Liberty and Justice for All Drivers

**Gannon** · April-22-09, 07:20 AM

http://www.freep.com/article/20090422/NEWS07/90422006

Curious reversing of the liberal license police all over the land have taken with our rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Wondering if this is retro-active...heh.

Three cheers for the Supreme Court for their infinite wisdom.

Now can we also eliminate those 'inventory' searches they do when they impound your vehicle for non-associated reasons? Same rules should apply.

Maybe America the Free isn't so far gone after all...

**firstandten** · April-22-09, 09:32 AM

I posted a while ago on what to do it stopped by police on a traffic violation.

The information said that people too easily give up their 4th amendment rights by allowing warrantless searches of their vehicles. The police will simply say can I check your vehicle? not really knowing for sure but figuring the law of averages will work in their favor. And the people either not knowing any better or trying to be helpful so the police will go on their way will say yes and once the police find anything close to illegal you are in trouble.

You can tell by the politics of the supreme court judges that voted that they were trying to correct a bad interpetation of the law.

ccbatson · April-22-09, 08:57 PM

In the context that driving is a licensed earned privilege and not a right, some of this scrutiny is to be expected. If there is nothing to hide, it would be no more than an infrequently occurring inconvenience.

**Detroitej72** · April-22-09, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

In the context that driving is a licensed earned privilege and not a right, some of this scrutiny is to be expected. If there is nothing to hide, it would be no more than an infrequently occurring inconvenience.

Thats the key, its a privilege. People tend to forget that one little fact.

Blarf · April-22-09, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

If there is nothing to hide, it would be no more than an infrequently occurring inconvenience.

I don't care if I'm hiding something or not, I don't want people going through my stuff or invading my privacy.

**firstandten** · April-22-09, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Thats the key, its a privilege. People tend to forget that one little fact.

You are correct driving is a privilege but I don't think that extends to your vehicle. Your vehicle is considered your property.

**rb336** · April-23-09, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

In the context that driving is a licensed earned privilege and not a right, some of this scrutiny is to be expected. If there is nothing to hide, it would be no more than an infrequently occurring inconvenience.

yet more clarity on your total misunderstanding of freedom -- evidently, if i were a law enforcement official, i should be able to rummage through your property for no apparent reason, since it would merely be an inconvenience. I should be able to monitor your reading habits as well.

**oladub** · April-23-09, 11:28 AM

California often leads the nation. Since Californians have spent more than they have chosen to tax themselves, police services are being cut. In Contra Costa County, prosecution for drugs will be reduced and "People who are suspected of misdemeanor drug crimes, break minor traffic laws, shoplift, trespass or commit misdemeanors or vandalism will also be in the clear. Those crimes won't be prosecuted, either."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6EGO.DTL&tsp=1

**firstandten** · April-23-09, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

In the context that driving is a licensed earned privilege and not a right, some of this scrutiny is to be expected. If there is nothing to hide, it would be no more than an infrequently occurring inconvenience.

Cc I know thats what many people think, if I didn't do anything wrong what do I have to hide, and sometimes I have those thoughts. Unfortunately in the real world drugs and other illegal items are in cars and guess what ? Police have been known to plant those types of items in people cars. Not often and very rarely but it has happened.

ccbatson · April-23-09, 03:04 PM

Yes, those things happen, but my point is that of a generalization. If you are doing right, and the policeperson is proceeding with reasonable good intentions, "planting" things makes no sense.

**ejames01** · April-23-09, 04:46 PM

What if theofficer is proceeding with bad intentions? Just stay the heck out of my car unless there is a valid reason for searching it.

ccbatson · April-24-09, 03:54 PM

It could happen. Fortunately, it usually doesn't.

**ejames01** · April-24-09, 04:02 PM

They can stay out of my car and everybody will remain happy!

DetroitDad · April-24-09, 08:16 PM

Unfortunately, driving is a necessity for most areas in a Metro with no real transit.

**mjs** · April-24-09, 11:49 PM

Why is there a common misconception that driving is a privilege? Dozens of US Supreme Court decision specifically refute that claim. The right to travel is part of the rights of liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. Just because the right can be taken away after Due Process has been exerted, doesn't transform it into a privilege. If it did, then sleeping anywhere other than a prison could be considered a privilege.

Once one sees though this misconception and honors the founder's belief that government is an agreement of the governed, one undestands why government shouldn't inspect vehicles without good cause.

**mjs** · April-25-09, 12:09 AM

In regards the contention that if one hasn't done anything wrong they'll have nothing to worry about, there's also the rights to privacy and dissension. Suppose an officer could stop and inspect vehicles at at will and one had voiced disagreement with a Bush policy or the relationship between a City Council member and a contractor, what would prevent the individuals in charge from using officers to punish and undermine their opposition by rummaging through their plans and embarrassing them by revealing legal, but private items found in the vehicle?

Blarf · April-25-09, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by mjs

Why is there a common misconception that driving is a privilege? Dozens of US Supreme Court decision specifically refute that claim. The right to travel is part of the rights of liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Huh?

Are you joking or are you actually being serious?

**Locke09** · April-25-09, 03:09 PM

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [Emphasis added] II Am.Jur. [[1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

There is other case law agreeing that it is a right for the private citizen, but there is also case law saying it is not a right, but a privilege when used to conduct business.

For the private citizen then, driving seems to be a right that is regulated so that individuals do not infringe upon the rights of others or create hazardous conditions as they are driving.

**MrJones** · April-25-09, 10:36 PM

As a fan of the show Cops, and a supporter of cops in general, it's always bothered me how they roll up on someone sitting in their car in a high crime area and proceed to search them. Many times they find contraband, but still, I believe that sort of thing was SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the founders as an unreasonable search.

While I'm venting, I also dislike how they set up prostitution stings. No, I would never be involved in that. It just seems chicken s**t to me to arrest the guys because they can't keep prostitutes, the ones the crime is named after, in jail.

ccbatson · April-25-09, 10:37 PM

It is a privilege as rights do not have an age requirement, vision, and other neurologic parameters, and testing.

**ejames01** · April-26-09, 10:38 PM

So Toddlers have the right to bear arms?

GTFOOH

Originally Posted by ccbatson

It is a privilege as rights do not have an age requirement, vision, and other neurologic parameters, and testing.

ccbatson · April-27-09, 03:38 PM

Children have rights by proxy from their parents. Yes, youngsters do have, and use guns [[legally)as I am sure you are aware. I don't personally think it is a good idea, but....

**ejames01** · April-27-09, 04:16 PM

Children can't own handguns. How about working? Is working a right or privilege?

You are wrong about driving. People do have the right to go where and one pleases. Laws related to transportation are just there to make sure that people don't infringe on other peoples rights and to maintain safety and order. If driving was a privilege, it would be acceptable for government to take that privilege away if they wanted to.

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Children have rights by proxy from their parents. Yes, youngsters do have, and use guns [[legally)as I am sure you are aware. I don't personally think it is a good idea, but....

**mjs** · April-27-09, 05:13 PM

Of course I'm serious:

"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."UNITED STATES v. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745 [[1966)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=383&invol=745

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/357/116/case.html

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

**mjs** · April-27-09, 05:37 PM

The right to travel actually helped formulate the basis of the Constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; that law does not get its Contitutionality from the 14th Amendment. Case law from shortly after the passing of the 14th Amendment clearly established that the 14th Amendment doesn't give the Federal Government the ability to create a law such as the CRA because it limits more than just government officials. However, discrimination excludes black travelers from public lodging and diners which interfers with their right to travel which affects interstate commerce which the Federal government can regulate. Look up Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US and Katzenbach v. McClung.