FYI, that's more nonsense. If you don't want to go through the checkpoint simply turn off before it.
If you don't want to submit your biometric information to the police, simply don't carry a gun. How easy.
FYI, that's more nonsense. If you don't want to go through the checkpoint simply turn off before it.
Statute?
The statute of "if you're not guilty, then you don't have anything to hide"
No, but turning off without signaling...maybe.Avoiding a roadblock is probable cause for drunk driving.
By that logic you would be okay with banishing the 4th amendment and with them searching your home with no probable cause because you are not hiding anything? I'm not hiding anything, but still don't want the government snooping around my things.
Avoiding a roadblock is probable cause for drunk driving.
Statute?
It's state law.
I swear to God it is.
By that logic you would be okay with banishing the 4th amendment and with them searching your home with no probable cause because you are not hiding anything? I'm not hiding anything, but still don't want the government snooping around my things.
Meaning, they would have to prove, in a court of law, they had reasonable suspicion that you had, did, or are about to commit a crime. If they cannot, it is a violation of your Constitutional rights, and they would be liable.Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws.
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
This article from Duke Law does a good job of discussing the issue.
In several states, or under certain circumstance, making a legal U-turn can be seen as evading or fleeing police.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1328%26context%3Ddlj&ei=zpsgU-mDCumI2gW55oHYDQ&
usg=AFQjCNHmiCaoY8r3qNjKEi8mfxpg5JyPNA
Avoiding a roadblock is probable cause for drunk driving.
Statute?
As for the "Terry law" the officer so pointed out.
Meaning, they would have to prove, in a court of law, they had reasonable suspicion that you had, did, or are about to commit a crime. If they cannot, it is a violation of your Constitutional rights, and they would be liable.
Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5 states that you need to be already guilty of an infraction before they can ask you to provide identification.
What they are doing is illegal.
I would take them to court over it.
I really, REALLY wish you were right, but you're not...
State v Gerschoff
In sum, Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution prohibits police stops of motorists except on the reasonable suspicion required by Baldwin, Brown v. State, and Taylor. See Baldwin, 715 N.E.2d at 337;Brown, 653 N.E.2d at 79-80; Taylor, 639 N.E.2d at 1054. We hold, therefore, that a sobriety checkpoint such as the one at issue here, which is conducted absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, constitutes an unreasonable seizure as proscribed by Article I, Section 11.[SUP]14[/SUP] The constitutional heritage of Indiana has never recognized the right of the State, without any level of suspicion whatsoever, to detain members of the population at large for criminal investigatory purposes.[SUP]15[/SUP] See Sitz II, 506[738 N.E.2d 727]
N.W.2d at 223-24. We decline to create a sobriety roadblock exception to the Indiana Constitution. We affirm the trial court's determination that the checkpoint was unconstitutional under Article I, Section 11 and hold that the trial court did not err when it suppressed the evidence of Gerschoffer's intoxication.Affirmed.
This case set rules that must be followed to allow a sobriety checkpoint to be legal in Indiana. The checkpoint operated in this case was ruled as unconstitutional.From the ruling pertaining to the aformentioned case...
And it has by every single administration since your birth. So whats the point?Unconstitutional! But whats the constitution anymore. Its blatantly stepped on daily by our current administration