In criminal defense and traffic defense much is made about the initial seizure or traffic stop. This is because if you fight the traffic stop and win, evidence is excluded which can lead to the entire case being dismissed. In regards to fighting a traffic stop, some people argue that there is a fundamental right to travel which is a defense to whatever violation of the traffic law that led to the seizure or the accusation itself. Essentially, the argument is that the fundamental constitutional right to travel invalidates whatever statute, law, rule or regulation the government is attempting to enforce or even the court's jurisdiction. In court, unrepresented defendants can be heard to argue things such as:
Roadblocks or "Roadside Safety Checkpoints" as they are referred to by law enforcement are legal only if the police follow the rules. Yes, the Constitution does still apply as do the laws of the State of Florida, even though it certainly does not feel like it or a particular law enforcement officer's god complex has raised its ugly head. In order to be legal, they have to have followed several steps including publishing an operational plan, communicating the plan and then actually complying with the operational plan.
Criminal and traffic defense can be a difficult area to practice. It seems that every time a constitutional protection might favor a person, the government finds a way to circumvent or change the law. A recent criminal traffic case of driving on a suspended license reminded me of a stop that the fact that it is a legal stop absolutely blows my mind.