[bentom187]

This is an excellent way to interact with the police, while not offending them or coming off like a jerk. I linked the card for purchase and the promoter of the content. Enjoy.

Know Your Rights: Police Checkpoints

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I AGREE

Card.
https://assert-your-rights.com/product/cop-id-original/

https://www.voicesofliberty.com/

[gaiusmarius]

nice share

[trichrider]

always good bentom187

cannot thank you enough for your posts.

[bentom187]

Gotta spread more rep before giving rep to you thrich. Much appreciated. I am going to get me some of those cards for a few friends.

[stoned-trout]

it doesn't hurt that the women are pretty either......in the real world pissing off cops cause they cant play ya ends bad in a lot of cases....been there done that

[sanjuan]

[Copied from a lawyer referral site]

Are DUI Checkpoints Unconstitutional?

Are DUI Checkpoints Unconstitutional?In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite this ruling, drivers continue to challenge the legality of DUI checkpoints, asking one very persistent question: are DUI checkpoints unconstitutional?

Prior to the 1990 ruling, several Michigan drivers filed suit against the state after being arrested in a DUI roadblock. The drivers argued that, because they were stopped without reason, their arrests clearly violated the Fourth Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. After reviewing the case, the Michigan State Supreme Court agreed with the drivers and ruled in their favor—but that changed once the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

However, as several dissenting judges pointed out, the Constitution doesn’t make room for exceptions and, whether beneficial or not, DUI checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, forcing drivers to participate in “suspicionless investigatory seizures.”

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following this ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them.

So what does that mean for you? Well, if you are lucky enough to live in one of the states where roadblocks aren’t allowed (Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), you have nothing to worry about. The rest of us, meanwhile, should take certain precautions to reduce the chances of being arrested during a DUI checkpoint—such as avoiding making incriminating statements about earlier activities or admitting to drinking alcohol, for example.

[who dat is]

Good stuff here, I like the little card that they have for sale. Here is another TERRIFIC resource for learning how to deal with police and learning your rights. Plus the video here is pretty good and not too boring, very informative. https://www.flexyourrights.org/10-rules/ Check out their whole website too, https://www.flexyourrights.org/

[Jhhnn]

Gawd. The notion that one should immediately resort to confrontation with cops is absurd, particularly if you're holding illegally.

"Yes, officer, I'll get right in your face about my rights from the get-go" isn't a non-confrontational approach at all.

Hand a cop that card if he asks for ID & he'll immediately peg you as a problem to be dealt with. Is that really what you want? Or is it just part of the "Sticking it to the Man!" fantasy?

The real objective is always to control the encounter as much as possible.

Me, on the street: ID, officer? Right here. What seems to be the problem?

Me, in the car, engine off, window down, license, registration & insurance card in my hand: What seems to be the problem, officer?

Officer: You were blah blah blah or whatever.

Me: My mistake, I didn't realize that, I'll have it taken care of right away, whatever. Are you going to write me a ticket?

Me, if it comes to it: I don't consent to searches.

I got pulled over by a New Mexico State Patrolman 40 years ago for a bad brake light driving a borrowed RV with 300lbs of Mexibrick in the back. Anybody who thinks I would have just driven away running that Libertopian bullshit on him is likely delusional.

It's their game, so play away from their power, not right into it leading with your chin.

Sheesh.

[bentom187]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

Gawd. The notion that one should immediately resort to confrontation with cops is absurd, particularly if you're holding illegally.

"Yes, officer, I'll get right in your face about my rights from the get-go" isn't a non-confrontational approach at all.

Hand a cop that card if he asks for ID & he'll immediately peg you as a problem to be dealt with. Is that really what you want? Or is it just part of the "Sticking it to the Man!" fantasy?

The real objective is always to control the encounter as much as possible.

Me, on the street: ID, officer? Right here. What seems to be the problem?

Me, in the car, engine off, window down, license, registration & insurance card in my hand: What seems to be the problem, officer?

Officer: You were blah blah blah or whatever.

Me: My mistake, I didn't realize that, I'll have it taken care of right away, whatever. Are you going to write me a ticket?

Me, if it comes to it: I don't consent to searches.

I got pulled over by a New Mexico State Patrolman 40 years ago for a bad brake light driving a borrowed RV with 300lbs of Mexibrick in the back. Anybody who thinks I would have just driven away running that Libertopian bullshit on him is likely delusional.

It's their game, so play away from their power, not right into it leading with your chin.

Sheesh.

Jhhnn this is to avoid confrontation. I think everyone can agree with that would be the best outcome. In the video it shows it works some time, I guess it depends on if you encounter a friendly officer or a roid raging sociopath.

Its not about philosophy its about law. So lets keep the two issues separate.

Something to keep in mind also.
The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You

Me, if it comes to it: I don't consent to searches.

Good. So that would be when you hand them that little card asserting your rights, not beforehand. Although that is a personal decision to make with critical thinking applied.

[Grass Lands]

Checkpoints are merely a means as a revenue generator and control of the people and nothing more....if they were a means to keep us safe there would be checkpoints every day and not just on weekends and holidays. Drunk or intoxicated drivers don't just drive on the weekend and holidays...they are out there each and every day...

Once again "The Man" works for "The Man" and we ain't "The Man"...

and if anyone thinks we have rights...just look into Admiralty Law and see the truth.