Quote from the article((The US Supreme Court is currently hearing a case dealing with a Virginia man who was “arrested” for driving with a suspended license, even though the state of Virginia does not authorize arrests for minor traffic crimes, which is what driving on a suspended license is considered.))

Phil comments((Here is why it is inaccurate:Viginia doesn’t authorize arrest for minor traffic offenses(note the author incorrectly used the word crimes). Driving on a suspended license is a crime it is a misdemeanor which incidentally is a step above a traffic violation or traffic offense and therefore not minor by comparison to other traffic violations or offenses. I don’t expect you to believe me but I do encourage you to check for yourself))

Quote from the article((For motorists, or anyone on a public road or sidewalk, the illusion of personal privacy is but a dim memory. Random searches, based on the flimsiest excuses, roadblocks, “frisking” and “patting down” passengers or pedestrians, because they “might have a weapon” and roadside interrogations are now all quite legal, or are carried out as if they are because no one dare argue to the contrary.))

Phil’s comments((The author would like you to believe that RANDOM SEARCHES take place against any law abididing citizen that gets stopped for a traffic infraction. This is outright untrue. In order for the police to search your vehicle or your person after you have been stopped for a traffic infraction the officer must have what is called probable cause. If the officer has probable cause to search and he requests you to exit your vehicle he may pat you down for his own safety. Depending on what the probable cause consisted of he may even search your person. The implications that the author has made here that police officers randomly select pedestrians, drivers or passengers to search is baseless and intellectually dishonest.))

Quote from the article((The court long ago held that once a person is arrested they are subject to being searched. If their car is within finding distance, it too can be searched. This Court ruled in 2001 that a person could be arrested for violating virtually any traffic law, including the failure to wear a seatbelt. And, once arrested you have no fourth amendment protections.))

The court found long ago that upon custodial arrest an arrestee is subject to being searched. If the arrest stemmed from thier vehicle (they were driving along and were being pulled over and jumped out and ran away) thier vehicle could be searched. This power does not extend as the author implies to non custodial arrest for traffic offense violation unless you resist arrest or flee in an attempt to avoid prosecution. That the author doesn’t recognize the difference between custodial and non custodial arrest powers leads me to believe he is unqualified to author articles about this subject matter. Then again he may understand the difference which is why he omitted the word custodial so he could imply arrest for traffic violations would or could result in a search based solely on the arrest for the traffc violation. Iurge all who have read this article to check the facts elsewhere so you can discern the inaccurate content of this article.))

quote from the article((For all practical purposes, this gives the police the power to stop, arrest, and search anyone they feel like “checking out” or harassing. Arabs might be the flavor of the day on Monday, Tuesday it’s blacks in luxury cars and on Wednesday it’s young men driving sport compacts. ))

Phil’s comments(( As I have pointed out the police don’t have this power and for the author to now suggest additional civil rights violations(such as racial profiling) WILL take place is nothing more than a scare tactic to draw support to his organization on the pretense that it actively fights against all these civil rights violations which it does not.))

Thanks for a lucid, intelligent, and well thought out response.

I do agree that the underlying motivation of many recent trends in legislative creation and judicial interpretation of laws has gone towards “nanny” mentality. I don’t agree with the concept that individual liberty is paramount to the overall well being of society or even that of another individual. While it is mere speculation, and nothing more, to say what the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the authors of the Constituion would think of U.S. society and law today, I do not beleive, based on several factors, that they intended the personal liberty of individuals to ALWAYS overtake the welfare of society.

To put that in context, I do not necessarily see that applying to seatbelts. The Founders would most likely say that your individual liberty to not wear a belt is more important than the financial burden you may place on me (or others) by not wearing it and being hurt. But, based on writings by Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Stone, etc. you will find that they viewed an exercise of individual liberty justified only if it did not infringe upon the well being of another individual…”You have the right to extend your fist, so far as it does not strike another’s face.”

That being said, my original post was made because I despise the growing attitude that folks only care about themselves and care nothing for others. You must assure your well being first, of course, but when people begin completely ignoring the impact of their actions on others, it has a negative consequence for all. I fear that indifference is a slippery slope. If you don’t care what this minor action costs others, then where would if stop?

It is sad to say, but the culture of our society has created the “nanny state” by failing to act in a responsible maner in so many various facets of our lives. Society forced laws regarding inattentive driving because so many drive around on cell phones, reading newspapers and putting on makeup. Folks drive on Interstates as if they were the only vehicle on the roadway, with no regard for traffic flow, lane courtesy, or reasonable and prudent speed. We forced government to mandate the installation and use of turn signals, because we change lanes without warning or signaling. We force government to post and enforce speed limits, because quite a few people think that 100+ mph is a reasonable and prudent speed on a crowded freeway. If we, as a society, act responsibly, then we can expect and DEMAND to be treated as such. But until we “police” ourselves, we almost force our government to “police” us.

ANY ACTION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL LIVING IN A SOCIETAL MATRIX CAN, VIA EXTRAPOLATED SOPHISM, BE ARGUED TO CREATE IMPACT IN THE LIVES OF OTHERS IN THE MATRIX. I.E. SOME ARGUABLY TRANSGRESSIVE ACT BY AN INDIVIDUAL WILL SOMEHOW, IN SOME WAY, HAVE SOME LEVEL OF INFLUENCE OR IMPACT ON OTHERS. THIS, HOWEVER, IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CREATION OR EDIFICATION OF A NANNY STATE WHICH HAS AS ONE OF ITS CHIEF OBJECTIVES SELF SERVING REVENUE GENERATION AT THE SAD EXPENSE OF THOSE IN THE MATRIX.

NEITHER IS IT ADEQUATE RATIONALE FOR THE USURPATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I WOULD SPECIFICALLY EXTEND THE ARGUMENT AND POSIT THAT IT ALSO IS NOT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION TO CURTAIL ONES LIBERTY TO MAKE CHOICES IN THE AREA OF PERSONAL SAFETY. TO WIT, IF I CHOOSE NOT TO WEAR MY MOTORCYCLE HELMET, OR MY SEAT BELTS, OR MY SUNGLASSES WHEN DRIVING INTO THE SUN, OR TO RUN MY TIRES AT LESS THAN THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURES BECAUSE I LIKE THE IMPROVEMENT IN RIDE QUALITY, OR TO NOT USE DRL’S IN THE DAYTIME, OR TO OPERATE MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS AT LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE RATE FOR THE VOLUME OF RAINFALL, OR, OR, OR…. THEN THAT IS MY CHOICE; AND IF SOCIETY IN THE AGGREGATE IS SOMEHOW INFLUENCED OR IMPACTED, THEN I SUBMIT THAT THIS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR THE EXERCISE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. THAT IS, OF COURSE, IF LIBERTY IS STILL DEEMED VALUABLE IN OUR INCREASINGLY REGULATED, CURTAILED, AND CONTROLLED SOCIETY.

MOREOVER, LEGISLATORS, COURTS, AND ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CLEARLY TEND TO DEVELOP INTO FINEABLE “INFRACTIONS” THOSE INDIVIDUAL CHOICES THAT EITHER DON’T COMFORTABLY FIT THEIR PARADIGMS AND/OR LEND THEMSELVES EASILY TO THE PROCESS OF REVENUE GENERATION. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A STRONG DRIVE EMANATING FROM DEEP IN THE BOWELS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL MACHINE TOWARDS PERPIFICATION OF THE POPULACE AS A TOOL OF CONTROL. I SAY WE’RE ALREADY WAY TOO CONTROLLED AS IT IS. OF COURSE TERMS LIKE “THE COMMON GOOD” AND “AGGREGATE SOCIETAL BENEFIT” ARE ALWAYS DEPLOYED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASED CONTROL. HOWEVER, IF WE SIMPLY LOOK AROUND AND OBSERVE IT’S PRETTY EASY TO SEE THAT TRUE IMPROVEMENT OF OUR SOCIETY DOES NOT USUALLY DERIVE FROM INCREASED GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL. AND IT’S EQUALLY CLEAR THAT A STULTIFIED AND FREEDOM REDUCED POPULACE USUALLY DOES.

ALTHOUGH I WOULD POSIT THAT THE ABOVE HAS SIGNIFICANT GRAVITY, WHAT IS EVEN MORE VISCERAL AND IN PLAIN SIGHT IS A MULTI-FACETED SYSTEM OPERATING AS AN INDUSTRY OF ITS OWN CREATION WHICH MANDATES OPPRESSIVE AND EXPENSIVE PROTOCOLS FOR “OFFENDERS”. THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THIS INDUSTRY IS SUCH THAT LOTS OF FOLKS “FRIENDLY” WITH OR SOMEHOW ALLIED WITH THE SYSTEM ARE POSITIONED TO ENHANCE THE PICKPOCKETING EXERCISE THAT THE STATE FIRST SETS IN MOTION. COURTS, LAWYERS, TRAFFIC SCHOOLS, STATE LICENSED AUTO REPAIR FACILITIES, INSURANCE COMPANIES, REHABILITATION CLINICS, AND THE LIKE LINE UP TO SUCK THE GREEN (AND BY EXTENSION THE FREEDOM) OUT OF THAT POOR FOP UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE IDENTIFIED AS A PERPETRATOR. ESSENTIALLY THE SYSTEM HAS DEVELOPED A WEB OF PUNISHMENT THAT DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SO MANY RIDING THE GRAVY TRAIN THAT ANY IMPETUS FOR CHANGE OR FAIRNESS IS WASHED AWAY BY THE FLOW OF CASH ACCRUING TO THE INSIDIOUS BENEFICIARIES OF AN EGREGIOUS PROCESS.

WHEN, BACK ON 1/24/08, I CITED THE EXAMPLE OF THE YOUNG MAN WHOSE LIFE WAS TORN TO TATTERS FINANCIALLY AND OTHERWISE AS A RESULT OF HIS DRUNK DRIVING INDICTMENT, I WAS NOT EXCUSING HIS BEHAVIOR. MY POINT WAS THAT HE WAS UNFAIRLY HAMMERED BY A SYSTEM EXPRESSLY SET UP TO PICK HIS POCKET. A SYSTEM THAT LAID ON PROTOCOLS AND PENALTIES THAT WERE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND OPPRESSIVE. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THIS YOUNG MAN’S INFRACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE RELEGATED HIM TO PERPDOM AND TURNED HIM INTO A PROFIT CENTER FOR THE STATE. HE SHOULD HAVE PAID A REASONABLE FINE. HE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COUNSELING. HE SHOULD HAVE HAD TO DEMONSTRATE A CLEAR DRIVING RECORD GOING FORWARD. MAYBE EVEN THE LOSS OF HIS LICENSE FOR A PERIOD WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE. ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, THE OPPRESSION AND MISTREATMENT BY THE SYSTEM AND THOSE AFFILIATED TO WHICH HE WAS SUBJECTED WAS CLEARLY NOT.

I’LL CONCLUDE BY SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH REGARD TO EXACTLY WHICH CHOICES AND LIBERTIES WE WANT CIRCUMSCRIBED. WE WANT TO BE EQUALLY INTROSPECTIVE AND CIRCUMSPECT ABOUT ADDITIONAL STATUTORY EMPOWERMENT OF STATE AGENCIES AND THEIR MINIONS FOR THE PURPORTED PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING AN “AGGREGATE SOCIETAL BENEFIT” THAT RARELY OCCURS.

RICK GOLD

I fully understand the concept associated with Social Security, but it is not quite the same as auto and health insurance, in the context I’m referring to.

If I don’t work and don’t receive a paycheck, then I don’t make a contribution to Social Security and neither would any employer. Therefore, I wouldn’t get a Social Security retirement stipend. If I work and make employee and employer contributions to Social Secuirty, then I will receive a SSA payment at retirement based on my contributions. In essence, I will get out proportionally to what I put in.

With auto and health insurance, that isn’t the case. I may never have to go to the hospital for treatment a single day for fifty years of my life. I still pay a premium for health insurance. I may never use that health insurance to cover my medical expenses, but I still pay into it, and the premium will go up, regardless. So I will not get out what I put in, rather I am paying a higher price for someone elses use of the service. So, someone who is injured by their own “choice” or own negligence, benefits from my health insurance payment and causes it to go up, even though I didn’t use it.

Same with my auto insurance: I pay into based on several factors I control, such as type of car I buy, my driving record, etc. I may spend my entire life without getting a ticket or having an at-fault accident. Another factor that I don’t contribute to, but costs me more anyway, is folks that don’t wear a seatbelt and get hurt. Auto insurnace companies look at injuries and fatalities in a given zipcode to help determine rates for all of their insured in that zipcode. If someone doesn’t buckle up and they get hurt because of it, my insurance premium could increase, simply because the accident happened in my zipcode. Take into account that the injured or killed party might not even have the same insurance company as me. So, again, my cost is not based on what I put in, but what others take out.

Now, Rick Gold may make twice the income that I do, and therefore would get a bigger SSA benefit at retirement, but I don’t have to pay more than my share into SSA to pay for his retirement. I DO however, have to pay more into my auto and health insurance if he gets hurt due his poor choice.

Also, I have read the other articles on motorists.org, relating to the “net” economic effect, and I have to throw the BS flag at that. Sure, the doctors at the hospital get payed for treating injuries, and body shops and mechanics get paid to repair damage. However, the doctor, mechanic or body shops aren’t contributing any of that money back to my personal accounts, and that money isn’t making it’s way back to me through my business, so I fail to see how I, or you, or the majority of folks out there, “break even” on the economic side. On the national scale, it may not be an economic drain, but on a personal scale for, I dare say, most individuals in the U.S., it is.

Most everyone pays into social security, which is a “Tontine”. That is, money paid in by persons who do not live long enough to receive it is distributed to the survivors. The same cruel math makes smokers pay for the retirement of non-smokers, BTW.

This is an old post, but I just read through the comments and I take issue with the statement that it is a personal choice to wear a seat belt, and a waste of time to be stopped for not wearing one.

Quite frankly, I don’t care if you don’t want to wear your seatbelt or not…but you don’t just affect yourself when you don’t.

If you are hurt in a crash, because you weren’t wearing your seatbelt, it affects more than just you. Sure, you could be injured or killed whether you wear it or not, but you are LESS LIKELY to be injured or killed in a crash if you’re wearing a seatbelt.

So, when you don’t buckle up, I, and everyone else, have to pay for it…we have to pay more in healthcare costs because you are injured and have to be treated for your injury. Hospital bills, ambulance service fees, fuel costs for the amblance, prescriptions for medications, etc. So, since you didn’t want to wear your seatbelt and you’re more seriously injured in a crash than you otherwise would be, now I, and everyone else, have to pay more to see a doctor.

Not to mention the fact that insurance rates (health and auto) increase because you get hurt. Auto insurance rates are partly based on number of crashes involving injuries or fatalities in a given zipcode. If you have a wreck and get hurt or die in the zipcode where I live, now my rates could go up.

Everyones healthcare premiums go up when claims increase. So, you don’t buckle up and get seriously injured, and everyone else ends up paying more for their health insurance. Don’t have health insurance, no worries, more of your tax money will go to pay for medicare/medicaid for those folks that are indigent and can’t afford insurance.

So, if you don’t care about your life of health, that’s fine. But I and everyone else might care about your life or health, and in this economy, I can assure you that everyone else cares about what your poor choices might cost them financially.

And as for your employee who was hard hit financially by getting DUI…1) please see above, and 2) He chose to drink and drive, and he got caught. He is responsible for his choices and he made a bad one. Drunk driving isn’t some minor crime that has no victim….it kills and injures thousands every year. He could be a great person, but he made a poor decidion and got caught. If he didn’t get behind the wheel after drinking, then he wouldn’t be in the situation he is…no one to blame but himself. That is one of the greatest problems in society today…people don’t want to take responsibility when they make a mistake, they always want to blame someone else for their plight and won’t accept that they did something wrong.

The abuses of these search powers by lower class “servants of servants” so enraged the colonial middle and upper classes that they eventually joined “the mob” in violent revolt against British rule.