cue the lightning bolts

the only question that matters: is it true?

Iran has signed the NPT. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran may rightfully, legally, use nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes. Iran has submitted to and passed repeated IAEA inspections. The US intelligence community (NIE) does not consider Iran a nuclear threat. Israel refuses to sign the NPT. Israel has an estimated several hundred undeclared nuclear weapons. Russia and China have warned that an attack on Iran will have global consequences. That's the situation in a nutshell. Where to next, people? Where to?

Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16

10.15.2009

If you are stopped at a checkpoint

NOTICE TO CHECKPOINT AGENTS

For both of our safety, and to discourage criminal abuse of authority, a video recording of this stop is being made.

UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U. S. 543 (1976)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Page 428 U. S. 566
In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant. [Footnote 19] The principal protection of Fourth

• I have stopped as required.
• My attorney has advised me never to speak to law enforcement personnel under any
circumstances.
• I hereby assert and exercise my constitutionally-protected Right to remain silent.
• I WANT TO GO ON MY WAY IMMEDIATELY. PLEASE ADVISE ME AS SOON AS I AM
FREE TO LEAVE.

Page 428 U. S. 567
Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 24-27; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 881-882. We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975).

• Probable Cause or Consent is required to conduct a search.
• Since this is a suspicion-less checkpoint, you do not have Probable Cause to search.
• I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES.

And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause."
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 882.

etc.
see the whole thing here (pdf), print it out and keep it in your car!

No comments:

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.