AikiDale Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I forget exactly when the 4th Amendment was repealed.... The Kentucky State Police have been spending too much money on gasoline. The solution to this problem is to set up approximately 200 roadblocks around the state. At these check points one will present drivers license and proof of insurance, the officer will determine the driver is not intoxicated and that the vehicle appears to have all its safety equipment in good order. This will eliminate the need to have patrol cars running around the state's highways burning up gasoline in excess of their budget. One can only hope those driving without a license, without insurance or while intoxicated will make the effort to determine the location of these roadblocks and turn themselves in like good citizens. Those who give up essential Liberty for the convenience of the policing authority budget must be poor citizens indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Sounds like several vacation spots around the world !! Gaza is one that comes to mind ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airedale Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 My boss took his concealed carry class this weekend and was told that Kentucky is running background checks on all Ky. concealed carry license holders every month. Taxpayer money well spent. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 Would you like to begin learning how to use a sword now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 (edited) That does seem to be an unusual/questionable way to save gas money. Not only that, but doesn't that increase the amount of gas drivers spend waiting at checkpoints with their engines running? Seems penny wise and pound foolish to me. I wouldn't go so far as worrying about the 4th Amendment's demise just yet because driving is a privelage and not a Constitutionally protected right....lots of people forget that Edited June 30, 2008 by G-ManBart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 wow, and you are in the south. That does not sound like a good direction for the rest of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Watch out Dale, there everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 That does seem to be an unusual/questionable way to save gas money. Not only that, but doesn't that increase the amount of gas drivers spend waiting at checkpoints with their engines running? Seems penny wise and pound foolish to me. I wouldn't go so far as worrying about the 4th Amendment's demise just yet because driving is a privelage and not a Constitutionally protected right....lots of people forget that Okay, but I would have thought being detained on a public highway with no probable cause constituted an unreasonable search. It certainly constitutes an inconvenience for the driving public. It is bad enough that I have to show ID when I want to enter my local Costco. Having a police checkpoint at the entrance to shopping malls to ensure no one has a concealed weapon without an ID sounds like a nice next step. I'll quit ranting if I can just avoid watching the evening news.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 Watch out Dale, there everywhere Yeah, I know. Eternal Vigilance and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighVelocity Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I wouldn't go so far as worrying about the 4th Amendment's demise just yet because driving is a privelage and not a Constitutionally protected right....lots of people forget that from wikipedia: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Sorry officer, you're denying me my right to pursue happiness. It's on the OTHER side of your road block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Sadly that we have allowed traveling to become a privilege is what you area saying here. If I drive, I am subject to police state like tactics, IE., roadblocks to check my papers. How long before walking from place to place is also a privilege? Papers Please. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Here in Alabama the Troopers set up roadblocks occasionally. They used to pick and choose who they would stop but the courts stopped that stating something about profiling. Now when they set up a roadblock, everyone gets checked. I haven't noticed them doing it to "save" gas but if it becomes the thing to do in another state, they will probably follow suit. fwiw dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Totally agree with you Dale. I'm not sure how these check points are not "unreasonable searches." Maybe it's justified because the roads and driving is a "privilege" and not a right. It still seems like BS to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I forget exactly when the 4th Amendment was repealed.... The Kentucky State Police have been spending too much money on gasoline. The solution to this problem is to set up approximately 200 roadblocks around the state. At these check points one will present drivers license and proof of insurance, the officer will determine the driver is not intoxicated and that the vehicle appears to have all its safety equipment in good order. This will eliminate the need to have patrol cars running around the state's highways burning up gasoline in excess of their budget. One can only hope those driving without a license, without insurance or while intoxicated will make the effort to determine the location of these roadblocks and turn themselves in like good citizens. Those who give up essential Liberty for the convenience of the policing authority budget must be poor citizens indeed. What do you want to bet that the whole time the road block is set up they have the engine in the car running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Yep totally outrageous......until the guy with no license, insurance and is drunk hits you or your family and then it will the the typical old crap of the police should have done something to stop this! God I love my job.....People bitch when we do it and then bitch more when they think we didn't do enough. Of course all the monday morning quarterbacks know how to do it so much better too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 (edited) edit..... Edited July 1, 2008 by Merlin Orr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Okay, but I would have thought being detained on a public highway with no probable cause constituted an unreasonable search. It certainly constitutes an inconvenience for the driving public. I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, but I think there's some confusion about the definition and what applies here. It's not a "search" in any form, so it can't be unreasonable, by definition. Now, to show I'm not rebutting, I'll jump on your side for equal billing. Depending on the circumstances, it could be a "seizure" which is also covered by the 4th. Arresting someone is the best example of a seizure. Generally, detaining someone isn't a seizure until it gets to a certain time limit that varies from state to state, district to district. If you're detained for an hour, it's probably getting into seizure territory in this sort of situation. If I recall the way it was explained to me, the court should look at how long it would take the police to reasonably do what they have to do....in this case we're probably talking minutes, but I doubt they'd count the time stopped or slowly moving forward in the line. So, if someone wants to challenge this sort of policy, and I think challenges are generally a good thing (especially in something like this that seems penny wise and pound foolish) they would have to show that it was an unreasonable seizure rather than a search. It still seems a little silly for a number of reasons. One, it's not going to save that much gas because the cars ARE going to be running. Two, it puts all the responders in the same handful of places which means they're less likely to be close to an emergency call that needs someone there NOW and not in ten minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 We're getting into discussion territory here --- and treading close to the political line, hence: CLOSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts