SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a US federal civil rights lawsuit, a Connecticut man has shared footage to bolster his claims that police illegally confronted the pedestrian because he was filming one of them. Authorities seized Michael Picard's camera and his permitted pistol, and the officers involved then accidentally recorded themselves allegedly fabricating charges against the man.
Picard's police encounter began as he was protesting a sobriety checkpoint while lawfully carrying a handgun in a holster. The plaintiff often protests near sobriety checkpoints in the Hartford region and is known by locals and police in the area, according to court documents. "Cops Ahead: Keep Calm and Remain Silent," read the 3-foot-by-2-foot sign Picard held up to motorists ahead of the checkpoint in West Hartford last year.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by http on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:12PM
Sobriety checkpoints are 100% unconstitutional in the US, and pretty much unsupportable in any country with Brtitish Common Law as a starting point.
Driving down a particular road does not constitue probable cause. Erratic driving does.
Nowhere on your license does it say "you have to stop for police because you have this license". Now, I can't say for sure, not being an American, but I'm fairly sure that nowhere in the application and testing process is such a clause mentioned.
Please, educate me as to the process of getting a driver's license in the USA.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:40PM
From wikipedia's "Random checkpoint" page:
"""
The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment." Dissenting justices argued against this conclusion. Justice Stevens argued that the checkpoints were not reasonably effective, writing 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." Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion argued that the police had failed to show that the checkpoint seizures were a necessary tool and worth the intrusion on individual privacy. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," he stated.
"""
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday September 23 2016, @04:23AM
Whilst you have the right to disagree with the SCOTUS, they still technically have a little bit more authority than you on such matters.
They have authority, but they're still wrong. They should be stripped of their authority for not only failing to defend the highest law of the land, but actively opposing it. It is not acceptable for judges to arbitrarily make exceptions for the government so that our constitutional rights can be ignored. It seems to me that they don't actually care about what the Constitution says; they are authoritarians at heart and will use whatever twisted logic they have to use in order to grant the government the powers they want it to have, regardless of what the Constitution says.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 23 2016, @08:45AM
Agreed. The 4th amendment is written in the absolute. It offers no leeway for compelling interests of the state or for minimal intrusiveness.