SO if I understand the HMS directive:
If an officer observes a tail-light broken and subsequently pulls a vehicle over; then notices a Latino in the drivers seat he must relieve the driver of any responsibility to the law.. BECAUSE he's Latino.. I think I'm getting it now... uh ...uh ...NEVER MIND......I'm wrong... I STILL don't get it!
OK, ok, NOW I got it! They should never racially profile UNLESS it is to ignore a federal law perpetrated by a minority... that's IT!!.. I understand COMPLETELY!!
Silly progressives! Always tryin' to trick me out of my Constitution!
I'm brown (hispanic), and I get picked on in these "Immigration checkpoints" which are much like DUI checkpoints... except they're not stopping everyone... they're stopping those that are brown.
I very much like my fourth amendment rights... probably just as much as you love your second amendment rights... and much like the liberals like their 1st amendment rights.
This is the depth of the conversation we're having here... He is racially profiling and subsequently violating the rights of a lot of Americans who look Hispanic.
Doesn't surprise me you're republitard.
George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.
"An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:
A checkpoint in the United States
* 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."
Sobriety checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Even though the US Supreme Court said sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, ten states still do not allow them: Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming."
- Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving - Laws
I was asking about a checkpoint in which officers are not performing sobriety checks. Sobriety checkpoints are a specific example, narrowly allowed for reasons of public safety. Creating a similar roadblock for the purpose of catching illegal immigrants would not be allowed under the ruling.