Results 1 to 40 of 2190

Thread: Defend your right to own a car.

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    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
    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). 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.None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations.

    Hope that clears things up for you.

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  2. #2
    Moderator BanginJimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Hiram, GA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    7,499
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    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
    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). 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.None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations.

    Hope that clears things up for you.

    Who wrote that?

    I was basing my response off the syllabus.

    Before we go any further, is there any disagreement on the Constitutionality of a checkpoint?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
ImportAtlanta is a community of gearheads and car enthusiasts. It does not matter what kind of car or bike you drive, IA is an open community for any gearhead. Whether you're looking for advice on a performance build or posting your wheels for sale, you're welcome here!
Announcement
Welcome back to ImportAtlanta. We are currently undergoing many changes, so please report any issues you encounter with the site using the 'Contact Us' button below. Thank you!