Such as domestic violence enforcement, where as an officer you are commanded to protect the complaining party and to make an arrest if an assault has occurred. The problem with the execution of this law and the legal duties/liabilities to the individual officer or agency is that in the particular case of Domestic Violence you end up being forced to arrest people on "good faith" rather than "probable cause", knowing full well the arrest was invalid but having to do it anyways so you don't get in trouble. In doing so you imprison an American without just cause. Many times suspects charges are dropped at arraignment due to their not being any Probable Cause. Yet the officer and agency are protected from lawsuit, even though they knowingly violated someone's rights. In this case the state has decided that protecting life is more important than the constitution and individual rights.

DUI checkpoints, WDFW checkpoints. These are unconstitutional and a direct violation of your search and seizure rights. Why do we allow law enforcement to force administrative searches on us where they are seeking to incriminate us, under the rouse of " protecting the community".

Here is a tip if you ever get pulled over for DUI. Never answer questions, never participate in field sobriety tests, never blow on the PBT, "portable breath test." Anything so say WILL be used against you, the SFST's "standardized field sobriety tests", have only one purpose,,,, to incriminate you, so I would advise you to not do them even if you are sober. Blowing on the BAC is your choice, if you don't and are convicted you lose your license. Most DUI's achieve probable cause from the comments of the pulled over driver, PBT and SFST's, in most cases the driving alone is not enough for conviction, unless the driver is shat faced.

I think you're proving Rich's point about the unconstitutionality of many parts of the system. Like the right against self incrimination and innocent until proven guilty.

Why do we need a permit to excercise our right. It's not a right if we have to purchase it from the state and that right has an expiration date.

Yes. Are you suggesting that all DV arrests show bruises?

No chit. I'm talking about my 2A right.

Every day absent visible injuries. They're required to make an arrest within 6 hours and if your wife or boyfriend calls the chances of you going to jail are very good. The DV laws are extremely prejudicial and like gun laws do nothing to stop the problem. The real DV victim rarely follows through with the prosecution out of fear and often returns to the abuser. It's a sad and terrible cycle.

If I ever come across these checkpoints, I will answer nothing, then ask if I'm detained, which they will never say you are because they don't want to get sued. FUK .GOV.

I've also heard to NEVER admit you have drank anything...plead the 5th.

Never under any circumstance talk to the PoPo if you are in trouble or if they think you're guilty of something without legal counsel.

That's my understanding.

Hankster,
I know what it says "you shall arrest if there is PC". It means that the officer " shall", make an arrest. It means he has no choice and that he better not, "not" make an arrest, because all the liability is on his shoulders, and the department and himself have immuntiy as long as he does make "an" arrest, (not the correct arrest or legal one just that you make one). So as an officer if you exercise discretion regarding investingating DV, you could be held civillaly and criminally liable, but if you make an arrest, (regardless if it's correct or not), you have immunity. SEE THE PROBLEM???? The government protects you for violating someones rights, but potentially punnishes you for protecting them.....

This is my view regarding living In a free society;

When you live in a free society like ours, there are consequences from time to time. People do crazy terrible things, sometimes people kill each other on purpose and by accident. Sometimes people become victims of all kinds of things.

What I'm saying is rather that, maybe the consequences of a free society should be embraced rather than the societies building blocks and values being dismantled because people don't want the responsibility of being free.

In a free society terrible things happen sometimes. But these terrible things remind us why freedom is not free.

Honestly much of the crime we have is a result of the government and law enforcement. It's because the Govt and Police give criminals protection from the "good" people. The criminals understand that the "people", have given up their desire to protect themselves, (responsibility too great), and have turned such responsibility over to the " Govt". The Govt is in the business of "stimulating" the economy,and creating "loyal" jobs. Law enforcement and the criminal justice system is a large economy in itself full of "loyal", Americans, Lott's of prisons need to be kept full......

If the people maintained the responsibility to protect themselves, criminals would be too afraid to go out and victimize because the threat of consequences would be too great.

I am sure Men on this BB have been falsely arrested for DV and then either had charges dropped at arraignment or they were forced into the DV economy which the court system needs to keep full. The DV economy is full of, counselors, secretarys, advocates, shelters, so on and so on. Loyal Americans hold these jobs, it is LE and the court systems job to keep these programs full. Men need to be arrested and forced into these programs every day, or loyal Americans will loose their jobs.

The DUI economy is even bigger than the DV one. Lots of DUI's need to be caught and put into the system to keep all these loyal Americans employed.

What would happen if all the crime rates drastically went down?????? Like if private citizens decided to start protecting themselves.

A major part of the economy would collapse. There is a reason why the USA has more prisons and more people in them than any other country in the world. BECAUSE CIME AND PEOPLE COMITTING CRIMES is good for the econemy, it create it's own very large econemy, when being a criminal is a good business decision.

How could being a criminal not be a good business decision. The taxpayers pay for the criminal justice system which is in place to protect the criminals from the good people which are the "taxpayers". The criminal justice system allows criminals to operate with some level of protection because the " tax payers" have a false sense of security. The criminal justice system needs to keep the prisons full, the DV, DUI, substance abuse econemy rolling,,,, lots of house, car and cell phone payments need paying. Lots of people need to go to jail to make sure these bills get paid.

Rich,

I think you misunderstand a few things. Maybe more than a few things. The US is not a free society. We are first and foremost, a nation of law, beginning with the Constitution. A "free" society needs no constitution nor any laws. Might makes right in a free society, and you would be only as safe as your alliances make you. There would be no crime, because without laws, no laws can be violated. But there also would be no justice, because whoever forms the biggest gang would impose their rule(s) on anyone who is in the way.

As to the thread title, in the long run we either don't tolerate unconstitutional laws by reversing those deemed unconstitutional, and deciding that the other laws are constitutional. Because the Constitution doesn't anticipate every possible eventuality, our system of courts interprets the constitutionality of laws. The nuance of interpretation is lost on some people, usually folks who have a hard time dealing with the infinite shades of gray that inhabit the space between black and white. It seems like they are able to process information only as black or white, with no space in between.

Sg

I don't misunderstand.... It's actually that I understand what's happening, because of our desire to relinquish our responsibilities over to the government, they create solutions to problems which we demand, in doing so the govt subtly create laws under the premise that protecting life and property superceeds constitutionality, only at the demand of the public. Each time we allow this, they push a little further and get a little more bold in their destruction of our rights. All along we demanded it because being free takes too much work and we are lazy.

You don't get it, or maybe you do......

The law is written in a way to mislead you, it makes you believe the police are acting lawfully by the wording but infact the intent of the law is to make an arrest even if there is not probable cause.

When an officer knows the arrest he made will not stick but he does it because the law says he has to that is not a good faith arrest. When the arrest is made only to make sure the other half is safe that is not good enough reason to violate someones rights. Community care taking does not supercede the bill of rights or constitution.

I felt guilty almost every week for arresting someone that I know should not have gone to jail, because the law made me do it.

I have an idea. Don't beat on your wife, girlfriend, children etc and don't drink and drive. Problem(s) solved.

Sasquatch Genome Project, that's what all the results are.

Your not very smart...... I spelled it out as clear as possible, if you want to be stupid I can't help ya... It is what it is, the constitution and Bill of rights should never be compromised for any reason, loss of life and property is a reasonable consequence to upholding these ideals.