DUI screening stop

[DJTorrente]

Depends. In Wisconsin, if you are deer hunting with a rifle in a shotgun only zone, then yes, they can stop you and detain you for a firearm-related activity.

How about for a convenience store that was stuck up with a saturday night special three counties away?

The point is that fishing tackle is only probable cause that the possessor was fishing; not that they were fishing illegally. It might support a request to produce a fishing license; not a non-consentual search of the boat.

 

[JeffDG]

I disagree. The ends do not justify the means. And when I think about the terrible sacrifices made by veterans of our armed forces to defend our freedoms the thought of "spending a half hour playing patsy with the cops" seems like a really small price to pay. If more of us were willing to slightly inconvenience ourselves to defend our freedoms, minor autocratic authorities would have more trouble arbitrarily relinquishing us of them.

 

[comanchepilot]

As for me, I have nothing against speed traps. You have to actually do something wrong to get stopped.

Well. . . .not according to corpsmaide

 

[comanchepilot]

Douglas - in your world - in the video - should the officer face any discipline for wildly violating the videotapers rights? If so, what?

 

[Kelvin]

I went through two in ten minutes a few weeks ago.

At the first one, the cop asked me for my registration...a guy on a moped can buzzing into the picture and everyone had a belly laugh over the comments the cop made and we were sent on our way.

I was stopped at a second one that was the full blown deal...mobile courthouse and all...The cop asked me for my registration only...then proceeded to ask me questions like was I going home? where was I coming from? and the normal chit chat

I simply said one thing to him and left it right there;

Sir I do not answer questions such as the ones you are asking.

The look of disbelief on his face was priceless...followed by a smile and what I took as an acknowledgement of a good way to deal with the situation. He more than got my point...all handled professionally and politely by both the officer and me.

The cop in the video above is the problem. He is an out of control prick that really needs to be "re-educated".

You are right that the cops handled this in less then an appropriate fashion, and I am not trying to defend them as much as saying if you want to spend half an hour playing patsy with cops by all means give them a hard time at the next DUI check point you go through. For me, it is easier to just deal with it as in inconvenience. I have gone through at least four of five of them, and each time it was all of 30 seconds, and no ego trips or power struggles. I can certainly be a jacka$$ and give the cops a hard time and play dime store lawyer, but at the end of the day, I will be going on my way, and by cooperating and playing the game with them I will lose nothing and gain a lot. I realize that some of us feel this is a terrible violation of our civil rights, but in the grand scheme of things I am not too sure it is as terrible as it seems, and to tell you the truth if doing these checkpoints prevents even one unnecessary DUI death or injury, then so much the better.

 

[JB1842]

How about for a convenience store that was stuck up with a saturday night special three counties away?

The point is that fishing tackle is only probable cause that the possessor was fishing; not that they were fishing illegally. It might support a request to produce a fishing license; not a non-consentual search of the boat.

You are comparing apples to oranges. But under your example, there would not be any PC for the warden to check. But you can be in violation of certain laws for possession of fishing tackle. I think we can all agree that the laws we have written sometimes don't make sense, or they are often interpretted (sp?) differently. That's why there are lawyers and appeals courts, etc.

 

[FWTxPilot]

You have nothing to hide. So make a friend.

And next thing you know your house is fair game as well... give an inch, they'll take a mile. I respect the law and I respect law enforcement officers, but I also feel that I shouldn't have to prove that I have nothing to hide. We shouldn't let them scare us into believing we can't say no to their demands, especially if we know we have done nothing wrong. You don't have to be a jerk or smarta**, just politely refuse and state why.

 

[dell30rb]

This happened not too long ago about an hour from me: http://youtu.be/w-WMn_zHCVo Scary stuff!!

The officer who commanded the dog to give a false alert should be in a federal prison. That was pretty blatant.

 

[Kelvin]

The officer who commanded the dog to give a false alert should be in a federal prison. That was pretty blatant.

Him and the original officer who admitted the guy was innocent and knew his rights...

 

[Henning]

Him and the original officer who admitted the guy was innocent and knew his rights...

He should lose a stripe, take the cut in pay and 30 days unpaid if it's his first offense. If it's his second, he should be fired.

 

[Noah Werka]

Interesting take on DUI checkpoints:

What to do at a DUI roadblock

The DUI/DWI main page for the National Motorist Association is

HERE

Noah W

 

[Alexb2000]

They violate the fourth amendment of the Constitution. If they weren't against the law I wouldn't mind. But they are.

This argument can easily be extended. Why shouldn't police have the right to stop and search you at any time? Why shouldn't they have the right to just barge into your house and conduct a search? It would certainly make their job easier.

Problem is I'm not interested in making the job easier for LEOs. In a free society the job of an LEO is more difficult. Too bad, it's the price you pay for freedom. That's why it's written into our highest law.

The trampling of the fourth and fifth amendment by law enforcement agencies has nothing to do with someone being responsible for their own actions.

I see your point. It's OK to want to defend freedoms as long as when someone exercises them in a way that affects you, you're OK with that too.

For example: When your paranoid neighbor tells you he has wired his house with 5000lbs. of ammonium nitrate mixed with diesel and he'll set it off the next time those aliens try and anal probe him. Do you tell your family, that's his right to have those materials in his house without being questioned by the authorities. If he has made a bomb we need to be worried about his second amendment rights more than our own lives. No point in calling the police, the 4th protects him from having anyone look for it. We just won't buy green bananas as long as we live here.

 

[dell30rb]

No point in calling the police, the 4th protects him from having anyone look for it.

No, the 4th protects him from unreasonable search and seizure. If the police have credible witness testimony (yours) that the house is wired up as a weapon of mass destruction that could take out the whole block, they can easily and quickly obtain a warrant to search the home.

The difference between your aliens and anus example and a DUI checkpoint is that the police need some probable cause to search the home.

 

[JeffDG]

No, the 4th protects him from unreasonable search and seizure. If the police have credible witness testimony (yours) that the house is wired up as a bomb that could take out the whole block, they can easily and quickly obtain a warrant to search the home.

This is more akin to the police saying "Hey, some guy wired his house up as a bomb. You're not hiding anything, right? We can come look around, right?"

 

[Johann]

No, the 4th protects him from unreasonable search and seizure. If the police have credible witness testimony (yours) that the house is wired up as a bomb that could take out the whole block, they can easily and quickly obtain a warrant to search the home.

Right, it's as if you got stopped at a checkpoint and your passengers were drunk and bragging about how many shots you all took and how wasted the driver is. That would give the police a reason to suspect and investigate further.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

realize that some of us feel this is a terrible violation of our civil rights, but in the grand scheme of things I am not too sure it is as terrible as it seems, and to tell you the truth if doing these checkpoints prevents even one unnecessary DUI death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if requiring a government issued breathalyzer test prior to flying prevents even one unnecessary alcohol related aviation death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if requiring our GPS enabled smartphones to automatically report each and every motor vehicle speed violation to the authorities and our insurance companies prevents even one unnecessary speeding death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if eliminating the private ownership of firearms prevents even one unnecessary gun related death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if requiring random, middle of the night searches of our private homes prevents even one unnecessary contraband related death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if by having the TSA conduct mandatory strip and body cavity searches of all passengers prior to boarding an aircraft prevents even one unnecessary terrorist related death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if preventing participation in hobbies, activities, and airshows that society may consider to be dangerous to participants or spectators prevents even one unnecessary death or injury, then so much the better.


Shall I continue???

 

[douglas393]

Douglas - in your world - in the video - should the officer face any discipline for wildly violating the videotapers rights? If so, what?

"In my world"!!!! This is not my world, and what I have to say or think has very little to do with what happens. Anyhow, yes I think the officer handled the situation very poorly, and deserves to be punished as well. He acted very unprofessionally, and obviously (at least to me) lost his cool. As to his punishment, I would assume there are laws that dictate that and he should be held accountable.

My point is that DUI checkpoints have been declared legal at least in some states, and if we assume that cop is going to lie(which I think is a gross exaggeration) ****ing him off more is just going to make the situation worse. Whether or not I agree with the concept of DUI checkpoints is really not the point. If you do not agree with them, and think they are wrong, there are much better ways to protest against them then pulling this type of crap with the cop. Do you really think he wants to be there, and do you really think giving him a hard time is going to stop the practice. If you disagree with them, and want them to stop, then contact your state legislator, or complain to your local police department, or do something like that. Giving the cop a hard time is really not going to accomplish anything except possibly tee him off, and certainly tee of the line of people being held up behind you because of your antics. If you feel the cop is violating your rights, then file a lawsuit against him and the department. You want to try to give him a hard time, hey its your right, but when you get the reaction you were looking for, do not complain the cop was not being nice to you. It is like being mad at the rattlesnake for biting you after you pulled its tail once too often.

 

[douglas393]

... and if requiring a government issued breathalyzer test prior to flying prevents even one unnecessary alcohol related aviation death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if requiring our GPS enabled smartphones to automatically report each and every motor vehicle speed violation to the authorities and our insurance companies prevents even one unnecessary speeding death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if eliminating the private ownership of firearms prevents even one unnecessary gun related death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if requiring random, middle of the night searches of our private homes prevents even one unnecessary contraband related death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if by having the TSA conduct mandatory strip and body cavity searches of all passengers prior to boarding an aircraft prevents even one unnecessary terrorist related death or injury, then so much the better.

... and if preventing participation in hobbies, activities, and airshows that society may consider to be dangerous to participants or spectators prevents even one unnecessary death or injury, then so much the better.


Shall I continue???

Continue all you want, but DUI checkpoints when done appropriately give you a way to avoid them, so if you do not want to do it avoid it. We can play the absurb analogy, and if game all day long, but DUI checkpoints seems like small potatoes compared to some of the rights we have given up since 2001 and seem to complain about a lot less.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Do you really think he wants to be there, and do you really think giving him a hard time is going to stop the practice.

Why wouldn't he want to be there? He is getting paid to perform that activity.

Not only that, he may have a performance metric or recognition that is linked to the number of citations issued.

Law enforcement officers honored for most DUI arrests

NAPERVILLE TOPS POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN DUI ARRESTS

Officer James Zirpolo got 177 drunken drivers off the road last year, making him “Top Arresting Officer” for 2012

Whiteside leads other departments in DUI arrests

 

[dell30rb]

" Do you really think he wants to be there, and do you really think giving him a hard time is going to stop the practice. If you disagree with them, and want them to stop, then contact your state legislator, or complain to your local police department, or do something like that.

Frankly I thought the kid in the video acted appropriately, did not raise his voice or lose his temper with the officer or give the officer a hard time. At all. If anything, the officer at the beginning flipped his **** for no good reason.

Further, the kid was detained illegally and then the officers forced a search on his vehicle in violation of federal law by blatantly making the dog signal on his car when no drugs were present.

And you're telling me the officers were the ones who got a raw deal here?

Finally, if the poor conduct of the officers and their blatant and willing disregard for this citizen's rights were not caught on video would any court or legislator believe him or take notice? NO WAY!!! This guy did all of us a favor.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Continue all you want, but DUI checkpoints when done appropriately give you a way to avoid them, so if you do not want to do it avoid it. We can play the absurb analogy, and if game all day long, but DUI checkpoints seems like small potatoes compared to some of the rights we have given up since 2001 and seem to complain about a lot less.

Absurd? Really?

Oh, and ask this prosecutor if he was able to avoid the small potatoes checkpoint:

http://blog.sandiegoduihelp.com/2005/12/san-diego-dui-news-prosecutor-arrested.html

You are correct. There are a lot of rights that continue to be given up. Why beat down those who feel empowered to stand up for any one of them? We should be supporting them.

When an officer oversteps his jurisdiction or authority when challenged by a citizen who doesn't want to play the game that given day, we all suffer.

 

[PPC1052]

The irony is that in asserting his rights the way he did, he pretty much showed the officers that he wasn't intoxicated. But the officers' egos were hurt because they didn't comply with their demands. They forgot why they were there-- to arrest drunks; not to harrass lawful citizens, even if the officers think that citizent is an *******.

 

[JeffDG]

Why wouldn't he want to be there? He is getting paid to perform that activity.

Not only that, he may have a performance metric or recognition that is linked to the number of citations issued.

Law enforcement officers honored for most DUI arrests

NAPERVILLE TOPS POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN DUI ARRESTS

Officer James Zirpolo got 177 drunken drivers off the road last year, making him “Top Arresting Officer” for 2012

Whiteside leads other departments in DUI arrests

And all the time spent jerking around some guy who doesn't "respect my authoritay" means fewer citations written for him.

 

[dell30rb]

Well, regarding the video referenced earlier. I sent it to my brother, apparently he has already seen it. This is what he said back.

"This was in Murfreesboro, Jake got searched 2 days ago for no reason and had the dogs called. they scratched up his car and held him up for over an hour. Of course to find nothing. Getting stupid out here"

 

[Kelvin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjIAPZMGcdI&feature=player_embedded

Here is just another example of the same thing with a different zip code...

 

[steingar]

The denouement of the video posted earlier:

The most troubling aspect is the officer's supervisor feels the officers did nothing at all wrong. Welcome to Police State Amerika.

 

[Kelvin]

Supervisor...you mean the Sheriff...

UFB

The denouement of the video posted earlier:

The most troubling aspect is the officer's supervisor feels the officers did nothing at all wrong. Welcome to Police State Amerika.

 

[nddons]

I disagree. The ends do not justify the means. And when I think about the terrible sacrifices made by veterans of our armed forces to defend our freedoms the thought of "spending a half hour playing patsy with the cops" seems like a really small price to pay. If more of us were willing to slightly inconvenience ourselves to defend our freedoms, minor autocratic authorities would have more trouble arbitrarily relinquishing us of them.

Spot on. We've discussed in another thread the increased militarization of even the smallest municipal police departments, and the out of control power trips that many LEOs seem to be suffering from. Related? Very possibly.

This is one very dangerous slippery slope.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Spot on. We've discussed in another thread the increased militarization of even the smallest municipal police departments, and the out of control power trips that many LEOs seem to be suffering from. Related? Very possibly.

This is one very dangerous slippery slope.

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[douglas393]

Spot on. We've discussed in another thread the increased militarization of even the smallest municipal police departments, and the out of control power trips that many LEOs seem to be suffering from. Related? Very possibly.

This is one very dangerous slippery slope.

To all that disagree with me that is fine. I understand where you are coming from. Believe me I have been on the receiving end of inappropriate police actions as well. Sure there are dishonest police out there, and Ihave fought and lost a number of tickets over the years because of it. However, holding a grudge does not do me any good, and I got over it. However, at the end of the day, I personally think we are better with them then without. I just feel that the time and the place to express your discontent with the system is not at the time of the checkpoint or to the officer. Most of the police I know say they would prefer not to do the checkpoints, but this is what they are told they have to do. I personally think that while not perfect, most police officers do more good than bad. Whether or not the police was right in this individual situation I have my own opinions, but the argument is not whether or not the kid was right or the cop was right, but how to end this practice. The cop has as much control to stop the checkpoint as does the bagger at my local supermarket. You want them stopped then start a petition, call your local police department, complain to the state, protest peacefully, whatever. Killing the messenger does not accomplish anything. You do not want to give information to a police officer because you feel he is violating your rights, by all means thats your right, but realize that if as comanchepilot says all cops are dishonest and out to get you, then they will.

In any case, the last time I checked driving is a privelege, and not a right, and can be taken away from you should the state desire. Whether or not that is right, does not seem to matter.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

The cop has as much control to stop the checkpoint as does the bagger at my local supermarket.

This is how a responsible LEO can stop the nonsense and handle the same situation that was posted earlier. It is within his/her control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoBawyf8o0c

 

[Henning]

The real scary thing is how many cops abuse steroids. Cop one in the video was exhibiting signs of 'roid rage'.

 

[Alexb2000]

No, the 4th protects him from unreasonable search and seizure. If the police have credible witness testimony (yours) that the house is wired up as a weapon of mass destruction that could take out the whole block, they can easily and quickly obtain a warrant to search the home.

The difference between your aliens and anus example and a DUI checkpoint is that the police need some probable cause to search the home.

I made a silly example just to add some levity, fail.

It does seem strange that you find a DUI screening on a public unconstitutional, but have no problem with a home search warrant based purely on hearsay.

 

[Jim Logajan]

In any case, the last time I checked driving is a privelege, and not a right, and can be taken away from you should the state desire.

You're checking the wrong sources. There are court decisions that state that driving is a right, not a privilege. Publicly funded roads are a public commons that all have a right of access to, but states are authorized to regulate their usage in the interest of public safety.

 

[douglas393]

You're checking the wrong sources. There are court decisions that state that driving is a right, not a privilege. Publicly funded roads are a public commons that all have a right of access to, but states are authorized to regulate their usage in the interest of public safety.

From what I have read on your own land you have the right to do whatever you want with a car, however, driving on publically funded roads and getting a license to drive a car on those roads is not a right, but is a privilege that can be taken away from you.

 

[N801BH]

From what I have read on your own land you have the right to do whatever you want with a car, however, driving on publically funded roads and getting a license to drive a car on those roads is not a right, but is a privilege that can be taken away from you.

Kool.....

Can the US citizen request and receive a rebate on his/her taxes for not being able to use those roads he/she paid for ???

 

[Jim Logajan]

From what I have read on your own land you have the right to do whatever you want with a car, however, driving on publically funded roads and getting a license to drive a car on those roads is not a right, but is a privilege that can be taken away from you.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

Though it would not be hard to find court cases where the opposite is claimed. Suffice to say that the issue of "right" vs "privilege" is not settled. It isn't even clear to me that the courts have a remotely common meaning for "privilege" with regard to legal consequences. One can lose a right if convicted of a crime; presumably that means a "privilege" can be lost at the whim of state action. In the latter case we hardly need involve cops at all, right?

 

[douglas393]

Kool.....

Can the US citizen request and receive a rebate on his/her taxes for not being able to use those roads he/she paid for ???

No, but neither can I get a rebate on my taxes for schools I nor my family uses, or for a host of other things I pay for with my taxes that I do not use. However, all because you cannot legally drive on a road because you do not have a license does not mean you are not using that road. You get mail, you get food, you go to the store, all that requires the use of roads. So you are still able to use those roads even if you do not drive on them.

 

[comanchepilot]

Continue all you want, but DUI checkpoints when done appropriately give you a way to avoid them, so if you do not want to do it avoid it. We can play the absurb analogy, and if game all day long, but DUI checkpoints seems like small potatoes compared to some of the rights we have given up since 2001 and seem to complain about a lot less.

The key is the 'appropiately operated checkpoint,' now, isn't it?

What is a properly operated checkpoint? Do you know? So how do you know if the checkpoint is being properly operated? Because it is only not a violation of your rights if it is properly operated . . .

In California [and practically, in all other states because of caselaw ruling that these rules are a good guideline] - a DUI ceckpoint should have:

• 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.

So - if your local PD always has the checkpoint in the same location - as does ours - you have the ability to challenge the legality of the stop.

All of that becomes relevant - but you know what is missing?

"The officer shall respond to a request of the driver to the reasons and nature of any further detention."

 

[Doggtyred]

Just be thankful that they are out there being proactive and getting drunks/drugs/wanteds off the street. Those you saw in cuffs could have been the ones who kill you or your loved ones that night.

Part of me wants to agree with you...

The other part is... certain advocacy groups have lobbied and pushed and gotten the legal limit for DWI pushed down to the point that one may not truly be impaired.

In the old days, when you got popped for .12 - .15 the average person was either dead to rights drunk, or significantly impaired.

Nowadays they are citing at 0.08 and lower, which casts a wider net, and is not hard to exceed on a typical 3 drink night.


Now.. on the flip side... the average person popped for their first DWI usually has done it (been at that level of "impairment" before multiple times.. 5 or more.. before they finally trip up and end up in the system.