Supreme Court: No roadblock on roadblocks

Cops can stop you on the roads freely if they want to ask you questions about unsolved crimes, says Supreme Court.

Comments

[Rick C]

"Officer, even if I had any information about it, I wouldn't give it at a checkpoint, I'd call a hotline."

[Rick C]

"Officer, even if I had any information about it, I wouldn't give it at a checkpoint, I'd call a hotline."

[Rick C]

Oops, sorry about the double-post. Accidentally clicked the comments link on the next story what turns out to not have been a bit too early.

[tchiers]

Wow. That pretty much does away with 4th amendment protections while on the road.

"Your honor, we stopped the defendant becasue he appeared too young to be driving a car that nice, uh, I mean we wanted to ask if he had any information on the 100,000 unsolved crimes from last year. And then we found...."

[James Merritt]

Of course, they don't need any pretext to stop you for seatbelt violations anymore. Here in Santa Cruz CA, they're busy enhancing revenue at $20 or more per ticket.

And yes, I am one of those who was stopped, ironically enough when I was trying to get my wife's car smog-checked so we could renew her registration. My own car has an integrated lap belt and shoulder harness; the two are separate in her car, and the driver's shoulder harness is often tangled. When I was stopped, I was wearing my lap belt and driving safely in sedate traffic on a city street, in a car that I didn't usually use. None of this, however, cut any ice with the highway patrolman (who was driving a beat on surface streets within the city limits, trawling for ticketable violations -- they ought to change the name of the force from Highway Patrol to "mobile tax collectors"). He cited me for being only partially buckled up, and then it was "show your papers please": in this case, registration, driver license, and proof of insurance.

It's a good thing I didn't have an almanac in the back seat, or I might have learned about cavity searches the hard way.

What is the old bromide? "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"? If it was ever true, it isn't anymore.

After hearing about my woes, my wife expressed sympathy and asked me what she could do to help. I said, "vote Libertarian." "No, really," she insisted... and threin lies the problem, I think.

[Trey]

It is my understanding that roadblocks are constitutional because you can avoid them - they are supposed to be set up so that you can see them and turn around without being pulled over.

Where did I get this idea? Is it true?

[Kevin Carson]

tchiers,

The courts have long ruled that you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a variety of public places. Like the "compelling public interest" doctrine, it's just a way to say the Fourth Amendment *can't* mean what it appears to mean, because no self-respecting government would ever let its people get away with that kind of shenanigans.

dude,

I predict, in the same timeframe, that bus and train passengers will have to go through checkpoint charlie just like airline passengers. And with RFID and GPS technology, they may not need those checkpoints.

And before the first troll squeals "tinfoil hat," or challenges me to give "one instance" of how I'm less free bacause of Ashcroft: do you really think our freedom are just as secure, when the government creates the full organizational and legal infrastructure needed for dictatorship, just because it hasn't decided to USE that infrastructure yet? The very fact that the government is busily acquiring the ability to track us, and to keep our speech and associations under surveillance, and to suspend them at the stroke of a president's pen, makes those liberties less secure. The effect is to render those liberties a grant from the government, depending on the continuance of its good will.

To anyone who thinks that is an acceptable state of affairs, I say, "may your chains rest lightly on you," etc.

[Douglas Fletcher]

You're not getting nothing from me, copper!

[bobmologna]

"It is my understanding that roadblocks are constitutional because you can avoid them - they are supposed to be set up so that you can see them and turn around without being pulled over."

Just you try it and see what happens... You'll have so many cops on you so fast you won't believe it.

As for bus and train passengers; have you taken a bus lately? The last time I used Greyhound was 8 or 9 years ago in southern Arizona and EVERYONE got the once over twice. It's got to be much worse by now.

[SteveInClearwater]

A great reminder to me why I need to continue doing a lot of the work I do here in FLorida which involves a lot of time educating the public as to their rights during a traffic stop of any kind.

If more people would assertively and politely say, "I don't want to talk to you" when police start asking questions of any kind, we could change the growing perception among the populace that one DOES have to talk to them whenever they start asking questions.

I like the comment above that suggests, "Yes officer I might know something but I'm not telling you at this checkpoint, because I'm busy now."

TREY, in answer to your question, in many jurisdictions, we have stories of police setting up FAKE roadblocks and then they stop anyone who tries to avoid them. For example, they set up a big giant message sign just prior to Exit 22 that says, POLICE ROADSIDE CHECK AHEAD 1 MILE ON EXIT 23....Motorists swerve off the exit ramp at 22, only to find the real roadblock at the bottom of the ramp or around the corner.

For more on your rights during a traffic stop, you can visit my friends at Florida Cannabis Action Network http://www.flcan.org and use the side button for YOUR RIGHTS

[Jim Roberts-Miller]

If more people would assertively and politely say, "I don't want to talk to you" when police start asking questions of any kind, we could change the growing perception among the populace that one DOES have to talk to them whenever they start asking questions.

Sheesh. Why even bother having police in the first place? You people need to stop acting as though any attempt by law enforcement to do its job is barely one step removed from installing a dictatorship. Some flatfoot asking you if you happened to see a speeding red truck with a dent on the right fender is a long way from the truly awful stuff like asset forfeiture laws.

Anyway, I thought this case was less about the legality of this particular roadblock and its purpose, but if it was legal for the cops to nab some guy who swerved away and turned out to be DUI.

[Kevin Carson]

Jim,

I think Steve's complaint was more along the lines of questions about YOUR business when they pull you over. Just about every time I've been pulled over for a traffic violation, I've been asked where I was coming from, where I was headed, where I work, where I live, etc. That's pretty close to a gendarmery that feels automatically entitled to ask for "your papers" as a matter of course. It would be a good thing if cops got used to a citizenry that refused to provide anything but license, registration, and insurance.

[murray]

No, it's really about how police can do less actual work and get the same credit.

If I had any information about a particular crime, it would be for sale!

[Officer Friendly]

Yeah, police officers never take advantage of their perception that they can intimdate people.

[Jim Roberts-Miller]

Kevin,

Its been quite a while since I was last pulled over for a violation but I never got that sort of thing back then. I suppose it could have gotten worse. It could even be a regional thing.

[late for the boom]

Any time the government gets more power or liberty to intrude into your private life, its not a good thing. I dont care about the justification, last time I checked, the police did a pretty damn good job of solving crime without having to stop me on the way to the store to ask me about last nights robbery. In fact, Crime-stoppers and Americas Most wanted was just getting credit for increasing the amount of solved crimes, because citizens happen to call in tips all of the time.

[SteveInClearwater]

KEVIN was correct in his perception. I was actually reefering to the many questions that police often ask that have nothing to do with my driving and/or legitimate questions.

JIM ROBERTS perception was understandable if he has never encountered such questioning. I would acknowledge that many, many traffic stops ask no such intrusive questions, keep the focus on business at hand (traffic laws etc) and therefore merit no particular criticism.

BUT for far too many people - those of color, those of long hair, those of certain clothing styles, those of many anti-authority bumperstickers (LEGALIZE POT etc), the conversation swerves dramatically.

And also, within the context of this Topic Header, in roadblock situations, police often veer from the topic.

Yes, the cited example was a drunk guy who created, in my humble opinion, probable cause for further questioning. Unfortunately, the specific issue appealed seems not to have been, "Can police set up roadblocks to seek information on a crime", but rather, "Can police in a roadblock situation ask intrusive questions of a guy who is running into stuff?"

IF police really wanted information, they could just as easily set up one of those roadside advertising signs with a specific message. Instead of "CAUTION, CONSTRUCTION AHEAD", it might say, "POLICE ARE SEEKING A RED PICKUP WITH LICENSE TAG 12234 and TWO MALES, ONE FEMALE...CALL LOCAL POLICE IF SEEN"

In effect, every passing driver is then questioned about what is important and there is no chance for police to either purposely or inadvertantly stray off topic.

[Heather]

"Of course, they don't need any pretext to stop you for seatbelt violations anymore. Here in Santa Cruz CA, they're busy enhancing revenue at $20 or more per ticket."

Yup. And I remember when the seatbelt law passed in California. They promised and promised that it wouldn't be used as an excuse for traffic stops. How they lied. Now they've turned this good little Democrat into a Libertarian troller who votes against every nanny law she can. Even the ones that make some sort of sense-- mandatory car seats for children for instance-- and most especially against the ones that make no sense-- motorcycle helmet laws. Stupid tell-you-what-to-do-with-your-own-brainpan government.

[Stephen Fetchet]

If any of the more reactionary among you had actually read this case, you would know that it involved what appears to have been a pretty legit investigation of a hit and run accident in which a pedestrian was killed. Moreover, the case doesn't appear to be as screamingly oppressive as you make it out to be.

The cops set up a roadblock a week after the homicide, at the time and place the pedestrian was killed, to hand out flyers and ask passers by if they were in the area the week before at the same time, and if so whether they had seen anything. They stopped people for about 15 seconds, handed out a flyer, asked if they?d been around and seen anything the week before, and then said thanks, feel free to go.

Oh yeah, that's practically Kristallnacht right there, I'm tellin' ya. But wait, it gets worse.

When the defendant Mr. Lidster (sounds like a great name for a peer-to-peer bong sharing network) came weaving into the checkpoint, he nearly hit a couple cops, and screeched to a halt. He reeked of booze, and the cops, perhaps unreasonably upset about being nearly killed, decided to do a little field sobriety test on him, which he flunked.

The swerving / nearly hitting cops / reeking of booze thing, even to the most adamanat libertarian, would suggest probable cause justifying a stop. Mr. Lidster didn't contest this - rather he contested the propriety of the cops stopping people to ask "hey, did you see anything?"

The thing about 4th Amendment principles, is they aren't really tied to places very tightly. They protect individual rights that attach to the person. So if the cops stopping cars to ask "hey, did you happen to be by here last week and see anything" is a violation of the 4th Amendment, then so is any stop - on the street in front of a just-robbed bank, or a neighborhood canvass to see if any homeowners happened to witness a murder in the street.

The court ruled in essence that because the cops weren't there conducting searches or being invasive with drug dogs and so forth, that it wasn't a search. In fact, the cops activity sort of bears that out - unless that department has a practice of setting up DUI checkpoints at the site of homicides, not in an attempt to locate witnesses but rather to catch drunk drivers. Somehow, I don't think even Barney Fife could be that oblique...

Oh, to hell with it. I'll concede. The whole "pedestrian gets killed" routine was just a big setup by the local cops in order to quash your civil liberties. It's so clear... just follow the money, man... the aliens... mind control chips...

Yeah, this case is a really substantial jaunt toward the forced labor camps, camps, eh?

[Dan]

That pretty much does away with 4th amendment protections while on the road.

The fourth amendment doesn't protect us against police questioning. That aside, we pretty much lost all our fourth amendment protections, as drivers, back during the 1990s in a fairly absurd series of anti-drug rulings.

[Russ D]

Some great b.s. in this story, courtesty of paid public officials.

"He said the ruling likely will not lead to widespread roadblocks in towns around the country because of limited police funding"

Which becomes moot when you can pull over people in the hopes of finding either a) information on the crime, or b) a traffic violator to fine thereby covering all the costs to the police department. It's a whole new profit center!

"Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the ruling 'will allow law enforcement in Illinois and across the nation to seek voluntary assistance from citizens in their efforts to solve crime.' "

Ever been pulled over "voluntarily" by the police? At least Justice Stevens saw through that nonsense.

[dude]

Prediction: within 10 years it won't be possible to drive anywhere without going through a checkpoint or three. It will be sold as getting tough on drunk drivers, terrorists, satanists, whatever. What it will be is revenue source: $$$ will be made off expired licenses, seatbelts, etc. Wonder if people will start wanting to move back to denser neighborhoods where you can walk? (Until they start the sidewalk checkpoints).

Your papers please.

[Warreb]

Ve vant to see your papers

[Mark Draughn]

Just what I needed to hear.

One of the clearest differences between the free world and tyranny is that the free world doesn't have internal checkpoints.

[Swamp Justice]

Crime pays (the law enforcers). Thus, I predict NO REDUCTION in future crime. 🙁

[Gino]

This one floored me. Roadblocks to ask for assistance in solving crimes?! We can't be too far from home safety inspections and compulsory exercise.

[DFH]

"... if they want to ask you questions about unsolved crimes."

I'm picturing a cop with a MagLight shining in my eyes screaming:

WHO KILLED THE LINDBERGH BABY?

WHO KILLED THE LINDBERGH BABY?

WHO KILLED THE LINDBERGH BABY?

[Jim Roberts-Miller]

I like Steveinclearwater's sign idea, but the cops would probably have to get at least three bids from outside vendors, deal with minority representation issues, bribe a local Teamster, etc. etc. Easier just to set up a checkpoint.
🙂

[mooserack]

SF:

Your hyperbole has long ceased to be amusing. Genuine worries about the erosion of Civil Liberties are a big deal. I have family in the western suburbs of Chicago (Arlington) and they were talking about the case, too. You are combining issues. Being in favor of stronger Fourth Ammendment protections and being horrified by the crimes committed are separate.

It appears as though are doing the same as those who are pro-Gitmo detainment by somehow claiming, "well they're guilty anyway".

This is not about deterioration into legal rowdyism and Goodwin's Law comparisons. But the innocent have nothing to fear, right?

Disgusting. But what to expect from a racist handle.

[JD]

Just the other night, leaving a friend's place, I saw someone get pulled over (don't know for what). One cop went over to the driver's window, while the other prowled around the car shining a flashlight in all the windows. Now, no, that's not really a step closer to the concentration camps, and yes, I know it's pretty standard behavior, but that sort of thing is a bit offensive, especially when you consider that the cops would freak out if you did it to them. That's the problem here, I think: not so much that it's illegal or especially reprehensible, but it helps create a social atmosphere in which the actions of the police are not to be questioned, while citizens have to justify everything they do. Likewise with the roadblock issue. My standard is: would the cops tolerate you behaving this way? No? Then why should I tolerate them behaving this way?