LA Sued for Impounding Cars of Unlicensed Illegal Aliens

[red states rule]

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.

By refusing to show ID and obeying the orders of a Police Officer - you would have a hard time making a case

 

[Edward]

By refusing to show ID and obeying the orders of a Police Officer - you would have a hard time making a case

You are a retard! I wouldn't and the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar issues and here are a few quotes from pertinent case law: "The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct." Simply stated, the police don't have the right to stop me whenever they want and demand that I identify myself nor do I have to obey the orders of a police officer simply because he or she is a police officer.

It is my constitutional right to refuse to answer any question or disobey any orders of a police officer when I have not committed a crime. I am free to walk or drive away at any time and any attempt to arrest me for refusing to answer a question or to identify myself is a violation of my rights. If the police had a resaonable belief that I intended to harm them then they would be able to detain me long enough to frisk me. The same case law states, "Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable."

Simply stated, the police must have probable cause to detain me in order to require me to identify myself. A police officer cannot simply demand that I identify myself and I have the right to refuse to do so when I have not committed a crime. Unless that officer can tell me what crime I am charged with and is willing to read me my rights I am free to leave at any time and refuse to answer any of his questions. On the other hand, if the police officer had reason to believe I had committed a crime such as speeding then he is within his authority to detain me and require me to identify myself. My refusing to do so would result in my lawful arrest and I would not have had a right to refuse to identify myself. Yet, in this case, of a roadblock designed to require people to identify themselves is a violation of the Constitution and the rights of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Or in other words unless they have committed a crime they do not have to identify themselves.

 

[red states rule]

You are a retard! I wouldn't and the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar issues and here are a few quotes from pertinent case law: "The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct." Simply stated, the police don't have the right to stop me whenever they want and demand that I identify myself nor do I have to obey the orders of a police officer simply because he or she is a police officer.

It is my constitutional right to refuse to answer any question or disobey any orders of a police officer when I have not committed a crime. I am free to walk or drive away at any time and any attempt to arrest me for refusing to answer a question or to identify myself is a violation of my rights. The same case law states, "Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable."

Simply stated, the police must have probable cause to detain me in order to require me to identify myself. A police officer cannot simply demand that I identify myself and I have the right to refuse to do so when I have not committed a crime. Unless that officer can tell me what crime I am charged with and is willing to read me my rights I am free to leave at any time and refuse to answer any of his questions. On the other hand, if the police officer had reason to believe I had committed a crime such as speeding then he is within his authority to detain me and require me to identify myself. My refusing to do so would result in my lawful arrest and I would not have had a right to refuse to identify myself. Yet, in this case, of a roadblock designed to require people to identify themselves is a violation of the Constitution and the rights of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Or in other words unless they have committed a crime they do not have to identify themselves.

Please try it. You can post your mug shot in the board

 

[Edward]

LOL, you are amazing.

Indeed! I am willing to defend my rights and to stand up for myself against idiots like you who enjoy violating them as well as the rights of others. So you can call that amazing but I am not afraid to do what is necessary to protect my rights and the rights of others including suing the police officer and the police department for false arrest. I don't have to identify myself at a roadblock intended to require me to identify myself. That is a violation of my constitutional rights and I for one am willing to go to jail even for a couple of days to preserve my rights from idiots like you.

 

[red states rule]

Indeed! I am willing to defend my rights and to stand up for myself against idiots like you who enjoy violating them as well as the rights of others. So you can call that amazing but I am not afraid to do what is necessary to protect my rights and the rights of others including suing the police officer and the police department for false arrest. I don't have to identify myself at a roadblock intended to require me to identify myself. That is a violation of my constitutional rights and I for one am willing to go to jail even for a couple of days to preserve my rights from idiots like you.

No, you are a punk

 

[Edward]

Please try it. You can post your mug shot in the board

If and when I am stopped at a roadblock and if and when they ask me to identify myself I will cite the relevant case law and tell the officer to go to hell. I am sure there are retards like you who are police officerS and who would arrest me but that doesn't change the fact that you are a bitch and so are they. The Constitution is clear on my rights and my right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is absolute. It isn't reasonable to require someone who you do not have "probable cause" to believe committed a crime to identify themselves and for that matter you don't even have the right to detain them for any great length of time.

 

[red states rule]

If and when I am stopped at a roadblock and if and when they ask me to identify myself I will cite the relevant case law and tell the officer to go to hell. I am sure there are retards like you who are police officerS and who would arrest me but that doesn't change the fact that you are a bitch and so are they. The Constitution is clear on my rights and my right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is absolute. It isn't reasonable to require someone who you do not have "probable cause" to believe committed a crime to identify themselves and for that matter you don't even have the right to detain them for any great length of time.

Ok

A punk with a mug shot and a record

 

[Edward]

No, you are a punk

I really didn't ask for your damn opinion of me nor do I care that you think I am a punk because you can go to hell motherfucker and take your retarded family with you. But don't think for a minute that I am going to let bitches like you violate my rights on election day or in the state or federal legislatures. If refusing to be your bitch or the bitch of pissant assholes like you who enter the voting booth as individuals and leave as assholes makes me a punk than so be it jackass. There are some things that every man, and woman has to fight for and those include their fundamental rights and this is one of those things which no one should willingly give up whether it is to one individual as a King or as a voter. For it is all the same whether his name is King Richard or King Voter. So take your comments and shove them up your ass and fuck off asshole because no one is going to put up with your shit moron. All I hear from you is blah, blah, blah, I can vote, blah, blah, blah, I can vote, blah, blah, blah, I can vote, blah, blah, I am King Voter, blah, blah, blah, you have no rights, blah, blah, blah, my member of Parliment, blah, blah, blah, blah... All I can say is that I will not be forced to identify myself when I have not committed any crime especially to a bitch like you who gets up in the morning, fuck his wife in the ass and then puts on a uniform and a badge and gets in his car to go to work like the rest of us but WHO GETS OFF ON BEING A POLICE OFFICER. I really don't give a damn if Officer Joe Blow thinks that I have to identify myself anymore than I give a damn what you think of me asshole. So fuck off and kiss my punk ass bitch and go fuck your wife on election day and head off to vote but make sure you shit your green turds before you do so you aren't constipated as you vote to violate my rights jackass.

 

[red states rule]

I really didn't ask for your damn opinion of me nor do I care that you think I am a punk because you can go to hell motherfucker and take your retarded family with you. But don't think for a minute that I am going to let bitches like you violate my rights on election day or in the state or federal legislatures. If refusing to be your bitch or the bitch of pissant assholes like you who enter the voting booth as individuals and leave as assholes makes me a punk than so be it jackass. There are some things that every man, and woman has to fight for and those include their fundamental rights and this is one of those things which no one should willingly give up whether it is to one individual as a King or as a voter. For it is all the same whether his name is King Richard or King Voter. So take your comments and shove them up your ass and fuck off asshole because no one is going to put up with your shit moron. All I hear from you is blah, blah, blah, I can vote, blah, blah, blah, I can vote, blah, blah, blah, I can vote, blah, blah, I am King Voter, blah, blah, blah, you have no rights, blah, blah, blah, my member of Parliment, blah, blah, blah, blah... All I can say is that I will not be forced to identify myself when I have not committed any crime especially to a bitch like you who gets up in the morning, fuck his wife in the ass and then puts on a uniform and a badge and gets in his car to go to work like the rest of us but WHO GETS OFF ON BEING A POLICE OFFICER. I really don't give a damn if Officer Joe Blow thinks that I have to identify myself anymore than I give a damn what you think of me asshole. So fuck off and kiss my punk ass bitch and go fuck your wife on election day and head off to vote but make sure you shit your green turds before you do so you aren't constipated as you vote to violate my rights jackass.

Please take your meds - you need them

 

[Edward]

Ok

A punk with a mug shot and a record

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Do you have something intelligent to say retard or are you just going to talk out of your ass?

 

[red states rule]

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Do you have something intelligent to say retard or are you just going to talk out of your ass?

Looking at your level of respect around here - you should do that first before telling others

 

[Edward]

Please take your meds - you need them

Let me be as clear as I can. Go to hell. I suggest you seek some serious help before you decide to do someone serious harm. It is obvious that you get off on violating the rights of others and are only one step away from causing someone serious injury. I just hope you aren't a police officer or some poor old lad like that woman in Utah will find her face being rammed into the ground by your psychotic ass.

 

[Edward]

Looking at your level of respect around here - you should do that first before telling others

My level of reputation around here can be attributed to you, GunnyL, and RetiredGySgt since each of you have given me numerous negative reps each day but I am not going to stop saying what needs to be said so you assholes will stop neg repping me.

 

[ReillyT]

Looking at your level of respect around here - you should do that first before telling others

RSR, you know that I love you, but to be fair, your posts in this thread haven't been all that comprehensive. Edward has gone out of his way to explain his side of the issue, and you haven't... really... done as well. I am only being honest with you because I care, but it does seem that common courtesy would require you to post with a little more substance.

 

[red states rule]

RSR, you know that I love you, but to be fair, your posts in this thread haven't been all that comprehensive. Edward has gone out of his way to explain his side of the issue, and you haven't... really... done as well. I am only being honest with you because I care, but it does seem that common courtesy would require you to post with a little more substance.

I make it short and sweet

 

[Edward]

RSR, you know that I love you, but to be fair, your posts in this thread haven't been all that comprehensive. Edward has gone out of his way to explain his side of the issue, and you haven't... really... done as well. I am only being honest with you because I care, but it does seem that common courtesy would require you to post with a little more substance.

The problem is that he knows he is wrong and is to arrogant to admit it and that causes him to fall back on trying to see if he can piss me off and derail this thread. Unforunately for him I can return insult with insult and use a lot of profanity and still stay on topic. The 4th amendment is quite clear in protecting the rights of all Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigrants and he knows it but does not want to admit it. If a police officer pulls over an illegal immigrant, for a traffic violation, who is driving without a license it makes sense for that illegal immigrant's vehicle to be impounded. This is a reasonable step on the part of the police. It is unreasonable to have a roadblock and to stop all vehicles and force them to identify themselves when they haven't committed a crime. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and the Constitution is quite clear that you and I are protected from arbitrary detention on the part of the police. At some point people need to say enough is enough or we may find that police will start with pedestrian roadblocks, they will begin to go on busses, trains and other forms of mass transit and demand people identify themselves and before we know it we are living in a police state. I for one do not intend for that to happen over something as minor as illegal immigration. There are other less burdensome measures that can be taken to address the issue of illegal immigration short of violating the rights of American citizens.

 

[red states rule]

The problem is that he knows he is wrong and is to arrogant to admit it and that causes him to fall back on trying to see if he can piss me off and derail this thread. Unforunately for him I can return insult with insult and use a lot of profanity and still stay on topic. The 4th amendment is quite clear in protecting the rights of all Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigrants and he knows it but does not want to admit it. If a police officer pulls over an illegal immigrant, for a traffic violation, who is driving without a license it makes sense for that illegal immigrant's vehicle to be impounded. This is a reasonable step on the part of the police. It is unreasonable to have a roadblock and to stop all vehicles and force them to identify themselves when they haven't committed a crime. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and the Constitution is quite clear that you and I are protected from arbitrary detention on the part of the police. At some point people need to say enough is enough or we may find that police will start with pedestrian roadblocks, they will begin to go on busses, trains and other forms of mass transit and demand people identify themselves and before we know it we are living in a police state. I for one do not intend for that to happen over something as minor as illegal immigration. There are other less burdensome measures that can be taken to address the issue of illegal immigration short of violating the rights of American citizens.

and trying to talk to arrogant punks like you is a waste of time and a lost cause

But you do provide some comic relief

 

[ReillyT]

It is unreasonable to have a roadblock and to stop all vehicles and force them to identify themselves when they haven't committed a crime. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and the Constitution is quite clear that you and I are protected from arbitrary detention on the part of the police.

Perhaps you are right about the checkpoint at issue in the article (a court obviously agrees with your result), but the police do have the right to set up checkpoints in certain circumstances, even when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed, provided the selection of vehicles stopped isn't arbitrary and the government intrusion is slight (at least, that is my recollection). The question would appear to be whether identifying illegal immigrants is a compelling enough government interest to warrant the checkpoint. Apparently, at least one court has said it is not. I haven't researched the issue so I don't have a contrary or affirmatory opinion.

 

[red states rule]

Perhaps you are right about the checkpoint at issue in the article (a court obviously agrees with your result), but the police do have the right to set up checkpoints in certain circumstances, even when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed, provided the selection of vehicles stopped isn't arbitrary and the government intrusion is slight (at least, that is my recollection). The question would appear to be whether identifying illegal immigrants is a compelling enough government interest to warrant the checkpoint. Apparently, at least one court has said it is not. I haven't researched the issue so I don't have a contrary or affirmatory opinion.

They are ILLEGAL - so put up the roadblocks and catch them

 

[ReillyT]

They are ILLEGAL - so put up the roadblocks and catch them

RSR, just because their presence in the country is illegal, this does not necessarily mean that a checkpoint would be legal. Random house searches to identify illegal immigrants surely aren't Constitutional even if 1 out 30 times, you actually identify an illegal immigrant.