I wonder if this is an intimidation thing, try and push the neighborhood into not voting.

Wouldn't be the first time.

^ DC has pretty much always voted for Democrats so it wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/DC/history.html

Also, there was the recent DC Voting Rights Act which for the first time gave DC a seat in Congress...
http://www.dcvote.org/media/media.cfm?mediaID=1841

...as well as the recent gun ban struck down by the Supreme Court.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/06/dc_gun_ban_the_decision.html

So this could be in response to any of these balances of power.

Downvote because NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED HERE.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nothing was searched or seized here, and no warrants were issued. The video starts off with text saying a woman was arrested for not paying a $75 fine on the spot, with NO references, and later the police say she was arrested for driving without a valid license. To that dumbshit white kid: The fourth amendment has NOTHING to do with being able to go where ever you want "without fear that the cops will mess with you"


UUUUHHHHGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

The problem with the advice the video gives at the end is that if you are alone it is your word against the cops. You refuse (even politely) to allow the cop to do what he wants and without witnesses or video proof, the cop can basically claim whatever he wants, such as you resisting arrest or whatnot.

There was that case where the kid was stopped by the cops for no reason and they guy flipped out at him (and didn't realize he was being taped). My experience with cops has been mostly polite and positive, but then again, I've had a few instances where it was clear to me that if I had tried to get all "legal" with him/her, they would have beaten me with a stick and claimed I was "resisting arrest."

MarineGunrock is wrong about everything he said except possibly that this might be a technically legal checkpoint. Clearly, the people were seized and searched without a warrant issued with probably cause. And the 4th Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with being able to go where you want without fear of being stopped by the police; the Supreme Court decided in Katz v. US that the 4th Amendment protects people, not places, whenever there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But the supreme court has also carved out an exception for drunk driving and road safety checkpoints in Michigan State Police v. Sitz, where the checkpoint relates to issues pertaining to safe use of the roads on which the stopped motorist was driving. This is to be distinguished from City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, where the Supreme Court ruled checkpoints unrelated to road safety are NOT constitutional; that is, where the checkpoint is just a fishing expedition to attempt to gather evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, such as pirated music videos, unlicensed software, drugs, etc.

So this may fall into the category of a legal checkpoint from a federal 4th amendment point of view, but only if the specific State (or D of C) has not augmented protections over those decided by the Supreme Court.
Certainly the point that the Police State is coming via the gradual encroachment on and erosion of civil liberties is well taken, and is the main thrust of this video. I sincerely feel that people that don't like the American Constitution and don't value the inalienable rights that it protects and that so many have fought for in so many wars in the last 200 years (even if a majority want to deny them) should move to a country where it is legal to just stop people on the street without suspicion or cause.

Oh? Show me where someone was searched. No, the people were not seized. An officer "seizing" someone would be arresting them. The only arrest made was completely legal.

It's funny that you mentioned those two cases. In the first, the Suprme Court ruled that this sort of checkpoint is legal. In the second, they ruled that a different sort of checkpoint, on in which they actually searched vehicles was illegal. I therefore fail to see why you ever mentioned them, as they only strengthen my case. (Citation)

Show me where in the 4th Amendment that it says anything other than people have the right to not be searched or their possessions seized without probable cause.

The cops asked for license, proof of registration, and insurance documents.

Normally, they are only allowed to ask for those things if they caught you doing something in violation of the law.

Know your rights.

The woman was searched when asked for her driver's license, and was seized when stopped and prevented from going about her business. Although Fourth Amendment law is riddled with inconsistencies, you can bet that the terms "search" and "seized" have been gone over many times in excruciating detail. The Supreme Court case Brendlin v. California (2007) is relevant here in that it summarizes and defines those terms for Fourth Amendment law: someone is "seized" when the police display a "show of authority", or the person would not feel free to go.

One has to remember that the Fourth Amendment was written at a time when the only way to gather information was to physically seize papers; inventions such as the telephone, automobile, through-wall radar, etc were not foreseen. The Supreme Court has to interpret the Fourth Amendment in light of modern developments. For example, in Katz v. US (1968) the Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment protects people and privacy, not only papers and places, and that telephone conversations were subject to protection, even though nothing was physically "searched" or "seized". To find otherwise would effectively nullify the Fourth Amendment in this modern world.

Hence, one must interpret the Fourth Amendment in terms of the case law and Supreme Court rulings, which are the law of the land, in addition to the actual original text of the Fourth Amendment to fully comprehend its meaning.

Another good example is the exclusionary rule, where evidence obtained illegally is not allowed to be used in court. This rule was adopted because of a logical argument; if police are allowed to break in and gather evidence illegally and then use it in court to convict someone, the Fourth Amendment is rendered null and void. So, the bottom line is that one has to look at more than the explicit words of the amendment to the intent and implications as well, when considering Fourth Amendment protections.

MarineGunrock - I mentioned the two cases to show what has and has not been found constitutional, and to show why you are probably correct that this might have been a legal checkpoint... FYI.

The problem with authority is that they forget who gave them authority.

Check points are Illegal, and unconstitutional. The fact that Marinegunrock is an authority figure and believes so extremely in the power vested in authority is no fault of his. We are taught from birth by our environment that authority is right.

The fact that we always rely on police and government help be it federal or municipal is a testament to the fact that we are not free.

The fact that people believe that the supreme authority is a testament to our lack of freedom. The people have supreme authority, don't let any authority tell you otherwise.

You papers Please?

Ihre Papiere bitte.

Remember kiddies that the main difference between Liberal and Conservative, is deference to authority. Liberals tend to not agree with authority while conservatives do.

This is a construct to cause us to bicker among ourselves while the real problem gets hides.

Have little sympathy for peeps who reelected a criminal jerkoff for mayor (Marion Barry)...TWICE.

Also, since the 2nd Amendment was trampled in DC long before this, why should I care when a shift in targets of Democrat lawlessness bites them in the ass?

/\ agreed.