Saturday, March 27, 2010
None Of Your Goddamn Business!
What comes to mind when you here the phrase "papers, please?"
(German accent... Hogan's Heroes...?)
Mary and I were coming home from visiting friends in Katonah tonight and as we crossed the Bear Mountain Bridge from Westchester into Orange we apparently entered the Twilight Zone where America is spelled "Amerika."
As we're crossing the bridge (at 10:30 at night) we see flashing lights ahead and traffic backed up.
At first we thought it must be an accident on the traffic circle, but, no... it turned out to be the New York State PARK Police stopping and questioning motorists with no probable cause!
I mean... I suppose it could have been an Amber Alert checkpoint or perhaps unbeknownst to me Orange County has been put on High Homeland Security Alert... but I'm guessing it was a DWI checkpoint.
Now I'm no lawyer, but here's what bugs me: The officer who stopped me asked where I was coming from.
Me being the wiseass I am... I initially answered "Carl's House" before Mary leaned over and said "Katonah."
The young lady with the holstered pistol then told us to precede.
Hey... truth be told... before she even said a word to me I had powered down my window and yelled out, "Hey... I hope none of you guys are on overtime - the state's broke!"
(*SMILE*)
Hey... typical Bill, right? I had my fun; I know the officer leaned close in order to be able to detect a whiff of alcohol if there had been one... but in all seriousness... although Mary answered the officer's question seriously, I'm pretty sure the officer had no right to ask in the first place.
Where we were was - and is - none of the state's goddamn business!
Seriously... this is still America... right...???
Listen... I suppose DWI checkpoints are legal or else they wouldn't exist. That said, ask me if I'm having a good evening - don't ask me where I've been, where I'm coming from.
Lean in and ask "nice night isn't" if you want to smell my breath or see what shape my eyes are in; don't invade my right to privacy.
No... I'm not blaming Obama... not this time at least...
(*SMILE*)
Seriously, though... this is America - not Amerika. I have no problem with being quizzed when I drive into the USMA at West Point for a concert or football game, but I don't want men and women with guns stopping me with no probably cause on a public roadway as if the Cold War were still going on and I was attempting to cross from East to West Berlin!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1103163004.html
The Bill of Rights refers to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the fourth of which states that:
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.
Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least “probable cause” that they have committed a crime.
The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”
* I'm actually going to read that Decision and the Dissents, but just off the top of my head... WERE AND HIS COLLEAGUES IN THE MAJORITY DRUNK OR STONED WHEN THEY DECIDED THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ONLY APPLIES "SOMETIMES...???"
Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.
* YEP. THAT'S RIGHT... THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS; EXCEPT THAT APPARENTLY IT DOES WHEN A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES SAY IT DOES.
(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)
Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified...
(*MASSIVE FRIGG'N HEADACHE*)
* HMM... ALTHOUGH I HAVEN'T ATTENDED LAW SCHOOL, I'M PRETTY DAMN SURE THAT NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY "VIOLATING INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS JUSTIFIABLE WHEN..."
...because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.
* BRAVO!
While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited.
* I REALLY AM SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING BUYING A GUN.
No... I'm not blaming Obama... not this time at least...
Which means that you really are, of course--or you wouldn't even bring it up.
So, now you've got the Black Mafia running profiling dragnets out of Washington in upstate NY. Did you see where they'd hangared the black choppers, by any chance?
You're completely brainwashed. If I were you, I'd go to Idaho or northern Michigan and join a militia. They need your analytical abilities to plan the fascist revolution.
(*SNORT*)
Seriously, Rob... sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.
Sometimes a throwaway line is really just a joke.
Perhaps you missed my main critique - that of Rehnquist.
(*SMIRK*)
Google "Rehnquist" if the reference escapes you.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Seriously, Rob, your hair trigger partisanship is a defining characteristic. (*SHRUG*) Please... keep posting... keep revealing where you're coming from!
(*SMILE*)
BILL
Okay. You want me to address Rehnquist, or the SCOTUS? Where have you been when African-Americans are routinely stopped for simply driving through "White" neighborhoods, or down the "free"way, for the crime of "driving while Black?"
And, where would you have been in my heyday, when I was repeatedly stopped by the heat, made to "assume the position" and then made to empty my pockets, for the crime of walking down the street with long hair?
And where do you stand now on the profiling of Middle-Eastern-looking airline passengers?
Have you got the posts on those things to prove me wrong in what I wrote above?
Rob,
I'd be more than happy for you to give your off the cuff reaction to what I've written.
It would be really cool, however, if you were to take the time to read the actual Supreme Court Decision (as I plan to do when I have a spare moment).
If you want to go off on a separate tangent about "driving while black" be my guest - but make sure to tie it in with the topic at hand.
Finally...
(*LAUGHING*)
"...the heat..."
(*SNORT*)
Did you REALLY just type those words...???
(*CHUCKLE*)
Rob... seriously... I'll be more than happy to answer your questions - but get in line! Answer mine first. Deal with what I've written first.
That's the way this works...
(*WINK*)
BILL
You can't even see that "driving while black" is "tied to the topic at hand?" Really? Then there's no point in talking to you further about the SCOTUS or the constitution. Have a nice day.
Fine, Rob.
As always, your own posts do far more damage to your position than anything I could offer.
BILL
Oh, how I wish that we had an objective third party to evaluate this exchange...
We don't need one, Rob; I'm more than competent to pronounce you the loser.
(*SMILE*)
Anyway... on a kind of related note...
http://www.wxyz.com/news/story/Massive-Federal-Raid-in-Lenawee-County/eE6ZljBWa0uFOMUdtOLzvw.cspx
Federal agents will not comment on the investigation, only saying that they are serving a number of search warrants and that the warrants are sealed. Action News has learned that an unknown number of arrests have also been made. An unconfirmed report indicated that at least six people were arrested coming into Michigan from Ohio.
* OK. PUTTING ASIDE THAT MY GUESS IS THAT THESE FOLKS ARE FRUITCAKES AND THAT THE ARRESTS ARE WARRANTED... SPEAKING OF WARRANTS... WHAT'S THIS DEAL WITH "SEALED" WARRANTS...??? AND UNLESS THOSE ARRESTED ARE MINORS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, WHY ARE THEIR NAMES NOT BEING RELEASED?
* HEY... NO DOUBT THIS KIND OF THING HAPPENED UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH AND PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A WARRANT REMAINED "SEALED" *AFTER* IT'S BEEN SERVED.
Compare to...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100328/us_nm/us_usa_ship_hoax
A Carnival cruise ship was held off the Florida coast for several hours on Sunday while authorities searched the vessel and arrested a drunk passenger on bomb hoax charges, the Coast Guard said.
No explosives or hazardous materials were found and the ship, the Carnival Sensation, was allowed to dock at Port Canaveral on Florida's Atlantic coast Sunday morning, Coast Guard petty Officer 1st Class Christopher Evanson said.
The ship carried 3,470 passengers and crew and was headed back to Port Canaveral after a three-day cruise to the Bahamas when a passenger reported hearing another passenger make a bomb threat, the Coast Guard said.
The man was quoted as saying, "We are jihad. Come to the top deck and watch the bomb. The bomb is going to blow," Evanson said, adding that the Coast Guard was told that the man was "highly intoxicated."
Jihad is the Arabic word for "struggle," though it is sometimes used to describe an Islamic holy war.
Brevard County sheriff's deputies arrested an American passenger, Ibrahim Khalil Zarou, 31, of Leesburg, Virginia, on a state charge of making a false report of a bomb. The felony count carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison.
* SEE... THIS GUY MADE A BOMB THREAT AND WE KNOW HIS NAME. (*SHRUG*)
You apparently don't realize that profiling is a fourth amendment issue, and yet you think that I look ignorant in this discussion.
You need help--seriously.
This is one more example of what I've tried to counsel you about before (another would be Moose's "Federalist Papers" nonsense.)
You see some prominent conservative write on an issue. You clip his article and post the clippings. You know the points must be valid, because the writer is an "authority." Yet you don't write anything yourself (much like Moose) that demonstrates that you comprehend the purport of the snippets you post.
You know that DUI dragnets are a 4th amendment issue from the article you excerpted. But you aren't able to comprehend the obvious analogy between that kind of dragnet and the more select kind of dragnet that is profiling.
Since profiling singles people out, rather than stopping a random sample, it is arguably a much more serious violation of one's constitutional rights than DUI stops. Yet you apparently think that I've looked foolish in bringing up profiling in the context of your post.
You are clueless, my man--in over your head.
The epigram on another blog that I follow, Journeys in Alterity, is applicable in this context:
"It is not enough to repeat, one must understand." - Paul Ricoeur
Get it?
(Srry about the deletions, I screwed up the html twice!)
The warrant may have been sealed in order not to tip off others, still free, as to exactly who is in custody and where the arrests were made. Just a guess. It does exactly no good for you to know their names, but it might do somebody trying to elude capture plenty of good to know that he is probably about to be fingered.
Keep posting, Rob.
(*SMILE*)
The very fact that you read my newsbites and commentary means that there's a chance (small... but a chance) that through sheer repetition you'll learn things... absorb knowledge in spite of yourself... and thus grow just a teensy-weensy bit wiser.
(*WINK*)
Seven posts plus two "misfires" and you still haven't addressed the issue of the DWI stops.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Seven posts plus two "misfires" and you still haven't addressed the issue of a majority of the Supreme Court ACKNOWLEDGING that via their ruling back in 1970 they were knowingly and purposefully giving the Court's blessing to clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Rob. Seriously. At a certain point dealing with your "I know you are, but what am I" posting grows tiresome.
We're at that point.
(*GRIN*)
Seriously... I gave you your shot at 12:37 p.m. You refused to pick up the gauntlet.
I really don't know what else to tell you.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
Oh... one final point - one where I'm agreeing with you:
Yeah... it would be nice if others were to chime in once in awhile and address issues such as this one.
We (you and I) don't need a ref. It would however be beneficial (to both of us) to get other perspectives.
Have a great night, Rob!
BILL
I did addresss the issue of DUI stops. I agreed that it is a 4th amendment issue, but stated that there are more important 4th amendment issues about which I've never heard you state your concern.
Again, if it personally affects (and annoys) Bill Barker, then it's clearly a liberal plot to destroy personal freedom in America. But if it only affects some Black guys (or hippies) it's not worth mentioning as a constitutional issue.
Maybe these are your boyz, Bill?:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/28/raids-target-christian-militia-in-midwest/
***The epigram on another blog that I follow, Journeys in Alterity, is applicable in this context:
"It is not enough to repeat, one must understand." - Paul Ricoeur
Get it?***
If you were going for irony in this post, then congratulations on your success.
In all seriousness, I check out that blog every now and then. What's interesting there is how the discussions seem to be much more civil than in most places.
As a third party, you're both talking past each other and not answering the other's question.
My two cents.
Agreed. I also sometimes read "Vox Nova"--where Kyle Cupp also blogs.
Rob wrote...
"I agreed that it is a 4th amendment issue..."
AND...???
Jeez, Rob, the sad thing is that I really CAN'T tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're simply UNABLE (as opposed to unwilling) to take a "yea" or "nay" position concerning whether random DUI stops are ACTUALLY constitutional (according to YOUR reading of the Constitution) as opposed to "constitutional by fiat" of a Supreme Court Decision that comes right out and admits that it itself violates the Constitution.
(*SNORT*)
As to the Great and Powerful Moose...
(*CHUCKLE*)
Nice try with regard to trying to slice the baby down the middle, but, Moose, the truth (as available word for word right here on the blog) is that yesterday at 12:37 pm I asked Rob to answer my question - to deal with the topic as posted - and furthermore after inviting Rob to give a straight answer I offered to answer his questions IF he'd first answer mine.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Indeed... the offer is still on the table.
Oh... and btw... perhaps you'd like to address the topic directly; I know I'd like to hear your opinion.
(I'm guessing your opinion is that DUI stops are constitutional because the Supreme Court said they are... but feel free to correct me if that guess is wrong.)
BILL
I agreed that it is a 4th amendment issue. Clearly, it is not a settled issue in terms of court decisions.
What I think is irrelevant, but fwiw I think that DUI stops are unconstitutional. I also think that they are trivial as compared to profiling.
My point was--who gives a fuck that you were inconvenienced, when other people are being harassed and sometimes beaten, or even shot, in violation of their 4th amendment rights.
Let the courts protect them, then I'll worry about your lost 15 minutes on the way home from Ya-Ya Land.
***Agreed. I also sometimes read "Vox Nova"--where Kyle Cupp also blogs.***
Yeah, you don't see too many people who's as respectful of the many different (and sometimes passionately stated) opinions expressed on his blog.
***Oh... and btw... perhaps you'd like to address the topic directly; I know I'd like to hear your opinion.
(I'm guessing your opinion is that DUI stops are constitutional because the Supreme Court said they are... but feel free to correct me if that guess is wrong.)***
By "DUI stops" are you referring to "DUI checkpoints?" Or are you referring to a cop STOPPING someone who is driving erratically. I will assume the former in my answer (the answer to the latter I would think is obvious).
I happen to believe they are unconstitutional. I don't believe you should be able to stop someone driving just because this is a spot between a popular strip of bars and a group of residential developments. I don't think this constitutes "probable cause" if you look at it from a strict view of the constitution. However, I could see how someone could argue against this position (the State "owns" the road and wants to make sure it is safe for other users)...I just disagree.
However, DUI checkpoints are a complete waste of time and money. Most cops I know think they're ridiculous and a piss-poor use of cops' time. You will probably catch more DUI's driving on your patrol rather than at a checkpoint, that many people can find out ahead of time (they are always published before the event).
Not to mention, I would rather have cops look into other crimes than pull someone over and book them for blowing a .08....don't even get me started on the legitimacy of the BAA as a datum to measure someone's sobriety, or lack thereof. That's utter poppycock (been wanting to use that word and I'm just writing technical proposals here where it doesn't quite fit so I had to take my chance).
Yes, I was refering to spot checks, and yes I said at 10:29 a.m. that I think they're technically unconstitutional. That said, I really don't think that this is the kind of thing that the framers had it in mind to be protecting citizens from.
As for the cops' opinion--regardless of how many drunk drivers they actually catch by these means, how many people are intimidated by the fear of being apprehended this way, by the BAA, and by the PSAs that complement the activity, and choose not to drive when they've been drinking?
Cops gripe about everything they are made to do that doesn't involve kicking some ass. Just annoying the shit out of the Bill Barkers of this world doesn't fix their jones for thuggery.
ROB WRITES...
"I agreed that it is a 4th amendment issue. Clearly, it is not a settled issue in terms of court decisions."
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
Umm... Rob... I'm absolutely flummoxed as to where your disconnect from not only the thread post but from the various comment posts occurred.
It *IS* "settled" law.
The Rehnquist Court "settled" it back in 1970.
(*HEADACHE*)
My contention is that this Decision the one we've been discussing as a tether to the philosophical question - was decided wrongly and that the Decision knowingly and deliberately went against Fourth Amendment.
(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN AMUSEMENT*)
Rob... is it Alzheimer's...??? Is it the result of "recreational" drug overuse "back in the day?"
Seriously... it's like you've TOTALLY flaked out here!
(*CHUCKLE*)
ROB CONTINUED...
"...fwiw I think that DUI stops are unconstitutional."
THANK YOU...! Thank you for answering the question.
(Please note that this conversation has crossed over onto today's - Monday's - newsbites. Readers can disregard any gaps in mutual understanding arising from the fact that we've been having basically parallel conversations on the same topic across two threads.)
Now... if you wanna discuss profiling... fine! Start a thread on your blog and we'll move the debate there.
MOOSE - Glad to hear you're with me (and Rob!) on the DUI checkpoints being obviously unconstitutional regardless of the Rehnquist Court ruling of 1970.
(And, yeah... obviously cops have the right - indeed the duty - to check individual drivers for DUI assuming CAUSE.) (*WINK*)
(BTW, Moose... have you been following the parallel discussion on the other thread?)
ROB - Again... thanks for answering the question here on this thread today; I wish you had cross-posted though - it would have saved us both a bit of typing based upon my (false) belief that you hadn't addressed the question directly.
BILL
It would be my contention that a court ruling never settles anything. Obviously it hasn't settled the issue for you. Roe v. Wade has not settled the abortion dispute.
Your problem--again--is that you seem totally incapable of analogizing the issue. You suffer from tunnel vision. You can keep only one ball in the air at any given time.
You completely missed that I totally answered your question and then went on to discuss some of the implications of that answer.
And you think I'm stupid?
THANK YOU...! Thank you for answering the question.
I, btw, considered that I had ALREADY answered the question long before 10:29 a.m. Is it the case that I have to talk down to you as though you were a third-grader? Are you not able to draw adult implications from adult language?
As you said, the Rehnquist decision made it settled law. But it didn't end the controversy. So I repeatedly said that, yes--it's a 4th amendment issue. It is a 4th amendment issue in the same way that the right to bear arms is a 2nd amendment issue: the courts have ruled that there are exceptions. It is the "issue" and the "exceptions" that are worth talking about. Although, frankly, DUI stops is so trivial as compared to other current 4th amendment issues that it is not worth talking about in isolation--which is why I tried to expand the discussion toward something more meaty. And failed. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
ROB WROTE...
"I, btw, considered that I had ALREADY answered the question long before 10:29 a.m."
Well, you hadn't.
(*SMILE*)
ROB CONTINUED...
"Is it the case that I have to talk down to you as though you were a third-grader?"
(*SMILE*) Nope. But it is the case that I expect straight answers to straight questions. Eventually you got there, Rob. Pat yourself on the back!
ROB CONTINUED...
"I repeatedly said that, yes--it's a 4th amendment issue."
Yes you did; but on that issue there was no dispute, no question.
Rob... (*SIGH*)... after much prodding you FINALLY answered the question. You even ended up on the right side of the issue! Quite while you're ahead, son... consider this a learning experience.
BILL
Post a Comment