Citizen Arrested at Suspicionless Checkpoint for Not Obeying Petty Commands

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kurt Nimmo
May 1, 2013

In Georgia, a citizen was arrested last month at an unconstitutional checkpoint for refusing to obey cops demanding he fully roll down his car window. The man was arrested for “obstructing justice,” in other words for not completely submitting to domination and submission procedures the state now requires as it wantonly violates the Fourth Amendment.

WJBF-TV ABC 6 Augusta-Aiken News, Weather, Sports

“I think in this instance the guy didn’t want to let the window down, didn’t want to talk to the officer and didn’t want to give him the information. So when you don’t give the information you can be charged with obstruction on a traffic stop,” Lt. Amelio Lamkin of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office told WJBF in Augusta, Georgia.

The TV station instructed citizens to obey all orders given by cops violating the Constitution. “If you come to a [Fourth Amendment violating] road block, police say the best thing to do is to roll down your window all the way, put both of your hands on the steering wheel, and if you have to look inside of your glove box, make sure you let the officer know that before you do so,” Mike Miller advised.

The victim in this case, James Eades of Augusta, said suspicionless roadblocks are about revenue generation. “It’s obviously to cite and arrest as many people as possible, and to raise as much revenue as possible,” he said.

The state’s men (and a couple women) in black, otherwise known as the Supreme Court, have ruled that suspicionless revenue-generating roadblocks are not unconstitutional. In the case of Michigan v. Sitz (496 U.S. 444), the Supremes reviewed a decision handed down by the Michigan Supreme Court ruling that drunk driving roadblocks are unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, the handpicked Supremes reversed the Michigan court ruling and held that roadblocks are constitutionally permissible.

The “Highest Court in the Land” decided there is something called a “DUI Exception” to the Fourth Amendment. It allows cops to ignore probable cause – for the good of the community and lobbyists at MADD.

Back in the day, the Jeffersonians knew that if the federal government ever became the final arbiter of the law, tyranny would follow in due course.

“The so-called system of checks and balances is a farce and a fraud,” writes Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “the reality is that all three branches of the federal government work together to conspire against the taxpayers for the benefit of the state and all of its appendages.”

Marshall DeRosa was spot-on when he wrote that the Supreme Court is “a facilitator of the national ruling class’s hegemony over the constitutional rights of the States.” The Supreme Court, however, also serves as an enabler for state and local governments when they want to engage in shakedowns and scams designed to fleece the American people and enlarge a privatized prison-industrial complex.

Thankfully, more Americans than ever are now aware that government is a leech on the public. James Eades of Augusta pointed this out in the news video above and, remarkably, the local news station didn’t edit his comment pointing out that the purpose of unconstitutional and suspicionless checkpoints is to generate revenue for government, not public safety, as the police claim.


  1. “The “Highest Court in the Land” decided there is something called a “DUI Exception” to the Fourth Amendment.”

    The supremely arrogant supremes became the way they are thanks to a John Adams nominee for chief justice, John Marshall of Richmond, Va. In 1929, some scalawags erected a hotel in Richmond and named it after the statist turd, the “Hotel John Marshall”

    Fittingly, it’s now a high-rise fleabag shunned by locals and given horrid reviews online:

  2. I instantly thought of eric’s stance on things when I read this. I also wondered if that was a reader of EPA?

    “… “If you come to a [Fourth Amendment violating] road block, police say the best thing to do is to roll down your window all the way…”

    This indicates to me the guy had his window rolled down a little, but not enough to satisfy our overlords.
    You’re only submitting if your entire belly is visible, otherwise… you’re aggressing and a threat to officer safety?

    The bit about another guy requiring a goon to explain to the other goon how the back window didn’t roll down all the way was just,… I don’t know: funny/pathetic/ridiculous/and a sign of the times?

    I guess we know what’s going to happen when we don’t roll our windows down all the way?

    Do cops require motorcyclist to flip up their visors on their helmets or make them take them off? Just wondering. Bizarro World is so strange.

    I wonder what would happen if I was wearing a helmet while driving? Would they force me to remove it? Ticket me for wearing a mask in public? I’m half tempted to test it out just for kicks. Yikes! Did I just have a subversive thought? It must be from Philosophical Intoxication? Quick, dial 9 freaking one one like a good Soviet:

    • My guess is that the need for the window to be rolled down all the way is a procedural one. Anyone who has been through one of these “safety checkpoints” will undoubtedly remember that the first thing they do is shove a “flashlight” in your face.

      This is the “flashlight” they use:

      Without close proximity to the subject’s mouth or access to the vehicle’s interior, it probably won’t get an accurate reading.

      Something I don’t get about these things is that in most states, if you refuse a breath test, your license can be automatically suspended and they can go so far as to call in the vampires and forcibly take blood from you. With these things, you’re not even given a choice about taking the breath test. That seems to skirt along the boundary of legality, but that rarely has stopped officials seeking to make a profit.

      • The whole DUI routine has to be played out to rules and details few people outside the cops and defense lawyers (and of course judges) understand.

        In the state where I live and I understand most but not all states, the tests that carry penalties for refusing are the breath test at the station or the blood test. The ones taken when under arrest. To get there they must first have probable cause.

        The portable breath units are like the tests regarding standing on one leg and reciting the alphabet backwards, they are to build probable cause when it does not already exist. To get from suspicion to cause. Thus they like all field sobriety tests can be refused without penalty. (your state may vary, I’m not a lawyer, etc and so forth)

        I have decided that I will not take field sobriety tests if they are ever asked/demanded of me. They are like drug dogs. Pseudo-scientific BS where the sole interpretation is made by the cop. He can arrest me if has probable cause but I won’t be giving it to him via this stage play.

      • In theory, such a “sniffer”, IF transparent in its application and administration, (i.e., it’s calibrated and the results record) would be superior to the Officer’s subject claim, “I smell alcohol” (or weed). If an attached camera is rolling, it would at least record for the record that an indication of alcohol in the proximity of the subject’s mouth was recorded. Of course, this would only substantiate reasonable suspicion to detain for further investigation, it could NOT be construed as evidence of impairment of itself. No less than the handheld device, commonly known as the PAST, that officers will induce the motorist to “blow”, that, likewise, is a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST, not THE evidentiary test, which is supposed to be administered under more rigorous standards (but screwups are common and a good DUI attorney can use them to get them tossed from the case, effectively winning it).

        Any FST is not a genuine “test”, generally IF the officer is being sincere, (s)he already believes you may be impaired and is using them to bolster his/her case to establish probable cause to effect the DUI arrest, which likely the cop has ALREADY decided to do. Attorneys generally advise refusal of FSTs as they are INTENDED to “fail”!

        As for the “drug dog”, that’s even more BS. Yes, the olfactory senses of a canine are well above even the most sensitive of humans. However, as dogs, outside the fictional Brian Griffin of “Family Guy” don’t articulate, all they can do is exhibit a TRAINED behavior, i.e., “alert”, IF they detect the targeted substance. There are several problems with this, the biggest one being the RELATIONSHIP of the dog to its handler, a POLICEMAN. Dogs are inherently gregarious and, once they bond with a human, typically try to please him, and like a small child, do things that gives some form of immediate gratification, such as a doggy treat, or a toy, or even some affection. Even if the handler doesn’t intentionally “cue” the animal, the dog will recognize, after enough simulated, let alone real-life field encounters, what its handler expects, and act accordingly. This leads to a very high level of “False” alerts, which was revealed in a 2014 UC Davis study, where the tested dogs “alerted” 57 percent of the time…the trouble is, ALL the samples were “false”!

        Given the imperative that states and municipalities cite to enforce DUI laws, and, of course, the crap ton of fines and other money streams (ignition interlocks, alcohol counseling, higher insurance, and so on…) that result, the police aren’t going to be called into question if they arrest you for DUI, or crowbar open your trunk after a dog “alerts” and rifle through it, and you turn out to be sober, or they find “nothing”…where it gets really bad is that in some cases, the police WILL “find” something, and then you’re fucked.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here