For people who feel strongly about having nothing to hide, I'd like to get your viewpoint on a specific, down to earth scenario. Perhaps I can learn something I hadn't considered. (For the record, I've had the opportunity, but have never declined to give permission for a vehicle search. My future policy is under consideration.)

Scenario: You are stopped and consent to a vehicle search. Police: "Mind if we take a quick look inside?". You: "Sure, go right ahead".

They find a roach on the floor. Impossible, you say. You don't smoke and don't know anyone who does. But there it is. Maybe it got stuck to your shoe in a parking lot, who knows. In any event, you're under arrest. Had you declined to let them search, you would have had various protections all the way from just going on your way to having a probable cause defense in court.

Questions:
1. In retrospect, do you still feel you had nothing to hide?
2. Does the knowledge that you stuck to your personal policy make you OK with with being run through the machinery of the justice system despite the potential of great cost or having a criminal record?
3. After the cuffs go on, would you still talk to the police?
4. If yes, let me remind you that they just told you, unequivocally, "anything you say....will be used against you in court". Do you think this is a lie?

Remember, it's an adversarial system. It just makes sense that any moral misbehavior that takes place on the defense side has a roughly equal counterpart on the prosecutorial side. For the most part, both sides care only about winning.

not a conspiracy theorist but a realist, how many bad programs have been implemented and kept just for the mere fact they generate revenue?

traffic cameras come to mind right off the bat, they have been proven study after study to actually increase accidents but the cities still install them use them and keep them for nothing more the income they generate.

Traffic Camera Studies

cutting any program that costs tax payers money and generates money for the city is very hard to get rid of short of getting a ballot measure together and sticking it to them that way....i've never heard of a city doing it on their own accord without pressure from the public because it was unsafe and the right thing to do......

really at the end of the day, i don't care as long as we all can agree technically this is wrong and shouldn't stand, if you know that and your still ok with it that's one thing, it's another thing entirely if you honestly don't think your rights are being violated in anyway....

i can respect an defunct opinion alot more then ignorance on the matter, claiming it doesn't violate your rights is just wrong.
being ok with it violating your rights is weakness imo, but can be respected and left alone, as at that point it's not a matter of philosophical or constitutional debate, it becomes a matter of personal opinion and a matter of free speech.......meaning i think we can surmise the creators intentions of the constitution from the philosophers and works they drew upon at the time to create the document .....

for what it is worth, you will never find a lawyer who would consent to a search of his person, car, or home without a warrant

would not resist, but certainly would never consent

Unless his name was 4ganger

Paranoid? No. Conscious and aware. Protective of whats mine and what those before me have fought for.

No, i usually drive on to Blackcomb if I'm going to bother with the border or head out to the parks in eastern b.c. , is Seymour good ? Also there's talk of Seattle getting a NHL team! that would be a sweet rivalry, especially playoff games !

Scary how many folks are ready to give up ze papers at a pin drop.

Haven't tried back country at Seymour yet but it's a great mountain.

Sometimes there are roadblocks in the area. (need to keep some of the content of this post on topic)

LOLs

Don't know where you got that one. I would never consent to a a search without a warrant. Would go something like this:

Police: "Mind if we take a quick look inside?"
Me: "If you have a warrant"
Police: "Do you have something to hide?"
Me: "Nope, just know my rights and unless you can site a legal exception you need a warrant to search my vehicle or my person."

What makes you think I would agree to a search without a warrant?

I like that response.

How did I miss this? Ok, many courts have decided that by putting yourself on the road you are subject to search. So, if you don't like DUI checkpoints, don't drive. Use your own roads!

Wondered where you were and why you hadn't strolled in here yet.

I AM ON MY OWN ROADS,
I PAY FOR THE ROADS, I PAY FOR THE OFFICERS AT THE CHECK POINTS, I PAY FOR THE POLITICIANS THAT MAKE THESE LAWS, I PAY FOR THE JUDGES THAT RULE ON THESE CASES, AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS STATED IN OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS THESE THINGS ARE MINE AS A CITIZEN.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE ROADS, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE POLICE FORCE, THE GOVERNMENT OWNS NOTHING. WHAT IS GOVERNMENT OWN IS PUBLIC OWNED, THE GOVERNMENT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF IT'S PEOPLE. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT BODY FROM THE PUBLIC.

IDIOTS WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OUR HISTORY OR THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION HAVE ALLOWED FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION, THIS IS FACT, THE GOVERNMENT IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE,THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT OWN PROPERTY AND HAS NO RIGHTS.
DUI CHECK POINTS ALONG WITH A THOUSAND OTHER THINGS ARE A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


now that's said, practice and the truth of the matter are completely different. in practice the government does own property, in practice the government has rights and routinely exercises them,
in truth, your rights as an american citizen superseded any powers given to the government, be it military, police, local government, or any official body for that matter.
If you do not agree with this, go back read the constitution, read the works of our founding fathers, just don't turn on the news and listen to some bull**** being spouted by some tv mouth piece, you got the ****ing internet, use it and read for yourself, all of human history is at your finger tips, use it god dammit.

somewhere along the line someone ****ed up and everyone else just seemed to think it was how things were and just went along with it. And as time goes on we get further and further away from the idea of freedom that was given to us when our country began.

again there's a difference between what is and what should be/what is right.

that's my piece, agree or not, it's how it is.


i'm a classical liberal
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior to the civil rights movement and resulting Act, it was socially and lawfully accepted that blacks had fewer rights than whites. Would you have told Rosa Parks not to ride the bus as well?