Rancher +Militia vs BLM,trouble on the range.(OT)

The guys in that video were very simple. They refused to talk and in at least one case, refused a request to search.

They didn't get in the way of any important police duties, and it is interesting how they eventually were allowed to go on their way. Apparently their supervisors have seen this before and have been briefed on how to react.

The law is settled that in Fourth Amendment terms a traffic stop entails a seizure of the driver “even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 (1979) ; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 809–810 (1996) . And although we have not, until today, squarely answered the question whether a passenger is also seized, we have said over and over in dicta that during a traffic stop an officer seizes everyone in the vehicle, not just the driver. See, e.g., Prouse, supra, at 653 (“[S]topping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments”); Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U. S. 1, 4, n. 3 (1980)

Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Courts have held that they are legal and unless and until someone is rich enough or desperate enough to go all the way to the supreme court about it, they are, by definition, constitutional.

drivers license checkpoints have been upheld

DUI checkpoints have in fact been upheld by the USSC

To pass muster under both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, DUI checkpoints must follow eight specific guidelines:

supervising officers must make all operational decisions;
the criteria for stopping motorists must be neutral;
the checkpoint must be reasonably located;
adequate safety precautions must be taken;
the checkpoint's time and duration should reflect “good judgment”;
the checkpoint must exhibit sufficient indicia of its official nature;
drivers should be detained a minimal amount of time; and
roadblocks should be publicly advertised in advance.

Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don't physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.

Being a smart ass with cops is never a good idea,

just want to say thanks to all of you, you are smart and terrific

It was the imminent drone attack that finally did it.

Paranoid rumors are not only common at gatherings of antigovernment “Patriots,” they’re practically the entire raison d’etre for them. So when a wild and paranoid rumor began circulating – that Attorney General Eric Holder was preparing a drone strike on the armed militiamen who gathered at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada – it unleashed a rift within the camp, which is brimming with fear, rage, testosterone and firearms.

Vicious infighting among those remaining at the camp – estimated at less than a hundred – broke out a little more than two weeks after heavily armed militiamen forced federal agents to back down from a planned roundup of Bundy’s illegally grazing cattle from public lands. After vowing to stay on and protect Bundy – who then stumbled on the national stage with an outpouring of racist commentary – the remaining “Patriots,” who have been raising fear levels among local residents, have begun feuding. And it has been revealing.

Apparently, someone within one of the major factions at the camp, the Oath Keepers, relayed word of the imminent drone attack to his leaders. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes responded by pulling his people out of what they called “the kill zone” (the area the supposed drone would be striking). When the other militiamen learned that the Oath Keepers had pulled out, they were outraged.

As you can see in the video below, the angry militiamen – led by a Montana “Patriot” named Ryan Payne, who has been acting as the spokesman for the militiamen at the ranch – held an impromptu gathering at the camp to discuss the situation. They openly talk about shooting Rhodes and other Oath Keepers leaders – because in their view, the Oath Keepers’ actions constituted “desertion” and “cowardice” – and describe how “the whole thing is falling apart over there.” At the end, they vote unanimously to oust the Oath Keepers, or at least its leadership, from the Bundy Ranch camp.

“Patriots” often talk about fighting what they see as a second Civil War in America soon. But as the militiamen at the Bundy Ranch are demonstrating, the civil wars they end up fighting are usually within their own ranks.

Let's say a police officer detains you (or at least attempts to), but it turns out the basis for his detention is illegal (as later determined by a court).
On the street, you do in fact resist by, say, just driving away.