Rights at Police Stops

[FastEddieB]

Absent some reasonable suspicion, however, the police do not have the power to detail an individual.

Just saying it does not make it so.

Agree or not, right now the courts have decided that DUI checkpoints are legal, if conducted properly. And that drivers who have done exactly nothing wrong may be detained long enough to conduct the check.

That may change, and maybe it should, but right now it's the law of the land.

 

[JeffDG]

Just saying it does not make it so.

Agree or not, right now the courts have decided that DUI checkpoints are legal, if conducted properly. And that drivers who have done exactly nothing wrong may be detained long enough to conduct the check.

That may change, and maybe it should, but right now it's the law of the land.

Yes, they can be stopped, but that does not trigger any of the other items that require reasonable suspicion, like the "stop and frisk" authority. A DUI checkpoint has been upheld as not being a "detention". If it were a detention it would require reasonable suspicion.

I've yet to see anyone cite legal authority for the officer's demand to roll the window down further. The window was lowered sufficiently to meet the requirements of the stop: providing documentation and communicating with the officer. Beyond that, I'd want to see some lawful authority for further demands, otherwise, they're requests.

A DUI check is different than a traffic stop. In a traffic stop, you need to have reasonable suspicion before pulling the person over, so that triggers a lot of rights for an officer right there. A DUI stop is not based on reasonable suspicion, and as such, those rights do not attach.

 

[kevin7500]

Does anyone here honestly believe that window up vs window down would make NO difference in officer safety in this scenario?

There are over 15,000,000 traffic stops annually which result in less than 10 office deaths from shooting. I think the risk is severely exaggerated.

 

[JeffDG]

There are over 15,000,000 traffic stops annually which result in less than 10 office deaths from shooting. I think the risk is severely exaggerated.

A quick search of "dui checkpoint shooting" turned up lots of cops shooting at motorists, but no motorists shooting at cops...

"Every cop turned around and started unloading like super trigger happy as if their training was coming into full effect and they were being able to utilize it," said Cleerdin. "Everybody was just blasting this car to pieces. It was absolutely terrifying."http://www.wect.com/story/22605650/eyewitnesses-describe-the-terror-of-dui-checkpoint-shooting

"PBSO: Man shot at DUI checkpoint still in hospital | www ..."
"Sheriff: man fleeing dui checkpoint gets shot by cops - WPEC-TV 12"
"Man shot by Boynton Beach officer during DUI patrol in Royal Palm ..."

 

[ClimbnSink]

There are over 15,000,000 traffic stops annually which result in less than 10 office deaths from shooting. I think the risk is severely exaggerated.

Gee that sure suggests cops are a bunch of scaredy pants.

 

[Norman]

In those nine months in the academy, we all got killed. Repeatedly. By young guys, old guys, hot chicks, even old ladies and little kids.

Here's an invitation. Come to N GA. We'll simulate a traffic stop. I'll have a weapon concealed under my left leg. My starting position will be with both hands on the wheel, but with the window down as far as in the video.

We'll see if I can get to my gun and (simulated) fire through the window before you can take effective defensive measures. We can video it. We could post it to YouTube either way.

Game?

What I saw the officer doing wrong was positioning himself directly facing the driver's window. That made him an easy target. The deputies I know stand slightly to the rear of the window so a driver would have to turn farther to harm him. It also gives the cop another second or so to react.

 

[denverpilot]

Just saying it does not make it so.



Agree or not, right now the courts have decided that DUI checkpoints are legal, if conducted properly. And that drivers who have done exactly nothing wrong may be detained long enough to conduct the check.



That may change, and maybe it should, but right now it's the law of the land.

Some courts. This is still very jurisdictional at this point. As many have pointed out, the laws aren't "about to change", they've already changed... in many places.

The public is already speaking on this one. The hard part is knowing where you are and what the stupid law changes are even a few miles apart in any multi-jurisdiction metropolis.

Stating it like it's set in stone is helpful to your individual point but not totally truthful.

 

[FastEddieB]

Some courts. This is still very jurisdictional at this point. As many have pointed out, the laws aren't "about to change", they've already changed... in many places.

Thanks.

This is really not something I've stayed on top of, and I really thought it had been decided in higher courts. Apparently not.

If the below link is accurate, 38 states permit them and 12 do not.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

Again, thanks - and I stand corrected.

 

[JimNtexas]

I thought the customary way to punish a citizen who won't speak at a traffic stop is to call a dog, and then say that the dog alerted. Now the officer can tear the car apart and/or have it towed.

 

[Kelvin]

I thought the customary way to punish a citizen who won't speak at a traffic stop is to call a dog, and then say that the dog alerted. Now the officer can tear the car apart and/or have it towed.

This occured to some degree in the video...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks.

This is really not something I've stayed on top of, and I really thought it had been decided in higher courts. Apparently not.

In a 1990 6-3 decision, Michigan State Police v. Sitz, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of random roadblock checkpoints (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/).

But that doesn't end the issue since states are free to decide whether or not to authorize them and state courts get to test their constitutionality based on their state constitutions. Notice for example, that, if the links are correct, Michigan ultimately decided that, even if the US Constitution permitted them, the Michigan constitution did not. (If the SCOTUS has said they were impermissible, that would be binding on the states but I can easily envision follow-up cases where variations on a theme are tested.)

So you still have a state-to-state patchwork as indicated in the link you posted.

 

[N801BH]

I was an officer in Dade County, FL for 8 1/2 years. Done thousands of traffic stops.

..............................

As someone who lived the first 30 years of my life in Miami Shores, the Redlands area and graduated from Coral Gables High. I can say... You have seen the entire range of the general public and I commend you on staying sane.......

I will also add......... I watched both vidoes that are linked in this thread and I am disgusted at the performance of the LEO's and Customs and Border Patrol officers... From now on, I will NEVER have the same respect for them... ....

The big problem is now........ Who do you trust ? ......

 

[RotorAndWing]

The US is a police state.

 

[Skylane81E]

What I saw the officer doing wrong was positioning himself directly facing the driver's window. That made him an easy target. The deputies I know stand slightly to the rear of the window so a driver would have to turn farther to harm him. It also gives the cop another second or so to react.

I can top that Normie,

My brother in law was pulled over recently and fumbled his license when asked for it and dropped it on the floor. He instinctively reached for it.

Now I would get all kinds of defensive reactions from the cop who doesn't know if you dropped it so you could get a weapon out from under the seat, but what this guy did takes the cake. He dove in the window to get the license himself!! Suddenly Kenny didn't need a weapon to kill the cop in his lap but even a little pocket knife would have done the job all to easily with no chance of defense on the part of the LEO.

 

[FastEddieB]

As someone who lived the first 30 years of my life in Miami Shores, the Redlands area and graduated from Coral Gables High. I can say... You have seen the entire range of the general public and I commend you on staying sane.......

Thanks. Most of my time was spent in Central District. A good way to picture that is "where the riots were".

I will also add......... I watched both vidoes that are linked in this thread and I am disgusted at the performance of the LEO's and Customs and Border Patrol officers... From now on, I will NEVER have the same respect for them... ....

The big problem is now........ Who do you trust ? ......

Among officers there's a descriptor: "badge heavy". As a training officer we had to recognize recruits and probationary officers that were overbearing, obnoxious, aggressive or confrontational. They would be counseled, and sometimes washed out if their behavior did not change. Of course, once off probation they could return to their old ways, but supervisors quickly find out who the troublemakers are and many are either let go or reassigned to positions where there is less public contact.

I can only speak for my own narrow experience, but most of the officers I rode with were honest and hard working. Of course there were exceptions. But most of us tried to do things by the book and to respect the rule of law and citizen's rights.

And in my handful of police contacts here in N GA, I've found the deputies professional, friendly and courteous.

Of course, if they asked me to roll my window down, I just would - and that probably helps!

 

[docmirror]

Among officers there's a descriptor: "badge heavy". As a training officer we had to recognize recruits and probationary officers that were overbearing, obnoxious, aggressive or confrontational. They would be counseled, and sometimes washed out if their behavior did not change.

Don't take this personally, but all of the training officers, and commanders for the past 15 years have failed miserably at this function. I suspect the recruits know it's just box-checking, and they really don't want to limit the new cops aggressive behaviors.

From what I see, the classes starting right around 1997 or so have serious problems with attitude, rage, confrontation, and a general inability to control their emotions. This video is a text book example of what the entire patrol division is like. Because there's been little or no accountability for this behavior once the patrolman is in the field, it just emboldens the rest of the squad to continue to use their badge like a tin dictator and enforce their tiny-dick compensation behaviors on the public - constitution be damned.

 

[denverpilot]

Again, thanks - and I stand corrected.

No worries. It's a common misconception.

It's similar to the misconception that LE has a "duty to defend" anyone other than themselves.

SCOTUS has struck down multiple cases where Citizens thought Officers were their personal protection force.

And most jurisdictions have long-since removed the Marketing spin line, commonly seen in my youth, "To Serve and Protect", from cruisers as a political liability and false advertising.

People today still think cops are there to defend them against bad guys. Cops rarely get the opportunity and often do indirectly defend others, but SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear there is no legal duty to do so. Political and social pressure duty, yes. Legal, never.

 

[FastEddieB]

Don't take this personally, but all of the training officers, and commanders for the past 15 years have failed miserably at this function.

No reason for me to take it personally, since I left the force in 1990 - about 23 years ago.

In fact, that's what may have precipitated the decline!

In any case, I suspect there's a lot of selective perception and confirmation bias at work here, and that's not surprising.

The video in question is atrocious, but it's also out of context - maybe the prior 999 stops were professionally conducted and the cops just lost it on this one. NO excuse, but one should not make the leap that all stops are like the one presented.

Similarly, we periodically see cops beating subjects after chases. Inexcusable, unprofessional and criminal. But we don't see the thousands of chases where the subject is simply taken into custody, with the minimum force necessary to affect the arrest - it's just not news. I had over 800 arrests documented, and I never beat a subject. I did witness one open-handed slap and a kick to a subject that was down, but bear in mind that was over a timespan of 8 1/2 years and thousands of arrests witnessed or assisted with.

But maybe the slide began the day I left - I had no idea the effect it would have!

 

[cavmedic]

Matt, you and I can have a nice long talk about this sometime but to cut to the chase, laws on this stuff vary from state to state. DUI check points have been found to be legal in several states.

In PA there are requirements for check points including that a check point be in a location where there is a known DUI problem and that check points be advertised prior to the actual establishment of the check point. The check point must also give the driver a reasonable opportunity to take an alternate route. The only other check points I've seen are to distribute flyers and ask questions about a missing child etc.

Many law enforcement officers whom I know and respect think that these check points are a joke, waste of money, time and manpower and the ROI is low.

I've seen absurd arrests from these check points that we've had blow out. So as not to take this to SZ I won't comment further but if you have any specific questions you know how to get in touch with me.

Adam , What do you think of this mess. This is close to home



http://readingeagle.com/article/20131217/NEWS/312179910#.UsQk1LR37Sg


And spurred a lawsuit

http://readingeagle.com/article/20131231/NEWS/312319959#.UsQkG7R37Sh

 

[timwinters]

Thanks.

This is really not something I've stayed on top of, and I really thought it had been decided in higher courts. Apparently not.

If the below link is accurate, 38 states permit them and 12 do not.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

Again, thanks - and I stand corrected.

I get the biggest kick out of Wisconsinites.

In your attachment, they are the only state that "Prohibited by statute" DWI checkpoints. They're also the only state I know of that allows kids to drink in public IF they're with their parents. They have to be at least 12 Y.O. IIRC. (at least that's the way it was a few years ago when I was working in Appleton, Oshkosh, Clintonville, etc.)

Cheeseheads? I think not.

Beerheads? Yep, youbetcha!!!

Gotta love 'em.

 

[midlifeflyer]

People today still think cops are there to defend them against bad guys. Cops rarely get the opportunity and often do indirectly defend others, but SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear there is no legal duty to do so. Political and social pressure duty, yes. Legal, never.

Generally true. Indeed, there's a centuries-old principle that, in the absence of enabling legislation such as the Federal Tort Claims Act, there is no governmental liability to individuals for anything. Most (all?) the cases that exist (whether holding government agents responsible or not) deal for the most part with whether the claim is covered by a Tort Claims Act.

For example, there's the seminal Irwin v Town of Ware a 1984 Massachusetts case which arguably was a major factor in the change in the country's attitudes toward drunk driving.

In Irwin police officers stopped a drunk driver and, as was not uncommon back then, decided to send him on his way instead of taking him into custody. On his way, the drunk driver hit another car, killing several people. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held,

==============================
we conclude that, under G. L. c. 258, a town or city may be held liable in damages for the negligent failure of its police officers to remove from the highway a motor vehicle operator who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor and who subsequently causes injuries or death to other travellers.
==============================

G.L. c. 258 is the state's tort claims act.

 

[JeffDG]

I get the biggest kick out of Wisconsinites.

In your attachment, they are the only state that "Prohibited by statute" DWI checkpoints. They're also the only state I know of that allows kids to drink in public IF they're with their parents. They have to be at least 12 Y.O. IIRC. (at least that's the way it was a few years ago when I was working in Appleton, Oshkosh, Clintonville, etc.)

Cheeseheads? I think not.

Beerheads? Yep, youbetcha!!!

Gotta love 'em.

Actually, there are 10 states that permit that:
Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming

 

[docmirror]

I think the Irwin decision was the correct one, despite me being against all DWI stops. The reasons are two-fold. First, in the Irwin case, the police were doing their duty, patrolling their area as is normal. An LEO observed a motorist during his patrol driving fast and pulled him over. They didn't sit in one spot and gather up all motorists in a driving net to then winnow them out based on their attitude(as seen on the video). This is a critical differentiator to me. We have 'reasonable suspicion' and in this case the speeding led to the traffic stop, which uncovered an admitted driver who was drinking. The police then clearly failed in their function, whether you consider it a duty to protect or not, they failed to enforce the law(as LEOs) on the books prohibiting DWI. The result of this failure to enforce led to the proximate deaths of several people.

Which leads to the second reason I fully support this decision. The original law that protects cops and provides them with immunity is based on the ancient concept that the 'king can do anything they want with impunity'(there's a Latin phrase). Well, when we declared our independence from a Monarch that should have been the end of that shyte. But no, the 'crats in govt want it both ways. They want the power of the badge or office, but not the responsibility, so they hide behind some form of special immunity. This can only lead to problems, and it's come up in several other major cases. The Watergate case being one of the most compelling, and why it was completely wrong for Ford to pardon Nixon IN ADVANCE of any trial for malfeasance.

Now, that kind of special immunity is tagged on down to every cop in the street, and the resulting lack of respect, and support for an elite 'ruling class' among us causes more friction. In my perfect world, cops would have NO immunity from any kind of malfeasance, including behavioral. Two counseling session, and the third time, you are out. they may not protect the public, but cops should damn sure serve at the pleasure of the public, and be responsible for their actions, as in Irwin.

 

[denverpilot]

The video in question is atrocious, but it's also out of context - maybe the prior 999 stops were professionally conducted and the cops just lost it on this one. NO excuse, but one should not make the leap that all stops are like the one presented.

I'm sure many midnight raids of houses to remove Jews were "professionally conducted" too.

I sat that knowing it's crazy hyperbole to drive home the point that unnecessary traffic stops of lawful Citizens who refuse to fully roll down their windows, being "professionally conducted", doesn't mean squat. This one went sideways for that very simple and legal reason. Most sheep just rolled it down and submitted to things they weren't required to submit to.

The message being sent is "just stop resisting". And the false premise to back it up is "officer safety".

Guess how safe the officer would be if the silly roadblock were never erected. It's not about officer safety it's about control of the general populace.

I'm very glad many jurisdictions simply are required to announce the times and locations of these goat ropes now, and also can't force any vehicles to go through them who simply wish to turn around and drive another path.

You just go around them and leave the waste of time to the uninformed steeples.

There's no good evidence that they lower the number of DUI deaths. The same officers running the stop will be out scraping a drunk's handiwork (usually the other car's occupants) off a guardrail later that same night.

 

[N801BH]

......

The message being sent is "just stop resisting". And the false premise to back it up is "officer safety".

Guess how safe the officer would be if the silly roadblock were never erected. It's not about officer safety it's about control of the general populace.

.....

That is the total truth.......

LEO's will NEVER admit to it though...

 

[FastEddieB]

I want to thank everyone for the dialog.

It's been productive, up to a point, and I have learned things I did not know about the law behind DUI checkpoints.

I probably have a few things I could add, but with the direction the thread has taken recently, I think my time and effort are better spent elsewhere.

Thanks again.

 

[comanchepilot]

FastEddie seems like a reasonable guy -

Keep in mind folks that the paperwork for you and your car is not yours - its belongs to the state - so if the state wants to see, give it to them. Its not a secret. They can access most of it without your cooperation anyway.

The only part of FastEddie I disagree with is the 'cooperate at a DUI checkpoint.' Nope - absolutely not. Not gonna happen. You get nothing from me except my license if you ask for it and my little piece of paper that says I am exercising my right to remain silent. . . .

As for other 'cooperation,' there is ZERO reason to be rude - the problem is that when you invoke your right, everyone thinks you are being rude. How else do you claim your right against self-incrimination without saying "I stand on my fifth amendment right against self-incrimination,' which sounds awful in your face, doesn't it? The problem is the Supreme Court has said you need to 'invoke your right clearly and unambiguously." Whatever that means. . . . .

The other point is around law enforcement 'lying' or 'misrepresenting their intent.' They do not have to answer any question from you truthfully. So long as they themselves argue that they can lie to do their job, my policy is not to say anything. Since you never know if they are lying, you never know when they are telling the truth either . . . if this rule of silence makes it harder for the police to do their job- they then brought it on themselves by arguing they can lie. If their job is harder to do because no one is willing to speak to them . . . maybe they will reconsider their freedom to lie . . . .

 

[ClimbnSink]

That would be a beautiful day if everyone refused to speak to the police. We need a national invoke your 5th day to get everyone in the habit. Maybe cut a break to donut shop employees.

 

[JB1842]

That would be a beautiful day if everyone refused to speak to the police. We need a national invoke your 5th day to get everyone in the habit. Maybe cut a break to donut shop employees.

That would be awesome! It might keep my boss from talking to me. And I only go to Dunkin Donuts about once a month, thank you.