UHP to hold administrative traffic checkpoint
The Utah Highway Patrol will hold an
administrative traffic checkpoint on State Road 89-91 near the Dry
Lake area of Sardine Canyon. November 22nd, 2009 @ 2:33pm
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
191 messages
Community Comment Board
The messages posted here do not reflect the opinions or views of KSL or related entities. This service and the messages that are posted within the service are provided for public information purposes only. Read about the ksl.com comment guidlines here >>
The pigs are out in force to make their Christmas money.
That's what she said.
@JaseOfAce, - Well judging by your pic it looks like you dance on tables for your Xmas money. I hope that you don't need to call the police when you’re getting smacked around by your pimp.
There is no better friend...
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
@Semper Fi Til I Die - like you would get there in time anyway
@flynfrog - Please, I wouldn't waist my time trying. I would sit and watch her get smacked around.
There is no better friend...
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
Police and military checkpoints do not belong in our country. These are gestapo techniques and go against our freedoms.
@R W. - This country will be better when the Nazis take it over.
That's what she said.
@JaseOfAce, - They already have taken over! I cant even take my dog out front and mowe my yard with out being herassed by animal controle(Nazis)! To much goverment in our lives! Are rights are all but gone! PS my dog was sitting on the park strip while I was mowing and she told me I needed to get him on the other side of the side walk because he is considered a DOG AT LARGE! I have respect for publc safety people but losing it more and more everyday!
@Vince or Jen - Is it your dog that is messing on my lawn every day. I would hope there is more enforcement but then the cops would get complainants from you guys cause your dog has the freedom to go wherever she wants. Is that not all you that hate cops are talking about? Someone set up the law, first fact, not the cops. Now they enforce it and we wine. I bet you would be mad if your contractor broke code when he built the house. Or does the contractor have the right to build without being harassed by those nazi building code guys. Decide what you want, because you will get it. The ones that want laws enforced or for the law to turn their back while you do what you want, (sounds like my kids). Majority will rule, your call.
Those that complain, give us the profession you are in, lets see if your field is so honorable. I saw one guy that talked about the Military. Talk about a guy after control and power. I would love to talk about the bad in each of your professions if you have the guts to tell what big important job you have. Oh by the way, my paper was late again this morning.
Those that complain, give us the profession you are in, lets see if your field is so honorable. I saw one guy that talked about the Military. Talk about a guy after control and power. I would love to talk about the bad in each of your professions if you have the guts to tell what big important job you have. Oh by the way, my paper was late again this morning.
@JaseOfAce, - They did, last November, Oh wait those were the communists. The difference? Nazi = National(istic) socialists, Communists = socialism in a hurry without borders.
@R W. - ever leave home with out a copy of this baby you never know when you may need it in this pathetic State especially since they are ONLY out to pocket fleece your "HONORABLE CHRISTMAS MONEY". Enjoy reading the truth behind UTAH and it's checkpoints:
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/abell050903.htm
If you desire any further court references "HOLLER YO" i have them and they were amazingly easy to find this State is so CORRUPT DIRTY AND UNDERHANDED.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/abell050903.htm
If you desire any further court references "HOLLER YO" i have them and they were amazingly easy to find this State is so CORRUPT DIRTY AND UNDERHANDED.
@Jimmy The Great - Excellent link Jimmy, It's very important that people are aware of it. Especially paragraphs 16 and 19:
" Under both federal and Utah law, however, administrative highway checkpoints are permitted as a narrow exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement--allowing the state to detain vehicles to conduct brief, limited inquiries that advance important public interests related to the use and safety of the highways. Utah Code Ann. § 77-103-24 (1999); DeBooy, 2000 UT 32 at ¶ 31; Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 449 (1990); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561-62."
"...the Court held that the checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involved minimally intrusive regularized stops, employed standardized procedures that limited the discretion of individual officers, minimized the 'fear and surprise' to motorists, and advanced purposes closely related to the use of the highways."
Thanks for letting everyone know that these checkpoints are completely legal.
" Under both federal and Utah law, however, administrative highway checkpoints are permitted as a narrow exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement--allowing the state to detain vehicles to conduct brief, limited inquiries that advance important public interests related to the use and safety of the highways. Utah Code Ann. § 77-103-24 (1999); DeBooy, 2000 UT 32 at ¶ 31; Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 449 (1990); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561-62."
"...the Court held that the checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involved minimally intrusive regularized stops, employed standardized procedures that limited the discretion of individual officers, minimized the 'fear and surprise' to motorists, and advanced purposes closely related to the use of the highways."
Thanks for letting everyone know that these checkpoints are completely legal.
@LeftisntRight - LeftisntRight:
You missed paragraph 21 where it says:
¶21 In holding that the narcotics-detection checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment, the Court rejected the city's argument that vehicle checkpoints are a lawful means of promoting general crime control.
You missed paragraph 21 where it says:
¶21 In holding that the narcotics-detection checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment, the Court rejected the city's argument that vehicle checkpoints are a lawful means of promoting general crime control.
@Jimmy The Great - I didn't miss it. Why did you choose to ignore the sentence that immediately follows the one you quoted so that you are taking it out of context? Here's the part you chose to ignore:
" While the Court had previously upheld checkpoints when they advanced purposes related to the use and safety of the highways, the Edmond Court did not consider drug interdiction to be any more closely related to highway use than other kinds of criminal investigations."
There is clear case law that says checkpoints can be used on roads as long as they relate to highway use and safety. Per other case law, checkpoints can also be set up near the border to catch illegals who have crossed the border. The case being referred to in your quote simply made a line that said the court wasn't going to allow a vehicle checkpoint for every criminal act, just those directly related to driving.
" While the Court had previously upheld checkpoints when they advanced purposes related to the use and safety of the highways, the Edmond Court did not consider drug interdiction to be any more closely related to highway use than other kinds of criminal investigations."
There is clear case law that says checkpoints can be used on roads as long as they relate to highway use and safety. Per other case law, checkpoints can also be set up near the border to catch illegals who have crossed the border. The case being referred to in your quote simply made a line that said the court wasn't going to allow a vehicle checkpoint for every criminal act, just those directly related to driving.
@LeftisntRight - LeftisntRight please read furhter it says:
CONCLUSION
¶40 The checkpoint in this case was virtually indistinguishable from the checkpoint we held unconstitutional in DeBooy. On paper, the checkpoint plan appeared to be a benign operation designed to advance multiple goals related to general highway safety. The record in this case reveals that the checkpoint plan submitted for the magistrate's approval differed substantially from how the checkpoint was actually operated--leaving officers in the field to decide how to conduct the checkpoint. We do not doubt that the state has a strong interest in drug interdiction. However, that interest must be pursued in such a way that important constitutional safeguards are not violated in the process.
¶41 Given the excessive level of discretion afforded to officers conducting the checkpoint, and the violations of our checkpoint statute, we hold that this checkpoint violated article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution. Accordingly, "the evidence obtained against [the defendant] as a result of this illegal checkpoint must be excluded," DeBooy, 2000 UT 32 at ¶ 33, and we reverse the trial court's ruling denying his motion to suppress.
LKINS, Justice, concurring in the result:
¶44 I concur in the result reached in the lead opinion.
¶45 Our prior decision in State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32, 996 P.2d 546, is directly on point, and controlling. The checkpoint plan at issue was too broad, and gave the officers too much discretion with regard to the length, scope, and nature of the stop and search imposed on passing motorists. Having so decided, it is unnecessary to engage in the speculation Mr. Abell invites regarding other factors arising in this particular case that may, or may not, somehow constitute additional justification for deeming the checkpoint plan and its execution unconstitutional.
Where is my "HONORABLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" when i need them to uphold the law and the Constitution. The cops clearly violated this "HONORABLE CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS". COPS LIE.
CONCLUSION
¶40 The checkpoint in this case was virtually indistinguishable from the checkpoint we held unconstitutional in DeBooy. On paper, the checkpoint plan appeared to be a benign operation designed to advance multiple goals related to general highway safety. The record in this case reveals that the checkpoint plan submitted for the magistrate's approval differed substantially from how the checkpoint was actually operated--leaving officers in the field to decide how to conduct the checkpoint. We do not doubt that the state has a strong interest in drug interdiction. However, that interest must be pursued in such a way that important constitutional safeguards are not violated in the process.
¶41 Given the excessive level of discretion afforded to officers conducting the checkpoint, and the violations of our checkpoint statute, we hold that this checkpoint violated article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution. Accordingly, "the evidence obtained against [the defendant] as a result of this illegal checkpoint must be excluded," DeBooy, 2000 UT 32 at ¶ 33, and we reverse the trial court's ruling denying his motion to suppress.
LKINS, Justice, concurring in the result:
¶44 I concur in the result reached in the lead opinion.
¶45 Our prior decision in State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32, 996 P.2d 546, is directly on point, and controlling. The checkpoint plan at issue was too broad, and gave the officers too much discretion with regard to the length, scope, and nature of the stop and search imposed on passing motorists. Having so decided, it is unnecessary to engage in the speculation Mr. Abell invites regarding other factors arising in this particular case that may, or may not, somehow constitute additional justification for deeming the checkpoint plan and its execution unconstitutional.
Where is my "HONORABLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" when i need them to uphold the law and the Constitution. The cops clearly violated this "HONORABLE CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS". COPS LIE.
@LeftisntRight - ---Jimmy, What do you need the feds for? The State Supreme Court said that the cops weren't supervised or told what the rules were for that checkpoint according to the warrant.
The case you quote clearly says and also quotes previous case law that says checkpoints, under certain conditions, are completely legal. The case you quote simply says the guys in charge of the checkpoint were sloppy so the dopers get off on that technicality. If anything, it actually confirms that the process works right and that there are tight restrictions on cops using checkpoints.
I also find it interesting how you use "HONORABLE" in places where most people would use "SCUMBAG". The guy in this case had cocaine on him. I guess it says a lot about you that you view guys who have smoked marijuana and are driving around high with cocaine as "HONORABLE".
The case you quote clearly says and also quotes previous case law that says checkpoints, under certain conditions, are completely legal. The case you quote simply says the guys in charge of the checkpoint were sloppy so the dopers get off on that technicality. If anything, it actually confirms that the process works right and that there are tight restrictions on cops using checkpoints.
I also find it interesting how you use "HONORABLE" in places where most people would use "SCUMBAG". The guy in this case had cocaine on him. I guess it says a lot about you that you view guys who have smoked marijuana and are driving around high with cocaine as "HONORABLE".
@LeftisntRight - LeftisntRight:
The SCUMBAGS are the State. I LOVE my "HONORABLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT". When i went to college i never paid one penny and attended "two private colleges". My "HONORABLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" paid for it all vs the State paid jack didly not a penny "TIGHT WADS". The State = SCUMBAG LEECHES TRYING TO PILFER MY "HONORABLE MONEY".
The SCUMBAGS are the State. I LOVE my "HONORABLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT". When i went to college i never paid one penny and attended "two private colleges". My "HONORABLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" paid for it all vs the State paid jack didly not a penny "TIGHT WADS". The State = SCUMBAG LEECHES TRYING TO PILFER MY "HONORABLE MONEY".
@LeftisntRight - Sorry I had to respond to you up here, I didn't have the option down below. I think you may need to read all of my comments again. I was arguing against thirdpartyvoter. I think you may have mistaken my comments for his. I was pointing out the fact that officer's DO get charged with DUI and do lose their jobs as a result.
@LeftisntRight - ---John, yes I caught that. I had to use your post to continue the discussion with thirdpartyvoter. I shortened it to 3rd in the comments. I probably shouldn't have abbreviated his name so much or maybe I missed it on one. Never thought you disagreed with me.
@Jimmy The Great - Jimmy, I understand your point but are we missing the big picture. I understand that the case was overturned for Abell but Justice Wilkins said that Abell admitted to his drug use, they admitted being caught with drugs. Now the Justices are caught in that they have to let a druggie go to make a point that the law abiding officers did not meet what the Courts felt was the correct parameters. Now it is my opinion that it would be good to get these types of people off the road, even the Semi driver felt his driving was poor. I may be way different but I obey the law and have no problem being stopped at a check point and showing that I have done everything the State has asked me to do.
It seems to me the ones that would not like this type of obtrusion is those that are carrying the drugs,driving with unsafe cars, driving drunk or are not carrying insurance on their cars. All of these activities I disagree with and expect Offices to get them off the road. I cheer when officers make a big drug bust on our highways. All this seems to be for the better good. Just my opinion and if you agree with the rights of criminals then you have to agree I get to have this opinion.
It seems to me the ones that would not like this type of obtrusion is those that are carrying the drugs,driving with unsafe cars, driving drunk or are not carrying insurance on their cars. All of these activities I disagree with and expect Offices to get them off the road. I cheer when officers make a big drug bust on our highways. All this seems to be for the better good. Just my opinion and if you agree with the rights of criminals then you have to agree I get to have this opinion.
@R W. - Go against our freedoms?! It's generally considered a good thing *not* to have the freedom to break the law.
@FlightShadow - I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
I'm sorry, But Tommy was smarter than you, me, or any politician I can pocibly think of. If you dissagree with our forefathers you sir are UNAMERICAN.
Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
I'm sorry, But Tommy was smarter than you, me, or any politician I can pocibly think of. If you dissagree with our forefathers you sir are UNAMERICAN.
@FlightShadow - Don't have health insurance? Soon that will be breaking the law. Remember, Everything Hitler did was legal.
Too many stupid laws.
Too many stupid laws.
It's only going to get worse. Look at Germany in the 1930's. It was the eact same as this country is today.
@thirdpartyvoter - it didnt just happen overnight eiter this has been a long time coming and "all of a sudden " people start caring.
@jnuts - I've been preaching this since Bush Sr.
It goes into the saying... How do you boil a frog?
Our rights are being stripped from us one law at a time. And our elected leaders convince the ignorant that it's for the greater good.
This state is horrible... Everytime I hear the frase "Protect our children." I have to pay more money. And in reality, there is no more protection what so ever.
A quick eample how stiffer laws CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS. How many pharmacy robberies were there before our local pigs decided to crack down on perscription drug abuse?
Think about it.
It goes into the saying... How do you boil a frog?
Our rights are being stripped from us one law at a time. And our elected leaders convince the ignorant that it's for the greater good.
This state is horrible... Everytime I hear the frase "Protect our children." I have to pay more money. And in reality, there is no more protection what so ever.
A quick eample how stiffer laws CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS. How many pharmacy robberies were there before our local pigs decided to crack down on perscription drug abuse?
Think about it.
@thirdpartyvoter - Bush sr. was head of the CIA and was best buddies with Noriega a known drug dealer ect ect.
I agree, the odd thing is that all of a sudden people are freaking out.
I agree, the odd thing is that all of a sudden people are freaking out.
@jnuts - Because it's finally affecting them....
No one cares if someone else's rights are violated. But when big brother kicks YOUR door in with a no knock warrent, shoots your dog, ransacks your house in search for drugs (Even though you have never done any) then people start to pay attention.
BTW... that senerio actually happened TO A MAYOR! Ask him if anyone one got discaplined. Nope! The investigation took longer than statute of limitations (Convinient if you ask me)
No one cares if someone else's rights are violated. But when big brother kicks YOUR door in with a no knock warrent, shoots your dog, ransacks your house in search for drugs (Even though you have never done any) then people start to pay attention.
BTW... that senerio actually happened TO A MAYOR! Ask him if anyone one got discaplined. Nope! The investigation took longer than statute of limitations (Convinient if you ask me)
This is how the takeover in Germany became rampant. Controlling the population and restricting movement. It is going to get worse. Administrative check point my @##. Start standing up for freedom. This never happened 25 years ago. I don't have my papers. Tattoos were put on genecide victims so they could keep track of them. Is that Next?
@Mike M. - yes but first you need a common enemy one that you can blame all the country's woes on.. Say immigrants they are the reason wages are low and our economy is spiraling.
If these check points were to check for illegal immigrants how many people would be fine with them taking place? Would not the checkpoint still have the same affect of "restricting movement" under the guise of "keeping the country safe"?
Yes your right mike the similarities are eerie.
If these check points were to check for illegal immigrants how many people would be fine with them taking place? Would not the checkpoint still have the same affect of "restricting movement" under the guise of "keeping the country safe"?
Yes your right mike the similarities are eerie.
@Mike M. - Uh, yes, Administrative stops did happen 25 years ago. They likely were called something else. I had to stop a few times on I-15 in the Layton area and show registration, and licence.
What is wrong with them checking to make sure the vehicle and driver are properly licensed? And the checking for snow tires Is a safety issue. If you regularly drive it then you should have the proper equipment. If you don't and you get caught in a storm (and I have) then you will likely cause them much more work as they have to help you out - or haul your carcass off to the morgue.
It is a common sense issue. Sounds like most people who comment here don't have any so maybe it isn't so common....
What is wrong with them checking to make sure the vehicle and driver are properly licensed? And the checking for snow tires Is a safety issue. If you regularly drive it then you should have the proper equipment. If you don't and you get caught in a storm (and I have) then you will likely cause them much more work as they have to help you out - or haul your carcass off to the morgue.
It is a common sense issue. Sounds like most people who comment here don't have any so maybe it isn't so common....
@iqueno - Safety stop sounds reasonable enough. So does stopping everyone for DUI searches or Immigration status or if there is an escaped convict on the loose. Before too long checkpoints will be familiar and the reason won't really matter because we're used to checkpoints. Kind of like what's happened at our airports. Take off my shoes and belt. OK. Scan and wand me. OK. Search my personal things. OK. Go into a private detention room because my name sounds like a name on a list. OK. Searches at airports and perhaps bus and train stations and Checkpoints on our roads - but they make us more safe right? I feel more safe knowing I am secure in my rights and freedoms. So I actually feel less safe with what America is becoming.
Do you idiots not have any brains at all? You are worse than spoiled children who pout when they've had a toy taken away from them.
It's an announced administrative checkpoint to make people aware of what will be required when the snow does come. And if you have an accident or are in distress, these fine individuals will be the first to help save your sorry butts.
It's an announced administrative checkpoint to make people aware of what will be required when the snow does come. And if you have an accident or are in distress, these fine individuals will be the first to help save your sorry butts.
“There is no try. There is only do or not do.“
@Monsieurleprof - No I am not an idiot. If you are that stupid that you have to have an official make sure you are prepared then I feel sorry that you're unable to function with out big brother calling the shots. Call the UHP next time your in an accident and see how fast they respond. Don't hold your breath.
@Mike M. - Wow you must have a few stories of those "lazy cops" not responding with lights and sirens blaring because you got rear ended. Do you ever wonder why The call taker asks questions like: Are there any injuries, when you call 911. Well then let me educate you. Those type of questions are so the call taker can prioritize your emergency request. Don't blame UHP or any other department for not rushing right to your aid. Blame the idiots that call police because their child won't go to school or someone looked at them and called them a name. It's calls lke these that tie the hands of the police, WE respond on all calls no matter how ridiculous they are. As for the checkpoint, the U.S. Supreme Court considers them a warrant. THEY ARE LEGAL get over it. It's no different than when a criminal gets off on a technicality in court. It makes me mad but the pendelum swings both ways. The police get the right to use the resources that have been made legal for them to use. And to address the 2nd statement in your quote: yes some people are that stupid that they need someone to have an official tell them to be prepared.
@JohnQLaw - Police get lots of resources.... Like prosecuters that let them crush 4 vehicles while drunk without ever getting charged.
@thirdpartyvoter - You MUST be referring to the officer that wrecked his department car around Halloween. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe he was charged with a DUI and has since resigned from the department. Like I said correct me if I'm wrong, if you have a link to the story that says otherwise please be so kind as to post it.
@JohnQLaw - Can you show me his booking photo? I'd like to see that. The prosecuter said that they don't always book a DUI. There were 120 people that night (Who didn't cause any property damage) who would beg to differ.
What about the Ogden pig who got off with reckless driving? I know a guy who got a bigger fine for peeling out. (Ehebition of speed)
Also, Way to vote for yourself JohnQ.... That's real classy.
What about the Ogden pig who got off with reckless driving? I know a guy who got a bigger fine for peeling out. (Ehebition of speed)
Also, Way to vote for yourself JohnQ.... That's real classy.
@JohnQLaw - 3rd - Please show me the booking photos in the SL county jail for any regular DUI that happened that night. The simple fact is that in most cities across the Wasatch Front, DUIs are taken to the PD, processed and released; NOT booked into jail. How is what happened to the idiot you are talking about any different that what happened to dozens of other drunk fools that same night?
The Ogden guy, unfortunately, got treated exactly the same as almost every other first time DUI. He got an alcohol related reckless. In my opinion, it's a bigger travesty that almost all drunks get treated the way that cop did. I would actually be happier if what he had ended up with was special treatment. It would mean that most drunks actually got something that resembled a punishment.
The Ogden guy, unfortunately, got treated exactly the same as almost every other first time DUI. He got an alcohol related reckless. In my opinion, it's a bigger travesty that almost all drunks get treated the way that cop did. I would actually be happier if what he had ended up with was special treatment. It would mean that most drunks actually got something that resembled a punishment.
@JohnQLaw - Left....
First time???? My buddy had to blow 3 times before the pigs got a .08... he paid 1200 bucks for bail. Reduced to a "WET" reckless. his license was suspended for 6 months, fines were 2,700 had to go to classes and the works. Funny thing. They never pulled him over. They followed him out of the bar and followed him for 6 miles to a gas station. Didn't speed, drive slow, cross any lines. Just came out of a bar.
First time???? My buddy had to blow 3 times before the pigs got a .08... he paid 1200 bucks for bail. Reduced to a "WET" reckless. his license was suspended for 6 months, fines were 2,700 had to go to classes and the works. Funny thing. They never pulled him over. They followed him out of the bar and followed him for 6 miles to a gas station. Didn't speed, drive slow, cross any lines. Just came out of a bar.
@JohnQLaw - --Third, Sounds like you need better friends who don't play Russian roulette with other peoples lives. Doesn't change the fact that you haven't found a booking photo from the SL jail of another drunk driver that night. BTW did your friend lose his job and any certifications that would allow him to continue to work in his field ever again? No? The cops you talk about did. Thanks for proving my statement that the real travesty is that the Ogden cop got to plea to exactly the same thing your friend and most other drunk fools get to. That should be what really bothers you, that everyone gets that plea deal.
@JohnQLaw - Actually yes. His job required driving a company truck, so they had to let him go. He is working in the same field, different company, 60k/yr pay cut.
Two beers at a bar will not cause anyone to get into an accident. Kinda funny, he passed al sobriety tests, and his first breathalizer was .06. The cop made him blow again .06. ten minutes later he blew a .08.
.08 is hardley anything. and half of them aren't even calibrated. On top of that, most people will fail a breathalizer before they fail a sobriety test.
As for the cop pleading. There was no "Wet" on his deal. reckless driving is for someone spinning their tires and not causing damage.... That was not the case of my friend. He stayed the night in jail, paid bail, paid fines, paid classes.... Not like this Good 'ol boy pig.
John... you also sound like the kind of guy that believes in harsher punishment. Can you point out facts that prove that harsher punishment prevents crime? I've looked, it doesn't eist because it's idiology. (No science)
I'm upset about the situation because our government holds themselves higher than the people, not for the punishment he got.
Two beers at a bar will not cause anyone to get into an accident. Kinda funny, he passed al sobriety tests, and his first breathalizer was .06. The cop made him blow again .06. ten minutes later he blew a .08.
.08 is hardley anything. and half of them aren't even calibrated. On top of that, most people will fail a breathalizer before they fail a sobriety test.
As for the cop pleading. There was no "Wet" on his deal. reckless driving is for someone spinning their tires and not causing damage.... That was not the case of my friend. He stayed the night in jail, paid bail, paid fines, paid classes.... Not like this Good 'ol boy pig.
John... you also sound like the kind of guy that believes in harsher punishment. Can you point out facts that prove that harsher punishment prevents crime? I've looked, it doesn't eist because it's idiology. (No science)
I'm upset about the situation because our government holds themselves higher than the people, not for the punishment he got.
@JohnQLaw - You are right that the portable breath testers the cops carry aren't calibrated. But then again, in Utah, they are only allowed to show positive or negative for alcohol at court. The breath testers they have at the police stations are the official ones, that are calibrated and are used in court.
Two beers at a bar can cause someone to get into an accident depending on their weight and tolerance. I suspect your "friend" might be minimizing the number of drinks he had too. That is unless he weighs 100-120 lbs, which is pretty unusual for an adult male. Look at any of the charts online that give approximate levels and you will see that for him to be .08 he had to have more than 2 beers (especially Utah ones) unless he weighed as much as a petite girl. If he spun that in his story, what else did he spin in his story? The part about him "passing" his field tests is also suspicious. Did he pass them by his standards or the cops? You state that most people will fail a breath test before a field sobriety test. This is patently false, since you have to fail the field sobriety test to even gain probable cause to be arrested and taken in for a breath test. I think, like most people who get caught for crimes, that your friend has misled you about how drunk he really was.
As far as the ogden cop's plea goes, did you look at the court records or did you just go by what KSL reported? I have seen KSL report people being arrested for crimes that don't exist in Utah's code books. I don't take KSLs reporting as being accurate at all and I seriously doubt that He got a straight reckless instead of an ARR. The alcohol tag does not in any way change the severity or punishment of the reckless, it only makes it so it counts as a DUI if he gets two more to make it a felony.
Two beers at a bar can cause someone to get into an accident depending on their weight and tolerance. I suspect your "friend" might be minimizing the number of drinks he had too. That is unless he weighs 100-120 lbs, which is pretty unusual for an adult male. Look at any of the charts online that give approximate levels and you will see that for him to be .08 he had to have more than 2 beers (especially Utah ones) unless he weighed as much as a petite girl. If he spun that in his story, what else did he spin in his story? The part about him "passing" his field tests is also suspicious. Did he pass them by his standards or the cops? You state that most people will fail a breath test before a field sobriety test. This is patently false, since you have to fail the field sobriety test to even gain probable cause to be arrested and taken in for a breath test. I think, like most people who get caught for crimes, that your friend has misled you about how drunk he really was.
As far as the ogden cop's plea goes, did you look at the court records or did you just go by what KSL reported? I have seen KSL report people being arrested for crimes that don't exist in Utah's code books. I don't take KSLs reporting as being accurate at all and I seriously doubt that He got a straight reckless instead of an ARR. The alcohol tag does not in any way change the severity or punishment of the reckless, it only makes it so it counts as a DUI if he gets two more to make it a felony.
@JohnQLaw - Sounds to me like you have the "AUTHORITY". I have dealt with courtious officers and I have dealt with the most ignorant @### that I have ever seen. I was a responder that had to deal with the cleanup of car crashes. I have seen it all also. No I don't wonder why the dispatcher asks the questions. I have witnessed the UHP leave the scene without telling anyone they were finished. They just left with everybody wondering, are we through? Your off the topic anyway. It used to be the government of the people, now its the government against the people. I'm sure I ruffled your feathers but you should worry about you and your service not the others that tarnish your good name. God bless you sir.
@Mike M. - Yes I am one of "those ones with the AUTHORITY". I believe you started the topic of UHP responding in a timely manner, so that arguement doesn't work. Furthermore the second part of my comment focuses entirely on the story itself, The CHECKPOINT. My feathers are not ruffled and I mean no disrespect, I just try to illustrate a different point of view. Understand that many times we have to clear one call and hurry to the next and sometimes we forget to be totall cordial to everyone.
As for 3rdpartyvoter, just because you are not booked for a crime doesn't mean you have not been charged. I will GUARANTEE if 120 DUI arrests were made that night, there was not 120 people booked on DUI charges that night. And as for the Ogden Pig, well you will have to elaborate. There are too many of us Pigs for me to know everyone.
As for 3rdpartyvoter, just because you are not booked for a crime doesn't mean you have not been charged. I will GUARANTEE if 120 DUI arrests were made that night, there was not 120 people booked on DUI charges that night. And as for the Ogden Pig, well you will have to elaborate. There are too many of us Pigs for me to know everyone.
@JohnQLaw - JohnQlaw. I didn't know pigs could type? Amazing. Maybe I underestimated you guys...
@khriz - Gee typical comment from someone that I probably deal with on a daily basis. Normally comments like that would offend me, but then I consider the source. Your obvious lack of respect shows me you have probably never beenable to adapt to normal society. Either that or you love to sit in the basement of your home bagging on the "Pigs" that ruined your life. In the words of the great Thirdpartyvoter, "that's real classy". Way to take it to a personal level.
@JohnQLaw - Your own words say it all-
"Typical comment from someone I probably -deal- with on a daily basis?"
Did you ever consider that perhaps you get these type of comments because of your behavior towards the people who pay your salary? Your whole attitude is wrong. I'm sorry you feel as if doing your job is such a burden that you have to "deal" with us lowly citizens but I guess thats the price you pay for this "respect" you are seeking in life.
Again, your own words paint the picture-
"Your obvious lack of respect shows me you have probably never beenable to adapt to normal society."
Respect? For what? You sir, are the one who hasn't been able to adapt to normal society. People in normal society can figure out how to obtain respect WITHOUT a badge and or a gun.
"Typical comment from someone I probably -deal- with on a daily basis?"
Did you ever consider that perhaps you get these type of comments because of your behavior towards the people who pay your salary? Your whole attitude is wrong. I'm sorry you feel as if doing your job is such a burden that you have to "deal" with us lowly citizens but I guess thats the price you pay for this "respect" you are seeking in life.
Again, your own words paint the picture-
"Your obvious lack of respect shows me you have probably never beenable to adapt to normal society."
Respect? For what? You sir, are the one who hasn't been able to adapt to normal society. People in normal society can figure out how to obtain respect WITHOUT a badge and or a gun.
@khriz - Lets see here I believe you started the mud slinging with the personal attacks. The lack of respect I refer to is the lack you probably have for everyone. I draw this conclusion because in the middle of an adult grown up conversation you bring out the comments I hear from kids. Without knowing me you bring out the personal attacks.
I don't know where I stated, implied or gave any reason for anyone to think my job is a burden. I love my job. It's the greatest job on earth. You have no Idea how good it feels to arrest Rapists, drug dealers, wife beaters, gang bangers etc.etc.etc. on a daily basis. I personally can't think of a more rewarding profession.
I have never expected respect from anyone based on how I dress for work. I treat people exactly how they want me to treat them. If they start with the ignorant comments I have no problem delivering it right back. If I am treated with respect I will do the same. I have had many criminals thank me for how I treated them after booking them into jail. And vice versa I have been spit on, kicked, punched, been told my wife was going to be raped and kids killed. These are the people I don't treat with as much respect. These are the people I was originally comparing you to
I don't know where I stated, implied or gave any reason for anyone to think my job is a burden. I love my job. It's the greatest job on earth. You have no Idea how good it feels to arrest Rapists, drug dealers, wife beaters, gang bangers etc.etc.etc. on a daily basis. I personally can't think of a more rewarding profession.
I have never expected respect from anyone based on how I dress for work. I treat people exactly how they want me to treat them. If they start with the ignorant comments I have no problem delivering it right back. If I am treated with respect I will do the same. I have had many criminals thank me for how I treated them after booking them into jail. And vice versa I have been spit on, kicked, punched, been told my wife was going to be raped and kids killed. These are the people I don't treat with as much respect. These are the people I was originally comparing you to
@Monsieurleprof - I guess you need the government to babysit you.
I better not ever hear you complain about socialized healthcare.
I better not ever hear you complain about socialized healthcare.
@thirdpartyvoter - Guess what, your buddy that had to blow 3 times means nothing about his innocence. That fact is totally irrelevant to a DUI case. All it means is that there was either a malfunction with the intox machine, which the machine is programmed to detect and make another sample be taken, or your buddy was being too big of a knucklehead to properly blow into it.In fact your logic is totally backwards. The more time it takes to get a breath sample, the lower BAC will show up. You could take as many breath tests as you want and the result would only get progressively smaller. So your logic of our arguement actually would work against your buddy. Second your buddy's lawyer, I would hope he had one, would have gotten the case thrown out if there was no traffic violation. Any lawyer worth his retainer fee would be able to spot a traffic stop with no Reasonable suspicion, leading me to believe that there was a violation. But without the actual police report we won't know for sure. Don't be offended if I don't believe you that there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. You don't exactly have an unbiased opinion on the case.
@JohnQLaw - That's why he got the wet reckless.
You don't have to believe me... but if you believe that cops are actually trying to protect people... you're just blind.
You don't have to believe me... but if you believe that cops are actually trying to protect people... you're just blind.
@Monsieurleprof - I disagree with previous comments on Nazi Germany, but there is a general controversy on checkpoints in general.
I want to be sure checkpoints are run properly in a way that doesn't interfere with individual rights, whether it's a sobriety checkpoint or an 'administrative' checkpoint.
I want to be sure checkpoints are run properly in a way that doesn't interfere with individual rights, whether it's a sobriety checkpoint or an 'administrative' checkpoint.
@Dann - There are lots of simularities.
A para military not accountable to the people (Blackwater) Didn't they just get away with slaughtering unarmed civilians?
Remember about freedom of the press and how they were trying to label those guys as tresonous?
No fly list... Hitler had a list. I doubt we have over 3 million terrorists... Some including decorated military personel that even worked at the white house... But suddenly they were put on the list because they spoke against the Iraq war. (Don't forget their families were placed on it)
If you think America is not aproaching a closed society, you my friend are a frog that doesn't even know you are being boiled.
A para military not accountable to the people (Blackwater) Didn't they just get away with slaughtering unarmed civilians?
Remember about freedom of the press and how they were trying to label those guys as tresonous?
No fly list... Hitler had a list. I doubt we have over 3 million terrorists... Some including decorated military personel that even worked at the white house... But suddenly they were put on the list because they spoke against the Iraq war. (Don't forget their families were placed on it)
If you think America is not aproaching a closed society, you my friend are a frog that doesn't even know you are being boiled.
@thirdpartyvoter - When you reference Nazis in an arugment don't expect to be taken seriously.
I did cite concern over the issue. However, there are times where checkpoints are constitutional, necessary, and reasonable. We just need to ensure they stay that way.
I did cite concern over the issue. However, there are times where checkpoints are constitutional, necessary, and reasonable. We just need to ensure they stay that way.
@Dann - Why would comparing the nazi (National Socialist) movement to modern day America preclude being taken seriously? There are many valid comparisons. Hitler seized power to himself under the guise of protecting the German citizenry from Communist Terrorists. Hiter used the Burning of the Reichstag building by Terrorists to overrule longstanding Constitutional protections. Sound Familiar? Legislation was passed hurriedly by Parliament which gave power to Germany's new chancellor making him a 'Fuehrerprinzip' - which translates to 'Unitary Executive' in English (Another Similiarity as Bush and Cheney referred to the Presidency in these terms). The Nazi Regime soon began spying on its citizenry - which you will note the illegal spying programs begun under Bush are still ongoing. The Nazis began to Nationalize private enterprise - again you will notice the the government is now a central shareholder in our auto industry, many of our largest banks and soon will oversee much of our healthcare. Enemies of the State were stripped of their Constitutional rights in Nazi Germany - the Executive branch has attempted to do the same thing with the designation of 'Enemy Combatant'. So far the Courts have largely ruled that the designation of 'Enemy Combatant' does not strip American Citizens of their Constitutional rights. Germans under Hitler were heavily taxed as Germany descended into a welfare state - this is where we are headed as well. Nazi Germany adopted the philosophy of 'lebensraum' as a pretext for Agressive War - we use the term 'American Interests' to justify aggressive wars in our day as well. Any serious student of history can't help but see the very real similiarities between National Socialism of the 1930's and what modern day America is slowly becoming.
@thirdpartyvoter - Funny thing about the patriot act Clinton tried to ram it down our thoats after 911. Bush was able to do it because of the right crisis. We started going to paramilitary security as a result of troop cuts under Clinton. Not enough military to do the security jobs. It doesnt matter who is in the white house, each regime has its enemies list.
As to freedom of the press - We claim to have it but when 90% of the media has a liberal bias and refuses to do their job of putting their scrutiny on the current regime it is as if the state owned and controlled the media by force. If the media did its job, people like Sen Barbara "Check bouncer" Boxer, Diane "I author laws to benefit my husband" Fienstein, Barney "housing bubble" Frank, Harry "I do crooked land deals" Ried and Nancy "the constitution is not relevent to the health care bill" Pelosi would have been long gone.
As to freedom of the press - We claim to have it but when 90% of the media has a liberal bias and refuses to do their job of putting their scrutiny on the current regime it is as if the state owned and controlled the media by force. If the media did its job, people like Sen Barbara "Check bouncer" Boxer, Diane "I author laws to benefit my husband" Fienstein, Barney "housing bubble" Frank, Harry "I do crooked land deals" Ried and Nancy "the constitution is not relevent to the health care bill" Pelosi would have been long gone.
@Monsieurleprof - Yeah, people driving in the canyon without snow tires (especially when there's no snow) really deserves to be the focus of a safety crackdown.
The only purpose for this checkpoint is so they can screen everyone going though and hand out tickets like candy.
If public safety was really the motivation then there are many more pressing issues they could focus on.
The only purpose for this checkpoint is so they can screen everyone going though and hand out tickets like candy.
If public safety was really the motivation then there are many more pressing issues they could focus on.
Revenge is a dish best served with corn and potatoes.
@Crawdad's Revenge - "If public safety was really the motivation then there are many more pressing issues they could focus on. "
Please name which violations of the law cause more deaths, cripple more people and cause more property loss than traffic crimes, especially against innocent victims. When looked at from the perspective of deaths, injuries and damage, what issues are more pressing in your opinion?
Please name which violations of the law cause more deaths, cripple more people and cause more property loss than traffic crimes, especially against innocent victims. When looked at from the perspective of deaths, injuries and damage, what issues are more pressing in your opinion?
@LeftisntRight - They aren't even checking for DUI. They are checking your registration and tires. How many people die because your tags are expired? NONE.
So if you care to find me, look to the western sky.
@Elphaba - So you are saying that DUI is the only traffic violation that causes deaths and destruction? You don't think that not having chains on an icy road leads to deaths? If you have ever been in a traffic accident with someone who chose to violate the law and not have insurance you might think that trivial law was a good one to have checked on and enforced.
@LeftisntRight - 1) I've driven in Utah for 16 years now. I have NEVER ONCE put chains on my car. I've never ONCE seen anyone with chains on their cars on maintained roads. (Dirt roads yes, but Sardine is not a dirt road.)
As for uninsured motorists, that's why I have uninsured motorist coverage greater than the minimum. It costs pennies for extra piece of mind.
None of these justifies the violation of people rights to travel unharassed.
As for uninsured motorists, that's why I have uninsured motorist coverage greater than the minimum. It costs pennies for extra piece of mind.
None of these justifies the violation of people rights to travel unharassed.
So if you care to find me, look to the western sky.
@LeftisntRight - IF PUBLIC SAFETY WERE THE OBJECT OF THE ROADBLOCK,THEN AN INFORMATION PAMPHLET SHOULD BE GIVEN OUT,NOT CITATIONS,AND MAYBE A COUPON FOR A FREE PIZZA IF IN COMPLIANCE,HMMM MAYBE THIS WOULD BE A BETTER WAY OF EMPLOYING SAFETY MEASURES,THEN IF ITS SNOWING AND ICY AND THE DUMB&*&^ CRASH,THEN CITE THEM FOR NOT HAVING PROPER EQUIPMENT.
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
@TONYSOPRANO2155 - Wrong. If the dumb%%% crashes head on into your family do you think it was worth it? It has been proven time and again that people obey a law significantly longer after being cited than they do after being warned and far longer than they do after being educated as you suggest. Don't believe me? Watch how people drive better when a cop is around then go back to being morons as soon as the cop turns off. They know what the laws are and show that they know the right way to drive. The vast majority simply choose not to do so when there is no threat of negative consequence attached. Watch anyone you knows speeding after they get a ticket versus a warning.
@LeftisntRight - WELL,I CAN ASSURE YOU THEY DO NOT,THEY MOST CERTAINLY DRIVE CONSIDERABLY MORE STUPID AROUND OFFICERS,LOOK AROUND NEXT TIME YOU HAVE SOMEONE PULLED OVER ON THE SHOULDER,WATCH WHAT HAPPENS,I HAVE ONLY WATCHED TRAFFIC FROM GOING INTO MY 3 MILLIONTH MILES.SETTING UP A ROADBLOCK AND CITING PEOPLE WILL ONLY LEAVE VERY BAD TASTE IN PUBLICS MOUTH.MOST PEOPLE WOULD RATHER BE GIVEN THE STATS AND INFO,THEN IF THEY DISOBEY THE ORDINANCE CITE THEM.ALSO I WOULD NOT LIKE ANYONE TO RUN HEADON INTO ME,AS I DRIVE VEHICLES WHICH WOULD DEMOLISH THEM INSTANTLY IN THAT SORT OF COLLISION.WE JUST TO LIVE AND DRIVE WITH COMPLETELY STUPID DRIVERS.ALL MY MILES ARE ACCIDENT FREE BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK AND FOCUS ON DRIVING,NOT THE RADIO OR WHO CUT ME OFF.
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
@TONYSOPRANO2155 - Oh yeah cause preventing an issue like that would be just foolish. Lets have the idiots drive up the canyon with no 4wheel drive or chains kill someone first.
There is no better friend...
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
@Monsieurleprof - i think the people that use that road are aware of the snow tire restiction there is a sign i guess they forgot we have to be able to read to get a licence maybe not english but to read nevertheless
Who's the official that cleared this? It's usually a policy maker who has to clear these, and we generally get to vote on them..
I am glad they are doing it!
I am tired of reading about idiots losing control on slick roads and killing someone. My wife drives that road a lot, and I don't want some bozo that thought he didn't need snow tires in the canyon to take her out.
Good job UHP!
I am tired of reading about idiots losing control on slick roads and killing someone. My wife drives that road a lot, and I don't want some bozo that thought he didn't need snow tires in the canyon to take her out.
Good job UHP!
Traffic checkpoints inevitably nab some meth dealers, warrants and others who prey on the rest of us so for that aspect of it I am glad. There are too many people who have relocated her from Nevada and California lately tweeking and committing crimes. I'm glad law enforcement is stepping up a presence. Innocent people have nothing to be concerned about. The onyl ones who are nervous are criminals
@SE Idaho - "Innocent people have nothing to be concerned about."
So you'd be okay with a door-to-door search of everyone's homes? If you're a law abiding citizen then there's nothing to hide, right? Only criminals would object.
So you'd be okay with a door-to-door search of everyone's homes? If you're a law abiding citizen then there's nothing to hide, right? Only criminals would object.
Revenge is a dish best served with corn and potatoes.
@SE Idaho - California and Nevada???
Why do you think there are so many illegal gang members here?
Drug cartels have more money than congress... but what good is money and drugs if you can't protect them without guns. Hey wait! Cartels can easily get guns in Utah. Sure, troll away. But Money talks. If someone offered you 10k for a 1,000 assult rifle... even you might at least think about it. Now lets add to the fact you lost your job, about to lose your home... and your daughter is crying because of hunger pains.
Everyone has a price.
Why do you think there are so many illegal gang members here?
Drug cartels have more money than congress... but what good is money and drugs if you can't protect them without guns. Hey wait! Cartels can easily get guns in Utah. Sure, troll away. But Money talks. If someone offered you 10k for a 1,000 assult rifle... even you might at least think about it. Now lets add to the fact you lost your job, about to lose your home... and your daughter is crying because of hunger pains.
Everyone has a price.
I typically side with cops on most things, but this is absolutely ridiculous! How many people follow that law, I drive a rear wheel drive sports car. I am not going to go put chains on just to go through the canyon and I don't want to pay the extra money for snow tires. This is ridiculous!
All i can say is: Where is my "HONORABLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" when i need them such as in times like now when the State has nothing on it's mind except lets go hustle our Christmas bonuses from the "HONORABLE PUBLIC" and violate every "HONORABLE CITIZENS" Constitutional rights/Civil rights in the book cause we State emplyees can not hold down a civilian job so we (the state Of Utah thug it's HONORABLE CITIZENS for Christmas money). Proof read it sounds all true to me so here it is kids read up and learn.
Just FYI, UHP does not get any of the money that they write in tickets. It goes to the city and county, so It doesnt help them wether they write lots of tickets or not so many tickets. So the rational behind their quota and making money as it were is ridiculous.
@jnigbur - They might not get the money, but there is certainly pressure from above to generate the income, especially with the budget looking as grim as it does.
A single cop working a speed trap (like at 106th south in Sandy, for example) can bring in hundreds of dollars an hour, basically giving him/her a negative salary. This is one of the reason areas that used to rely on Sheriff's Deputies are moving to establish their own forces. They want their own personal ticket machines putting money straight into their pockets.
With the UHP, even if money wasn't their motivation then it's to screen drivers for warrants and the like, which isn't much better IMO. I'm all for catching criminals, but I think these kinds of checkpoints are creepy. DUI checkpoints on busy holiday nights are one thing, but a checkpoint just for its own sake is too eastern European for me.
The one thing that is certain is that this most certainly is not about snow tires. That's just a guise, and a really weak one at that.
A single cop working a speed trap (like at 106th south in Sandy, for example) can bring in hundreds of dollars an hour, basically giving him/her a negative salary. This is one of the reason areas that used to rely on Sheriff's Deputies are moving to establish their own forces. They want their own personal ticket machines putting money straight into their pockets.
With the UHP, even if money wasn't their motivation then it's to screen drivers for warrants and the like, which isn't much better IMO. I'm all for catching criminals, but I think these kinds of checkpoints are creepy. DUI checkpoints on busy holiday nights are one thing, but a checkpoint just for its own sake is too eastern European for me.
The one thing that is certain is that this most certainly is not about snow tires. That's just a guise, and a really weak one at that.
Revenge is a dish best served with corn and potatoes.
@Crawdad's Revenge - Eh, I don't even really agree with DUI checkpoints, though I understand the reasoning behind them. Why should anyone have to stop? If someone is drunk a patrol should be able to spot it as easily as a checkpoint.
Calling it an "administrative checkpoint" is a blatant admission that:
1. "public safety" has nothing to do with it
2. That this is just an expression of their power, which we need to get our legislators to TAKE BACK. All nazi style police checkpoints should be illegal.
3. We all know that this is about revenue collection. Disgusting. And cops can't figure out why we hate them, don't trust them, and are just generally disgusted at how WE PAY for their job for life (which comes with health insurance that we don't get).
1. "public safety" has nothing to do with it
2. That this is just an expression of their power, which we need to get our legislators to TAKE BACK. All nazi style police checkpoints should be illegal.
3. We all know that this is about revenue collection. Disgusting. And cops can't figure out why we hate them, don't trust them, and are just generally disgusted at how WE PAY for their job for life (which comes with health insurance that we don't get).
@rain in the mountains-snow in the valley - Don't trust the police here? You ought to try living in California. I had my fill of their power tripping uber-cop mentality almost as much as I had my fill of drug dealers and gang bangers. I knew several cops who carried throw down guns in case they shot an innocent, seen one dealing drugs out of his patrol car, taking property for personal use, and my favorite line from a cop, "It does't matter what the truth is, its all in how you write the paperwork."
@Kahru - Forgot to mention, being profiles by race and the car I drove, the neighborhood I lived in, and having a girlfriend in high school raped by a cop.
I have no trust for anyone who has (or claims to have) power to deprive me of life or liberty and no one else should either.
I have no trust for anyone who has (or claims to have) power to deprive me of life or liberty and no one else should either.
They're checking for "required paperwork?" Did anyone else get creepy chills after reading that? Will they be wearing swastika armbands also? Every driver should speak to these disgusting officers in a German accent and say "Of course you may see my pay-paz." "All of my pay-paz are in oh-dah." "Heil to the UHP."
These checkpoints are so shady. The police know that in order to serve their purpose of being in complete control of the checkpoint they must have a bogus safety thing to go with their alternate agenda. You really really think they care to check for snow tires and chains? LOL!!! I doubt any tires will even be looked at. I've been through one of these before in UT and I felt like so invaded. Here I was not doing a single thing wrong, just driving late at night. And for no reason I am forced to provide proof of insurance and my license to these officers who are trying to peer through every possible window of my car to find drugs. Then comes the hand back of my license and the always awesome words "Alright you are free to leave but do you have any illegal narcotics or firearms in your possession we need to know about." Luckily the majority of the stops done by traffic checkpoints get reversed in court on grounds of fourth amendment violation.
Checkpoints are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment. When you are required to stop for a trooper at these checkpoints (aka roadblocks) you are seized, detained, or whatever you want to call it, without probable cause or warrant. They just assume that everyone is drinking or has drugs or is violating the law in some fashion. When they say "administrative" it's suppose to make it o.k. that they are doing it. It's a way of sugar coating the fact that you will be detained illegally without warrant or probable cause. It's one way we're being conditioned to accept the national police/military state that's coming our way.
@Daniel H. - How many idiots are going to drive through the canyon during the check point now that they have told us about it.
@Are You Serious?!? - I think that's one of the steps they take to ensure it's still considered constitutional. They do the same thing with drinking checkpoints, but they still have the checkpoints because they catch people doing.. well.. things of some sort.
@Daniel H. - Absolutely. Which is why I'm curious as to why KSL posts things like this without further information, such as who cleared this. They usually have to be given the OK by a policy maker and closely supervised by an upper official, indicating there's someone to put heat on for making this decision.
Why stop people for this stuff? Why not just sit a patrol car or two there to ticket whoever goes up the canyon without necessary equipment? There's no need for a checkpoint.
Why stop people for this stuff? Why not just sit a patrol car or two there to ticket whoever goes up the canyon without necessary equipment? There's no need for a checkpoint.
@Daniel H. - Great opinion. Fortunately your opinion on the subject (and mine too) are completely irrelevant. The only people whose opinion on the constitutionality of the checkpoints have already made clear that you are wrong. Don't take my word for it though. Read the link to the case from Jimmy up above. Here's a few of the pertinent parts:
" Under both federal and Utah law, however, administrative highway checkpoints are permitted as a narrow exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement--allowing the state to detain vehicles to conduct brief, limited inquiries that advance important public interests related to the use and safety of the highways. Utah Code Ann. § 77-103-24 (1999); DeBooy, 2000 UT 32 at ¶ 31; Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 449 (1990); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561-62."
"...the Court held that the checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involved minimally intrusive regularized stops, employed standardized procedures that limited the discretion of individual officers, minimized the 'fear and surprise' to motorists, and advanced purposes closely related to the use of the highways."
By the way, there are warrants involved in these checkpoints. It's part of the requirements to have a checkpoint.
" Under both federal and Utah law, however, administrative highway checkpoints are permitted as a narrow exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement--allowing the state to detain vehicles to conduct brief, limited inquiries that advance important public interests related to the use and safety of the highways. Utah Code Ann. § 77-103-24 (1999); DeBooy, 2000 UT 32 at ¶ 31; Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 449 (1990); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561-62."
"...the Court held that the checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involved minimally intrusive regularized stops, employed standardized procedures that limited the discretion of individual officers, minimized the 'fear and surprise' to motorists, and advanced purposes closely related to the use of the highways."
By the way, there are warrants involved in these checkpoints. It's part of the requirements to have a checkpoint.
@LeftisntRight - Just because the Courts tweek wording or make exceptions to make it "legal", does it make it morally or ethically right? The Courts can make anything they want "legal", it only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to do so, but it is not necessarily right.
I feel so sorry for this country when you and others are so naive and following as a sheeple to be accepting of the constraints the government is putting on its citizens.
The economy is tough right now, so if every business had a line to do a shakedown of every customer that went out the door to check for stolen goods, I guess you would have no problem with that also.
I feel so sorry for this country when you and others are so naive and following as a sheeple to be accepting of the constraints the government is putting on its citizens.
The economy is tough right now, so if every business had a line to do a shakedown of every customer that went out the door to check for stolen goods, I guess you would have no problem with that also.
@slamer - So what do you propose? Armed insurrection? The founding fathers used the word "unreasonable" when they talked about what would make searches illegal. They also set up who would get to determine what was and wasn't reasonable, the US Supreme Court. Sounds like you are opposed to the Constitution and the system our founding fathers set up. You might like someplace like Somalia better. There everyone gets to make the rules however they want. As long as you are strong enough.
@LeftisntRight - Lefty, you speak like a sheep.
@khriz - Nope just an educated sheep dog. You however, sound like a coyote. I have stood up for my beliefs and spilled and shed blood for them. Can you say the same?
@LeftisntRight - Lefty, you just don't get it do you. It is "unreasonable" to ask me for my papers at a checkpoint. What crime am I under suspicion for? I have the right to be secure in my papers. It would be one thing to check for adequate tires during a snowstorm, but it is not reasonable to ask me for my papers. You obviously feel I may be suspect just for leaving my house.
If you missed my prior point, semantics are used to get around what our founding fathers wanted.
If you missed my prior point, semantics are used to get around what our founding fathers wanted.
@slamer - You assume that you have a constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road. You don't. Get it. It is a privilege which the US Supreme Court, the Constitutional arbitrator of what is and is not Constitutional, has said that it is not unreasonable to briefly stop and ask you for your permit to drive a motor vehicle and the paperwork regarding the vehicles current status. Our founding fathers realized that everyone would interpret the Constitution differently. They therefore established the Supreme Court as the final say on what the Constitution means. What you think or I think is meaningless in the grand scheme of the republic. If you don't like it, I suggest you start lobbying and petitioning to amend the constitutions. I believe it is possible to amend the State Constitution through a petition that is then to be put to a vote. I would suggest you start there, unless of course it's too much effort for you to stand behind your stated convictions.
@LeftisntRight - LeftisntRight:
What is our "HONORABLE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT" position on these check points the only thing i have found thus far in Google is opinions from mirror sites that state:
The Supreme Court is reluctant to touch this issue fearing law enforcement may deem the court as a "ANTI-COP" court.
What is our "HONORABLE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT" position on these check points the only thing i have found thus far in Google is opinions from mirror sites that state:
The Supreme Court is reluctant to touch this issue fearing law enforcement may deem the court as a "ANTI-COP" court.
@Jimmy The Great - The US Supreme Court doesn't care one bit if they are viewed as pro or anti cop. Their recent decision regarding vehicle searches incident to arrest in Arizona v. Gant just this year is proof of that. They actually went back on their prior decision in Gant. The supreme court has made several decisions that directly authorize checkpoints and indicate how they are to be done. The primary cases you may want to google are:
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 449 (1990); This authorized sobriety checkpoints.
Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561-62; This established that the police could set up checkpoints on roads leading from the border in order catch illegals.
The rules established for a checkpoint warrant to be signed by a judge generally include:
* Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
* A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
* Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
* The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
* Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
* Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
* Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
* Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.
(the rules above were copied from wiki but they are accurate)
Violating these rules is why the Utah Supreme Court decided in favor of the dopers in the case you cited above.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 449 (1990); This authorized sobriety checkpoints.
Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 561-62; This established that the police could set up checkpoints on roads leading from the border in order catch illegals.
The rules established for a checkpoint warrant to be signed by a judge generally include:
* Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
* A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
* Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
* The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
* Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
* Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
* Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
* Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.
(the rules above were copied from wiki but they are accurate)
Violating these rules is why the Utah Supreme Court decided in favor of the dopers in the case you cited above.
@LeftisntRight - The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of slavery once.
@mbitsko2 - Slavery was Constitutional at that point. The people ended up thinking it was wrong and changed the Constitution. Seems to be a process set up to do just that in both the US and Utah Constitutions, if you don't like it, get to work. The Courts decisions become meaningless then. If Californians can do it to overturn a courts decision on gay marriage, how hard can it be? That assumes the majority of the people agree with you though.
@LeftisntRight - LeftisntRight:
This is what i have always understood when it comes to check points and is why they are legal:
* Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.
This much i agree with and personally speaking if they setup check points who cares but as a person who drives homw from work while people are sleeping in the AM hours i have experienced harassment by cops not because i ever did anything, not because i violated any traffic law but i was pulled over just because of the hour i drive home. Luckily when i brought this to the attention of my sheriff where i live this practice has cease and desisted however when i tried to bring it to the attention of SLC PD they are so arrogant you can't e en get in the front door there unless you are a media outlet with cameras ready to give them front page coverage again. At least the Sheriff where i live has a open doors policy and likes to hear from the residents in the county regardless if it is for good or bad reason. SLC should take a few lessons from my guy. Sheriff Edmunds policy also creates a community bond so we can work together instead of feel like we are being attacked by the cops.
This is what i have always understood when it comes to check points and is why they are legal:
* Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.
This much i agree with and personally speaking if they setup check points who cares but as a person who drives homw from work while people are sleeping in the AM hours i have experienced harassment by cops not because i ever did anything, not because i violated any traffic law but i was pulled over just because of the hour i drive home. Luckily when i brought this to the attention of my sheriff where i live this practice has cease and desisted however when i tried to bring it to the attention of SLC PD they are so arrogant you can't e en get in the front door there unless you are a media outlet with cameras ready to give them front page coverage again. At least the Sheriff where i live has a open doors policy and likes to hear from the residents in the county regardless if it is for good or bad reason. SLC should take a few lessons from my guy. Sheriff Edmunds policy also creates a community bond so we can work together instead of feel like we are being attacked by the cops.
we need about thirty people with nothing else to do...to just go thru one way...turn around go thru again...repeat again and again....and of course someone to video the abuse when it occurs after they get pissed off
@MrWickedTroll - If I had snow tires, I'd so go up there and do just that.
So if you care to find me, look to the western sky.
I got a ticket for removing my seatbelt after my car was parked and the engine shutoff on the side of the freeway a couple of weeks ago in Davis county. I'm going to enter my plea (not guilty) tomorrow. If for some reason I'm found guilty I'll take it to a higher court.
@Cupboy - The question is: What did the officer pull you over for? If you took off the belt before he could verify that you were wearing one then yes, he will give you a ticket for that as well.
@Cupboy - The sad thing is you will probably lose. A co-worker got caught street racing doing over 80 on State, hired a lawyer and got off with a 10 over speeding ticket. I however accelerate up an on ramp and get the book thrown at me (car impounded, exhibition driving, $230 fine and suspended license) F our legal system.
It'll be funny if the roads are perfectly dry and they're ticking people for not having snow tires.
Don't they have crimes to solve or something?
Don't they have crimes to solve or something?
DON'T THEY STILL HAVE A TEST FOR THE UHP? DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT BECAUSE ALL I SEE IS MORONS IN UNIFORM.
BACK OFF MORONS
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
BACK OFF MORONS
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
@remotecontrol - Yep, been ticketed twice by UHP for things I didn't do. That's never happened with city cops. They are morons. Must be the rejects the city police depts. turned away.
Show me your papers please.
Welcome to Amerika.
I just can't believe these are legal. They aren't even pretending to be doing something about DUI, this one is all about showing your papers and hindering travel and intimidating the law abiding public.
Welcome to Amerika.
I just can't believe these are legal. They aren't even pretending to be doing something about DUI, this one is all about showing your papers and hindering travel and intimidating the law abiding public.
So if you care to find me, look to the western sky.
Check points are unAmerican and unconstitutional regardless of what the corrupt courts are ruling these days. This should be done away with in Utah.
@Kristopher D. - You know what I’ve been pulled over a lot by highway patrol when they do their DUI stings. I NEVER got a ticket (I'm also a dude so don't think the reason being because I'm a woman) I likes the fact they are trying to keep stupid drunks and uninsured ppl off the street. I was pulled over one night cause I had a tail light out. The cop followed me to an auto zone to get a bulb replaced with no ticket. Maybe you ppl are mad because they actually had probable cause to give you a citation. Or you acted like a jerk
There is no better friend...
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
The thing I really have a problem with is that no law enforcement department will set up a checkpoint at any border crossing to look for illegal aliens.They are a much bigger crime problem than driving up a canyon without snowtires. I think our law enforcement is afraid of working themselves out of a job. Another example is the DUI arrest, if cops or our state really wanted to stop people from driving drunk, they would give offenders a 1 year jail sentance for a first offense, and it would go up drastically from there, but DUI is too big of a cash cow for this state, and they NEED repeat offenders.That's why they have the "bat squad " at events like concerts up in Park City.
One other thing that bugs me is, how cops pull people over for the light that shines on their license plate being out, if a cop wants to read your license plate, he will be behind you and his headlights will shine on your plates.That light is useless, except for giving a reason to give someone a ticket.
I'm also tired of cops whining about not being paid enough, my response is the same as for teachers: Didn't you check the high and low range of the wages before you signed up for the job? You get exactly what you deserve. Besides that, most cops are driving the cop cars home under the guise that it helps prevent crime, that's a good one. They get a free car and free gas, I know that's a good chunk of my budget.
One other thing that bugs me is, how cops pull people over for the light that shines on their license plate being out, if a cop wants to read your license plate, he will be behind you and his headlights will shine on your plates.That light is useless, except for giving a reason to give someone a ticket.
I'm also tired of cops whining about not being paid enough, my response is the same as for teachers: Didn't you check the high and low range of the wages before you signed up for the job? You get exactly what you deserve. Besides that, most cops are driving the cop cars home under the guise that it helps prevent crime, that's a good one. They get a free car and free gas, I know that's a good chunk of my budget.
the only thing that makes a differance in this war is which side of the bullet you are on
@the big joey - "Cops" don't give jail sentences. Penalties start with the legislature, and then go to the courts. Cops have nothing to do with it.
@mbitsko2 - Read the whole statement, I said "cops or the state". I put cops in my statement because they are ones on the news bragging about how many people they catch in their check points, not the legislature
the only thing that makes a differance in this war is which side of the bullet you are on
@the big joey - Actually the officers taking the vehicles home when off shift does help cut down on crime. Things have gotten much quieter crime-wise in my neighborhood since we now have five "obvious" police officers living here.
Plus I'm sure that when you see that police car on the freeway you slow down until you notice that he is out of his normal jurisdiction. It is proven that just the sight of a police vehicle changes peoples actions.
Plus I'm sure that when you see that police car on the freeway you slow down until you notice that he is out of his normal jurisdiction. It is proven that just the sight of a police vehicle changes peoples actions.
Couple quick questions. How many of you complaining actually plan to go into this canyon? How many of you planning to go into this canyon already have your vehicles properly equipped?
If you do not plan to go there this has no effect on you. If you are properly equipped this has no effect on you.
Why do Americans sit and complain about that which they have no control whether it effects them directly or not?
Haven't any of you learned by now your voting system is corrupt, your voice your opinion means nothing to local or federal governments. It may have once in the past or maybe it didn't ever but certainly now it does not. Freedom is an illusion, privacy is an illusion, rights can be altered to fix any situation and the only right you really have which is the governments favorite one is "remain silent"
If you do not plan to go there this has no effect on you. If you are properly equipped this has no effect on you.
Why do Americans sit and complain about that which they have no control whether it effects them directly or not?
Haven't any of you learned by now your voting system is corrupt, your voice your opinion means nothing to local or federal governments. It may have once in the past or maybe it didn't ever but certainly now it does not. Freedom is an illusion, privacy is an illusion, rights can be altered to fix any situation and the only right you really have which is the governments favorite one is "remain silent"
@karr1988 - Nice attitude. "It doesn't affect ME, so who cares"?
Not very non-Jews were affected by the Holocaust, so who cares?
Our opinions mean nothing because we don't voice them. Congress had an overall approval rating of less than 10% going into the last major election, and over 90% of incumbents were re-elected. That tells me that voters are IDIOTS, and deserve what they get.
You are correct in your assertion that we do not live in a free country, though. I can't imagine by what standard we are "Free." We can't even own private property. Try not paying your property taxes and see how long you "own" it.
Not very non-Jews were affected by the Holocaust, so who cares?
Our opinions mean nothing because we don't voice them. Congress had an overall approval rating of less than 10% going into the last major election, and over 90% of incumbents were re-elected. That tells me that voters are IDIOTS, and deserve what they get.
You are correct in your assertion that we do not live in a free country, though. I can't imagine by what standard we are "Free." We can't even own private property. Try not paying your property taxes and see how long you "own" it.
I just thought of something that I have a question about. Do my tires have to specifically say "snow tires" on them, or do allseason tires suffice, how about mud and snow tires? I wonder how many people will be ticketed for that, and what tires are the UHP cars running? It would be funny if a guy is getting a ticket for his tires and he looked over and says "but officer, I have the same tires you have".
the only thing that makes a differance in this war is which side of the bullet you are on
@the big joey - They have to be "mud and snow rated" according to Federal standards. That includes many (but not all) "All-Season" tires. If they are mud-and-snow rated they were be marked as such.
@mbitsko2 - Oh, by the way: They have to be mud-and-snow rated, and they have to have enough tread remaining that the tread wear indicators are not flush with the top of the treat.
That means you can have tires that would be marginal, at best, in a snow storm even if they were NEW. And they can be worn almost bald. And you're still legal.
Further proof that this is a road tax, not a safety campaign.
That means you can have tires that would be marginal, at best, in a snow storm even if they were NEW. And they can be worn almost bald. And you're still legal.
Further proof that this is a road tax, not a safety campaign.
Clarification:
Utah Administrative Code 920-6-3 provides for the "snow tires" requirement on certain roads. It does NOT, however, define what "snow tires" means. It merely says "snow tread."
OR you can have tire chains IN YOUR POSSESSION, but not necessarily mounted on the car. Buy yourself some cheap chains and toss them in the trunk and you're covered, legally. A 4-wheel-drive vehicles must have "at least 2" mounted snow tires in order to qualify. (Or chains in the trunk, of course.)
Therefore, the police are going to be writing tickets for not having something that the applicable law doesn't even define.
The only "definition" I know of is the Federal "Mud-and-snow rated" designation. If the pigs....ERRRRR....."police officers" choose to do so they can write you a ticket for having M&S rated all-seasons, but I can't imagine how they could make it stick in court. Of course, that's not the point. The point is to raise revenues, and they know most citizens won't bother fighting the ticket because it's too expensive and time consuming.
Welcome to the "Free country."
Utah Administrative Code 920-6-3 provides for the "snow tires" requirement on certain roads. It does NOT, however, define what "snow tires" means. It merely says "snow tread."
OR you can have tire chains IN YOUR POSSESSION, but not necessarily mounted on the car. Buy yourself some cheap chains and toss them in the trunk and you're covered, legally. A 4-wheel-drive vehicles must have "at least 2" mounted snow tires in order to qualify. (Or chains in the trunk, of course.)
Therefore, the police are going to be writing tickets for not having something that the applicable law doesn't even define.
The only "definition" I know of is the Federal "Mud-and-snow rated" designation. If the pigs....ERRRRR....."police officers" choose to do so they can write you a ticket for having M&S rated all-seasons, but I can't imagine how they could make it stick in court. Of course, that's not the point. The point is to raise revenues, and they know most citizens won't bother fighting the ticket because it's too expensive and time consuming.
Welcome to the "Free country."
is mile marker 12 at the base of the canyon or is it halfway up the canyon?
i would rather be stopped early on and save travel time and gas.
rather than get halfway up and turned around..
>>>>>>>>>i looked it up on google earth.
it is the halfway point
i would rather be stopped early on and save travel time and gas.
rather than get halfway up and turned around..
>>>>>>>>>i looked it up on google earth.
it is the halfway point
www.Highlinecorporation.com
801-916-4490
1-866-990-1616
801-916-4490
1-866-990-1616
They are looking for drinkers that drink during the week but won't drink and drive at other times when cops anounce their presence.
Just another drunk stop.
Just another drunk stop.
Before you know it, the cops will be checking your birth certificate. (I wish they'd check Obama's)
Be sure you carry proper identification or they'll drag you off to jail. Kind of reminds me that we're not in the U.S. of A. anymore.
Cops = egotistical bullies.
I used to work with them. I know.
Be sure you carry proper identification or they'll drag you off to jail. Kind of reminds me that we're not in the U.S. of A. anymore.
Cops = egotistical bullies.
I used to work with them. I know.
Before long using the patriot act and the war on terrorisom. If we want to take our family on vacation or just head to wendover for the weekend. We will have to go to the Internet and print out a travel permit. We will have to input our driver licence # registration, insurance info and the purpose for our trip. If you don't do this you will be put in jail, have your car impounded and be fined.
All the liberal idiots will say if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. We have alto to worry about. Our Government.
Dont think this want happen.
All the liberal idiots will say if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. We have alto to worry about. Our Government.
Dont think this want happen.
the perfect place to post this. to all officers and sheriffs everywhere, check this site out and know what your oath is, if they give one anymore.
Sheriff Mack
http://sheriffmack.com/
I would also like to add, forget what you know about government and which one is the best. Marc Stevens and one of his very good quotes. "No service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun."
here his website:
http://www.marcstevens.net/
Sheriff Mack
http://sheriffmack.com/
I would also like to add, forget what you know about government and which one is the best. Marc Stevens and one of his very good quotes. "No service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun."
here his website:
http://www.marcstevens.net/
@Aaron M. - Just wanted to put a little informative about what we think we know about the US Government and/or any other man made government there is or ever was. that is from case law: (hope I don't get in trouble for this whistle) :0 :)
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616
We need not decide whether this distinction is valid, for there is an alternative ground on which the dismissal of the complaint against these defendants must be upheld. Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who under color of state law "subjects ... any citizen ... or other person ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution ...," and thus applies only if there is a deprivation of a constitutional right. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 699-701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1159-1160, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146-47, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2695-96, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Bonner v. Coughlin, 545 F.2d 565, 567, 569 (7th Cir. 1976). There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. Discrimination in providing protection against private violence could of course violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But that is not alleged here. All that is alleged is a failure to protect Miss Bowers and others like her from a dangerous madman, and as the State of Illinois has no federal constitutional duty to provide such protection its failure to do so is not actionable under section 1983.
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616
We need not decide whether this distinction is valid, for there is an alternative ground on which the dismissal of the complaint against these defendants must be upheld. Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who under color of state law "subjects ... any citizen ... or other person ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution ...," and thus applies only if there is a deprivation of a constitutional right. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 699-701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1159-1160, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146-47, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2695-96, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Bonner v. Coughlin, 545 F.2d 565, 567, 569 (7th Cir. 1976). There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. Discrimination in providing protection against private violence could of course violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But that is not alleged here. All that is alleged is a failure to protect Miss Bowers and others like her from a dangerous madman, and as the State of Illinois has no federal constitutional duty to provide such protection its failure to do so is not actionable under section 1983.
I am sure glad that they have solved all crime so they can turn their attention to tires and such. Now they can do something like this without it seeming like a huge waste of resources. Why aren't they doing this up the cottonwoods or any other "dangerous" canyon? Who is liable if they are given the ok to pass and still wipe out? The cops or the loose nut behind the wheel?
After this, they should set up a vehicle saftey patrol with a saftey captain to go to every house and check the vehicles before you leave for the day.
I hate to break it to you, but the condition of your tires (except if they are bald) have little effect on snow and ice, unless you have studs or chains. Studs are illegal for the vast majority of the year. Will they put chains on for you at the check point? Will they be available for sale? If not, there is no real point in doing this.
The knowlege of your vehicle, its limitations and your limitations are going to be the difference between you making to your destination or ending up in a ditch or taking someone else out.
Don't rely on someone else to tell you how to maintain your vehicle, take responsibility for your equipment and actions.... that is truly the problem we have now
After this, they should set up a vehicle saftey patrol with a saftey captain to go to every house and check the vehicles before you leave for the day.
I hate to break it to you, but the condition of your tires (except if they are bald) have little effect on snow and ice, unless you have studs or chains. Studs are illegal for the vast majority of the year. Will they put chains on for you at the check point? Will they be available for sale? If not, there is no real point in doing this.
The knowlege of your vehicle, its limitations and your limitations are going to be the difference between you making to your destination or ending up in a ditch or taking someone else out.
Don't rely on someone else to tell you how to maintain your vehicle, take responsibility for your equipment and actions.... that is truly the problem we have now
@geezenator - OK, Geezenator, great advice but, when you are the one that has to investigate all the accidents in the canyon and the long list of fatality crashes, you come up with ways to educate the public whenever you can to help prevent or lessen the amount of accidents and fatalities. The Mission Statement of the UHP is not criminal investigation but "To provide a professional police service and TRAFFIC service...." The checkpoint today was to make people aware of the hazard of Sardine Canyon and give them driving tips for winter conditions. I can't believe how many of you have such a negative attitude. We are the ones changing your flat tires and pulling ladders out of the road so you can get where you want safely. Remember that the next time you crash and have a warm car to sit in while waiting for a tow truck.
@John M. - Sounds good... thanks for wishing me a next crash... How about you educate the public BEFORE they hit a canyon. How will you remove tires and ladders from the road when you are in a canyon "checking papers and tires"?
Most people know that sardine canyon is dangerous, it has been proven time and time again. There are plenty of other canyons that are dangerous too. The problem i have is "checking papers(not a true safety issue)", which seems like harassment of the public, and checking equipment. Im truely sorry that people have been harmed, maimed and killed with improper equipment maintainance or with improper equipment. That is why we have emissions AND INSPECTIONS. You are not an ASE certified mechanic.
Most people know that sardine canyon is dangerous, it has been proven time and time again. There are plenty of other canyons that are dangerous too. The problem i have is "checking papers(not a true safety issue)", which seems like harassment of the public, and checking equipment. Im truely sorry that people have been harmed, maimed and killed with improper equipment maintainance or with improper equipment. That is why we have emissions AND INSPECTIONS. You are not an ASE certified mechanic.
@geezenator - To those that are concerned about the condition of their vehicle, go to a mechanic. When you find a mechanic that you trust (yes there are way more trustworthy mechanics than lawyers and police out there) LISTEN TO THEIR ADVICE. Dont wait till its too late. Quick Quiz: What is one of the first things you should check when the weather gets cold? Tires. John M. when was the last time you checked your tires, fluids or even wipers? If you are like most people, you wait till its a problem or super obvious to change or repair what ever is damaged.
My main gripe is that UHP can be out getting drunk drivers and such. I believe that there have been more people killed/maimed/injured that way than up a canyon. You have limited resources, use them wisely.
My main gripe is that UHP can be out getting drunk drivers and such. I believe that there have been more people killed/maimed/injured that way than up a canyon. You have limited resources, use them wisely.
@John M. - Exactly how many tips did the officers give out today?About the only tip I can imagine is "press hard, 4 copies". You can't believe how many people have such a negative attitude?? How about we pull you over next time you are going about your business, just to tell you something you should already know?
the only thing that makes a differance in this war is which side of the bullet you are on
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Most Popular
Site Index
News |
Weather
Traffic |
TV
Sports
Opinion |
Radio |
Classifieds
Announcements
Events
Movies |
Advertise with KSL
Other Resources
Wireless
Legal
Sister Sites
|
© 2009 ksl.com KSL Television & Radio, Salt Lake City UT A Division of Bonneville International m17
KSL's public inspection files, including the Children's Television Programming Reports and the DTV Quarterly Activity Station Report, are available for viewing during regular office hours at the KSL Broadcast House.
2:42pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Isn't there better ways they could use their time to bolster public safety?
2:44pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
3:01pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
6:04pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
3:05pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
You all know this is a "POCKET FLEECE" don't you?
City, County and State budgets a re hurting BADLY so what does the State choose to do they send their "OVER PAID" monkeys out to harass "HONORABLE CITIZENS". This has nothing to do with safety they want your loot people and you are crazy if you think otherwise.
4:03pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
4:21pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
I did two tours in Iraq... and the pay... who cares. But I would have sold my own mother to have the weapons and armor that the DEA gets to use to take down a pot head.
So the question arises... Why are forces better armed in a war against it's own citizens than it is in another country?
Nazi Germany did the same thing. Look it up.
5:19pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
9:28pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Automatic weapons are extremely difficult and expensive for the general public to get. I'd love to have some, but they're priced beyond my modest means.
9:48pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
10:35pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
2:21am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Perhaps you are an exception but I doubt it. These checkpoints are a procedural thing that are too close to the line and too easy to abuse. Most police have already proven they are untrustworthy, pig headed, and refuse to listen to the voice of reason, let alone possibly admit to any wrongdoing...ever. Heck all you have to do is gun someone down and you get 6 months paid vacation while there is a token investigation and we all know what that outcome will be regardless of the circumstances don't we...wink, wink.
5:51pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
4:38pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Jill one of the deputies in my own Sheriffs office is part of a VMW club which means he drives a beemer aka EXPENSIVE CAR. That does not sound like poverty to me. You can see my guy interviewed right here at ksl.com here is the link:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6023833
I saw this deputy at the rodeo last July and asked him how is poverty in the beemer club. Tis Tis Jill do not try to fool the smart and wise like Jimmy The Great.
BEEMER CLUB AND HE IS IN POVERTY HUH?????
4:41pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
BEEMER CLUB AND IN POVERTY HUH?????
4:47pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
5:43pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
6:53pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
12:31am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
7:13pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
They also get to harass the public. Yes I said harass the public. they couldn't find a real criminel if real criminal was robing the donut shop the fat sorry excuse of a police officer was stuffing his face in.
This check point should get them there quota and the city plenty of money.
9:22pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Writing tickets for "not having snow tires", without taking existing conditions into account, is absurd. Granted, the LEGISLATURE makes the laws. But the fact that the police pick and choose which laws to enforced based on their department budgets tells me that they are out of control. They have become a liability.
The correct way to deal with the "snow tires" issue is to ticket the bejeezus out of anybody who CRASHES as a result of being improperly prepared for existing conditions. Ticketing somebody on a dry road for not having snow tires is absurd. Snow tires have LESS traction on dry roads than all-seasons, so this law actually puts people at GREATER risk on 9 days out of 10 during the winter months.
2:29am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
10:41pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" I have no idea officer. "Well, don't worry, depending on your attitude you did nothing wrong.... yet. We just want to inspect your tires." Uh, I just had my required annual car inspection last month. "Do you want a ticket for mouthing off?" No, but thanks for waisting my time inspecting my already inspected car. "Sign this ticket. I clocked you doing 2 over the limit. Remember to press hard, there's 5 copies"
Revenue generators with a tazer, gun and a car that goes woo woo is aka a cop.
If you want to be a real hero drive a truck or frame a house. Then you're really putting your life on the line, at least compared to a cop.
12:43am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
4:13pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Since it is the end of the month and they have to make their quota they should patrol parleys canyon and write speeding tickets.
1:03am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
and no worse enemy than a United States Marine
8:00am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
4:21pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Utah pays its policemen terribly. For the amount and type of stuff they have to put up with, they should be making a reasonable salary, but no. They don't. UHP's website can confirm that. Calling them over-paid monkeys is the sign of one who is incredibly unintelligent.
Also, calling a checkpoint harassment is way out of line. If you truly are an honorable citizen, you'll have your paperwork and equipment in order and you'll pass through just fine.
4:24pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Also, What laws do we have to abide by to be concidered "Honerable". We have many many laws that are just stupid. All in order to help complete the closed society that our local pigs are so gracefully helping to achieve.
4:29pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
4:39pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Tis why I get on my soapbo every time something unconstitutional pops up. Perhaps I can educate the sheep about the injustices happening right here in front of our noses.
Yes Democracy in it's finest.
Let me ask you.... Do you think our government likes the internet? I'll tell you from eperience... Cops hate Youtube. Why are they so afraid of the information erra?
5:41pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
5:55pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
6:04pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
That's why all my elected officials, including the gov. will be getting a phone call from me tomorrow objecting to this travesty.
11:04pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
Be a cop: The new and improved IRS agent!
4:22pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
5:47pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
6:03pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
6:51pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
11:22pm - Sun Nov 22nd, 2009
7:06am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
9:24am - Mon Nov 23rd, 2009