LA Sued for Impounding Cars of Unlicensed Illegal Aliens

[RetiredGySgt]

My mistake.

Sounds good.

Arent we already doing that?

NO, Clinton made it nearly impossible to do that and Bush has done nothing to correct it. Once again just for you, neither party cares. One wants cheap labor and one thinks they will get votes.

Rank and file republicans CARE though and voiced their position in defeating the Democratic plan to legalize 20 million illegals that Bush supported. And for that they were labeled racists. Further your entire opening rant was about how evil it was to stop search and impound illegals cars. NOW your claiming we should actually arrest them and deport them? Make up your mind.

 

[Edward]

Great, Yet another law we can't enforce because we might actually catch illegal immigrants in the process.

Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Neither is being in this country illegally.

These roadblocks also violate the rights of American citizens. It is intolerable that an American must show a police officer a copy of their driver's license and identify themselves at a roadblock when they have not committed any crime. This isn't about enforcing the law instead it is about the scope of the operation which involves everyone who travels through the roadblock. What happens if someone forgets their license at home? What if they are on their way to work and their car is impounded on the spot and they are are late to a meeting which costs a business thousands in lost fees because a client is offended and leaves? What about having to take time off from your normal responsibilities and go to the impound lot to pay the fees? These are all concerns that every American should have. It's simply stupid to think that this is about illegal immigrants or their rights when it is about the rights of every person to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." There you have it. It is unreasonable to seize a person's vehicle simply because they do not have a license. It is theft of private property by law enforcement and it is unacceptable. A person not having a copy of their license (or in Nazi Germany their papers) on them should not result in a seizure of their property. A lot of people are willing to support this law and its enforcement because the word "illegal immigrant" is brought into the discussion but I would remind you that it might be you that has left your driver's license at home, or lost your wallet on the way out of the shopping mall or accidently left it on the grocery counter when paying for your groceries. If you are stopped at this type of road block your vehicle will be seized.

 

[Bern80]

These roadblocks also violate the rights of American citizens. It is intolerable that an American must show a police officer a copy of their driver's license and identify themselves at a roadblock when they have not committed any crime. This isn't about enforcing the law instead it is about the scope of the operation which involves everyone who travels through the roadblock. What happens if someone forgets their license at home? What if they are on their way to work and their car is impounded on the spot and they are are late to a meeting which costs a business thousands in lost fees because a client is offended and leaves? What about having to take time off from your normal responsibilities and go to the impound lot to pay the fees? These are all concerns that every American should have. It's simply stupid to think that this is about illegal immigrants or their rights when it is about the rights of every person to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." There you have it. It is unreasonable to seize a person's vehicle simply because they do not have a license. It is theft of private property by law enforcement and it is unacceptable. A person not having a copy of their license (or in Nazi Germany their papers) on them should not result in a seizure of their property. A lot of people are willing to support this law and its enforcement because the word "illegal immigrant" is brought into the discussion but I would remind you that it might be you that has left your driver's license at home, or lost your wallet on the way out of the shopping mall or accidently left it on the grocery counter when paying for your groceries. If you are stopped at this type of road block your vehicle will be seized.

First off there is a big difference between not haveing your license on you and not being licensed to drive and the law enforcement agency can find out which one you are within minutes. If you left your license at home or don't have it on you for whatever reason, you tell the cop that and they can guickly find out whether you actually licensed to drive or not. This law is to catch illegals by finding out if there licensed to drive or not. It is not to impound cars of everyone that doesn't have a drivers license on them

secondly it isn't law enforcements job to deal with your 'what ifs'. Roadblocks can arise for any number of reasons, but generally to catch criminals they believe will be on a certain stretch of road.

 

[Edward]

Another crock of Liberal shit. NO ONE is opposed to LEGAL immigrants. We are opposed to 10 to 20 MILLION illegal Immigrants and a border so porous a tank Corps could drive over it and no one would be the wiser.

This thread is about LEGALLY stopping and impounding cars of drivers with NO license and NO insurance, BOTH are against the law. That people like you can twist the action of a State to protect its citizens into a biased act of racism is absolutely crazy.

What is the reason behind this law? What purpose does it really accomplish? It basically allows the police to seize a person's property because they do not have a copy of their license or insurance on them or in their vehicle and this includes American citizens as well and the reason behind the law is clearly intended as a tool to enforce immigration laws and yet it affects everyone equally and that is why it is biased and a violation of the constitution. What would happen if someone who had a license in the wallet refused and said, "I will not show you my license because I haven't commited any crime, and did not ask for you to stop me and I will not show you my license because I am a Jew who lived in Nazi Germany and this is to much like what happened to me then." Will their vehicle be seized? Will they be forced to relive the memory of what it was like to live under Nazi Germany? This is a matter of civil liberties and the right of people to travel freely without having to be forced to go through a roadblock and to provide identification. It is humiliating to a lot of people, and for some people it becomes so offensive that they are willing to go to jail before they allow someone to treat them like that. It is repugnant to think that you support a law that allows the police to seize private property based on someone not having a copy of their license on them at the time. Where is the due process? Where is the right of an American citizen to be free from unreasonable seizures? I can imagine a phone call between a husband and wife "honey, I need you to come pick me up because the police have impounded my car because I left my wallet at home" and the wife responding and saying, "I need to pick Davey up from day care and I will be there as soon as I can." The husband responds by saying, "but I am late for a major meeting and I need to be there now." The wife responds, "I will call Liz and see if she will be able to pick you or Davey up. We will get this taken care of." After getting to the impound they are both told, "that will be $1,100 dollars." They respond by saying, "we don't have that kind of money" and the impound officer saying, "sorry but you can't have your vehicle until you pay us." Then the wife and husband try to figure out what they can do. The husband will never forget to carry his Government Papers with him in case the SS stop him at another roadblock.

It may well be against the law not to have a license or to have no insurance but that does not give the police the right to seize your property and make you pay impound fees or find other means of transportation to get where you are going. There are many reasons why a person may not have a copy of their license on them. Such as they lost it and are on the way to the DMV to get a copy. This is why we have rules in place to protect people from unreasonable seizure of their property. The police can issue them a citation if they broke some traffic law and then add a fine for not having a driver's license but to take someone's property is simply unacceptable. We are getting to the point as a society where we think it is okay for a police officer to arrest people, take their property and to do whatever they want if a person refuses to show identification, when they haven't committed any crime, and that is unacceptable.

 

[Edward]

First off there is a big difference between not haveing your license on you and not being licensed to drive and the law enforcement agency can find out which one you are within minutes. If you left your license at home or don't have it on you for whatever reason, you tell the cop that and they can guickly find out whether you actually licensed to drive or not. This law is to catch illegals by finding out if there licensed to drive or not. It is not to impound cars of everyone that doesn't have a drivers license on them

How do they find that out? You don't have your license on you therefore there is no way for them to know who you are. An illegal could just as easily say that they are their wife's brother or their cousin who is legal. So how do you propose that it will only take minutes for the police to find out? What about everyone who is waiting at the roadblock. Do they get to go while Officer Smith checks to make sure that Citizen Caine is in fact who he says he is and what if Officer Smith can't find out that Citizen Caine is in fact Citizen Caine. Is Citizen Caine free to go or is his person detained against his will by the police officer. What if someone simply refuses to wait at the roadblock or to identify themselves? Will they be arrested (i.e., kidnapped by the Kings Guards) if they do not? We have seen how people react when they are placed in these kinds of situations and we have seen high speed chases result from this kind of situation and the only thing the person did was make a choice which resulted in the deaths of a lot of innocent people. Possibly because they were libertarians or people who do not believe that they have to undergo such abuse at the hands of law enforcement.

secondly it isn't law enforcements job to deal with your 'what ifs'. Roadblocks can arise for any number of reasons, but generally to catch criminals they believe will be on a certain stretch of road.

It is true that roadblocks are used to catch criminals and that is why police can check a vehicle to see if someone in that vehicle matches a description but it is always inappropriate to demand that someone provide you with identification and then to impound their car or to arrest them for failure to do so. Of course, I am sure that SS Officer Bern of the Nazi Party wouldn't agree with that and thinks that he and other members of his faction have the right to violate the rights of others. We can talk about discretion and we can even talk about fining someone who is driving without a license but when it comes down to it the Constitution protects our rights against idiots like you who would like to pass laws that infringe on our rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How do they find that out? You don't have your license on you therefore there is no way for them to know who you are. An illegal could just as easily say that they are their wife's brother or their cousin who is legal. So how do you propose that it will only take minutes for the police to find out? What about everyone who is waiting at the roadblock. Do they get to go while Officer Smith checks to make sure that Citizen Caine is in fact who he says he is and what if Officer Smith can't find out that Citizen Caine is in fact Citizen Caine. Is Citizen Caine free to go or is his person detained against his will by the police officer. What if someone simply refuses to wait at the roadblock or to identify themselves? Will they be arrested (i.e., kidnapped by the Kings Guards) if they do not? We have seen how people react when they are placed in these kinds of situations and we have seen high speed chases result from this kind of situation and the only thing the person did was make a choice which resulted in the deaths of a lot of innocent people. Possibly because they were libertarians or people who do not believe that they have to undergo such abuse at the hands of law enforcement.



It is true that roadblocks are used to catch criminals and that is why police can check a vehicle to see if someone in that vehicle matches a description but it is always inappropriate to demand that someone provide you with identification and then to impound their car or to arrest them for failure to do so. Of course, I am sure that SS Officer Bern of the Nazi Party wouldn't agree with that and thinks that he and other members of his faction have the right to violate the rights of others. We can talk about discretion and we can even talk about fining someone who is driving without a license but when it comes down to it the Constitution protects our rights against idiots like you who would like to pass laws that infringe on our rights.

You can not actually be this dense can you? As long as your from that State they can check by entering your information in the computer for DMV to tell them, If their not from that State, what the hell are they doing driving without a license? Most States now require Insurance before you can register a car and in some cases before you can get a license. With requirements that the Insurance Company notify the State if it lapses or is canceled. So once again the DMV will know as long as your a resident of said State. The simple act of having a valid registration is then a good indication you have insurance.

Driving is NOT a right. You do not have a protected right to not be required to show proof of license or insurance , the right to privacy does NOT exist in this case. Public safety is the responsibility of all levels of Government. This clearly falls in that catagory.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

you have a point there, we need to go after corporations who do business with illegals, or enable them in any way.

Yeah If they cant open a bank account, buy a cell phone, or get a credit card, or health insurance they are less likely to flood over the boarder.

There are about 20 million illegals in the US

As long as corporations make money from illegals it will be that much harder to stop the flow.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you have a point there, we need to go after corporations who do business with illegals, or enable them in any way.

They come for work. They do not come to open bank accounts or get credit cards. And last I checked health care is given to them because the bleeding heart Liberals complain if it isn't. They do not need health insurance.

And as I already pointed out you can NOT get a bank account now without a picture ID and a Social Security number ( or proof you do not need a SS number) Thats the law.

As to ID, again the liberals are hot to trot to make IDs easy to get for illegals, some city just created IDs just for illegals as I recall.

 

[red states rule]

you have a point there, we need to go after corporations who do business with illegals, or enable them in any way.

as long as the liberal nanny state keeps making it easier to come here - why just focus on the corporations?

 

[red states rule]

You can not actually be this dense can you? As long as your from that State they can check by entering your information in the computer for DMV to tell them, If their not from that State, what the hell are they doing driving without a license? Most States now require Insurance before you can register a car and in some cases before you can get a license. With requirements that the Insurance Company notify the State if it lapses or is canceled. So once again the DMV will know as long as your a resident of said State. The simple act of having a valid registration is then a good indication you have insurance.

Driving is NOT a right. You do not have a protected right to not be required to show proof of license or insurance , the right to privacy does NOT exist in this case. Public safety is the responsibility of all levels of Government. This clearly falls in that catagory.

Yes, he is that dense

 

[Edward]

You can not actually be this dense can you? As long as your from that State they can check by entering your information in the computer for DMV to tell them, If their not from that State, what the hell are they doing driving without a license? Most States now require Insurance before you can register a car and in some cases before you can get a license. With requirements that the Insurance Company notify the State if it lapses or is canceled. So once again the DMV will know as long as your a resident of said State. The simple act of having a valid registration is then a good indication you have insurance.

Are you really this stupid? Because if you are then it explains why stupid people like you hold elected office (i.e., idiots like you vote for people of like intelligence) in our country. Checking the DMV records isn't going to suffice because people can provide false names to the officers and they would be checking the name given to them by the person who has been stopped. Also, checking the DMV records for any number of people will take time. During that time a person who has committed no crime is detained against their will and by definition that is false arrest. Unless a person is free at any time to leave and to be on their way they are in effect under arrest. That the person has not committed any crime including a traffic violation makes this false arrest. You can't stop everyone and demand that they provide you with proof of anything since their right to be secure in their person exists. They don't need to tell you who they are, what they are doing or where they are going nor do they need to provide proof of any of these things. This right is absolute and because its the right of "freedom of action." The ability to be free to go about one's busines without threat, fear or intimidation by any person or group of persons including the voter.

Driving is NOT a right. You do not have a protected right to not be required to show proof of license or insurance , the right to privacy does NOT exist in this case. Public safety is the responsibility of all levels of Government. This clearly falls in that catagory.

Contrary to what you may think you don't get to decide when a right exists and does not exist. No one has suggested that driving is a right but the right to be free from UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF SELF AND PROPERTY is a right which extends to you even when you are traveling on a public street. A person does have the right not to be detained and forced to provide proof of identification when they have not committed any crime whether driving, walking or taking mass transit. They also have an additional right to privacy when they haven't committed any crime yet the primary right being violated by these types of stops isn't the right to privacy but the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They should feel secure that so long as they abide the traffic laws of the state that they will not be stopped, detained, or forced to provide proof of identification. They should also feel secure knowing that they are free to leave when asked to do so without fear of arrest or seizure of their private property. The police can't simply pull you over or walk up to you on the street and demand that you provide proof of identification or license. Why? Because you haven't done anything that gave them "probably cause." The simple fact that you happened to be walking down a sidewalk and need to walk across a specific point on that sidewalk does not give the police the right to set up pedestrian checkpoints and demand that you provide proof of identification and you are free to respond, "no I will not provide proof of identification unless you tell me what crime I have committed and read me my rights." This goes for traffic stops as well. If the officers cannot tell you what traffic violation or crime you have committed you don't have to provide them with proof of anything and are free to leave and if they attempt to prevent you from doing so you have the fundamental right to use whatever amount of force you deem necessary to protect yourself from any harm or from being detained against your will.

So the right to not be forced to show identification or proof of license exists so long as you have not broken any laws and it isn't just the right of privacy at issue here. It's the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Police officers cannot randomly or systematically stop people and demand that they provide proof of license or insurance. Why? Because there is no reasonable cause to stop the person, nor detain them against their will or demand that they provide proof of license or insurance when no "probable cause" exists. These people who have been stopped haven't broken any laws and the day we as citizens must go through identification checkpoints in our daily life is the day we as citizens lose our rights to idiots like you who think you can infringe on the rights of others.

Nor is this a matter of public safety since no one in these instances have broken any laws and no probable cause exists that would indicate that they as individuals pose a threat to public safety. So it isn't a matter of public safety to pull over the Smith family and demand that they provide proof of insurance or license, and detain them against their will until they do so. That is kidnapping (or in politically correct legal jargon false arrest) because no crime has been committed and the Smith's were simply on their way home to dinner when they were rudely stopped and forced to undergo a search and when they are unable to provide proof of license to detain them and steal (or the politically corret impound) their private property. The fact that individuals like you can vote and can be police officers does not give you or those like you the right to violate the civil liberties of others. Every person has the right to be secure in their persons and property and that right extends to their vehicle.

 

[Edward]

Yes, he is that dense

Stupid people like you and RetiredGySgt do exist and do vote to violate the rights of others but that does not negate the fact that rights do exist and no one has the right to violate them including the voter, their representatives or their law enforcement agents. You don't get to stop everyone or pass a law allowing others to do so and then mandate that they provide proof of license or identification and when they are unable or refuse to do so to seize them or their property. This right is something you cannot deprive people of and that is why the Fourth Amendment was cited in this article. Because it is apparent you haven't read the Constitution I will reference the amendment for you. It says "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."

This right protects people from police officer stopping them when they have not committed any crime, and searching them or their property. A person can feel secure knowing that so long as they violate no law and don't give the police any reason to stop them that they are secure in their persons and property. A police checkpoint used to force people to provide identification is a violation of the 4th Amendment because it infringes on their right to be free to go about their business as usual without any impediment unless they violate the law. So a speeder can be stopped and can be forced to provide proof of license and insurance because they violated a traffic law or if the police have probable cause to believe that someone is driving while intoxicated then they can force them to provide proof of license, insurance and take a road sobriety test. All because they have probable cause but no probable cause can exist in a forced identification checkpoint.

 

[red states rule]

Stupid people like you and RetiredGySgt do exist and do vote to violate the rights of others but that does not negate the fact that rights do exist and no one has the right to violate them including the voter, their representatives or their law enforcement agents. You don't get to stop everyone or pass a law allowing others to do so and then mandate that they provide proof of license or identification and when they are unable or refuse to do so to seize them or their property. This right is something you cannot deprive people of and that is why the Fourth Amendment was cited in this article. Because it is apparent you haven't read the Constitution I will reference the amendment for you. It says "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."

This right protects people from police officer stopping them when they have not committed any crime, and searching them or their property. A person can feel secure knowing that so long as they violate no law and don't give the police any reason to stop them that they are secure in their persons and property. A police checkpoint used to force people to provide identification is a violation of the 4th Amendment because it infringes on their right to be free to go about their business as usual without any impediment unless they violate the law. So a speeder can be stopped and can be forced to provide proof of license and insurance because they violated a traffic law or if the police have probable cause to believe that someone is driving while intoxicated then they can force them to provide proof of license, insurance and take a road sobriety test. All because they have probable cause but no probable cause can exist in a forced identification checkpoint.

The only rights illegals have is to breath and to be sent back to their home country

 

[Edward]

The only rights illegals have is to breath and to be sent back to their home country

I am not speaking of the rights of illegals since that has nothing to do with this issue. This issue is about the rights of American citizens including their fourth amendment rights and their right to privacy. If an illegal immigrant is caught driving without a license or breaking any law then they can be dealt with accordingly and even deported yet that has nothing to do with what we are discussing because American citizens are also affected by these actions. The fact that illegals appear to be the target of these unreasonable stops seem to blind you to the central issue which is that everyone is forced to stop and provide proof of license and identification even though they haven't committed any crime and that is a violation of their rights. So you can continue living in your fantasy world where every issue revolves around illegal immigrants but this issue has very little to do with illegal immigrants and more to do with the fact that I do not intend to be detained against my will when I have not commited a crime and forced to provide proof of anything before being allowed to continue on my way. This goes for many other people too who do not appreciate assholes like you and the assholes who represent you violating their rights. If you have no problem with that and want to make this about illegal immigrants than you have serious issues.

 

[red states rule]

I am not speaking of the rights of illegals since that has nothing to do with this issue. This issue is about the rights of American citizens including their fourth amendment rights and their right to privacy. If an illegal immigrant is caught driving without a license or breaking any law then they can be dealt with accordingly and even deported yet that has nothing to do with what we are discussing because American citizens are also affected by these actions. The fact that illegals appear to be the target of these unreasonable stops seem to blind you to the central issue which is that everyone is forced to stop and provide proof of license and identification even though they haven't committed any crime and that is a violation of their rights. So you can continue living in your fantasy world where every issue revolves around illegal immigrants but this issue has very little to do with illegal immigrants and more to do with the fact that I do not intend to be detained against my will when I have not commited a crime and forced to provide proof of anything before being allowed to continue on my way. This goes for many other people too who do not appreciate assholes like you and the assholes who represent you violating their rights. If you have no problem with that and want to make this about illegal immigrants than you have serious issues.

Police have every right to stop you. If you don't want to be stopped - walk or ride a bus

 

[Edward]

Police have every right to stop you. If you don't want to be stopped - walk or ride a bus

The police don't have the right to stop me or anyone else if we have not commited a crime and I have no intention of walking or riding the bus in order to be secure in my person and effects from unreasonable searches or seizures. I pay taxes to build and maintain our roads and highways and I have every intention of using them to the fullest. I have no problem with the police stopping me if I have committed a crime yet when no crime has been committed every person has the right to be secure in their persons and property.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The police don't have the right to stop me or anyone else if we have not commited a crime and I have no intention of walking or riding the bus in order to be secure in my person and effects from unreasonable searches or seizures. I pay taxes to build and maintain our roads and highways and I have every intention of using them to the fullest. I have no problem with the police stopping me if I have committed a crime yet when no crime has been committed every person has the right to be secure in their persons and property.

An argument you would lose. There are times, places, conditions and events that allow the Government via the police to do EXACTLY what they are doing. Notice how the IDEA of roadblocks is not the issue?

 

[red states rule]

The police don't have the right to stop me or anyone else if we have not commited a crime and I have no intention of walking or riding the bus in order to be secure in my person and effects from unreasonable searches or seizures. I pay taxes to build and maintain our roads and highways and I have every intention of using them to the fullest. I have no problem with the police stopping me if I have committed a crime yet when no crime has been committed every person has the right to be secure in their persons and property.

Hope someone can post bail when you refuse to show your ID to the Police if you are stopped at a roadblock

 

[Edward]

Hope someone can post bail when you refuse to show your ID to the Police if you are stopped at a roadblock

Since it is unconstitutional for the police to do so I wouldn't worry to much about bail if it should happen and I would spend the few hours in jail before my hearing and wait to be released and then I would sue the officer and the police department for false arrest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since it is unconstitutional for the police to do so I wouldn't worry to much about bail if it should happen and I would spend the few hours in jail before my hearing and wait to be released and then I would sue the officer and the police department for false arrest.

LOL, you are amazing.