Users Online Now:
2,684
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,973,481
Pageviews Today:
2,737,356
Threads Today:
666
Posts Today:
12,902
08:53 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
PIN!!! Cop Enraged As Citizen Attempts To Defy Independence Day DUI Checkpoint [Video]
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Tamedsquall:MV8yMjg0MTAxXzM4ODc2MDMwX0ZGQUNFMDc5] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42856861:MV8yMjg0MTAxXzM4ODYyMzU3Xzg3RDZEMkUy] [color=red][b]“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police[1] to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they do not. The authority to detain on reasonable suspicion was established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and does not depend on the existence of a law that specifically authorizes such a detention, so that authority exists in all jurisdictions in the United States. The name disclosure was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] [/b][/color] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes [/quote] You need to stop looking up the laws for when a cop pulls you over. These are D.U.I. checkpoints. Against the 4th amendment in nature. They are solely there to stop you from drinking and driving. Guidelines were set in place to keep cops from overstepping their boundaries during said checkpoints. To keep them from setting up solely to apprehend criminals. Look up the rules and guidelines yourself if you want to learn something. The kid may have been an asshole. All legally within his rights! But to me he is proving a point that most of you blind idiots aren't seeing. The abuse of power. [/quote]
Original Message
A young man in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, attempted to uphold his constitutional rights to an engraged officer this Independence Day, at a DUI checkpoint.
As the man in the video pulls up, officers immediately demand he roll down his window further, to which the man refuses, a right he is entitled too.
Read more at [
link to www.secretsofthefed.com
] [
link to www.secretsofthefed.com
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>