Gunco Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Back to the border

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/guests/s_279172.html
By Rich Tucker
Friday, December 3, 2004

Drunken drivers, beware: Your free ride in Oakland, Calif., is over. At least for a while.

Mayor Jerry Brown has reinstituted rolling DUI checkpoints. Canceling the roadblocks "was a dumb idea," he says. That statement proves the man once called "Gov. Moonbeam" may be the sanest politician in the other city by the bay.

Why were the checkpoints -- which law-enforcement officials say are effective at catching criminals -- suspended in the first place? Simple. They were catching too many crooks. And, even worse, the wrong sort of crooks. Not merely illegal drivers, but illegal immigrants, too.

As the Oakland Tribune put it on Sept. 28, such roadblocks "ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law."


Ah. Well, it's good to know that, other than coming to this country illegally, these folks weren't doing anything else wrong. Sort of like saying, "Sure you kited that check, but at least you didn't cross any state lines while doing so."

"These checkpoints make people's lives miserable," activist Jesus Rodriguez told the newspaper. "I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk." Rodriguez may say that's a shame, but it's difficult to feel sorry for someone who was stopped while in the country illegally.

Still, the very fact that Oakland was willing to place a moratorium on sobriety checkpoints to appease activists is further evidence that Americans don't take illegal immigration seriously. Would people such as Rodriguez complain if checkpoints were nabbing too many car thieves?

Ironically, illegal immigrants contribute to that problem. According to Time magazine, 56,000 cars were stolen in Arizona last year. That's the most per capita of any state. The magazine notes that illegal immigrants stole many of those vehicles. Many others were stolen for illegals -- smugglers steal cars and then park them near the border with the keys in them for illegal immigrants to drive away in.

Illegal immigration may become a national security concern, too. Time estimates as many as 190,000 illegals from countries other than Mexico have entered the United States this year. If just 1 percent of these people are terrorists, that's 1,900 potential killers out there. And unless they get stopped for drunken driving in Oakland we might never find them, since the Department of Homeland Security has no idea where they are or what they're doing.

So, if we decided to get serious, could we actually stop illegal immigration? Probably. But only if we're willing to enforce our existing laws.

Consider New York City in the early 1990s. Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his new police chief, William Bratton, decided to crack down on crimes that harmed everyone's "quality of life." Panhandlers were detained. "Squeegee men" were taken off the streets. Broken windows were fixed. The force prosecuted more major crimes. For example, parole violators were tracked down and those carrying illegal guns were targeted and arrested.

The results of this two-pronged approach were swift and heartening. Crime dropped 12 percent in 1994, and homicides plunged an impressive 20 percent.

A similar approach to illegal immigration would involve posting more guards at the Mexican border as well as rounding up illegal immigrants and sending them home. But to encourage them to stay there, we also should reduce the incentive for illegals to come here in the first place.

One reason people flee countries like Mexico is because of a lack of opportunity. For example, in last year's Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, Mexico ranked 63rd, 53 slots below the United States. If Mexico would privatize state-owned industries, it could create good-paying jobs and encourage people to stay home, rather than attempt to run the border.

The United States must also cut down on the incentives that immigrants have to come here. We should impose heavy fines on businesses that employ illegal aliens. These immigrants are an easily exploited source of cheap labor -- and such exploitation isn't fair to them or us.

The law already insists that every employee must provide identification and a Social Security number. Authorities should put any employer who doesn't collect this information out of business and, if necessary, behind bars.

Right now, there are clear financial incentives for illegals to come here. That's why so many cross our borders. But if we used this two-pronged approach to crack down on both the supply side and the demand side, we could slow that flow to a trickle.

Fighting illegal immigration isn't like fishing. Playing "catch and release" the way authorities in Oakland are now won't get the job done. We've already have the laws. Now, we must enforce them if we want to make this problem go away.

Rich Tucker is a staff writer and media trainer at The Heritage Foundation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Brown appears to have actually done a pretty good job as mayor of Oakland - a job that would be a bit like being mayor of Kosevo.

Didn't know they had stopped DUI checkpoints. Personally, I think that's a very good idea so long as it's motivated by the quaint notion of respect for the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution*. But the motivation for its suspension in Oakland was absurd.

*5th because when you're being asked, "Have you been drinking?", you're being interrogated about whether you have committed a crime, you are not free to leave, and yet you are not given a Miranda warning.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I hate DUI checkpoints and I believe they are unconstitutional.

However, it appears SCOTUS does not agree with me.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You can refuse because of the fifth.

But, when you do, they jerk your license because driving has been deemed a privilege, not a right.

That's the hammer.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Depends on the facts (what kind of probable cause can they articulate) but most likely they can hold you and probably get a warrant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
You can refuse because of the fifth.

But, when you do, they jerk your license because driving has been deemed a privilege, not a right.

That's the hammer.
Well, in Kalifornistan and Nevada, refusing to answer the question will not get your license pulled. It generally will result in being asked to submit to a field-sobriety test, however. And flunking that will result in being asked to submit to breathalyzer testing.

It's refusing the field sobriety test or the breathalyzer test that will get your license pulled.

And here in Nevada, if you refuse the breathalyzer test, the cops can also exercise an level of force appropriate to your level of resistance to haul your butt down to the hospital to get a blood test whether you want one or not.

Now, being a hostile and disrespectful jerk in the manner in which you refuse to answer the question raises the possibility of an entirely different set of legal outcomes. However, those consequences generally are imposed only after your release from the Intensive Care Unit*.

*Used to work a lot with cops & criminals when I did counseling work. Used to amaze me how many folks do not have a fundamental understanding of how to speak to a person with a gun and a club and a can of mace and a bunch of buddies backing him up who also have guns and clubs and cans of mace. Seems to have more to do with common sense than respect for authority to my way of thinking.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Cephus said:
And if you have nothing can you then sue for unlawful detention, or are the rights of the people just gone.
In a normal stop and detain, I doubt any suit of value would come from it.

I might add that is not something new. That was always the case. In fact, I suppose in most ways there are more 4th and 5th amendment protections since the SCOTUS rulings of the 1960's. More protections than the Founders probably intended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Cephus said:
OK Drezeinsky EXPLAIN how to get by this,5th because when you're being asked, "Have you been drinking?", you're being interrogated about whether you have committed a crime, you are not free to leave, and yet you are not given a Miranda warning.---------I don't drink outside the house but I hate it that the police can and do over step there bounds, So please explain what to do at a traiffic stop aand how about when they ask is it ok if I search your car then what. Thank You
The key is being very respectful, and treating the officer like an officer, not like a pig. A little civility goes a long way in life.

I have been asked to give consent to search before. I just told the cop that, no I was not giving consent, but please don't take that to mean that I've got a bad attitude or anything to hide. It just means that I'm not giving consent to search, and if you want to I've got no problem with waiting while you get a search warrant. That was the end of it. Astonishingly enough, it was a true fact that I really didn't have anything to hide.

Whether you're holding or not, there's no advantage to be gained by giving consent to search. If by some chance the cop searches with neither consent nor a warrant, DO NOT try to stop him. And remember that dope, kiddie-porn, and kidnapped teenage girls that are out in plain view in your car are fair game, requiring neither consent nor a warrant. Carry your dope in a brown paper bag, not a clear baggie!

I've only been stopped in a DUI checkpoint once, several years ago, and my answer then to the question was, "Well, if I have, I'd certainly be in deep s___, wouldn't I?" The cop took that as an implicit "no" and that was the end of it. I've spoken to a cop friend of mine about it, though, and next time it happens my plan is to explain to the cop that I know he's only doing his job, and I know that the courts don't agree with me, but I really don't think it's right for the police to be stopping people who's done nothing suspicious asking them if they've been breaking the law. So, sorry, but I'm not answering that question but I'll take a field sobriety test if you'd like.

That latter because my cop friend told me it'd be a good idea to cooperatively volunteer for the test, since when I don't answer the question he can just about guarantee that I'm going to be given one anyway. The most important test when stopped by a cop is the attitude test.

Which is why I do not recommend responding to either request with, "You can't arrest me, pig!"

Helpful hint I learned growing up in Los Angeles is that in LA you're more likely to live to adulthood if you keep your hands on top of the steering wheel when you're stopped until the cop asks you to do something else - and that cops elsewhere seem to recognize that as a courtesy done for a fellow who hasn't yet figured out whether you're a good guy or a bad guy.

Also, FYI, several years ago I had a cop come to my house and ask me questions that made it clear that I was the subject of a criminal investigation. Coming to your house to ask is a common way to avoid having to tell someone about their Miranda rights (you haven't been detained). I ever-so-respectfully told him that I would not speak with him, but would have my attorney contact him. Spare you the details, but after speaking with my attorney we decided that it made sense for me to submit to interrogation, culminated in the investigator coming to my attorney's office and my being questioned by the investigator while both he and my attorney had a tape-recorder running. Point being, if you ever submit to police interrogation when you're a suspect, I think that's the way to do it.
 

·
Class 07 FFL/SOT
Joined
·
6,297 Posts
So......."Fuck you pig!" is passe?
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top