Be aware that "criminal activity" can include local ordinance violations, e.g., riding without a helmet, lack of lights when riding at night, riding on a sidewalk, failure to stop at a stop sign.

I'Ve seen those videos. They remind me of the movie "The Hunt for the Red October" when Sam Neil's caracter (a soviet defector) asks if he could travel state to state without papers.

I wonder how long it'll take before this gets moved to P&R.

It's certainly starting to head that way.

In that vein, snow squalls, a vehicle breakdown or any other traffic slow up comes down to the responsibility when driving a motor vehicle to always be observant of what is ahead of you. Lives are at stake when driving any umpteen thousand lb object at any speed and a second or two of inattention can have serious implications (am teaching a kid to drive and drive this home every lesson, even more so at highway speeds)

They check your ID.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=446605

Let me help it on it's way and ask why people are annoyed at these check points, but have been silent about police "Stop and Frisk" policies in cities?

Because "Stop and Frisk" saves lives, the checkpoints haven't stopped one terrorist for all the money spent and rights violated.

Maybe..... because millions of people have documents (drivers license, fake SS card) that implies they are American citizens... when in reality they aren't. So for them... it would be a trick question.... that solicits a confession.

I don't agree with your argument, but even if I did it seems that you are ok suspending the Constitution is some circumstances and not in others. The question is when is a stop and search reasonable?

I go past them pretty regularly. The two big ones are on freeways so we bypass them. At the small ones we're waved through.

He wanted to live in Montana and marry a "round" American woman. And what are his last words before he dies? "I would have liked to have seen Montana."

sure, spoil it for me!

This is not an easy question with a simple answer. As I, a non-lawyer, understand it, the authority to "detain" and investigate is explained in a supreme court case : Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases say that in order to detain and investigate someone, a law enforcement person needs "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of criminal activity. That includes demanding that someone provide identification. A law enforcement person has the authority to initiate a consensual encounter with anyone at any time and ask any question desired, but unless a person is being lawfully detained IAW Terry, no actual response is required. Exceptions exist in traffic infraction cases, and the like, which may be civil or criminal depending on where in the US you are and the nature of the infraction. Also, suspicionless dui/driver's license checkpoints may be permissible, and they actually occur, but some debate whether they are conducted within the constraints of Supreme Court decisions or not. I'm told that some probation/parole requirements dictate that a parolee/probationee must consent to searches and investigations as a condition of release -- I have no experience, but I think that's true.

So, you can probably see where the "am I being detained" thing comes in. If a police officer stops you and asks you for ID, it's not clear whether you are being detained, arrested, or just subject to a consensual encounter. Before continuing with the encounter, whatever its nature, someone may want to clarify the nature of the encounter. If someone is being lawfully detained, it may be necessary to provide identification, though unless there is some other reason, for example, you're driving, no actual physical identification is ever legally required.

Now, the search/frisk thing. In order to conduct an actual search, a higher standard than suspicion is required -- that is, probable cause. It's hard to say, as a lay person, exactly what that means. It's lawyer speak. Also, if someone is being arrested, a search incident to arrest is authorized. This may include searching an impounded vehicle, I'm not sure. A frisk, or pat down, is not an actual search, but just an outside touching so that the officer can be confident that someone doesn't have a weapon. It's not supposed to be used to feel for a baggy of drugs, or a fat wallet full of money -- just for weapons. I'm not sure when someone does and doesn't have the right to refuse a frisk/pat down if they are not being lawfully detained.

All this suspicion/probable cause stuff is not real easy to figure out, but someone asserting a right is not supposed to be used to create suspicion or probable cause. For example, if an officer asks you where you work or where you are going or where you are coming from and you lawfully refuse to answer, that refusal is not supposed to create legally actionable suspicion of criminal activity. Just like taking the fifth is not supposed to be used to infer guilt.

I do not agree with stop and frisk at all.

So maybe this brings up a point that actually relates to the forum in which this thread was started ... the Touring Forum ...

It is a good idea to travel legally in foreign countries, such as the USA.


When we were stopped by these checkpoints, we may have been asked if we were US Citizens ... answer: "No". Next question was something like, "Do you have ID"? We had our passports ready. Quick glance at each passport and we were on our way. The whole thing might have taken 30 seconds.

What is the evidence you have that is the case. I think a ton of americans don't care whether you kill 19 million people per century if it makes them a jot richer, or safer. And while I am personally against stop and frisk, and thought it was great when that activist expressed concern about appearing on the same show as the chief of police for NYC, who is an obvious racist, the fact remains my ox being gored is always going to worry me more than someone eleses. but that doesn't mean I don't care. Hypocracy is good though, and you might as well ask would I be more concerned if I was to be killed in a traffic accident than someone else, yeah probably...

Why is it people always act as though doubling the level of abuse, say, is a nothing, because they always previously stood silent when rights were violated in some other case. It actually matters if a government is twice as abusive. It isn't as though the stop and frisked crowd was showing up when Rico was being abused for anti abortionists, or wall streeters.

But generally a more professional and less racist police force is going to mean more abuse not less, they just get to address a new base of crime, and are no longer limited to plying their trade in certain neighbourhoods.

The border between say Florida and NY that some of the 9/11 highjackers crossed on the day is a lot more porous. None of the highjackers came through Canada, though they probably could have. But at least in that case they get the twice over. Coming from Maine to the WTC, not so much.

As with all things involving people, how you are dealt with depends on who you are dealing with. I'm confident at some checkpoints one may have to deal with aggressive jerks while at others there are good people. I've cycled through the checkpoints south of Tucson several times. I'm 63, ride a carbon fiber bike with no gear and have a white beard that makes me look my age. I roll through in both directions without even stopping although once I stopped to obviously photograph the checkpoint well in view of the agents. No problem. They saw me go out then back in and I'm sure that helped with their decision to not even bother to stop me. Had I been dark skinned I'd bet I would have been at greater risk of being questioned as would having full panniers I'd guess. I don't carry any ID when riding. When touring I do. I do know from long experience you can get through checkpoints much easier when you are friendly and cooperative. Nothing wrong with choosing to stick up for your rights and refusing to talk but there can be a cost to that course of action. I find the checkpoints to be hideous and ineffective and intrusive.

I have been silent on stop and frisk here because it is something I am way less likely to encounter while on tour. Check points on the other hand are a given on many routes that I am likely to ride. Truth be told I think stop and frisk is a far bigger infringement on civil rights, but it is not so relevant to touring since I mostly avoid urban touring.

I don't actually think of the checkpoints as infringement on my rights unless the agent overstep their bounds.

But as the lawlessness increases by... "non-documented immigrants" (I think that is the proper PC term).... expect less deference to the rules of law by it's enforcers. Many MILES of American border lands are now considered too dangerous to travel... even by car. Signs similar to this are everywhere.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=446904

Considered too dangerous by whom?

I believe those signs were put up by the state of Arizona. That's the same state whose legislature has passed all sorts of absurd legislation in recent years.

Enjoy your recliner!

"Those"?!?!? How many pictures did I post? Well apparently you don't like the people of the State of Arizona..... I won't guess what it is about them you don't like. But the BLM, Bureau of Land Management is a federal agency.... if that somehow makes you feel better.

Cute! I bet you post while riding your bicycle don't you!

I've posted cycling images to facebook from my bicycle. It is sort of an advocacy thing I do. Many of my friends (as well as myself) are retired. So I offer up an occasional picture of a place or event that I am at... via my bicycle. I hope (and think I do) encourage others (my age) to get outside and get some healthy exercise... cycling.

I am a naturalized citizen and do not carry my citizen papers with me.
One official asked for a 'copy' of my citizenship papers. Told him : 'Read the fine print on US citizenship papers: Not to be copied.'
Another time entering Canada was asked 'where are you from.'
Told the guy : 'Arizona'. He then told me: 'You have a ***? All Arizonans carry a ***.' Told him 'No ***, but I carry a big knife.' He waved us through.
Must be a boring job at times!

I live in Arizona.
ALL states have passed some stupid laws, yours included.
Heck, feds passed stupid laws and had them rescinded with a new constitutional amendment (Prohibition).

The crew of all the ships headed up river dont come ashore at all , I'm separated by 1 state in either direction from the land Borders.

I said absolutely nothing about "the people of the State of Arizona". I cited the legislature. I'll cite the current governor, as well, because she has signed a lot of the absurd legislation.

I found one link which claimed that the state of Arizona put up the signs on BLM land, and another which claimed that the BLM put up the signs. Regardless of who put up the signs, the point of your post and photo was obviously political.

To the best of my knowledge, we don't have classes of citizenship in this country. By either method, by birth or by naturalization, we're all equal citizens, except, of course, for the constitutional requirements for the presidency. Nobody has ever expected me, a natural born citizen, to carry a birth certificate to prove my claim of citizenship so it seems to me unreasonable to expect a naturalized citizen to carry proof of citizenship. When applying for extra privelges, like a passport or security clearance or whatever, proof of citizenship may be required, but just as a matter of course, I find it insulting.

edited: and I think that equality of citizenship status is a natural result of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.