X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
youtube,cops,police,lies,false,authority "4th Amendment Trampled in DC - Illegal Police Checkpoint"
Comments  playlists with this video Police gone bad by eric3579
who voted for this video NordlichReiter
- siftbot
x15who has this post bookmarked eric3579
- MarineGunrock
"4th Amendment Trampled In DC - Illegal Police Checkpoint" Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(140 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments           | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Wouldn't be the first time.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/DC/history.html
Also, there was the recent DC Voting Rights Act which for the first time gave DC a seat in Congress...
http://www.dcvote.org/media/media.cfm?mediaID=1841
...as well as the recent gun ban struck down by the Supreme Court.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/06/dc_gun_ban_the_decision.html
So this could be in response to any of these balances of power.
"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."
Nothing was searched or seized here, and no warrants were issued. The video starts off with text saying a woman was arrested for not paying a $75 fine on the spot, with NO references, and later the police say she was arrested for driving without a valid license. To that dumbshit white kid: The fourth amendment has NOTHING to do with being able to go where ever you want "without fear that the cops will mess with you"
UUUUHHHHGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
There was that case where the kid was stopped by the cops for no reason and they guy flipped out at him (and didn't realize he was being taped). My experience with cops has been mostly polite and positive, but then again, I've had a few instances where it was clear to me that if I had tried to get all "legal" with him/her, they would have beaten me with a stick and claimed I was "resisting arrest."
But the supreme court has also carved out an exception for drunk driving and road safety checkpoints in Michigan State Police v. Sitz, where the checkpoint relates to issues pertaining to safe use of the roads on which the stopped motorist was driving. This is to be distinguished from City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, where the Supreme Court ruled checkpoints unrelated to road safety are NOT constitutional; that is, where the checkpoint is just a fishing expedition to attempt to gather evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, such as pirated music videos, unlicensed software, drugs, etc.
So this may fall into the category of a legal checkpoint from a federal 4th amendment point of view, but only if the specific State (or D of C) has not augmented protections over those decided by the Supreme Court.
Certainly the point that the Police State is coming via the gradual encroachment on and erosion of civil liberties is well taken, and is the main thrust of this video. I sincerely feel that people that don't like the American Constitution and don't value the inalienable rights that it protects and that so many have fought for in so many wars in the last 200 years (even if a majority want to deny them) should move to a country where it is legal to just stop people on the street without suspicion or cause.
It's funny that you mentioned those two cases. In the first, the Suprme Court ruled that this sort of checkpoint is legal. In the second, they ruled that a different sort of checkpoint, on in which they actually searched vehicles was illegal. I therefore fail to see why you ever mentioned them, as they only strengthen my case. (Citation)
Show me where in the 4th Amendment that it says anything other than people have the right to not be searched or their possessions seized without probable cause.
Normally, they are only allowed to ask for those things if they caught you doing something in violation of the law.
Know your rights.
One has to remember that the Fourth Amendment was written at a time when the only way to gather information was to physically seize papers; inventions such as the telephone, automobile, through-wall radar, etc were not foreseen. The Supreme Court has to interpret the Fourth Amendment in light of modern developments. For example, in Katz v. US (1968) the Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment protects people and privacy, not only papers and places, and that telephone conversations were subject to protection, even though nothing was physically "searched" or "seized". To find otherwise would effectively nullify the Fourth Amendment in this modern world.
Hence, one must interpret the Fourth Amendment in terms of the case law and Supreme Court rulings, which are the law of the land, in addition to the actual original text of the Fourth Amendment to fully comprehend its meaning.
Another good example is the exclusionary rule, where evidence obtained illegally is not allowed to be used in court. This rule was adopted because of a logical argument; if police are allowed to break in and gather evidence illegally and then use it in court to convict someone, the Fourth Amendment is rendered null and void. So, the bottom line is that one has to look at more than the explicit words of the amendment to the intent and implications as well, when considering Fourth Amendment protections.
Check points are Illegal, and unconstitutional. The fact that Marinegunrock is an authority figure and believes so extremely in the power vested in authority is no fault of his. We are taught from birth by our environment that authority is right.
The fact that we always rely on police and government help be it federal or municipal is a testament to the fact that we are not free.
The fact that people believe that the supreme authority is a testament to our lack of freedom. The people have supreme authority, don't let any authority tell you otherwise.
You papers Please?
Ihre Papiere bitte.
This is a construct to cause us to bicker among ourselves while the real problem gets hides.
Also, since the 2nd Amendment was trampled in DC long before this, why should I care when a shift in targets of Democrat lawlessness bites them in the ass?