License plates scanned and data kept by police

[SentraSE-R]

More on ICE roadblocks. The SCOTUS ruled:
a. it would be impractical to require all immigration stops be based on reasonable suspicion, because the heavy flow of traffic doesn't allow for particularized study of suspicious vehicles.
b. the need to make checkpoint stops is great, and the intrusion into Fourth Amendment interests is very limited, interference with traffic is minimal, and checkpoint operations use less discretionary enforcement activity than roving-patrol stops.
c. the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen.
d. it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving-patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it.
e. operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, [428 U.S. 543, 544] 387 U.S. 523, distinguished.
f. the visible manifestations of the field officers' authority at a checkpoint provide assurances to motorists that the officers are acting lawfully.

[Frank Lee]

Fargo, ND loves to do that isht. FARGO, of all places. :/

[Fat Charlie]

Why not Fargo? Don't want those Canadians sneaking in.

[Frank Lee]

I can't imagine what their big issue is that makes inconveniencing all those motorists on a regular basis worth it. Maybe they are just a test bed and data collection point for the new Gestapo.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

"And while blatantly violating constitutionally protected rights, thousands of cops lock down a 20-block area..." What constitutional rights were blatantly violated? Do you have any proof that any cop forced his way into a home without consent? That exigency didn't exist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=2LrbsUVSVl8

That doesn't look voluntary to me... Seems pretty clear the 4th amendment is being ignored.

Exigency? I don't need to prove it doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on your side of the argument. There needs to be clear evidence of probable cause for exigent circumstances to apply. If they had that, they would have been able to go straight to where the guy was hiding. Instead, they had to wait till the lockdown was removed so the private citizen could give them the lead they needed.

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

What do I think about it? The current pro-Wall Street activist SCOTUS is a disaster for our individual rights.

I agree here. Some of the recent SCOTUS rulings have been appalling and leave me very concerned about the effects of these rulings now that precedent has been set.

[SentraSE-R]

Show me where there is a probable cause requirement for exigent circumstances to apply. You don't seem to understand exigency. From the Wikipedia Fourth Amendment article:

There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.

All of the above elements existed during the Watertown searches, did they not? Mind you, I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's constitutional as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Certainly, it's not blatantly unconstitutional, as you claim.

Frank, We all know the Republicans have used illegal immigrants as their scapegoats for the last three Presidential elections and the midterm elections between them. It's those politicians who want to inconvenience us all, so they can stump on their 'tough on illegal immigrants' stance.

[SentraSE-R]

No disagreement? In my mind, my logic is flawless, but I know better than to think you all agree with me. I've referenced the legal justification/rationalization for immigration checkpoints and the Watertown searches. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I do that on a case-by-case basis.

Big Brother doesn't have to force you to give up your rights. Joe Six-Pack willingly gives them up. He consents to (or used to consent to, since the genitalia-exposing scanners are going away) full body scans and pat-downs to fly commercial air transportation. He consents to carry-in container inspections and metal wand scans at sporting events. That's why I've only flown twice, and haven't attended a live sporting event, in the past decade. Air travel ceased to be enjoyable after I saw security people with fully automatic weapons on a catwalk inside Heathrow Airport. Prior to that, I was a UA 100k Premier flier, with a couple of dozen countries checked off my bucket list.

I've lost three pocket knives to ICE, TSA, and cruise ship security, respectively, since 9-11. I've buried pocket knives outside airports and federal buildings for later retrieval, and even thrown them away in trash cans, to avoid the hassle of dealing with Big Brother.

And yes, I've been questioned at immigration checkpoints in all of the Mexican border states. But I've also been stopped by Israeli border patrols, Gatwick Airport police, Ecuadorian drug enforcement police, Australian DUI checkpoint police, and been stopped at Peruvian and Mexican checkpoints for frontera inspections. Once I flew from Israel into Switzerland, and traveled from there in a chauffeur-driven Mercedes-Benz into Germany. When I was ready to leave Switzerland, you should have heard the questions I was asked, by people who knew way too much about where I'd been and what I'd done. Free and unlimited travel? I hate to tell you, but it doesn't exist.

[cujet]

Sentra,

I have no problem when there is an emergency situation. Clearly, without a doubt, we are all on the same team and it's not my place to buck the system. However, to operate a country under a constant state of emergency is the height of absurdity.

Since you so clearly brought up illegal immigration as a "talking point", I'll counter with this. We can't have unconstitutional checkpoints, with ongoing interrogation of citizens, under the name of "illegal immigration". Then have that same group (CBP) refuse to accept criminal illegals from local law enforcement. Can't have it both ways. CBP either wants to do the job we've hired them to do, or not.

I had hoped you would counter my points from a few posts up with valid reasoning. You have failed to do so. Claiming SCOTUS "says so" is, unfortunately, not a valid point. SCOTUS has been amazingly wrong for well over 100 years now. The court is politically motivated and there is a very long list of clear Constitutional distortions, often in favor of favored businesses or political friends.

I say we start at the beginning, with the "Plain Language" meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Allowing no distortion. Then discuss from there as necessary. Anything less won't work.

[cujet]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Gov't dossiers on every citizen. Straw man, doesn't exist.

Sentra, Incorrect. Not only does it exist, but it's growing rapidly. Example: Soon, the Fed's will know exactly what insurance plan I pay for, and how much I pay for it. Included are pictures from my doctors visits, my health care statistics and so on.

I cannot directly admit something here, because it's improper. However, I did get a chance to view information on myself. And it was stunningly complete. To make matters worse, there were some inaccuracies. Someone with my exact name is a wanted fugitive for armed carjacking in San Jose California. I can see expensive problems in my future.

DHS is now randomly searching private aircraft upon landing. I've been subject to one search so far and it was VERY uncomfortable. Can you imagine if they now think I'm a wanted fugitive?

Problem with all of this: I have NO RECOURSE and NO METHOD to correct improper information.

Let's stay on the side of freedom and liberty. Let's avoid justifying bad behavior by the various government agencies.

[user removed]

What bothers me more than the act of data collection on myself and others who are capable of being good citizens without govt persuasion or the "sword of damocles" of omnipotent beaurocrats, is the arrogance of those same people who think they need to do so in the first place.

What really bothers me the most, since that same arrogant jerk could ride in my car or follow me on my bike and find nothing to pursue legally, is the belief amongst those arrogants (sorry can't post the word I am thinking) That I ACTUALLY NEED their stupid supervision and legalistic intimidation. The worst of it all is in their arrogancce they spend like drunken sailors, yet they still are convinced that what they are doing is absolutely essential to my "security". when THEY are the only source of my insecurity.

regards
Mech