Police Use TEN Different Types Of Checkpoints, With More On The Way (Updated)

checkpointBy MassPrivateI

Police and the Border Patrol are using ‘general crime control checkpoints’ to harass and detain motorists across the country. Below, is a list of nine different checkpoints police use, to ticket and arrest citizens.

Last year, I warned everyone that multiple law enforcement partners, are conducting drug (heroin) checkpoints focused on vehicles and pedestrians!

Drug testing checkpoints are a lie…

“If they say drug check lane ahead, it’s false,” says Wichita attorney Dan Monnat. “Because the courts have ruled on this being a violation of the 4th amendment.” (for more info. read City of Indianapolis v Edmond)

And recently, I warned everyone that DHS is paying police departments to set up DUI checkpoints across the country.

To learn how police, will soon add a tenth checkpoint to the list, please read on.

Why are police using illegal checkpoints?

Sixteen years ago, the Supreme Court held that checkpoints established for general crime control purposes are unconstitutional. (City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 44 (2000).

So why are police and the Border Patrol stopping innocent motorists?

DHS admits DUI checkpoints are REALLY about checking a person’s immigration status.

Aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence… (Source)

Also, there’s millions of dollars at stake. The University of Berkley which has close ties to DHS, made close to $14 million off of ‘No-Refusal’ checkpoints in 2013.

The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has awarded UC Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC) $13,930,555 to run its 2012-2013 Sobriety Checkpoint program. (Source)

FYI, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lists over a hundred documents supporting checkpoints in the so-called “land of the free.

Updated 9/27:

Bus checkpoints

Texas police found 8 kilos of cocaine during a random search of a Greyhound bus “created a checkpoint that trespassed on the Constitution” so the drugs cannot be used as evidence, a federal judge ruled.

Greyhound spokeswoman Lanesha Gipson said its policy is to let police search their buses.

 “We fully cooperate with local authorities and allow them to board the bus to do a search if they ask to do so,” Gipson said in an email.

Judge Lynn Hughes rejected the idea that the search was legal because Greyhound’s driver consented to it, nor was he impressed by other arguments from the government.

Hughes said that Greyhound is “economically coerced to adopt policies of compliance” to police searches because if it refused, it would be “risking the ire of every excessively zealous or corrupt police force in the places through which its buses travel,” which could throw its buses off schedule. (Source)

Judge Hughes:

The officers’ abuse of their authority is bad; however, the federal government’s bad judgment in bringing this case is worse… it has reinforced the officers’ illegal evasions. It may need statistics to justify its funding to Congress, but this is a weak and mean way to cater to its bureaucratic imperative.

According to Courthouse News, The Conroe Police Department did not respond to a voice message asking if they still randomly searches Greyhound buses.

So far, this makes bus checkpoints the tenth different police checkpoint.

Police use checkpoints to threaten motorists and cite them for violations

Establishing a Checkpoint

1. Are motor vehicle checkpoints permitted?

Yes, in appropriate circumstances. As noted above, the United States Supreme Court has held that sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment. The General Statutes go further and allow checkpoints to be used “to determine compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.4″  In other words, the statute allows checkpoints to be used to detect violations of any motor vehicle law, not just the impaired driving laws. By contrast, checkpoints may not be used for general crime control.

But, that’s exactly what police are doing…

The Border Patrol’s (CBP) own records contain multiple accounts of Border Patrol agents stopping and searching motorists without justification; threatening residents with assault rifles, Tasers, and knives; destroying and confiscating personal property; interfering with efforts to video-record agents; and using dozens of false alerts by CBP dogs to search and detain innocent people. (click here to read all THIRTEEN CBP documents)

Police use checkpoints as a new ‘stop & frisk’ method

FOIA documents released to the ACLU, show that the Border Patrol’s extra-constitutional police practices amount to a de facto policy of “stop and frisk” for residents within 100 miles of the border.

Police setup drivers license checkpoints, despite using license plate readers

Ask yourself what’s wrong with this picture, nearly eight years ago an Appeals court concluded that police can set up drivers license checkpoints, because cops don’t know everything about a driver.

  • That the primary programmatic purpose of the checkpoint was the enforcement of the State’s Motor Vehicle laws.
  • That the State has a “vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed.”

(Source)

This outdated ruling, ignores the fact that, law enforcement uses ‘automatic license plate readers‘ mounted on police vehicles, highways and traffic intersections to identify drivers. And also ignores the fact that police are using more than TWENTY-EIGHT automated risk assessments on anyone traveling inside the U.S.

Police also run drivers licenses through the National Precursor Log Exchange, to see if their names are on a police/pharmaceutical drug list.

One corporation, is responsible for America’s checkpoint television ads

The NHTSA pays, Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) a private advertising company, to make national television commercials promoting checkpoints, like ‘Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over‘, ‘Click It Or Ticket‘, ‘Fans Don’t Let Fans Drive Drunk.‘ TSM, brags about providing States with TV PSAs, re-tagging them in support of State highway traffic safety marketing initiatives.

Coming this fall, Halloween checkpoints

TSM, has come up with a new way, to expand checkpoints…

Halloween is meant to be scary, but not when it comes to driving. When it comes to drunk driving, Halloween can turn the roads into a horror fest.

Get ready America, for new TV ads, telling a gullible public that kids everywhere are being killed by drunk drivers this Halloween. Their new slogan should be, ‘Tricked and Gullible.’ There’s NO epidemic of drunk driving in America period; in fact, it’s just the opposite.

Do drunk drivers really cause half of all traffic deaths? Not even close! GetMADD.com explains how the NHTSA includes passengers and pedestrians who had some alcohol but weren’t DRUNK. Click here to find out more about the DUI myth.

If you’ve been keeping track, that’s a total of TEN different types of police checkpoints!

Day or night police use checkpoints to ticket and arrest motorists

I know I covered ‘Click it or Ticket,’ by TSM, but I thought everyone should see the look of terror on this guys face, who’s about to be pulled over for a seat belt violation. If a picture is worth a thousand words, I bet someone can come up with a thousand words that describe what he’s feeling.

Police are stopping motorists with kids in car seats

You read that correctly, police are stopping motorists with child car seats because according to them, 3 out of 4 kids are not properly restrained!

Could this be the 11th police checkpoint? Or is it covered under seat belts, as I mentioned above?

Police are even stopping motorists who avoid checkpoints

According to page 8 of the University of North Carolina’s, ‘motor vehicle checkpoint’ article.

The purpose of any checkpoint . . . would be defeated if drivers had the option to “legally avoid,” ignore or circumvent the checkpoint . . . by turning away upon entering the checkpoint’s perimeters. Further, it is clear that the perimeters of the checkpoint or “the area in which checks are conducted” would include the area within which drivers may become aware of its presence by observation of any sign marking or giving notice of the checkpoint. Therefore, we hold that it is reasonable and permissible for an officer to monitor a checkpoint’s entrance for vehicles whose drivers may be attempting to avoid the checkpoint, and it necessarily follows that an officer, in light of and pursuant to the totality of the circumstances or the checkpoint plan, may pursue and stop a vehicle which has turned away from a checkpoint within its perimeters for reasonable inquiry to determine why the vehicle turned away.

A recent Appeals court ruling, allows police to stop motorists who park in a driveway to avoid checkpoints, because the officer is no longer affiliated with the checkpoint!

…because defendant did not actually stop at the checkpoint, its validity was immaterial to whether an officer had sufficient reasonable suspicion when stopping defendant once defendant drove into a residential driveway.

Earlier this year, an Illinois Appeal Court ruled motorists aren’t allowed to make a U-turn to avoid a checkpoint.

Justice Thomas says “Certainly, the purpose of any checkpoint *** would be defeated if drivers had the option to ‘legally avoid,’ ignore or circumvent the checkpoint by either electing to drive through without stopping or by turning away upon entering the checkpoint’s perimeters.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that, judges don’t want to let Americans avoid checkpoints because it will cost police and the gov’t. revenue! This is the sad reality of living in a police state.

Police set up checkpoint ‘enforcement zones’ to keep civilian monitors out

According to a Tuscon Sentinel article earlier this year, civilian ‘monitors’ set up chairs across from a CBP checkpoint in Arivaca, AZ and began taking notes. But when they came back the next day, the checkpoint was roped off with signs that read: “No pedestrians.

checkpoint-enforcement-zoneImage Credit: No More Deaths

Peter Ragan, an Arivaca resident and one of the observers, shook his head and said he wasn’t surprised to see that Border Patrol had pushed the group back, creating what Supervisory Agent William Partian called an “enforcement zone.” Partain said that the enforcement zone was necessary for “public safety” and the privacy of people driving through the checkpoint. (Source)

Police slap smartphone out of a man’s hand and fabricate charges for recording a checkpoint

Last week, the ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Michael Picard, who has a habit of protesting DUI checkpoints because he sees them as “contrary to the Fourth Amendment, and a waste of public money.”

He has done public records investigations, for example, and recently found that for every two man hours put into a checkpoint, it yields just one minor traffic citation—almost always for defective equipment.

“Let’s give him something,” one trooper declared. Another suggested, “we can hit him with creating a public disturbance.” “Gotta cover our ass,” remarked a third.

The troopers who were working the checkpoint come over to Picard, and the first thing they did was slap the camera out of his hand so it hits the ground. Picard thinks it’s broken.

It was really brazen. There’s another video showing that the first thing the state trooper does is walk up and with his open hand slap the camera down to the ground. He doesn’t even say anything like “put that down,” or “please lower your camera.” He just slaps it to the ground. Then he interacts with Picard as if nothing happened, as if, “I’m just allowed to do that, and I don’t even have to tell you why I just broke your camera.” It’s an amazing level of hostility.

Wake up America, this is the police state we live in, where cops use at least TEN different types of checkpoints to threaten, ticket and arrest anyone without fear of reprisal.

You can read more from MassPrivateI HERE, where this article first appeared.

  • Scott Pease

    I just turned 59 and not in my lifetime did I ever think that my biggest fear would be that of our own (Muslim brotherhood) government.1984,no longer knocking on your door,it has been kicked in.Listen to the lyrics to the song,1984,by Spirit.One of my all time favorites.

  • TStephen

    But we need the protection……from ourselves…..and that nasty Constitution thingy.

  • deplorablelittljo

    The thin blue line, above the rule of law, naturally.
    The thin blue cop was protecting the idiot by breaking his evil camera.
    Resistance is futile. the Borg Star wars.
    “When I was just a little boy…my Papa said, don’t let the man getcha do what he done to me…”ccr circa 1969

    • Tony Coscione

      “The thin blue cop was protecting the idiot by breaking his evil camera.”
      Is this in jest? Or are you really advocating that cops go unchecked? Video is what is bringing to light what cops are doing in this nation, which is, going UNCHECKED. While I fully support police, there is a widespread and rampant sect of cops that have gone full on ballistic, killing unarmed people who in many cases haven’t even had the chance to LOOK like they might be a threat. And they are doing under the “protection” of the badge! It is almost epidemic in some parts of the country. I hate to say it, or admit it….but I see the video’s and think…”really?….I’m supporting these asshats who walk around like little gods, dictating who lives and dies?!?!”

  • mnkysnkle

    What’s next? Shoe safety? It’s for the children!!!

  • So how much of the 4th Amendment is actually left, I cant seem to find it

  • anticriminals

    They are not your government. All ten elements of communism are in affect. Your government was overthrown during the civil war. They are the criminals committing extortion / racketeering. They are getting away with it because of your ignorance of the law. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Anyone for vigilantiism?

    • freedixie

      Exactly right. Lincoln did away with the Republic and ushered in a large, invasive, centralized government which has grown larger and more oppressive each year.

    • JYuma

      You are correct to a POINT. It was the Northern States that OVER through the Constitution during the Great War. It is the Northern States that have ignored the Constitution since it was written.

  • Louis Charles

    deputiz’m plan…. and this crap comes to a grinding halt.

  • Botswana Jones

    You want martial law? Elect Trump then. He’s says he’s the “law and order candidate” and if elected you can bet he will put more Supreme Court justices in place to violate your Constitutional rights.

    • Tony Coscione

      It is Liberals who are systematically tearing the Constitution apart, and the creators of the Nanny state. Establishment Republicans aren’t much better, but they are better.
      LiberalsProgressivesCommunists by nature assume complete and total control over your lives, and remove any choicesfreedoms.
      If you wanted to live by the Constitution and the freedoms it provides, you should have supported and elected Ted Cruz!

      • freedixie

        Cruz violated the Constitution, as did Rubio and ovomit, by running for an office for which he is not eligible due to NOT being a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is born to TWO citizen parents on U.S. soil.

        • Tony Coscione

          What is “Natural Born” is not specifically defined in the Constitution. And the meaning of the term natural born, to our founding fathers is found in British law, which is where they derived much of meanings and terms. According to British law, Natural born is a child born to a subject of The Crown, regardless of the soil they are born on, is also a subject of The Crown.
          You can’t just make up your own meaning as you go along, like try to do with the 2nd Amendment!! You have to understand the meaning and intent with which the founding fathers crafted the Constitution.

          • William D. Ray

            And when he renounced his citizenship to be an Indonesian he lost any natural born status he may (or not ) have had. If he claimed his citizenship back (and facts don’t show that he did) then he would be naturalized NOT natural born.

          • Tony Coscione

            We were speaking of Cruz, not the POtuS.

          • JYuma

            No, He is STILL a Indonesian.
            It was her Mother that gave Her and His Citizenship up per Indonesian Law.

            1. So that she could marry his Adoptive Father as her husband.

            2. So that His Adoptive Father could Adopt him.

            As far as I have been able to research, he never petitioned to regain his American Citizenship.

          • Tony Coscione

            Funny thing about that, they just recently found and published his Kenyon birth certificate.

          • JYuma

            I have not seen or heard that.
            I wood enjoy seeing and reading it. Have you a Link?

          • JYuma

            o’bozo, never HAD any “Natural Born Citizenship”. He did not have TWO parents that were Citizens. Even under the 14th Amendment.
            You are correct about him never requesting his Citizenship back, after he MOVED the the Islands, to live with his Communist Grandparents.

          • JYuma

            He never had any “Natural Born status. A. He was born over Seas. B. His Father was NOT an American CITIZEN.

          • William D. Ray

            Oh ok you mean the one born to a Cuban national.

          • Tony Coscione

            You sir, are an idiot who is looking for an argument. He was born in Canada to an American and a Cuban…this does not make him solely a “Cuban National”, as you put it. Learn a little bit about law as it pertains to our Constitution before you go blathering about.

          • William D. Ray

            Not at all, just other intelligent points of view but I was ready to hear your’s as well. If you studied at all you would know status is passed from the male to the son not the female unless it is slave status. But then you switch to Back and forth from Brit Law toUS constitution when it is convenient to your argument.

          • JYuma

            Per SCOTUS. Citizenship may fallow from Mothers Line also.
            No mention of slaver is included.
            Please read Article Two of the Constitution, If you wish to be able to comment with some modicum of knowledge.

          • William D. Ray

            JY Tony was citing Brit Law

          • JYuma

            That makes a difference. To a certain point we are under Brit . Common Law.

          • JYuma

            Sir, You are wrong ,in the statement that Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution.
            It is.
            The definition will be found in Article Two not Amendment Two of the constitution.

          • Tony Coscione

            No sir, you are wrong… Article Two says: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
            No where does it state what a Natural Born citizen is or the definition thereof. The meaning is derived from British law. There is NO definition of “Natural Born” anywhere within the Constitution. Therefore, it is derived from what the founders knew to be, based on the law and language they were crafting the Constitution. Much of the meaning and wording was derived from British Law at the time.
            If you still think I am mistaken, please provide the exact article and wording. I’ll be happy to see it and consider it.

          • JYuma

            I did. Go read it. There are about 3 parts to it. You must read all. The parts are years when it was amended.

          • Tony Coscione

            Well, that isn’t in the Constitution. You may have read that somewhere, but it was not IN the Constitution. And it does not state he or she must be born of “two” American citizens.
            It has been stated by the courts that the language is NOT specific (like yours seems to be), therefore they will not rule upon its exact meaning. If it is to be clarified, it must be done by Congress via a bill.

          • JYuma

            Reread.

          • JYuma

            Reread that , that you wrote.

            You just wrote the Definition your self.
            After that entry there IS no mention of it.
            However SCOTUS has and does use that for Case’s Today as in the past.
            From the rewrite in 1795, “98” Etc.

    • JYuma

      You are a Half A$$ Idiot.

      • Botswana Jones

        Your a full one. You want to personally insult me a$$hat for leaving a comment? Go jack yourself off.

        • JYuma

          Reread your post.m Yep your a Half A$$ed Idiot.
          Now for your other comment.
          I would rather you used your “LIPS” to Accomplished that for ME.

          • Botswana Jones

            That’s because your a queer.

          • JYuma

            That’s because your a queer.

  • Robert Cowger

    This will get much worse if Hillary is elected as President. I will stand by Donald Trump who has shown to be a thoughtful and imaginative person.

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to friend