a common design indicates a common designer

Jaer said:

I guess first off, I should explain that I'm not in full support of these searches/stops, but again, if I were stopped and asked questions, I'd just give them my ID and be on my way. Which, actually I have been before (just not in this context).

Yes, but Identified and searched are two separate instances and rights are not forfeit for giving that information. They must still have probable cause to open, and search. By acting like the kid(s) in the video, would possibly give an officer suspicion that there may be something to hide, and therefore, probable cause (although that's a very very loose explanation/definition). Also the plain sight rules apply, and given that this is essentially an extension of the border searches, I wonder if the Border Search exception could apply (given that it's the DHS/Border patrol holding the stops).

Basically what I'm saying is that, while yes, the stops are annoying, this is what you get if you cry/whine about illegal immigrants. Also, like I said before, if the kid just said "here's my ID" he would've been back on the road in likely seconds rather than giving the officer an attitude.

Oh, and "moral" is subjective, your morals may differ than mine, or someone else, bringing morals into a law debate doesn't support your argument. And until the 1979 ruling is overturned regarding these checkpoints, they won't stop. It's just best to take another road if you don't want to be stopped in the checkpoint.

Jaer said:

And here's my point:

1. The stops are legal, while irritating, they're not surprise check-stops, they're posted and advertised. So one could avoid them if they don't want to be stopped. There's no rights violations, there's no harassment in the literal form.

2. This is what happens when so many people cry and whine about illegal immigration. and that there's "nothing" being done about it. This is a response to those people who ask for additional checks for illegals. And again, the stops are constitutional/legal.

edit: Also, considering that a *lot* of the checkpoints are in Arizona, this is what happens when they pass a law that allows an officer to stop *anyone* for a check of citizenship. Texas has a law where they can stop and ask for your license at any time and as a requirement you must provide it to them. See a Pattern?

Jaer said:

While I don't think these checkpoints do anything other than irritate people, it is already approved and supported by the Supreme court. The decisions covered these particular checkpoints (called Interior Checkpoints), sobriety checkpoints, and pretty much all others as constitutional.

Secondly, while the person in the video does have a right to refuse to answer, his tone didn't help the situation. I'm sure if he had said "Yes, I'm a citizen" and showed an ID, he would've been on his way in 1/10th the time it took him to sit and complain to the officers. All that he was doing was raising suspicion on himself by constantly holding a snarky tone toward the officers.

I am as separation-of-church-and-state as you get.

Maybe I'm off on my interpretation here, but didn't she say she earns $200 a week, has a car and some jewelry, to which he told her, she was not entitled to a public defender because she could sell her jewelry to hire a lawyer?

A10anis said:

Dear me you are sad.I said clearly expressed = succinct. You say not, yet you agree it means expressed in a short but clear way. You have nothing to say my friend, however you are clearly a pedant. I'm sure you will dispute the contextual merit of this word too. I suggest you get a life, and an education. I'm done.

succinct: expressed in a very short but clear way
(Source)

A10anis said:

I'm sorry you don't know what succinct means. It means clearly expressed.