get stopped anyways for avoiding that checkpoint 3. stop driving, or move to a state that has outlawed certain types of checkpoints.

/thread

B&M'ing about traffic violations are one thing, but when you have a checkpoint that is meant to phish around for something illegal is flat out wrong. Sure, the USSC may have ruled in favor of the police (when don't they?), but that doesn't make a checkpoint right.

 

[WTFOVER]

B&M'ing about traffic violations are one thing, but when you have a checkpoint that is meant to phish around for something illegal is flat out wrong. Sure, the USSC may have ruled in favor of the police (when don't they?), but that doesn't make a checkpoint right.

To some people it probably doesn't make it right, but to some people it does. When you sign your name on the little dotted line when you get your license you agree to certain privilege's and one of the side effects of that is having to stop at check points and submit to breath/blood alcohol testing.

There are other battles to be fought, this one has been fought and lost and will never change anytime soon so as long as you live in NC you might as well get use to it.

 

[sultan62]

To some people it probably doesn't make it right, but to some people it does. When you sign your name on the little dotted line when you get your license you agree to certain privilege's and one of the side effects of that is having to stop at check points and submit to breath/blood alcohol testing.

There are other battles to be fought, this one has been fought and lost and will never change anytime soon so as long as you live in NC you might as well get use to it.

Yeah guys, really. Things are what they are, so don't worry about trying to change anything.

/sarcasm

 

[elixin77]

To some people it probably doesn't make it right, but to some people it does. When you sign your name on the little dotted line when you get your license you agree to certain privilege's and one of the side effects of that is having to stop at check points and submit to breath/blood alcohol testing.

There are other battles to be fought, this one has been fought and lost and will never change anytime soon so as long as you live in NC you might as well get use to it.

So your saying we should just bend over, and take it up where the sun don't shine? No thanks.

I'll prefer to lend my support to those that intend on making it illegal for checkpoints to exist, period, as they have no RAS to even be there to begin with. Checkpoints are extremely inefficient, and all they do is annoy a bunch of law abiding citizens. Yes, there are some dumb enough to go thru a checkpoint that is either high or drunk, or whatever else, but those aren't very common in the grand scheme of things.

All checkpoints do now is to remind the general public that there is a police force, and they aren't afraid to mobilize against the people.

 

[Citizen]

It Ain't a Checkpoint

One thing we can do is stop going along with the government spin. Call these things what they really are: roadblocks.

Also, the SCOTUS case that approved these 4th Amendment abominations is called Michigan vs Sitz (1990). Reading the dissents, one huge thing really stands out--at the time of the decision the court had in its hands evidence that sobriety roadblocks don't work. The court had information from Maryland about the ineffectiveness of these sobriety roadblocks. As one dissent points out, the majority effed up their own balancing test by ignoring the Maryland data. So much for your rights. <flush>

For the supporters of these things, lets just cut to the chase and implement what they have in Australia. Any driver may be pulled over any time and be forced to endure a breath test. That's where this is headed. Sitz doesn't existing in a vacuum. It exists on a slippery slope and was itself a slide downward from an earlier time where probable cause was needed. So, lets just get it over with and go straight to random, completely unavoidable breath tests at the whim of whichever cop you happen to encounter.

 

[sultan62]

One thing we can do is stop going along with the government spin. Call these things what they really are: roadblocks.

Also, the SCOTUS case that approved these 4th Amendment abominations is called Michigan vs Sitz (1990). Reading the dissents, one huge thing really stands out--at the time of the decision the court had in its hands evidence that sobriety roadblocks don't work. The court had information from Maryland about the ineffectiveness of these sobriety roadblocks. As one dissent points out, the majority effed up their own balancing test by ignoring the Maryland data. So much for your rights. <flush>

For the supporters of these things, lets just cut to the chase and implement what they have in Australia. Any driver may be pulled over any time and be forced to endure a breath test. That's where this is headed. Sitz doesn't existing in a vacuum. It exists on a slippery slope and was itself a slide downward from an earlier time where probable cause was needed. So, lets just get it over with and go straight to random, completely unavoidable breath tests at the whim of whichever cop you happen to encounter.

I agree, especially with the 'slippery slope' part. Sometimes, I wish the government would just go ahead and ban guns already and get it over with. (Or started.)