4th Amendment Violation

[Kirk Freeman]

If I post something pointing out what I believe to qualify as tyranny, he will cite the statutes that make it a legally accepted practice.

Yes, the use of precedent is so novel in the law.

The spirit and the intent of the 4th amendment are being violated by nonsense like this. Quoting statutes and case law does not serve to refute that.

Consensual searchs are not unreasonable. I would post the precedent but it would be ignored here.

So, I cite the fact that even L. Neil Smith would admit that consensual searches are reasonable.

Kirk is definitely pro-state, but as best I can tell he is arguing that if a person voluntarily allows the police to search through his stuff, and the police find something, there are no constitutional issues.

I'm not pro-State. I fight the government each and every day. However, if you let them search your vehicle then what exactly is the constitutional issue?

The beef has been stated, but you have such a wildly pro-state position on this that you think the Feds can set up checkpoints on any form of public property and start checking papers and cargo.

No, it hasn't. You seem to think that the presence of cops equates to an irrebuttable presumption of constitutional violations. It does not.

Don't play the cops' game. Stop allowing them to search. Carry your own pack and don't use public lands to go shooting.

oh, also in before Kirk's repeated "You do not have the right to be a litterbug" strawman

Right, because one should respect property rights.

Most folks don't have the balls to tell "authority" shove off your can't tell me to do that,

Yup.

People think they live in some special rainbow and puppy dog dome, let's call it an American Zone, where the authorities are not even allowed to ask questions.

Be a citizen, don't play their games.

 

[rambone]

"I'm going to check you when you come out." -- Checkpoint Officer in the OP

Not a consensual stop.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"I'm going to check you when you come out." -- Checkpoint Officer in the OP

If you stop and let them it would be consensual.

The videos you posted and in the OP show people willingly playing reindeer games.

If you stop and ask "am I free to go" then it is not consensual and the officers needs reasonable suspicion to stop the car.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If you stop and let them it would be consensual.

The videos you posted and in the OP show people willingly playing reindeer games.

If you stop and ask "am I free to go" then it is not consensual and the officers needs reasonable suspicion to stop the car.

Kirk, should that protect you in all states? Am I free to go?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk, should that protect you in all states? Am I free to go?

It does not "protect" you like a force field or anything. He can still order you to stop in the name of love or get out of the car, but now we are in a reasonable suspicion box. If he searches, then we move up to the probable cause box. HOWEVER, IF YOU PLAY HIS GAME THEN IT IS CONSENSUAL and nothing is required from the police.

"Am I free to go?" simply shifts the case from the consensual box. Consensual box requires nothing, no reasonable suspicion, no smell from Officer Chompy, no immigration checkpoint rationale, not nothing.

Smart cops turn all encountes into consensual encounters. And people play right along.

You call it "checkpoint". The cops will call it "knock and talk".

Don't anwer the door. Don't stop and have a frickin' chat. Shut your baconhole (or burrito de pollo hole out there). Blow kisses.

Jasper and Cledus and Hector and Jose in the videos are playing the cops' game. If you don't want unwanted police attention, don't play their games.

"Sir, I want you to stop."

"Am I free to go?"

 

[Bunnykid68]

It does not "protect" you like a force field or anything. He can still order you to stop in the name of love or get out of the car, but now we are in a reasonable suspicion box. If he searches, then we move up to the probable cause box. HOWEVER, IF YOU PLAY HIS GAME THEN IT IS CONSENSUAL and nothing is required from the police.

"Am I free to go?" simply shifts the case from the consensual box. Consensual box requires nothing, no reasonable suspicion, no smell from Officer Chompy, no immigration checkpoint rationale, not nothing.

Smart cops turn all encountes into consensual encounters. And people play right along.

You call it "checkpoint". The cops will call it "knock and talk".

Don't anwer the door. Don't stop and have a frickin' chat. Shut your baconhole (or burrito de pollo hole out there). Blow kisses.

Jasper and Cledus and Hector and Jose in the videos are playing the cops' game. If you don't want unwanted police attention, don't play their games.

"Sir, I want you to stop."

"Am I free to go?"

You last 2 sentences is exactly what I meant. I know to keep my bacon hole shut. Well, unless they are offering bacon of course

 

[redneckmedic]

I think this can be summed up if both sides bow to constitutional logic.

If they say they will search your vehicle and you allow it, no crime has been committed. However if you deny the process and it still takes place, no we have a rights violation.

There is absolutely nothing in the BOR or USC + Amens that says the authorities at large can't ask to...
See your permit,
Search your vehicle,
Enter your home,
Move to a different street corner,
Quiet your protest,
Get vaccinated,
So forth.

Most folks don't have the balls to tell "authority" shove off your can't tell me to do that, I figure most folks figure that compliance moves the situation faster and smoother, and for the most part their right.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Redneck, and as I said "yup".

 

[rambone]

I acknowledge that consenting to searches is not a violation of rights. But I'm not convinced that these stops are consensual.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But I'm not convinced that these stops are consensual.

Well, if I had to bet, and it was not a misdemeanor, I'd bet your way, rammie.

Nothing I saw with the exception of the equipment/tax violations was non-consensual.

I would like to see how they handle someone who was well-informed.

Most people talk themselves into trouble with the cops instead of just refusing to play reindeer games.

 

[rambone]

I would like to see how they handle someone who was well-informed.

Most people talk themselves into trouble with the cops instead of just refusing to play reindeer games.

+1

I'd like to see these checkpoint officers read a L. Neil Smith novel.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'd like to see these checkpoint officers read a L. Neil Smith novel.

Maybe Pallas?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Maybe a rule book

 

[rambone]

Maybe Pallas?

I still have not read any myself.

 

[downzero]

Show of authority + submission = seizure. Not consensual.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I still have not read any myself.

Mother of . . .

At least tell you have watched Firefly while wearing a black leather jacket.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Mother of . . .

At least tell you have watched Firefly while wearing a black leather jacket.

Firefly? I have heard that mention before. Any good?

 

[Hammerhead]

Mother of . . .

At least tell you have watched Firefly while wearing a [STRIKE]black[/STRIKE] brown leather jacket.

FTFY.

They're called Browncoats for a reason.