| Users Online Now: 1,343 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 773,517 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,631,580 | Threads Today: 673 | Posts Today: 15,596 |
| 11:45 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,343 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 773,517 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,631,580 | Threads Today: 673 | Posts Today: 15,596 |
| 11:45 PM | ||
What is a Constitutional Traffic Stop? [U.S. only] | |
| upstateny Offer Upgrade  User ID: 5525255  United States01/12/2012 11:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 554016 United States01/12/2012 11:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Cowherder Stop the inanity! User ID: 2245483 United States01/12/2012 12:16 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Link? Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Reapportionment Act of 1929! Thread: First steps down the road to a return to the Constitutional Republic that we were intended to be. Restore the Republic. Thread: The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! It's a flower, not something to be feared.  - Moo! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8720392 United States01/12/2012 12:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What follows is the proper line of questioning that one should engage an officer in if he/she is stopped for any non-felony reasons. It was developed by an ex-officer, FOR officers (to learn about the U.S. Constitution) .. and of course civilians as well. Quoting: upstateny If anyone wishes to use this it must be memorized so it can be spoken without hesitation. I actually have it printed and taped to my steering wheel. Most officers will quickly understand the risk they are taking by demanding one's ID and registration like they currently do. Constitutional Traffic Stop by Gerry Donaldson Driving Rights #1, Awaken America newsletter "let me see your license and registration" fine, but i have one question first. can any of the documents you're asking for be used against me in a court of law? "yes they can" OK, and what happens if i dont give them to you, what would you do to me? "I'll have to arrest you so rather than take me to a magistrate as you are required to under the us and state Constitutions, you're going to seize my body and take me to jail. thats a violation of the 4th amendment. And what would you do to my vehicle? "i'll have to impound it. I take it your not going to compensate me for that, so you're telling me your going to take my property, another violation of the 4th amendment. In addition, you've already told me your going to violate my 5th amendment rights by forcing me to supply something to you that can be used against me. I'm going to have to give you formal notice. under Title 18 Section 242, that is a violation of rights under color of law, theres a $10,000 fine per penalty or $30,000. Under Title 42 Section 1983 for Civil Rights violations, i can go after you personally for your house, car, and everything you own. One more question: Did you swear an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution in the state of NY. you do realize that by violating even one of these, you forfeit your ability to work in a gov office again. Are you sure you want to arrest me? if there are 2 cops, conspiracy Title 18 sect 241 puts them in a conspiracy role. Title 42 sec 1985 is conspiracy for civil rights, so you can go after them for that. when things get to major media people start waking up all over the nation. I have a question does the 2cops count if there is only one cop and then he calls backup for whatever reason? It seems like everytime I see a routine traffic stop they have four cop cars behind some minnie van mom. I think that could be a conspiracy right? |
| wisc_natureboy User ID: 8559901 United States01/12/2012 12:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Cowherder Stop the inanity! User ID: 2245483 United States01/12/2012 12:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Found one [link to www.drawaline.org] scroll down to the Free Downloads section for "The Right to Travel" lecture. Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Reapportionment Act of 1929! Thread: First steps down the road to a return to the Constitutional Republic that we were intended to be. Restore the Republic. Thread: The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! It's a flower, not something to be feared. - Moo! |
| ThinkItOut User ID: 8711003 United States01/12/2012 02:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What follows is the proper line of questioning that one should engage an officer in if he/she is stopped for any non-felony reasons. It was developed by an ex-officer, FOR officers (to learn about the U.S. Constitution) .. and of course civilians as well. Quoting: upstateny If anyone wishes to use this it must be memorized so it can be spoken without hesitation. I actually have it printed and taped to my steering wheel. Most officers will quickly understand the risk they are taking by demanding one's ID and registration like they currently do. Constitutional Traffic Stop by Gerry Donaldson Driving Rights #1, Awaken America newsletter "let me see your license and registration" fine, but i have one question first. can any of the documents you're asking for be used against me in a court of law? "yes they can" OK, and what happens if i dont give them to you, what would you do to me? "I'll have to arrest you so rather than take me to a magistrate as you are required to under the us and state Constitutions, you're going to seize my body and take me to jail. thats a violation of the 4th amendment. And what would you do to my vehicle? "i'll have to impound it. I take it your not going to compensate me for that, so you're telling me your going to take my property, another violation of the 4th amendment. In addition, you've already told me your going to violate my 5th amendment rights by forcing me to supply something to you that can be used against me. I'm going to have to give you formal notice. under Title 18 Section 242, that is a violation of rights under color of law, theres a $10,000 fine per penalty or $30,000. Under Title 42 Section 1983 for Civil Rights violations, i can go after you personally for your house, car, and everything you own. One more question: Did you swear an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution in the state of NY. you do realize that by violating even one of these, you forfeit your ability to work in a gov office again. Are you sure you want to arrest me? if there are 2 cops, conspiracy Title 18 sect 241 puts them in a conspiracy role. Title 42 sec 1985 is conspiracy for civil rights, so you can go after them for that. when things get to major media people start waking up all over the nation. I have been able to verify that all of these codes (Titles and Sections) are indeed true. The only thing I can't find is the part where: "so rather than take me to a magistrate as you are required to under the us and state Constitutions, you're going to seize my body and take me to jail. thats a violation of the 4th amendment. And what would you do to my vehicle?" Key words being required to take to a magistrate. Can anyone please help me find where this is said? Are they saying that for a siezure to happen, under the 4th ammendment, that a magistrate (or judge) must first sign a warrant? Any help would be much appreciated!  |
| ThinkItOut User ID: 8711003 United States01/12/2012 02:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have been able to verify that all of these codes (Titles and Sections) are indeed true. The only thing I can't find is the part where: Quoting: ThinkItOut "so rather than take me to a magistrate as you are required to under the us and state Constitutions, you're going to seize my body and take me to jail. thats a violation of the 4th amendment. And what would you do to my vehicle?" Key words being required to take to a magistrate. Can anyone please help me find where this is said? Are they saying that for a siezure to happen, under the 4th ammendment, that a magistrate (or judge) must first sign a warrant? Any help would be much appreciated!  |
| ThinkItOut User ID: 8711003 United States01/12/2012 02:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 4494441 United States01/12/2012 02:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| upstateny (OP) User ID: 5525255 United States01/13/2012 11:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Found one [link to www.drawaline.org] scroll down to the Free Downloads section for "The Right to Travel" lecture. EXCELLENT! it wasnt free the last time i looked. actually paid for the lecture .. which is fine to support the cuase. You can always tell a SHILL by how many posts they make on things they don't believe in. |
| TheBiss User ID: 1501937 United States01/13/2012 11:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I've done some serious research into this, and have argued with the Chief of Police in Wake Forest about this on a couple of occasions. From a Constitutional perspective, the US Supreme Court ruled on this in Sitz vs Michigan State Police. In that ruling Judge Rehnquist stated that a sobriety checkpoint does NOT violate a person's 4th amendment rights. However, there has to be a series of questions asked before asking for license and registration that determine the sobriety of the individual. [link to en.wikipedia.org] The Supreme Court held that Michigan had a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving, and that this technique was rationally related to achieving that goal (though there was some evidence to the contrary). The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government. Last Edited by TheBiss on 01/13/2012 11:19 AM [link to www.grainmill.coop] - Bulk foods, long term storage solutions [link to www.CatawbaCoops.com] - Unique A-Frame chicken coop plans |
| Sol-Magmatard 26 User ID: 1463643 United States01/13/2012 12:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| upstateny (OP) User ID: 5525255 United States01/17/2012 07:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I've done some serious research into this, and have argued with the Chief of Police in Wake Forest about this on a couple of occasions. From a Constitutional perspective, the US Supreme Court ruled on this in Sitz vs Michigan State Police. Quoting: TheBiss In that ruling Judge Rehnquist stated that a sobriety checkpoint does NOT violate a person's 4th amendment rights. However, there has to be a series of questions asked before asking for license and registration that determine the sobriety of the individual. Uhh .. a couple of things here. First, a court ruling that violates the Constitution - even a SCOTUS ruling - is null and void on its face. Second, the individual being questioned DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE ANSWERS .. if he believes they may be used against him in a court of law. He does not have to 'provide' his breath .. he doesnt even have to provide documents such as license and registration. *IF* you believe the SCOTUS ruling is valid .. its time to study your Constitution a little better. Last Edited by upstateny on 01/17/2012 07:32 PM You can always tell a SHILL by how many posts they make on things they don't believe in. |
