DUI screening stop

[douglas393]

"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?

Not a lawyer, nor do I want to be one. In any case, I think despite our use of different terminology, that having a license to drive is something that can be taken away from you for many different reasons. Whether this makes it a right or a privilege, I will let others with more time to waste to determine that.

 

[JB1842]

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.

In my 10 years in law enforcement, it's the military veterans who are usually the more even tempered. The kids straight from college sometimes feel the need to prove themselves and get riled up very easy.

 

[douglas393]

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 their further detention."

I do not get it. If these DUI checkstops are so bad and such an infringement of your rights, and need to be eliminated then why are you not organizing a legal way to stop them. Complaining about them on an aviation forum provides both you and I with some cheap entertainment, but does nothing to solve the problem.

 

[comanchepilot]

Those interested in the technical legal rules from the Feds for Sobriety Checkpoints -

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/saturation_patrols/SatPats2002.pdf

 

[N801BH]

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. ........

Perfect excuse for user fees...
You and your wife wanna squirt out 10 kids... I say go for it... Here in Teton County Wyoming the cost to educate 1 kid for one year is over 5000 bucks.. ya want to have 10 kids... Pony up 50 grand... per year

 

[douglas393]

Perfect excuse for user fees...
You and your wife wanna squirt out 10 kids... I say go for it... Here in Teton County Wyoming the cost to educate 1 kid for one year is over 5000 bucks.. ya want to have 10 kids... Pony up 50 grand... per year

No argument from me, but we both know that is not ever going to happen.

 

[comanchepilot]

I am not against arresting intoxicated drivers. I think it is a great thing to do.

I am against wasting 80 man hours of what could be patrol time at a checkpoint - and inconveniencing 300 other people to catch 2 or 3

The average checkpoint results in one or two arrests per 8 hour period. Does anyone here who is an LEO seriously doubt that having 6 officers in cars on patrol in areas prone to drunk driving [like places with bars and restaurants after 9pm?] would not result in more arrests? Heck, putting a checkpoint at an exit from a mall with a Chilis or similar chain restaurant with a bar would net more arrests.

Checkpoints are designed to decondition the citizens to being stopped - and to proliferate the 'you have nothing to hide mentality.'

So you stop 300 cars and arrest 3 people. So you inconvenience and make 297 other drivers and their passengers feel like criminals and exactly what have you accomplished as to those 297? Zero. Zippo. you have turned half of them against law enforcement - because all 297 have the idea of 'I'm doing nothing wrong, why should I justify my conduct to you?"

Therein lies my reason for [respectfully] telling the cops [via my little wallet card] manning a checkpoint to stuff it. "I respectfully do not answer questions. I invoke my right to remain silent. I do not consent to searches of my person or property. I respectfully remind you of your oath to uphold the Constitution. I also took that oath no fewer than 8 times."

 

[comanchepilot]

I do not get it. If these DUI checkstops are so bad and such an infringement of your rights, and need to be eliminated then why are you not organizing a legal way to stop them. Complaining about them on an aviation forum provides both you and I with some cheap entertainment, but does nothing to solve the problem.

What do you think this is?

Moreover - the only way they will stop is when citizens stop cooperating. Or when police overstep their legal and moral authority so many times that government does something.

But these are 'third rail' for local politicians. These checkpoints are wonderful source of overtime for local police. They are not funded locally for the most part - so there is no incentive to not do them. The police attack anyone who challenges them publicly, claiming they are 'for drunk drivers and those to violate the law.'

See why they cannot be effectively challenged?

MADD, the local cops getting double time for working off shift, the police unions and all sorts of others including 'tough on crime' politicians are in the loop and can use simple and effective [and generally false] claims against people who cite higher minded ideas against the checkpoints . . .

 

[N801BH]

No argument from me, but we both know that is not ever going to happen.

Agreed....

Especially when we have undocumented illegals living 10 to a house that have ALL their anchor babies in the local school system and they pay ZERO in property taxes...

 

[Henning]

Agreed....

Especially when we have undocumented illegals living 10 to a house that have ALL their anchor babies in the local school system and they pay ZERO in property taxes...

But who else is going to do the yard work at those multi million dollar properties? BTW, renters always pay property tax through the owners. The property is always taxed.

 

[denverpilot]

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.

So the Deputy has photos of the Sheriff meeting his mistress, huh ? LOL

 

[dell30rb]

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.

I'll try to explain.

The DUI checkpoints detain citizens without probable cause (unconstitutional). Everyone driving on a public road is stopped and interrogated. And if the cops want to do a full blown search without your consent, they can literally pull probable cause for a search out of thin air with no consequences even if they are acting in bad faith. In fact they will face no consequences if they are wrong, but if they do inadvertently discover illegal substances or etc.. they are rewarded.


In your example, a fine upstanding citizen (you) calls and states that your neighbor told you his house is wired as a massive bomb, and further you believe he is mentally deficient as he believes aliens are trying to do nefarious things to him. The police will pursue a warrant, and the judge can see your statement himself, check your background and make a rational decision if your hearsay is a bunch of BS or if you are credible enough for him to issue a warrant. And with modern technology, this can be done in a very short period of time.

 

[douglas393]

What do you think this is?

not sure I understand what you are referring to.

Moreover - the only way they will stop is when citizens stop cooperating. Or when police overstep their legal and moral authority so many times that government does something.

But these are 'third rail' for local politicians. These checkpoints are wonderful source of overtime for local police. They are not funded locally for the most part - so there is no incentive to not do them. The police attack anyone who challenges them publicly, claiming they are 'for drunk drivers and those to violate the law.'

See why they cannot be effectively challenged?

MADD, the local cops getting double time for working off shift, the police unions and all sorts of others including 'tough on crime' politicians are in the loop and can use simple and effective [and generally false] claims against people who cite higher minded ideas against the checkpoints . . .

So are you afraid of trying to fight this because of penny ante propaganda that has made these checkpoints popular with the public? What happened to fighting something because it is wrong? If the founding fathers took this approach, Queen Elizabeth would probably be on our money, and not dead presidents, and Ben Franklin.

 

[nddons]

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.

You don't surrender any constitutional rights just because you obtain a drivers license and chose to exercise it on the roads.

 

[douglas393]

You don't surrender any constitutional rights just because you obtain a drivers license and chose to exercise it on the roads.

No you do not. I realize I am in the minority here, and it seems most of us think the police are the enemy and are out to get us, and will lie and be deceitful just to put more law abiding citizens in jail on trumped up charges, because remember everyone in jail is innocent, and just was found guilty because the system is against them.

I just do not see the harm that if I choose to enter a checkpoint(because there is supposed to be a way to avoid them) and the police officer asks me to roll down my window that is such a terrible infringement on my rights.

If you think the checkpoints should be abolished, then fight City Hall. Giving the cop a hard time, may get you some satisfaction if the cop decides not to give you a hard time back, but then again, if they are all dishonest as some have suggested, you are going to antagonize him more, and possibly worsen the situation. Just not my cup of tea.

 

[Corpsmaide]

There is a lot of Generalization going on here when it come to police officers. As adults you should be able to discriminate the differences. Like little Albert with the white mouse you all fear/dislike all LE. just know when you are displaying your dislike to LE it is nothing new for the officer. They get it from young, old, poor, rich, white, black, liberals, republicans, etc...

The officer should always act professionally even when getting challenged. If you have done something illegal, good chance discretion will be used and you will take a charge.

When I stop for seatbelts, if they are honest and fess up to not wearing. I usually say thank you for your honesty, I do not see much of that, and release them with a verbal.

If you want to argue, and carry on, you will be asked to press hard, makes five copies.

 

[Kelvin]

Yes or no...do you consider invoking rights as "uncooperative"?

There is a lot of Generalization going on here when it come to police officers. As adults you should be able to discriminate the differences. Like little Albert with the white mouse you all fear/dislike all LE. just know when you are displaying your dislike to LE it is nothing new for the officer. They get it from young, old, poor, rich, white, black, liberals, republicans, etc...

The officer should always act professionally even when getting challenged. If you have done something illegal, good chance discretion will be used and you will take a charge.

When I stop for seatbelts, if they are honest and fess up to not wearing. I usually say thank you for your honesty, I do not see much of that, and release them with a verbal.

If you want to argue, and carry on, you will be asked to press hard, makes five copies.

 

[denverpilot]

There is a lot of Generalization going on here when it come to police officers. As adults you should be able to discriminate the differences. Like little Albert with the white mouse you all fear/dislike all LE. just know when you are displaying your dislike to LE it is nothing new for the officer. They get it from young, old, poor, rich, white, black, liberals, republicans, etc...

The officer should always act professionally even when getting challenged. If you have done something illegal, good chance discretion will be used and you will take a charge.

When I stop for seatbelts, if they are honest and fess up to not wearing. I usually say thank you for your honesty, I do not see much of that, and release them with a verbal.

If you want to argue, and carry on, you will be asked to press hard, makes five copies.

There's a big difference between a traffic stop, for cause, and a DUI checkpoint, for no cause.

There's also a big difference between arguing after being stopped for cause, and simply shutting up at a barely legal checkpoint.

I doubt many here argue when stopped for cause. We probably don't say what speed we were going either, because we're not dumb.

Seatbelt is easy. It's either on or off. Not sure what you're saying about people being " honest " about it. If the thing isn't on their shoulder and they're sitting there saying it's on, please take them into custody for suspicion of drug use. LOL.

As far as fear/ dislike all LE... You guys need to clean up shop a bit. All it takes is one time being stopped by a psycho LE and you'll never treat all LE the same again. There's an officer somewhere in the City and County of Denver who has now cost the city $1.2M in excessive force lawsuits. Plural. Multiple lawsuits.

He was fired. The Union got him reinstated. Until you guys stop stuff like that from happening, which officer do I trust?

That can only be fixed from within. Need to put a leash on your unions...

 

[Henning]

There is a lot of Generalization going on here when it come to police officers. As adults you should be able to discriminate the differences. Like little Albert with the white mouse you all fear/dislike all LE. just know when you are displaying your dislike to LE it is nothing new for the officer. They get it from young, old, poor, rich, white, black, liberals, republicans, etc...

The officer should always act professionally even when getting challenged. If you have done something illegal, good chance discretion will be used and you will take a charge.

When I stop for seatbelts, if they are honest and fess up to not wearing. I usually say thank you for your honesty, I do not see much of that, and release them with a verbal.

If you want to argue, and carry on, you will be asked to press hard, makes five copies.

It's like anything else, you don't want people to hate cops, clean up your houses of out of control psycho cops with 'glory of the gun' issues, and test for steroid use. I was once tackled by cop and had a gun put to my head for the grand crime of running across a street. He imagined I had just robbed a liquor store (across the street from where I lived, it was closed and locked). The owners of the hotel it was attached to wouldn't file a complaint because there was no indication of a burglary/robbery. He took me to jail anyway where the intake deputy said "Are you NUTS? I can't take him, I'll get fired and sued, you better take him home." All the time he was ranting to his rookie partner, who was staring in disbelief from moment one, about me being the "enemy" and all "civilians" as the "enemy".

I grant you, not all cops are like this, but they are the ones that make themselves visible, and they are not exactly rare.

 

[JB1842]

One of the problems in law enforcement is that they have, for a lack of a better term, "dumbed down" the standards for hiring. In a push to diversify hiring, tests have been changed, standards have been lowered, and people who would have been booted from the academies in the past are given extra chances to pass what they failed. In my agency, a friend who is an academy instructor apoligized for sending us someone. They tried to boot this person from training, but was told to pass them no matter what. I haven't seen rampant steroid use, but then again I've only been drug tested by my agency during the hiring process. Not had to pee in a cup in the 10 years since.

 

[ChrisK]

One of the problems in law enforcement is that they have, for a lack of a better term, "dumbed down" the standards for hiring. In a push to diversify hiring, tests have been changed, standards have been lowered, and people who would have been booted from the academies in the past are given extra chances to pass what they failed. In my agency, a friend who is an academy instructor apoligized for sending us someone. They tried to boot this person from training, but was told to pass them no matter what. I haven't seen rampant steroid use, but then again I've only been drug tested by my agency during the hiring process. Not had to pee in a cup in the 10 years since.

I find this incomprehensible and difficult to believe. Not trying to attack you personally at all sir - but seriously? Where do you live again? This is happening in WI?

Standards are ... standards.

 

[Henning]

I find this incomprehensible and difficult to believe. Not trying to attack you personally at all sir - but seriously? Where do you live again? This is happening in WI?

Standards are ... standards.

Have you ever lived in Southern California? They haven't changed the standards there in a long time, psycho is the standard.

 

[JB1842]

I find this incomprehensible and difficult to believe. Not trying to attack you personally at all sir - but seriously? Where do you live again? This is happening in WI?

Standards are ... standards.

I'm a Fed, so I can't speak of local hiring. But I am dead serious when it comes to what I said. Some things I joke about, but when it comes to trusting others with my life on the street, that's not one of them. Maybe some of the standards are the same, but you are given more opportunities to achieve these standards. I don't want someone who took 10 chances to get the minimum score to qual with their pistol backing me up. We call refer to their shots as a ".40 shotgun". And I do live in WI, but I am Ohio born and bred.

 

[JeffDG]

From the police in this thread:

Is someone who refuses to answer questions at a DUI checkstop grounds for "reasonable suspicion"?

 

[Badger]

From the police in this thread:

Is someone who refuses to answer questions at a DUI checkstop grounds for "reasonable suspicion"?

you might get a different answer if an attorney answers

 

[JB1842]

From the police in this thread:

Is someone who refuses to answer questions at a DUI checkstop grounds for "reasonable suspicion"?

As a Fed, I've never done a DUI stop. But resonable suspicion is a very low threshold, so I would think a cop at the checkpoint would try dig deeper and ask questions in an attempt to find PC for the arrest, but that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[JeffDG]

As a Fed, I've never done a DUI stop. But resonable suspicion is a very low threshold, so I would think a cop at the checkpoint would try dig deeper and ask questions in an attempt to find PC for the arrest, but that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

OK, but if the subject simply refuses to answer any questions whatsoever. Can that refusal be used as a basis of reasonable suspicion?

 

[JGoodish]

I would agree that most LEOs are good, upstanding folks who are trying hard to enforce the laws and maintain order. However, none of them are perfect, a fact that is too often not considered by either them or the laws they are tasked with enforcing. Given their important role in out society, LEOs should be held to a higher standard of behavior than the general public, but that is usually not the case. Instead, many of them allow emotion to cloud their judgment while perhaps subcontiously expecting certain exceptions for their own behavior. There is far too much fraternization and "special privilege" with respect to the law given to LEOs, and that has to stop if LEOs expect a greater degree of respect from the public.

In the City of Pittsburgh (where the career-long LEO and former police chief was recently indicted), I witness the habitual problem of city officers who casually roll up to traffic signs or signals, turn on the lights, casually roll through, and then turn the lights off. I've witnessed officers who use fire lanes in front of retail stores as their own personal parking spaces while they go in and shop. I've watched officers in pursuit of traffic violations sporadically engage and disengage the lights as they tailgate other motorists and weave in and out of traffic at high speeds, creating confusion and a danger on the roadway. And it doesn't help LEO credibility when politicians use them to generate revenue, a practice which is often falsely denied.

I suspect that most good attorneys (and even good LEOs) would advise that folks admit nothing when stopped for a potential violation. The burden of proof is on the LEO, and anything you say that might lighten that burden isn't going to help you. Sure, if you're talking to a reasonable LEO you likely have nothing to fear, but in most cases, you just don't know to whom you're talking and what his motivations might be.

If LEOs want to have a higher degree of respect, they better raise the bar when it comes to their own collective behavior. I don't care who you are or what position you may hold, in the eyes of most folks, respect has to be earned, and can quickly be lost.


JKG

 

[JB1842]

OK, but if the subject simply refuses to answer any questions whatsoever. Can that refusal be used as a basis of reasonable suspicion?

Not sure. I think you could argue a DUI checkpoint as a voluntary stop, then you can tell the officer to pound sand; they have no legal right to question you and you have no obligation to answer. Since there is no PC to stop you in the first place, I think that the refusal to answer questions is not a cause for reasonable suspicion.

 

[Henning]

The people I see driving fastest on the roads are cops, even to the point of dangerously fast and barging traffic, this is without the lights on. This kind of behavior is one of the primary things that raises the ire of "the enemy".

 

[JeffDG]

Not sure. I think you could argue a DUI checkpoint as a voluntary stop, then you can tell the officer to pound sand; they have no legal right to question you and you have no obligation to answer. Since there is no PC to stop you in the first place, I think that the refusal to answer questions is not a cause for reasonable suspicion.

So, if you have probable cause to detain someone, they are then required to answer your questions?

 

[N801BH]

The people I see driving fastest on the roads are cops, even to the point of dangerously fast and barging traffic, this is without the lights on. This kind of behavior is one of the primary things that raises the ire of "the enemy".

Good point... Down where you live a femaleFHP officer pulled over a a Broward County deputy for speeding.. it was on camera..... I wonder if he got off after the public outcry dies down ??

 

[JB1842]

So, if you have probable cause to detain someone, they are then required to answer your questions?

Depends on the questions. Questions on name, date of birth, address, etc., can be asked and answered. If they waive their Miranda Right's they can answer. There is a lot of case law pertaining to what can be asked and answered and the cirumstances surrounding it.

 

[alaskaflyer]

In no state do the police need probable cause to detain someone, the standard is lower. You need probable cause to arrest someone.

*Back to the regularly-scheduled arguments*

And I don't know about California where Comanchepilot practices, but in most other jurisdictions...just because an officer has the requisite probable cause to request a sample for DUI testing doesn't mean he *has* to arrest you before asking/demanding you submit to one. That would fly in the face (IMO) of SCOTUS precedent, no one is entitled to be arrested at any particular point in a case just because an officer can :wink2: . You may be detained until the process is completed and the officer may choose whether to arrest you at the end, or not, depending on the results of the test, circumstances, whatever - even though you were not free to leave up until that point.

 

[N801BH]

In no state do the police need probable cause to detain someone, the standard is lower. You need probable cause to arrest someone.

Now.. That statement alone is scary...

 

[comanchepilot]

I find this incomprehensible and difficult to believe. Not trying to attack you personally at all sir - but seriously? Where do you live again? This is happening in WI?

Standards are ... standards.

Go google: "Too Smart Police Connecticut"

Its not the only one - but the easiest one to find . . .

 

[JB1842]

Now.. That statement alone is scary...

Depends on the detention. We detain all the people who are in house when we execute an arrest warrant. That usually means to sit on the couch until we are done. Detention doesn't always mean handcuffs and sitting in the back of a squar car.

 

[JB1842]

Go google: "Too Smart Police Connecticut"

Its not the only one - but the easiest one to find . . .

Didn't google it, but isn't that the guy with advanced degrees who couldn't get hired by anybody?

 

[N801BH]

Depends on the detention. We detain all the people who are in house when we execute an arrest warrant. That usually means to sit on the couch until we are done. Detention doesn't always mean handcuffs and sitting in the back of a squar car.

An arrest warrant on a house is a FAR cry from a random DUI screening stop..

 

[alaskaflyer]

Now.. That statement alone is scary...

Well, there *is* a standard, it just isn't the higher bar of probable cause; and if there isn't an arrest, the detention is time-limited depending on the continuing circumstances - like a reasonably-timed investigation of a possible DUI case, or as mentioned above, a service of a warrant at a house.