DUI Checkpoint caught on film


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

Ian
January 2, 2007, 06:14 PM
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp

Some interesting video of a St Lois County DUI checkpoint, taken by a 19-year-old driver who was stopped at it. Since he politely declined to chat with the officers, they made him get out of the car, threatened to arrest him for asking why he was being detained, and illegally searched his car while moving it (poorly too; the officer doing the driving didn't know how to drive a stick shift).

Kudos to the kid for having the cojones to actually challenge police actions rather than meekly submit to their every demand.

The link above has a partial transcript of the event, the full video can be seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2585482423715017278

Officer #1: How are you tonight sir?
Brett: Hi.
Officer #1: Can you put your window down for me.
(I roll the window ALL the way down.)
Officer #1: Do you have a driver's license and proof of insurance?
(I begin to get my information out of my wallet)
Officer #1: Where you headed tonight?
Brett: I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer.
Officer #1: Alright, come on up here.
(I start to move my car)
Officer #1: As a matter of fact, just stop your car right here and step out.

Brett: Why am I being detained officer? (directed toward Officer #4)
Officer #4: You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight.
(Audio can now be heard again)
3:22
Brett: You're saying you're going to make up a reason to arrest me?
Officer #4: No I didn't. I said we would find a reason.
Brett: Okay. I just want to let you know all of this is being recorded.
Officer #4: That's good, we're recording it too. Do what he tells you to do--
Brett: I don't have a right to talk right here in a normal voice?
Officer #4: Yes you do.
Brett: You're saying I'm going to be arrested.
Officer #4: I'm just saying...
Brett: You just said you‘re going to find a reason to lock me up.
Officer #4: I said do what he telld you to do.
Brett: You said if I keep runnin my mouth, I will be locked up.
Officer #4: I said he'll find a reason.
Why are you going to find a reason to lock me up when I'm only asking why I'm being detained in a normal voice?
Officer #4: Do what he tells you to do.
Brett: Am I being detained?
Officer #4: Yes you are!
Brett: May I leave?
Officer #4: No, you may not.
Brett: Why am I being detained?
Officer #4: Because you don't have a driver's license.
Brett: I do have a driver's license. I gave it to the other officer.
Officer #4: When the other officer comes back--When he comes back--When he comes back you can talk to him about it.
Brett: Why are you saying I don't have my license?
Officer #4: Nineteen years old and you know everything.
Brett: Yes sir.

If you enjoyed reading about "DUI Checkpoint caught on film" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 06:36 PM
the video i saw sorta never had audio come back . and some of the best stuff was like the nixon tapes.
but he gets my heroe of the revolution award for his brave 15 mins confirming the cops and my opinion about 19 year olds.
he get a ticket? any bruises? or just get himself jerked around for being snotty

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 06:47 PM
but since i'm not talking about the poster i will comment about the young hero

hes less than truthful and not even very good at it. i invite folks to watch the video bear in mind only first4 mins has any meaning. and compare his comments with the reality.
the cop that couldn't drive clutch got out another got in and i didn't see the abuse of his clutch he whimpered about. and the thorough search? boy need to buy a clue. if you're gonna bs you should not make the video that exposes you available. if he wants to challenge the whole dui checkpoint bit thats one thing when he prevaricated shamelessly he didn't help le cause.
that said i was 16 once myself and not much better.

.45&TKD
January 2, 2007, 06:52 PM
Can't drive a clutch, probably can't shoot a 1911 either.

ojibweindian
January 2, 2007, 07:01 PM
A 19 year old with a good understanding of how screwed up things are. Too bad there aren't more Americans like him.

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 07:27 PM
"A 19 year old with a good understanding of how screwed up things are. Too bad there aren't more Americans like him."

sadly there are plenty of 19 year olds who lie poorly

ojibweindian
January 2, 2007, 07:51 PM
So do some cops.

Where was the "lying" going on? All I see were cops trying to intimidate somebody who wasn't bowing before the "power" of the state.

El Tejon
January 2, 2007, 07:51 PM
If only more people would videotape their encounters with police.:(

cd, what did the kid lie about? (I'm on my laptop and have no sound).:confused:

JD0608
January 2, 2007, 08:03 PM
SORRY GUYS, I SEE IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THE POLICE TRIED TO MAKE SMALL TALK AND THE KID WAS BEING A SMART A--. IF YOU DON`T HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE LAW. I`M SURE SOME OF YOU RIGHT NOW READING THIS ARE ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE SOME DRUNK WAS TAKEN OFF THE ROAD AT ONE OF THESE CHECKS.

Sindawe
January 2, 2007, 08:08 PM
JD0608: Dude, no need to yell. ;)

Small talk perhaps, but I did note just how quickly the cop's demenor changed when the driver declined to discuss his personal life with an armed agent of the state. Minor Contempt of Cop there I wager.

As too the "lying", the linked article talked about the clutch in the Maxima being trashed by the cop, but on viewing the video I did not see nor hear any abuse of the clutch in the car.

crazed_ss
January 2, 2007, 08:15 PM
Cops dont make small talk. They're trying to get people's guard down so they slip up and give the cops something. Those cops dont give a crap where you're going.. they're trying to get you talking to see if they can smell alcohol on your breath and so they have time to run the vehicle.

Geno
January 2, 2007, 08:20 PM
The good thing (and the bad) about audio and/or video is it tells the unfettered truth. :) Make if it what you all will, the truth is to be observed by any who look/listen with an open, objective mind.

For what it is worth, it is possible to object to over intrusiveness without being snotty. Simply state that fact, "I feel that this event is overly intrusive of a person not accused of a violation or crime. In that same spirit, I do not feel compelled to disclose my destination."

Doc2005

jondar
January 2, 2007, 08:22 PM
Where the wheels started to come off was when the cop asked the kid where he was headed. This was absolutely none of the cop's business. The kid said he had no comment. This piqued the cop's feelings and he started to come on with comments he couldn't back up. But let's continue to blame the victim. After all, it's easier that way.

Fu-man Shoe
January 2, 2007, 08:24 PM
Once again, crazed_ss is on the ball.

When dealing with the police, you have to remember that
the police are not your friends.

Sadly, that's the way it is nowadays. I hear that it wasn't
always like that, however. But nowadays, you should be
under no illusions as to what the role of the police is.

Why do you think they call them Law Enforcement Officers?

Autolycus
January 2, 2007, 08:27 PM
JDO608: Would you mind if the cops came over and searched your house? They want to check your wife/girlfriends underwear drawer. And then they need to do a cavity search as well.

If you have nothing to hide then why not be respectful of the law?

As for the video I dont see why they have to search his car? He just said "I would rather not discuss my personal life with you officer."

As for the rest of the audio I could not hear it very well but you do get a few clips and pieces which the kid sounds composed and very respectful. He addresses them as officer and does not shout, raise his voice, threaten, or do anything that might offend the officers sensibilities. Try listening with headphones on. You can however hear his conversation with the supervisor pretty clearly while a lot of the rest is somewhat choppy. However the simple fact is that the officer did pull him out of his car after he said he would rather not talk about his personal life. Why?

Remember you cant see the officers and his car very well. Perhaps there is a lot of smoke coming out the back but you cant see due to the camera angle.

However this kid is doing the right thing. I dont see why everyone wants to down him for asking why his rights are being violated?

JohnBT
January 2, 2007, 08:28 PM
"IF YOU DON`T HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE LAW"

BECAUSE THEY'RE WASTING HIS TIME. HOW'S THAT FOR AN ANSWER. IF HE HASN'T COMMITTED A CRIME THEN WHY STOP HIM.

BOY, TYPING IN CAPS IS FUN. MAKES IT EASIER TO SEE. :)

I GOT STOPPED ONCE. OFFICER SAID, "GOING A LITTLE FAST AREN'T YOU?"
I SAID, "NO, SIR." :) AND THAT WAS THAT.

JOHN

El Tejon
January 2, 2007, 08:29 PM
I still don't understand why people think the kid is lying?

From the transcript it is apparent that the only liars are the police.

Why is everyone so mad at the kid? Because he got the better of the police and made them look foolish? Heck some people here do that for a living.:D

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 08:29 PM
one was obseved by sindawe above. and i can safely say hes no pawn for the man. and thanks for the honest observation.

second lie was to present the affair as being an expose of some sort. we have less than 4 mins we can here then he tells us his version of what happened. he'd have more credibilty with me if he hadn't found it so easy to lie.
he stretched it a bit when he described a "thorough search" and i invite others to see if they think cop a(i can't drive clutch) got out for another to drive. watch how car shakes and hear the sounds that i believe indicate a switch of drivers.

hes got almost as much blank tape as richard nixon and wants us to take him at his word after trying to fly one lie that the tape exposes.

if he was my son, and i saw this tape i'd whupp his butt and toss his butt outa my basement.

hes lucky to be as young as he is i can remember when there were penalties for being a richard. painful ones.

Turkey Creek
January 2, 2007, 08:30 PM
Kid sounds to me like a punk looking for trouble- I find it hard to believe that his clutch was bothered at all by what little it was used and the kid keeps pushing the issue- How hard would it have to been to just be courteous instead of acting so self important?- But instead it sounds to me like he was looking to make an issue out of anything he could-

AnthonyRSS
January 2, 2007, 08:36 PM
I still don't understand how checkpoints are legal at all- you know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Or maybe I have that backwards...

Anthony

Autolycus
January 2, 2007, 08:37 PM
Well thank you Cassandrasdaddy. I dont believe you even watched the tape or read the transcripts.

For everyone who says the kid is a punk: please explain how? He did not raise his voice, use cursewords, or threaten the officers in any way? What did he do that reflected poorly on him?

Lucky
January 2, 2007, 08:38 PM
Maybe people don't care, but the power to arrest or detain free men is NOT to be taken lightly.

It IS a big deal when someone is detained. The courts thought about it, and decided it would be sorta OK if people were violated for a good cause, like catching drunks.

That's all they OK'd, and imo even that is too much. But like gov't does, you give it an inch and it takes a mile. So here you have a kid detained with no reasonable suspicion he's intoxicated.

Maybe he's 19 and snotty, but any time anyone is detained, they're no longer free. Suspending a man's freedom is a BIG DEAL.

Sindawe
January 2, 2007, 08:42 PM
I still don't understand how checkpoints are legal at all- you know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Or maybe I have that backwards...I think the "logic" goes something like..

1. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

2. If #1 is true, then the State may set limitations on that privilege.

3. If #1 and #2 are not convincing, there is always the argument that the State has a "compelling interest" in keeping drunk drivers off the roads.

Black Knight
January 2, 2007, 08:43 PM
Charlottesville Police and Albemarle County Police (Virginia) have been using DUI Checkpoints for over a decade now. It has been challenged on the grounds of it voilating the 4th Ammendment. It has been upheld by the courts each time it has been challenged. So here in Virginia they are legal. If it had happened here the kid would only be digging himself a legal hole. Also in Virginia there is a charge of Failure to Cooperate with Police. It is a misdemeanor but, it is also effective. I seen it used or threatened more than once.

dave_pro2a
January 2, 2007, 08:46 PM
JD0608, turn in all your guns because 1 life might be saved.

When you're willing to do that, then talk to me about how a DUI checkpoint manned by rude JBTs are acceptable just because 1 life might be saved by tossing the 4th and 5th amendment out the window. :scrutiny:

ojibweindian
January 2, 2007, 08:47 PM
After reading several posts, my belief that we're hosed is only strengthened.

Blackfork
January 2, 2007, 08:47 PM
Wonder how the state got that power to dole that driving thing out? Was the State born with it? Is it a "natural right" of the State? Did God give the state the power to regulate people coming and going?

Just wondering. I thought it might come under "other rights not enumerated." I bet the founders sitting on their horses and wagons never DREAMED any government would try and regulate anything like moving around on a public road.

Wonder what Frances Marion would have done to someone who wanted him to license his horse and step off of it to be queried about how much he had drank? Or Jefferson? Or Crockett?

Every day we get the choice between freedom and rebellion. So far, most folks pretty OK with slavery.

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 08:53 PM
i actually watched whole thing twice thought i musta missed the climatic moments first time. then i read what you call a transcript, you see i call a transcript what you get when there is a tape and someone transcribes the noises on it in a written form that has some credibility/way to verify it.
what i saw in this case was less than 4 mins that could remotely be decribed as transcript. and nothing that i could see objectionable from the cops. the our hero gets outa car and we switch to juniors version of the cops were mean to me. then we have this kid claiming something not in evidence on the tape. i'd be inclined to think i might be harsh except sindawe seems to see it that way too.
after he shreds his own credibilty i am inclined to assign a harsh label to the boy. as my sensei used to say did someone bring a bucket of fish?!
he reminds me of a kid who had me charged with assault on a minor after he started and lost a "discussion".fortunately the young man in my case had a bull colonel daddy who got the truth outa his punk kid with a couple of beautiful backhands. i can hope and pray this hero has someone like that in his life

Steve in PA
January 2, 2007, 08:56 PM
The states build and maintain the roads. You are allowed free travel, by foot if you so wish. Want to drive yourself, then obtain a driver's license which gives you the privelege to operate a vehicle on the states roads.

jondar
January 2, 2007, 09:00 PM
Quote: Also in Virginia there is a charge of Failure to Cooperate with Police."

Now this puts a chill up my spine. Are they saying that this charge supercedes the Fifth Amendment?

Libertylover
January 2, 2007, 09:06 PM
Looks like the kid knows his rights. Also looks like the same old cop cheerleaders trying to say he's a punk for knowing his rights.

Ian
January 2, 2007, 09:07 PM
The charge that the kid is being "snotty" seems to me one based solely on age, and not on what's actually being said. Picture a 75-year-old WWII veteran saying the exact same words - "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer" - would that still be "snotty"?

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 09:14 PM
"Now this puts a chill up my spine. Are they saying that this charge supercedes the Fifth Amendment?"
the fifth i mean
i don't mean watching a tv show where someone uses the phrase
were you of the opinion that the boy was attempting to invoke his right to avoid self incrimination? i did't hear that or see it in the so called "transcript"

i mighta missed it can you show it to me?

is it the opinion of some of the legal minds here that asking ther question the officer did was setting him up for an incriminating answer? someone else tried to say they were gonna trip him up.or try to smell booze on his breath as he talked to them. were that his fear he yackked more being a hero of the revolution than an answer of "home" "work" or "nowhere". as to being tripped up its been my experience that the truth is a sweet thing. since i no longer find it a requirement to lie i am almost impossible to trip up. truth works like that. if his intent was to be a test case or somekinda hero he failed in one and apparently suceeded with those of a certain mindset.to others we sit chucling imagining a friendless feller driving around with his trusty video camera imaging himself a hero. hmmm maybe it all started when he failed the mall ninja entrance exam

1911ONR
January 2, 2007, 09:27 PM
Steve in PA: The states build and maintain the roads. You are allowed free travel, by foot if you so wish. Want to drive yourself, then obtain a driver's license which gives you the privelege to operate a vehicle on the states roads.
They are actually public roads, paid for with public funds from taxpayers. Do you believe that I can withhold paying taxes and give up my "privilege"? Don't think so. The state however can for a lot of reasons withdraw that "privilege". Remember it's for the children.

VARifleman
January 2, 2007, 09:42 PM
To the guys that don't think the clutch is being abused...

He stalls it out at 2:38 or so, between there and when he started it at 2:28 the car acted like the clutch was under some abuse.

A light clutch like that in a maxima is not hard to burn out if you don't know what you're doing.

Now, cassandrasdaddy, why is it he has to answer? The cop asked him a personal question that was not related in any way to the checkpoint, which is already disregarding the 4th amendment, court rulings be damned. Since he is not arrested, they must have consent or probable cause to search, neither of which is present and again his 4th amendment rights are broken by the cop requiring him to get out and have another cop get in his car, search it, and move it, invoking the damage I mentioned in the top of my post. Why did this happen? The cop thought he had the power to detain him by the law, but he broke the constitution because he's so used to it by now doing these papers please checkpoints.

Outlaws
January 2, 2007, 09:48 PM
I personally wouldn't have really got into the clutch thing with the cops. I would have pointed out the obvious.....

The pulled him out of the car because he didn't want to tell him where he was going. The cop had no right to know that, he has the right ask, but if someone doesn't want to tell, then they shouldn't have to and WE shouldn't have to live in fear that if we don't answer we will get the 3rd degree.

geekWithA.45
January 2, 2007, 09:56 PM
Clap * clap * clap *

Sadly, it seems that cops occassionally need reminders that in America, failure to kowtow isn't probable cause.

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 10:09 PM
"He stalls it out at 2:38 or so, between there and when he started it at 2:28 the car acted like the clutch was under some abuse."

i just watched it again

to me it looked like he failed to start it at 2:28
seemed like he forgot clutch in to start. what do you see/hear i'm not?

Sindawe
January 2, 2007, 10:14 PM
I'm curious about that as well (clutch). I can see that the cop driver stalled the car once, but if one is not used to the clutch on a car it happens even for those of us who habitually drive a stick shift. Ask the salesperson who test drove my Sentra with me. Big change from a cable clutch to a hydraulic clutch.

dave_pro2a
January 2, 2007, 11:11 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/images/timeintro_krakow.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9910/25/germany.communist.hotel/story.papers.jpg

http://www.fhp.state.fl.us/PhotoGallery/images/PG111204b.jpg

AZRickD
January 2, 2007, 11:14 PM
Clutch?

Who gives a rat's butt about a clutch? It was a minor point in the detainee's story, subject to some measure of dispute, here.

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS are that the detainee was pulled over for no reason (RS) or cause (PC).

When he invoked his USSC-recognized right to not engage in conversation with an LEO (who is using it to gather information that can be used against him in a court of law), the LEO starts the Command Presence silliness and tries to intimidate the person by saying "WE WILL FIND A REASON TO LOCK YOU UP TONITE."

Under COLOR OF LAW.

Brett: Why are you moving my car?
Officer #1: Because I'm going to talk you--I'm going to interview you because you didn't want to interview. You didn't want to sit down and have a talk with me.
Brett: I do not want to talk about my personal life.
Officer #1: Okay.

Anyone remember the "I'm investigating an investigation" claim by one LEO discussed (I think) here?

These LEOs were bamboozled by a 19 year-old kid (who is probably a member of a forum not unlike THR or GlockTalk).

I don't know if the LEO shananigans will warrant a punitive civil award for this young, law-abiding (and now a budding libertarian activst -- thanks, police) individual who dared to exercise just a shred of his tattered rights, but at least we have yet another data point about their actions as they interfered with a persons right to travel.

I don't think I've ever written so much in upper case before.

Rick

SoCalShooter
January 2, 2007, 11:18 PM
Never tried this, not going to, no reason just tell the truth and things go easier, even if its only a half truth but if the cop thinks you got something your hiding I think he can use "probable cause" and pull you out. But you also have the right not to answer any questions and if your not under arrest and have not done anything wrong I dont see how you can be detained or searched.

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 11:19 PM
are you folks getting more audio from that vid than i am? or are you relying on the young heros "transcript" also know as she said the cop said

AZRickD
January 2, 2007, 11:22 PM
All I needed to hear is the part up to the point where he was ordered from the car for refusing to tell the LEO to where he was traveling.

The rest is side bar.

Can't you LEO apologists stay on track?

Rick

Sindawe
January 2, 2007, 11:24 PM
I'd say its your computer. It also appears to have problems with capitalizations. ;)

The sound on the Google video is not very loud. You may have to up the volume to hear it. I did.

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 11:28 PM
"All I needed to hear is the part up to the point where he was ordered from the car for refusing to tell the LEO to where he was traveling.

The rest is side bar."

that your way of answering my question? cool good to know the lap top was working ok. all these folks quoting what the cops were saying had me wondering how i was missing it. now that i understand the kinda hard evidence and verification you folks rely on i'll better be able to assign value and credibility. or the inverse:barf:
hey but its gotta be way cool to be able to do it like that! so unconfined by reallity;)

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 11:31 PM
Sindawe you got me!:p
but i don't get audio after he gets outa car do you?

Autolycus
January 2, 2007, 11:34 PM
Cassandrasdaddy: Try listening with headphones. It worked a lot better for me. The conversation with the supervisor will be a lot clearer than the rest but you should be able to hear it.

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 11:36 PM
thanks let me try that

SoCalShooter
January 2, 2007, 11:41 PM
Also don't they tech cops how to drive different types of vehicles? You know manual transmissions and such?

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 11:56 PM
for why you should wear hearing protection. i still can't hear anything intelligible before the supervisor get there and thats still not great.
hes still low par for 19 with me. seems he went looking for a confrontation got one and now is whining about getting what he went looking for. i would suggest he avoid travelling in pg county md.

cassandrasdaddy
January 2, 2007, 11:59 PM
any transcripts done by other than mr darrow?

any legs to this or was this a get on the internet deal? he pursue it?
do any of those smarter than me know a way to make the tape intelligible?

marzen
January 3, 2007, 12:04 AM
Do we really need multiple page arguments to realize that we are living in a fascist state?

Lucky
January 3, 2007, 12:30 AM
Marzen; pop quiz - Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason?



Answer: "If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.”

wooderson
January 3, 2007, 12:44 AM
They are actually public roads, paid for with public funds from taxpayers. Do you believe that I can withhold paying taxes and give up my "privilege"? Don't think so.
You're confusing theory with reality.

He gave you the legal reality of driving (as others did re: checkpoints). Don't confuse someone's statement as to the reality of a situation with what they'd choose to happen.

wooderson
January 3, 2007, 12:49 AM
"I don't wish to discuss my personal life" is, well, a <edit = foul word meaning "bad"> move on his part. I'm young enough to call that snotty without being age-ist.

"Why do you ask, officer?" or "I'm not coming from a bar or party, officer" would more than suffice (I prefer asking a question at that moment) without being confrontational.

Or, since it didn't seem to matter either way, tell the cop what you're doing. Being a schmuck at that point is in no way striking a blow for freedom and apple pie.

AZRickD
January 3, 2007, 12:53 AM
There was NOTHING snotty in his tone. He has an absolute right to refuse to answer unwarranted and probing questions which are designed to gather evidence against him in a court of law. His refusal to answer questions (which he taped,) could be used by the traveler as evidence to support that he steadfastly refused consent if he were charged and taken to trial.

Got that?

That's what a defense attorney would want him to do (even absent any criminal activity on his part).

Got that?

He need not justify this intrusion with a "Why do you ask, officer." Nor should he say, "I'm not coming from a bar or party, officer," when such a response will only result in the LEO asking, "Why would you think I thought you thought that I thought that you came from a bar or party, Sir?" Which will lead to more questions.

I have my lawyers card which says, "I refuse to answer any questions.... nor consent to a search of my person or vehicle..." in paragraph length on the back. Would you consider that snotty if I handed that card (an action which will be cited in court on my behalf.

I guess I'm confused as to how the USSC decided the BoRights would justify and allow this police activity based on Original Intent.

Can anyone find something written by the Framers that suggested that this kind of random, warrantless inhibition of the right to travel undetered was acceptable to them? And that threats could be used against someone who invokes his right not to discuss his private affairs that had nothing to do with DUI? After speaking with him, did they garner any RS or PC that he was intoxicated? For what reason did they remove him from his car and move the car (seizure)?

Can police pull people over without cause sans an officially sanctioned USSC-approved road block?

Rick

Zak Smith
January 3, 2007, 12:54 AM
Is he or is he not under a legal obligation to answer the question?

He is not.

Exercise of a right - silence in this case - does not comprise reasonable suspicion that a crime has been commited.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 01:03 AM
if he had stayed silent. his behavior probably bought him a ticket to the next tier of sobriety checks. being belligerent is a sign of drinking in some folks especially young dumb ones. i have first hand experience here.they look for anything outa the ordinairy. they ask the question to 200 folks 199 answer junior jumps froggy. junior gets special treatment. the japanese say the nail that sticks up gets hammered. bet a c note he lacks the nads to follow through and see that hes got a loser case. be a good litmus test when he can't get a lawyer to take case

Zak Smith
January 3, 2007, 01:09 AM
Two rhetorical questions:

1. Was Rosa Parks a "nail that sticks up" and deserved to "get hammered?"

2. If being "out of the ordinary" is grounds for police threats ("or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight."), how are the rights of a minority that know their legal rights to exercise them?

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 01:19 AM
rosa was. and she had what it took to foment change. betting on junior? i'll give ya 3 to one odds.

junior went looking for a confrontation. he got one just the right size for him. safe low risk. he got his video on the net. i'm waiting for the enhanced audio with a transcript done by someone other than the young hero. the aclu can swing that.... unless they know the event is a nonstarter

AZRickD
January 3, 2007, 01:20 AM
if he had stayed silent. his behavior probably bought him a ticket to the next tier of sobriety checks.

This is an admission that the LEOs were coercing cooperation with the infringment of his rights and the threats under color of law.

...being belligerent is a sign of drinking in some folks especially young dumb ones.

The only individual who was beligernet was "Officer #4" who said, You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight.

If anyone sounded like they were drinking it was "Officer #4" who didn't seem to understand the situation and whose story was might peculiar... Brett: Why am I being detained?
Officer #4: Because you don't have a driver's license.
Brett: I do have a driver's license. I gave it to the other officer.

junior jumps froggy. junior gets special treatment.
What does "jumps froggy" mean? What on Earth does that mean? Did his refusal to answer a question give the LEOs articulable PC or RS? The fact that they found nothing means that their USSC-approved "sixth sense of a law enforcement officer" is wrong. He didn't "jump froggy." He simply excercised the 'nads to exercise his rights and say "no" to a handful of Keystone Kops who couldn't articulate why they were doing what they were doing; couldn't drive his car; didn't know where his drivers license was; utilized the finely focused resources of four LEOs to find nothing because they reacted stupidly to someone who exercised his rights to refuse to answer evidentiary interrogatories.

the japanese say the nail that sticks up gets hammered.
You really don't think that cute saying paints those LEOs in a flattering light, do you?

bet a c note he lacks the nads to follow through and see that hes got a loser case.
Hardly the point, is it? His decision to pursue this, successfully or not is not really a gauge on the first 30 seconds of the video, is it?

The LEOs did what they did. They attempted to intimidate, under color of law, an American Citizen, who was not suspected of committing any crime.

THEY FAILED.

They've been exposed. That's worth it to me.

And that you support the activities of these LEOs sickens me.

Rick

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 01:28 AM
to swallow but the courts have ruled on these check points. good luck with the revolution. me i roll the window down say hi go on down the road. and somehow it just doesn't generate the same feelings in me that it seems to with those in the vanguard of the revolution. i like to grin breath i=on their special flashlight too do it obviously and they'll laugh stop asking questions

AZRickD
January 3, 2007, 01:28 AM
rosa was. and she had what it took to foment change.
You don't know history. Rosa had the backing of an army of NAACP attorneys from day one who had been planning to fight the city on the bus issue for months but were looking for just the right, sympathetic plaintiff. Rosa was it. But she went to trial, and the jury convicted her.

The court case wasn't the issue. It started the boycott that brought the city to its knees.

junior went looking for a confrontation.

He was obeying all laws. The confrontation began at the behest of the LEOs who used the color of law in a failed attempt to intimidate him.

the aclu can swing that.... unless they know the event is a nonstarter
to swallow but the courts have ruled on these check points.
You still think this is about court cases. This is about getting the word out. Just as the Kelo case brought to light the usurpation of property rights that were supposed to be protected by the 5th Amendment. "Wow, police really can behave like bullies against someone who isn't doing anything wrong? I didn't know that." A few more people and a few more people. One soul at a time.

Rick

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 01:33 AM
It's unbelievable that some people that think it's just fine that others get their rights trampled. I didn't see anywhere at all where the kid was beligerant and ANYONE that defends the cops yanking him out of his car for this would also defend them if they shot 50 rounds into him for not telling them where he was going. I can understand supporting cops for doing their jobs, but it's stuff like this that gives cops a bad name and should be nipped in the bud....not pat them on the back for it and blame the person they wronged. Supporting bad behavior by those sworn to "protect and serve" only makes it worse for those that actually do their job.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 01:34 AM
"This is about getting the word out."
the hard thing for you is as fast as you get the word out to a knew member of the revoluttion another one is getting older grinning and laughing about how silly he was when he was ydfoc. its a sad reallity for the revolution


at some point most folks cross over from fighting the establishment to being the establishment, seminal moment in life when you realize it. like the first time you tell some young pup something your old man told you that you hated then but realize you mean it now

AZRickD
January 3, 2007, 01:43 AM
Sorry, CassDaddy, that's not an argument that does any favors to the reprehensible actions of the LEOs.

You'll have to do better. Well, actually, you're under no obligation to do better, and I have my doubts as to your success in that venture.

And you're about as snarky as I can take this late at night.

Rick

iiibdsiil
January 3, 2007, 01:46 AM
Waiting to get stuck in one of these myself. "Have you been drinking tonight son?" "Sure have!"

Waste their time a little bit, then inform them it was a Sprite on the rocks. :neener:

Husker1911
January 3, 2007, 01:48 AM
CSDaddy, if jumping conclusions were a sport, you'd be a champ! :)

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 01:51 AM
did they pull him outa his car? i missed that. were he truly of the fiber to become a hero of the revolution he woulda passively resisted this most egregious asault upon his freedom. apparantly his commitment didn't extend that far. just far enough to come off in a manner that seems to inspire very different feelings. i wish we could do a poll about how old folks are and their position on this kid. might be revealing

Robert Hairless
January 3, 2007, 02:05 AM
I heard one officer tell the driver to leave the car, which the driver did. I heard the driver offer to move his car and I heard the officer tell him not to do it.

I did not hear anyone ask the young man for permission to enter or drive his car.

I did hear someone (presumably an officer) get into the car and say repeatedly "I can't drive stick!" while laughing.

I also heard and saw someone (presumably an officer) drive the car from where the first officer told him to leave it.

I also heard the young man say that he himself had offered to move his vehicle but the first officer told him not to do it. And I heard the young man say that he locked the car when he exited it but an officer took his keys without his permission. I also heard him say that he didn't think that the police had a right to drive his vehicle without his permission.

Kids like that must be troublemakers for sure. Some old folks are fine.

AZRickD
January 3, 2007, 02:05 AM
C-daddy,

Now you're not only doing a disservice to the LEOs in your arguments, you're making yourself out to be contemptable as well.

No further work needs to be done here.

Rick

HiroProX
January 3, 2007, 02:07 AM
JD0608, let me know when law enforcement starts to treat us "civilians" with respect again.

Badge + Gun != instant respect. Respect is earned by integrity, something those officers showed none of, I daresay they are just thugs. And thugs deserve no respect.

cassandrasdaddy, I couldn't care less what "old folks" think on the matter as frankly those "old folks" are the people directly responsible for things being as screwed up as they are today. They're the ones who said "Yes sir Mr. President!" to every one of the career criminals from FDR to Shrub regarding every violation of our rights that comes down the pike. So tell me... why should I care what fascists in denial think?

rustymaggot
January 3, 2007, 02:08 AM
the only thing i think the kid did wrong was not take the camera with him and get the whole story.

cops have no reason to do much more at a sobriety checkpoint than see if your drunk. stopping and turning the car off is a safety thing(so the drunk asses dont try to run and drive over cops). after the cars stopped i feel all the cops should do is ask if the person was drinking and if the cop smells booze then go from there.

it would be different if the cops stopped the car for a reason. if they are checking everybody, they should be extremely polite and make it fast. they are there to protect and serve, not harass and impede.

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 02:23 AM
Cassandra, you are talking drunk now. I didn't see them ask him if he wanted out of his car. It's about the difference in right or wrong, period. Making stupid statements about a revolution does nothing to make your view sound in the least bit intelligent. If the cops were in the right I would say so, I strongly support our local police. You spouting off about the revolution can't change that. AZRickD is right, you are not doing any service to these leo's whatsoever. In fact it would not suprise me if you were one and act the same way.


I'll go first, I'm retired and have 8 grandkids and a life member of disabled american veterans. How does that fit into your narrow minded, preconceived notions? How old are you? I have been the establishment for quite some time, but that does not mean I blindly support the establishment when it's wrong. I leave that to sheeple and it seems they are not in short spply.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 02:29 AM
to my question about him being pulled outa the car? if he wanted to be the next rosa parks he had a great opportunity.

i do wish i could actually hear what was said i find the young heros credibility limited at best

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 02:38 AM
More jibberish from you? What a suprise. I find your credibility nil at best.

He was pulled from the car, maybe you need to learn the definition. Maybe we need to take a poll of the education of the people taking the cops side. Basic english here professor, does that mean they physically grabbed him? Not to someone that actually speaks english.

pull

10. to withdraw or remove: to pull an ineffective pitcher.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pull

Zak Smith
January 3, 2007, 02:43 AM
Let's please keep it civil and avoid personal attacks.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 02:49 AM
i saw/heard the cop ask him to get out and give instructions about leaving it running. i then saw the young man get out. my definition of pulled outa a car would mean they put their hands on him and almost without exception comes with the chrome bracelets.and a rid ein the back of the cop car. your definition is apparently different than mine. or these

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
pull /pʊl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to draw or haul toward oneself or itself, in a particular direction, or into a particular position: to pull a sled up a hill.
2. to draw or tug at with force.
3. to rend or tear: to pull a cloth to pieces.
4. to draw or pluck away from a place of growth, attachment, etc.: to pull a tooth; to pull weeds.
5. to strip of feathers, hair, etc., as a bird or hide.
6. to draw out (as a knife or gun) for ready use (usually fol. by on): Do you know what to do when someone pulls a knife on you?
7. Informal. to perform successfully (often fol. by off): They pulled a spectacular coup.
8. Informal. to carry out (esp. something deceitful or illegal): Police believe the men pulled all three robberies. What kind of trick did she pull this time?
9. to put on or affect: He pulled a long face when I reprimanded him.
10. to withdraw or remove: to pull an ineffective pitcher.
11. to attract or win: to pull many votes in the industrial areas.
12. to bring (a horse) to a stand by pulling on the reins.
13. Printing, Graphics. to take (an impression or proof) from type, a cut or plate, etc.: to pull a print.
14. to be provided with or rowed with (a certain number of oars): This boat pulls 12 oars.
15. to propel by rowing, as a boat.
16. to strain (a muscle, ligament, or tendon).
17. Military. to be assigned (a specific task or duty): I pulled guard duty our first night in port.
18. to hold in or check (a racehorse), esp. so as to prevent from winning.
19. Sports. to hit (a ball) so that it travels in a direction opposite to the side from which it was struck, as when a right-handed batter hits into left field.
–verb (used without object) 20. to exert a drawing, tugging, or hauling force (often fol. by at).
21. to inhale through a pipe, cigarette, etc.
22. to become or come as specified, by being pulled: This rope will pull.
23. to row.
24. to proceed by rowing.
25. (of an advertisement) a. to have effectiveness, as specified: The ad pulled badly.
b. to be effective: That spot announcement really pulled!

–noun 26. the act of pulling or drawing.
27. force used in pulling; pulling power.
28. a drawing in of smoke or a liquid through the mouth: He took a long, thoughtful pull on his pipe; I took a pull from the scout's canteen.
29. Informal. influence, as with persons able to grant favors.
30. a part or thing to be pulled; a handle or the like: to replace the pulls on a chest of drawers.
31. a spell, or turn, at rowing.
32. a stroke of an oar.
33. Informal. a pulled muscle: He missed a week's work with a groin pull.
34. a pulling of the ball, as in baseball or golf.
35. Informal. the ability to attract; drawing power.
36. Informal. an advantage over another or others.
—Verb phrases37. pull away, a. to move or draw back or away; withdraw.
b. to free oneself with force: He tried to pull away from his opponent's powerful grip.
c. to move or start to move ahead: The car pulled away into traffic. The faster runners began to pull away from the others.

38. pull down, a. to draw downward: to pull a shade down.
b. to demolish; wreck.
c. to lower; reduce.
d. Informal. to receive as a salary; earn: It wasn't long before he was pulling down more than fifty thousand a year.

39. pull for, to support actively; encourage: They were pulling for the Republican candidate.
40. pull in, a. to reach a place; arrive: The train pulled in early.
b. to tighten; curb: to pull in the reins.
c. Informal. to arrest (someone): The police pulled her in for questioning.

41. pull off, Informal. to perform successfully, esp. something requiring courage, daring, or shrewdness: We'll be rich if we can pull the deal off.
42. pull out, a. to leave; depart: The ship pulled out of the harbor.
b. to abandon abruptly: to pull out of an agreement.

43. pull over, to direct one's automobile or other vehicle to the curb; move out of a line of traffic: The police officer told the driver to pull over.
44. pull through, to come safely through (a crisis, illness, etc.); survive: The patient eventually pulled through after having had a close brush with death.
45. pull up, a. to bring or come to a halt.
b. to bring or draw closer.
c. to root up; pull out: She pulled up all the crab grass in the lawn.

Soybomb
January 3, 2007, 02:51 AM
Out of curiosity how easy would it be for some concerned citizens to notice a check point and a few blocks prior to it stand with some free speech displays warning motorists that there was a checkpoint straight ahead? What possible problems might one encounter? :evil:

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 02:55 AM
thats a good one could they call it obstruction?
weren't there some cases where folks wee busted for flashing lights to warn about speed traps? and if i remember right a guy did it with a sign and got locked up. i don't remember outcome it was quite a while ago

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 02:59 AM
You must be kidding????? If you can read you will see that I POSTED MINE FROM THERE. Can you not see that the number 10 you posted is the one I posted? I guess reading is not your strong suit either. The word pull can mean any of those and does not auromatically mean they grabbed hold of him, you just have to learn more than one definition. YOUR definition means absolutely nothing and it says NOWHERE there that pull means they definitely put their hands on him nowhere does it say anything about chrome bracelets and a ride in the back of the cop car. LMFAO, thanks for proving my point.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 03:00 AM
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/07/772.asp
http://expategghead.blogspot.com/2005/12/somerset-speed-trap-scrap.html

rustymaggot
January 3, 2007, 03:01 AM
will you guys please keep it polite?

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 03:04 AM
.....you are in england. Washington is a long way from where they are talking about.

http://expategghead.blogspot.com/2005/12/somerset-speed-trap-scrap.html

Don't know english, can't read and now don't know geography. Not equiped to debate at all.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 03:05 AM
even using number 10 did they withdraw him? or remove him? how? the young man had the option of saying no. then they woulda probably removed him.... but we'll never know. he did the equivalent of voluntarily allowing a search at the side of the road. hey but if that is your definition of pulled i always heard english is an evolving language. we just need to get the dictionary to add "asked to and complied "

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 03:16 AM
It's not my definition of pulled, it's always been there. Can you not read it???? They told him to get out of the car and it's the same definition as a pitcher being pulled from a game by telling him to leave. It's the same, get over it and it's nothing new.

He also did not have the option of not getting out of his car, he was told to get out and had to comply. Do you REALLY think someone told to get out of their car has a choice??? They do not and I think even you are smart enough to know that. I think cassandra must be on daddy's computer.

Robert Hairless
January 3, 2007, 03:16 AM
HioProX:

I couldn't care less what "old folks" think on the matter as frankly those "old folks" are the people directly responsible for things being as screwed up as they are today. They're the ones who said "Yes sir Mr. President!" to every one of the career criminals from FDR to Shrub regarding every violation of our rights that comes down the pike. So tell me... why should I care what fascists in denial think?

I never knew that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and every President of the United States who succeeded him was a career criminal. This information interests me greatly. It is not in any of the history books I've read. Who is "Shrub," by the way? Have the fascists in denial elected a President without my noticing it or are you merely being disrespectful of my country and its government?

It also escaped my notice that all old people were fascists in denial. I knew many people who attained great age after fighting fascism and never even considered the possibility that they had themselves become fascists. I am having dinner with a few old people this weekend and I'll be sure to ask them though. If they deny it I won't believe it. Why should I care what they think, right? The only thoughts we should care about are our own or those of others who think the way we think.

Please don't be offended but your statements make me curious: are you a fascist? According to your profile you are 32 years old. That's "old" to people of younger ages without much maturity or perspective. If you are not a fascist yet, at what age will you become one? Is there some standard age at which people are suddenly transformed into fascists in denial or does it sort of happen gradually? Is it caused by a virus, do you think, or could it be a consequence of bringing into the world and raising intemperate, smartmouth, ignorant louts who take pleasure in insulting their elders and betters. Could it be genetically transmitted, do you think, do you think?

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 03:19 AM
Well Said Robert.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 03:22 AM
of staying in the car. then he could claim to be the new rosa parks. he was unwilling to pay for that priveledge, and wisely so. it likely woulda proved a most pyrrhic victory for him

saltysquid
January 3, 2007, 03:25 AM
More ridiculous jibberish.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 03:26 AM
its that not enough folks are as wise and brave as this guy maybe all his admirers should put down their keyboards tonite and seek out the nearest check poinyt and challenge it. but do the full deal refuse to comply if enough folks do it the evil system will collapse under the sheer weight of all the righteous standing up against tyranny .i'll be reading the papers to see how it works out

jeepmor
January 3, 2007, 03:47 AM
(Papers Please)

Out of curiosity how easy would it be for some concerned citizens to notice a check point and a few blocks prior to it stand with some free speech displays warning motorists that there was a checkpoint straight ahead? What possible problems might one encounter?

Shouldn't be an issue, but you know when you impact the revenue stream of the .gov's, there will be trouble. Everyone would have to have a video camera.

BTW - a legal loophole on these roadblocks is that the authorities HAVE TO print where and when the roadblocks will be in the local newspaper. If it's not posted in the paper, you now have a legal in to post a complaint. You also now have a place to gather and protest as well informed citizens.

Maybe a convoy of law abiding citizens with CHLs and CCWs intact, along with a trunk or truck full of freshly fired, empty, and still warm guns from the range. They should all pull up to the roadblock one after another 30 seconds to a minute apart. I'd bet you would would see some nervous LEO's. :rolleyes: ;) :neener:

I don't see anything out of the ordinary, you challenge a cop in any way whether your right or he is, you are gonna see them react in the fashion they were trained. They are trained to be dominant and control the situation, so they do, rights just get in the way of that. The kid being young puts him at a disadvantage as far as respect from the officers. I did not feel the kid was being smart, but his age and challenging the officer about his rights put them on "intimidate" mode instead. It's the typical chest beating bully type posturing response.

jeepmor

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 03:58 AM
this
"BTW - a legal loophole on these roadblocks is that the authorities HAVE TO print where and when the roadblocks will be in the local newspaper. If it's not posted in the paper, you now have a legal in to post a complaint. "

a hint ? you might not have good luck with google

rustymaggot
January 3, 2007, 04:29 AM
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:BvdyT9MU6NgJ:www.1800duilaws.com/forms/docs/sobriety_checkpoints.pdf+dui+checkpoints+public+notification&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a




EDIT: SEE IV.PROCEDURES/C/1

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 04:41 AM
was it
http://www.drunkdrivinglaws.org/sobriety-checkpoints.html
this?

Robert Hairless
January 3, 2007, 04:58 AM
if tht won opn fer u give ths a trie: http://www.1800duilaws.com/forms/docs/sobriety_checkpoints.pdf ifa it stil won opn giv us a cite. u betcha no prob.

Returning now to our English-speaking audience, another of the guidelines in DOT HS 807 656 is:

The motorist should be permitted to proceed on his/her way unless
the officer observes evidence of intoxication, or there is evidence
of another serious violation requiring immediate action.

There's no indication that the officer had found evidence of intoxication in the young man, nor is there any indication that the officer saw evidence of another serious violation requiring immediate action.

It is possible, of course, that the officer did decide (as has been urged in this thread) that the young man was a jerk. So far as I know, though, it is not yet illegal to be a jerk. Which is fortunate, because were there such a law the Internet would be a lonely place indeed instead of being a venue for sprightly, well-informed, intelligent discussion.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 05:08 AM
is this what you are attempting to pass off as law? wanna take another look?

"Public Information and Education - To obtain maximum benefit in terms of its
general deterrent effect, sobriety checkpoints should be publicized aggressively.
Most drivers will probably never encounter a sobriety checkpoint, but will only learn
of it through media reports or by word of mouth. These two valuable forms of
public communication will greatly enhance any such program and should be
employed consistently."


particularly in reference to the fantasy that the locations must be published?


heres another thing from their website



DRUNKDRIVINGLAWS.ORG PROVIDES THE INFORMATION IN THIS WEB SITE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH.

oops maybe you can explain the subtler points of the language to me.... go real slow i'll try to keep up


its the finicky difference between guidelines and laws that keep tripping me up

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 05:19 AM
and again it doesn't pretend to be the law. it is a series of guidelines issued by the prosecutors office and the nhtsa but not law.. i mention this because i make a habit of reading the paper and they do announce that they will be running them but not the locations. for someone to give legal advice stating that their failure to publish the locations is a get outa jail free card is helping folks mess up more

McCall911
January 3, 2007, 05:21 AM
I agree with that young man for standing his ground. The officer IMO had no business asking him about his personal life--where he was going, what he was doing, where had he been. There is no moral or ethical justification for that at all, whether it's "legal" or not. There are higher laws than what is written in criminal codes.

And I say this after working for over 27 years with law enforcement as a dispatcher. Of course, a dispatcher and a police officer are two entirely different job descriptions. And one thing I learned after all those 27 years: I don't tell the officers how to do their jobs, and they don't tell me how to do mine. But if I crossed the line of common human decency, as in this case, I would expect to be called on it. But so should the officers. If, by pinning on those badges, they forget that they are also human, then they don't have enough substance to be wearing them.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 05:23 AM
"While the latest Supreme Court ruling does not address prior public notification"

http://www.drug-rehabs.org/content.php?cid=1204&state=Louisiana


and from the guidelines some think have force of law

" Make general inquiries of the driver that require a response, and will observe the subject for signs of intoxication or impairment?

rustymaggot
January 3, 2007, 05:28 AM
cass,

your being very rude.

i never stated it was legal advice, regulation, or case law. i pointed to what i found that may be relevant, after another member mentioned the issue.

it is clear that all you wish to do is argue, offend, and complicate.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 05:30 AM
didn't mean to offend you just pointed out the difference btween guidelines and law and in two diffferent ways the dangers of net legal advice

EghtySx
January 3, 2007, 06:06 AM
Theres a big difference in RIGHT and LEGAL.


BTW, CDs sig.

Definition of: oderint dum metuant: Let them hate so long as they fear. (A favorite saying of Caligula.)

Deavis
January 3, 2007, 06:29 AM
Das Papiers Bitte

Jeep, der Ausweis is the noun you are looking for. For future reference,

"Wo ist dein Ausweis?" would be good... or "Haben Sie ein Ausweis?" would also be ok. I could think of some insulting ways to say it too. :)

The backpedaling on this thread is pretty impressive. The kid seems, in my opinion, to be trying to stand up for what he believes are his rights. I can't fault him but his technique leaves a little to be desired. He'll get better over time I think.

evan price
January 3, 2007, 07:03 AM
First: Didn't bother watching the video, seen enough of them already, so I am only addressing this specific point:

@McCall911: The officer IMO had no business asking him about his personal life--where he was going, what he was doing, where had he been.

You are not correct, sir. The officer can ask whatever questions he desires to aid in the gathering of information to see if PC or RS exists. However it IS the right of the subject to answer or not as he sees fit. It is within the power of the officer to detain a subject to ascertain if PC or RS exists but there has never been a clear cut determination of what a "typical" time for detention should be lacking RS or PC. This is the same basic tactic used by all LEO's in street level interdiction. Find a small violation of the vehicle code and use that as a reason to detain a subject. Use whatever means possible to turn it into something bigger. Since many low lifes drive badly in cars that are one step out of the junkyard and often leave "paraphernalia" in "plain sight" this is easily done. When "paraphernailia" can be defined as straws, Baggies, etc. it makes it easy to find "RS".
In the example you give, by asking questions that are relatively easy to answer the leo is not looking for the actual answer but the way the answer is given, evasiveness, hesitation, conflicting directions, etc are all clues to be used to find RS.

McCall911
January 3, 2007, 07:54 AM
You are not correct, sir. The officer can ask whatever questions he desires to aid in the gathering of information to see if PC or RS exists.


So you would have no problem being treated in the same way that young man was?

DKSuddeth
January 3, 2007, 08:30 AM
the bottom line for both sides of this is pretty simple, actually. On one side, we have those that are freedom absolutists, those who believe that, lack of any credible evidence notwithstanding, police have no right or authority to detain or question anyone at a 'checkpoint' (if these are even truly legal) so long as there is no evident cause to do so. On the other side, we have those that seem to believe that there is the law, then there is the rest of everything else and despite what everything else might be, right or wrong, it can never be allowed to rise above the written law. Those that enforce this written law should always be obeyed and that any resulting disturbance or chaos as a result of ignoring this 'mandate' to adhere to a lawful authorities orders are the direct fault of the non-authority and said person should summarily be detained, arrested, and/or incarcerated for willfully disobeying said lawful authorities orders.

freedom or slavery, take your pick.

romma
January 3, 2007, 10:33 AM
It's amazing if you watch the show "Cops", how many people are lead to believe they will be in more "trouble" if they don't cooperate by submitting to search. Cops are not your friends, they will probably not go lightly on you, they have a job to do. On the flip side, there are plenty of police that take it personal when citizens no there rights and refuse to talk or implicate themselves. They feel as though it is your obligation to comply and bend to there will... These law officers need to get training or go!

sctman800
January 3, 2007, 02:59 PM
In my area I pretty much know when and where checkpoints will be set up, I can usually avoid them. When I see barricades set up blocking traffic into one lane with flashing police car lights all over the road I turn off and take side streets around them. As long as it can be done without breaking traffic laws it is not illegal to do so. Oh yes, I am personally completly clean and sober and my truck and motorcycle are allways up to code.
Now, if somehow I screw up and don't notice in time to avoid the stop, then I will comply with license, registration and proof of insurance. Where I am going, where have I been or other "small talk" types of questions will be answered by a polite refusal. Also any "request" to look inside my vehicle will not be granted, I certaintly will not resist, but no permission will be given. I consider the "if you have nothing to hide (and I don't) you shouldn't mind my looking" really means "I don't have any reason to arrest you but I would like to find one." Jim.

Malum Prohibitum
January 3, 2007, 04:02 PM
No, nobody accused me of being one, either. :D In spite of the fact that I was a police officer for 12 years, I detest DUI checkpoints, and I detest detaining people for whom there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.

I find it very stressful to encounter a DUI checkpoint. It makes me feel like I am in a Third World Country, and I cooperate no further than the law forces me to do (i.e., I hand my license out the window and refuse to speak to the officer at all).

As I am usually open carrying, and the checkpoints are usually in the dark, this raises the stress level even further.

I HATE such checkpoints. They should be outlawed.

Oh, and I absolutely refused to carry out such checkpoints when I was an officer. Refused.

As for whether the 19 year old was respectful: If an officer wants respect, it must be earned. I cannot give these officers any more respect than I could give to police officers that participated in seizing firearms, even if it was "legal."

What would the Founding Fathers have thought of such checkpoints? Really? I am shocked there are so many here, on this forum of all places, who support them and the armed agents of government who enforce them on admitted innocents.

James Madison would not have recognized you as a fellow countryman.

jnojr
January 3, 2007, 04:03 PM
In my area I pretty much know when and where checkpoints will be set up, I can usually avoid them. When I see barricades set up blocking traffic into one lane with flashing police car lights all over the road I turn off and take side streets around them. As long as it can be done without breaking traffic laws it is not illegal to do so.

If they see you avoiding their checkpoint, you're guaranteed to be pulled over. In California, it is literally impossible to operate a motor vehicle without violating some obscure section of the Vehicle Code. It doesn't take more than a minute or two for an officer to pull you over for the infraction you just committed after having turned away from the checkpoint, and now you're in a bigger mess than you'd been if you had just gone through and showed your papers like a good citizen.

Besides, they tend to set up so that, by the time you see them, there is nowhere to "turn off"... you either go through, or you do a U-turn and get a couple of cars on your ass.

Checkpoints suck. The price we pay for getting a few tipsy (and even a couple of seriously inebriated) drivers off the road is far too high. A whole generation has been conditioned that this is all right, that the police may stop them and ask for their papers at any time, and that this is perfectly normal. The "DUI" checkpoints used to just slow you down and funnel all cars past a few cops who would just look and see if they saw any sign of intooxication. Now, you stop and are forced to identify yourself and interact with them. What next? Everyone blow through a Breathalyzer? A "quick, non-intrusive" search of your car, just to make sure that "everything's OK"? "Contraband searches"? Run the ID of everyone in each car against lists of arrest warrants, or parolees, or "suspected terrorists"?

What happened to America?

Now, we pause to bring you cassandrasdaddy to tell me what a lunatic I am, that the police are our friends, that I'm paranoid and ought to be investigated for my subversive talk.

Sistema1927
January 3, 2007, 04:37 PM
I have been fortunate enough to not yet be involved with a DUI checkpoint. However, there was a time about 15 years ago when I was travelling extensively throughout the state of NM on a monthly basis, and would invariably have to pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint. The conversation would normally go like this:

Border Patrol Agent: "Citizenship?"
Me: "United States"
Border Patrol Agent: "Have a nice day."

However, on one trip, this is what transpired:

Border Patrol Agent: "Citizenship?"
Me: "United States"
Border Patrol Agent: "Sir, are you travelling for business or pleasure?"
Me: "Officer, I don't want to sound obnoxious, but I don't really think an answer to that question is needed in order for you to perform your duties."
Border Patrol Agent: "You know, you are right. Have a nice day."

Note that in the interval between his question and my answer that I had enough time for the mental picture of my car being pulled over to the side and then being disassembled in a futile search for narcotics or illegal aliens went through my mind. I was fully prepared for that to happen. The agent was stepping over the line, and had no legal right to inquire as to the nature of my trip, and sometimes you need to stand up for your rights. That wouldn't have stopped me from being detained, but it worked out OK that time.

Note that I have no problem with the BP or INS trying to protect our borders from drugs or illegals, but they don't have the right to overstep their authority, and questions about my personal life are my business, not theirs. Last I checked, US citizens can travel throughout our land without needing government permission or encountering government intrusion.

Plink
January 3, 2007, 04:59 PM
I still don't understand how checkpoints are legal at all- you know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Or maybe I have that backwards...

I'm with you on that. Seems to be illegal search and seizure. What's the difference in going door to door seeing if someone is doing something illegal? I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone, perhaps more since I've lost a number of friends to them over the years. But I fail to see how random searches is constitutional, even when done for the greater good.

gezzer
January 3, 2007, 07:01 PM
The LEOs did what they did. They attempted to intimidate, under color of law, an American Citizen, who was not suspected of committing any crime.

THEY FAILED.

They've been exposed. That's worth it to me.

And that you support the activities of these LEOs sickens me.



Yes, I agree. I hope the young man goes forward with his complaints. The PO's were wrong.

cassandrasdaddy
January 3, 2007, 07:19 PM
like a latino to some
ins did a raid on a jobsite where i worked with abouy40 or so guys by the time they came up the ladders on one side i was one of 2 guys left working 5 compressors a doz or more nailguns hose everywhere. the ins guy came up and asked me for my green card, i used some choice vocabulary he was taken aback and seemed to take my pronunciation of a common compound curseword as proof of residency.
as far a search and seizure go anyone familiar with the recent raids at the meat packing plants? total lock down everyone has to prove legal status takes hours with no one allowed to leave both natives and immigrants alike

JD0608
January 3, 2007, 08:16 PM
there`s a big difference between some slob driving drunk and me owning guns. i`ve been a paramedic for 15 years and can`t count how many dead and dying people- mothers,fathers,and children i`ve pulled out of mangled vehicles because some drunk ran them over. so don`t give me the " they have rights crap" 5 minutes out of your day at a traffic check to catch drunks is not asking a whole lot. be respectful and if your not breaking the law i`m sure you will be on your way in no time. and yes.. if giving up some of my rights would bring back some of the little children i`ve had to put in a body bag, i would do it.. that doesn`t mean i think the police should take all my guns or play with my wifes underwear as acouple of you suggested.. that means i`m willing to be stopped at a road check for 5 minutes to answes questions without being a little smart-ass like that kid was.

Biker
January 3, 2007, 08:20 PM
Yup, JD0608, it's for the children.

Biker

Sindawe
January 3, 2007, 08:26 PM
if giving up some of my rights would bring back some of the little children i`ve had to put in a body bag, i would do it..Fine. Bargon away YOUR rights if you wish. Stay the freak away from those of others.

Are there any REAL numbers that compare the count of DUIs caught in these checkpoints vs. active patrols and police observation outside bars/nightclubs?

MechAg94
January 3, 2007, 08:32 PM
as far a search and seizure go anyone familiar with the recent raids at the meat packing plants? total lock down everyone has to prove legal status takes hours with no one allowed to leave both natives and immigrants alike
Didn't they have a search warrant or court order for that raid? If so, that is an entirely different issue I think. Probable cause or evidence was already presented to a judge to get a search order legally. It wasn't just some INS agents driving by and deciding to search.

MechAg94
January 3, 2007, 08:34 PM
if giving up some of my rights would bring back some of the little children i`ve had to put in a body bag, i would do it.
Hey, if we had only known that a long time ago, there are a bunch of US soldiers that would have gone on to live fruitful lives. Instead, they died to preserve rights that we can now just decide we don't need.

MechAg94
January 3, 2007, 08:36 PM
Are there any REAL numbers that compare the count of DUIs caught in these checkpoints vs. active patrols and police observation outside bars/nightclubs?
I would certainly like to see that. Also, of the DUI's caught, what was the alcohol content of the driver? I think a check point is much more likely to catch drivers that are driving safely, but happen to be at or over the legal limit.

jnojr
January 3, 2007, 08:38 PM
I have been fortunate enough to not yet be involved with a DUI checkpoint. However, there was a time about 15 years ago when I was travelling extensively throughout the state of NM on a monthly basis, and would invariably have to pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint. The conversation would normally go like this:

Border Patrol Agent: "Citizenship?"
Me: "United States"
Border Patrol Agent: "Have a nice day."

However, on one trip, this is what transpired:

Border Patrol Agent: "Citizenship?"
Me: "United States"
Border Patrol Agent: "Sir, are you travelling for business or pleasure?"
Me: "Officer, I don't want to sound obnoxious, but I don't really think an answer to that question is needed in order for you to perform your duties."
Border Patrol Agent: "You know, you are right. Have a nice day."

Last time I drove across the border (maybe 2 years ago):

Border Patrol Agent: (looks at my girlfriend holding her dog, hand on butt of sidearm) "If that dog bites me, I'm going to shoot it."

It was all I could do to not kick his teeth down his throat. I wanted to tell him, "If you don't want to get bitten, get the f*&% out of our van!" But, if I had, I'd still be in prison today.

rustymaggot
January 3, 2007, 08:41 PM
if its for the kids, what are kids doing on the streets at 2am?

JD0608
January 3, 2007, 08:41 PM
yes biker it is. i`m sorry you think it`s funny. hopefully no drunk will ever hurt anyone you care for. you people act like i said we should all move to iran or something. it`s just a traffic check.stop and go if your not drunk.

Highland Ranger
January 3, 2007, 08:42 PM
JD, you are having an emotional response based on your experiences.

It is understandable.

But it is still wrong, no matter how many lives they "save".

Just like gun control is wrong, no matter how many lives it "saves."

It is the age old debate - "free speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a theatre"

So where is the line?

I know where it is and Nazi checkpoints are over the line.

jnojr
January 3, 2007, 08:44 PM
if giving up some of my rights would bring back some of the little children i`ve had to put in a body bag, i would do it..

Hey, if you want to give up your rights, that's your call. But that won't be enough... people like you insist that I must give up my rights to make the world "a better place" in your mind.

Biker
January 3, 2007, 08:47 PM
No JD, I don't think that it's funny. I think your post was repulsive. The world you envision is not one I'd want to raise my kids in.
Freedom is a simple concept...I'm a simple guy.

Biker

rustymaggot
January 3, 2007, 08:55 PM
it is not stop and go if your not drunk, its ask you to come out of the car and stand in the cold for 15 minutes, then ask you why your shaking and if your afraid of somthing and why. why are you nervous, your shaking all over. that kind of crap.

i have no problem with a cop doing his job. but lets get the job done instead of looking for, or creating problems.

The Cavalry
January 3, 2007, 09:11 PM
JD0608, I can understand that dealing with the aftermath of drunk drivers has made you more sensitive to the issue than most of us who haven't.

I hope you can grasp why those of us who don't drink and drive (or drink at all, for that matter) find these checkpoints to be both intrusive and unacceptable.

We'll fight them at every turn, and you're just putting yourself into the line of fire by defending them.

So many in the medical community allow their exposure to death and injury to push them into the Socialist mindset of mass punishment of the innocent in order to catch the guilty few, and it's tragic.

You may not think being detained without cause (however briefly) is a problem, but an awfully large number of people do.

The Cavalry
January 3, 2007, 09:24 PM
I appreciate Evan price taking time to post the LE perspective. Here's the other side of that coin.

At checkpoints, I find it appropriate to only respond to such questions from the officer with these same two questions, window only ~1/4 way down, hands visible on the steering wheel, door locked:

"Officer, why am I being stopped?"
"Officer, am I free to go?"

And if the officer starts to escalate and threaten, there's:

"If I'm being detained, I would like to call my attorney at this time. I do not consent to any search of my person or vehicle."

Been doing this for years at the various drunk driving and clickit or ticket checkpoints, worst it's gotten me was a few minutes' wait and no-seatbelt ticket from a severely pissed cop having a bad shift.

I went to court on that one (after rescheduling my court date twice at the last allowable minute, check with your friendly court clerk) and got it thrown out.

I'll understand if any LEOs don't appreciate this, but as a law-abiding citizen and commissioned officer in the Army I don't find checkpoints to be acceptable.

JD0608
January 3, 2007, 09:57 PM
guys i`m not willing to give up my gun rights. what i`m saying has nothing to do with gun rights. you would have to look hard to find a more conservitive person than me. the only thing i`m saying is being respectful and following directions at a traffic check is not going to hurt any of us. if we all are honest with ourselves we know these traffic checks have done a lot of good.
just like being at the airport and being searched. if it keeps some idiot from bringing a bomb on the plane, i`ll wait an extra 5 or 10 minutes and let the people do their job.

SteelyNirvana
January 3, 2007, 09:59 PM
I know I'm probally chimming in a little late but IMO the kid should'nt have been a smart a**. I'm only 25 but in my 8 years of driving and getting pulled(a few,but major times) I've always found that being polite and being honest is the best policy with LEO's.Back when I was'nt so mature I still got issued tickets,but I did'nt get hauled off (for which I easily could) for several major offenses.Driving 100mph in rush hour (on I-40),no ins,no reg,no current insp,etc.etc.If you admit to what your doing and be polite they'll cut you some slack,I've even had a few laughing and joking w/me before they left.Same with dealing with the DA and the judge at the court house.I've gotten all my stuff droped,bymyself,no attorney,but just being myself and admmiting my guilt(Okay,maybee a little but-kissing:D )If you offer any resistance or act like your gonna give them a problem(Such in this kids case) ofcourse there gonna mess with you,it makes them suspicious and it would me too,if I was a LEO.Kid got what he deserved.

My two cents,

Brian Craig

Biker
January 3, 2007, 10:00 PM
I give up.

Biker

JD0608
January 3, 2007, 10:07 PM
and biker it`s not a world i invision it`s the real world we life in. when you see a bad accident you get to drive on by and forget about it. when i go i find out real quick how the accident happened and way too many times it`s because of a drunk driver. if you don`t ever have to deal with what i see every day, it probably dosen`t seem real until it happens to you. but repulsive or not our children face it everyday. drunk drivers kill more people in one year than all the american soldiers killed it the whole veitnam war. i still say traffic check away.

The Cavalry
January 3, 2007, 10:10 PM
JD, you don't have to share your rationale for voluntarily giving up your freedom.

It's unlikely to change any minds on the subject of guarding ours jealously, however, so not a productive investment of your time.

If you want to effect change, push your lawmakers for stiffer DUI penalties. I was rear-ended by what I found later to be a 3rd time offender, and was shocked that this person had been able to get a license to drive.

Biker
January 3, 2007, 10:11 PM
Drunk drivers kill more than 58,000 people a year? Don't be offended if I ask for the slightest bit of proof.
M'kay?

Biker

Sindawe
January 3, 2007, 10:15 PM
drunk drivers kill more people in one year than all the american soldiers killed it the whole veitnam war. Bullocks!

Number killed in EtOH related automobile accidents in 2005: 16,885

Source: http://www.madd.org/stats/1112

Number killed in Vietnam: 58,178

Source: http://thewall-usa.com/summary.asp

The Cavalry
January 3, 2007, 10:21 PM
briancraig81 wrote:
I've always found that being polite and being honest is the best policy with LEO's.

Yup, just to clarify on my previous post I don't recommend that procedure for a righteous pull-over.

On those rare occasions where I've been stopped for a moving violation, politeness has been and will be the rule.

"And no, officer, I don't consent to any search of my person or vehicle" if asked for a quick look around the inside of my car. If the officer has PC or cause for a Terry frisk he/she won't need to ask for consent.

Voluntarily consenting to a search is right up there with happily participating in seatbelt/DUI checkpoints, in terms of giving up your rights...IMHO.

ChiefThunderstick
January 3, 2007, 11:01 PM
--------

busy_squirrel
January 3, 2007, 11:46 PM
1st things first. The kid knowingly drove into a checkpoint he could see from far away. He didn't try to avoid it and already had the camera on. He was lookin' for trouble, and got just the amount he wanted.

That being said, the officer did his job and tried to find evidence to use against the kid. I don't fault him for that, he was trained to do that, and he was within the law. The kid politely declined. That was also legal. The officer THEN decides to pull him over. Can it be proven that he pulled him over based on the response? Actually, no, intent is hard to prove. Can it be deduced that he was subjected to intensified scrutiny for exercising his rights? Common sense says yes.

i`ve been a paramedic for 15 years and can`t count how many dead and dying people- mothers,fathers,and children i`ve pulled out of mangled vehicles because some drunk ran them over. so don`t give me the " they have rights crap" 5 minutes out of your day at a traffic check to catch drunks is not asking a whole lot.

Translation: There's lotsa bad things out there, I know, you may not, but I do. Don't object when they try to limit your freedom, they are trying to prevent bad things. Except that I've never seen any numbers showing DUI stops reduce drunk drivers.

I've been on both sides of the situation. Among others, I lost my cousin to a drunk driver. I've also been the drunk driver allowed to leave because I steadfastly, but politely, exercised my rights. I'm not recommending anyone ever drunk drive...

But it REAFFIRMED in my mind that DUI stops don't catch enough drivers to make them worth the resources they use. Put the same LEOs in a car circling a bar or something. That way they will be looking for criminals in a way that is legal AND constitutional.

Kentak
January 3, 2007, 11:47 PM
How was the kid being a smart ass? The officer asks him where he was headed and the kid said he didn't care to discuss that.

In this country, do we have to tell the police where we are going when we are stopped at a DUI checkpoint and NO offense has been commited?

Is the cop's sense of authority so threatened by someone declining to engage in a conversation not germain to the reason for the interaction?

Why was the car searched? I always thought a DUI checkpoint was a simple matter of the cop talking to the driver, checking driver's license, etc., and trying to detect signs of intoxication--odor of alcohol, open containers, slurred speech, confusion, etc. If they detect something, they do a field sobriety test, if not, they say have a nice day and off you go.

How was this justified? I'm willing to hear an explanation and change my mind.

K

RangerHAAF
January 4, 2007, 06:32 AM
Fortunately, In my state of Georgia I don't have to wear a seatbelt in my truck if I don't want to; they are a pain and an inconvenience.

Also, knock on wood, I have never encountered a DUI checkpoint in my neighborhood. The cops know where and when they can pull this BS and get away with it. For example, there were a lot of blue lights flashing in certain "high crime" areas on New Year's eve but not in my community which is located next to Agnes Scott College in Decatur.

If I have gotten anything out of this encounter, it's that there is a potentially large market for car video surveillance cameras and audio equipment to keep a check on cops who may abuse their authority and can get away with it because a judge will defer to their story if there is no contrary evidence available.

McCall911
January 4, 2007, 07:21 AM
The kid knowingly drove into a checkpoint he could see from far away. He didn't try to avoid it and already had the camera on.

So let me get this straight: A person having a video camera on in their own vehicle indicates that a crime is being committed?????

Sure, the kid may have been expecting that there would be trouble at the checkpoint from the police. But why would he have expected such trouble?
It sounds to me like the citizens of that area are policing their own police. So what's wrong with that? And where have laws been broken in doing so?
Sounds like the kid will make a fine libertarian to me!

El Tejon
January 4, 2007, 08:00 AM
busy, the purpose of DUI checkpoints is to acclimate the public to this type of government intrusion. They don't work and the cops admit that they do not work.

However, the purpose is to make the coming permanent checkpoints where drugs, guns and money will be the targets more acceptable.

Kentak, it wasn't justified and that's what has people scrambling to defend the police with dead, mangled baby stories.

1911 guy
January 4, 2007, 08:13 AM
If a DUI checkpint was merely to stop drivers, stick your nose in the window and sniff for alcohol, I wouldn't be nearly so put off by them. What we have, instead, is checkpoints intent on finding something, anything, to detain drivers. Where are you going? None of their business, it's a free country. Mind if we look in your vehicle? Yes, I mind, it's my vehicle and this was a free country last time I checked. We'll find a reason. Huh? Since when is the job of police to "find a reason"? These are a small step to "Your papers, please."

As for driving around a checkpoint, here in Ohio that will get you pulled over. Deliberately avoiding one is considered probable cause. Not wanting to be hassled is apparently a crime in my fine state. Possibly the teens, also. Taping the stop was the smart thing to do, for his own protection. What need did the officers have to get him out of the vehicle and move it themselves? If the car was damaged in any way, he'd have no recourse. State law forbids one to sue the state without the states approval. Must be nice.

The principle of what happened here is the issue, not the specific events. A citizen going about his legal business was detained, deliberately intimidated and his private property was used without his permission. If I did that to someone, that would be called kidnapping, menacing and theft. All because a mayor or commissioner wants a little fundraising action.

cassandrasdaddy
January 4, 2007, 08:23 AM
about where you live. but around here the flashlight is a sniffer. they get it in your face/car and it lights up if it detects alcohol.

Sistema1927
January 4, 2007, 08:41 AM
Last time I drove across the border (maybe 2 years ago)

Just to clarify, my event wasn't at the border. It was just north of Truth or Consequences, NM, which is at milemarker 75. Factoring in that I-25 begins at Las Cruces, and that town is about 25 miles north of the Mexican border, this Border Patrol checkpoint was about 100 miles north of the border. Note that I had not travelled outside of the country at any time during my travel, but I still have an official of the US government asking me about my personal business. What happened to America?

Sistema1927
January 4, 2007, 08:49 AM
That being said, the officer did his job and tried to find evidence to use against the kid.

That is the officer's job? To try to trump up some charges against someone that they have stopped at a checkpoint? And you think that this is acceptable?

This is a far cry from the role of law enforcement that the Founders envisioned. The fact that you, and many others, buy into the lie that this is how cops "do their job" shows that we have lost our freedom. Heaven help us.

Deanimator
January 4, 2007, 09:08 AM
hes lucky to be as young as he is i can remember when there were penalties for being a richard. painful ones.

Really? Penalties from whom?

The police? Are you saying that you're in favor of extra-judicial use of violence by the police to impose a submissive attitude on someone neither violating the law, nor obstructing their activities?

rbernie
January 4, 2007, 09:09 AM
the purpose of DUI checkpoints is to acclimate the public to this type of government intrusion.
....
However, the purpose is to make the coming permanent checkpoints where drugs, guns and money will be the targets more acceptable.
I suspect that their existence is far more related to getting lots of paid OT to the ranks and political visibility to the local PD chief...

Never ascribe to malice what can just as easily be linked to simple greed.

Autolycus
January 4, 2007, 09:43 AM
For those who support this kind of action in the name of the children...

I believe it is illegal to drink alcohol in Iran. Have you considered moving?

What would the Founding Fathers think if you told them that the police would be checking citizens on a public road and searching their property? Or even going so far as using their property without their permission?

JMusic
January 4, 2007, 10:16 AM
Here in Tennessee the State Police and even the SO does this on a frequent bases. One common spot is a quarter mile from my house and I was stopped there when I first moved to my location. The Officer was polite and so was I, He visually looked through my vehicle and boat that I was pulling, total time about 5 minutes.

I didn't like it one damn bit and have avoided the spot since. Time was 11 AM on a Saturday morning. My experience is that is not a good time to find drunks. They were gone by 6 PM.

Driving a vehicle is a privlage not a right no matter who pays for the roads and infrastructure. I don't see things changing anytime soon.

Jim

oobray
January 4, 2007, 11:11 AM
I am glad to see all of you with the liberty of yourself and others in mind. But I would like to bring reality of the law in to this discussion.
It seems that the blame is being placed on the LEO's for doing thier job. Yes, maybe the DUI checkpoint is wrong on principal... so blame the politicians who wrote the law, and the judges who approved it. Not the LEO's for doing thier job.
Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990 <-- roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.
As for those of you who believe the LEO's had no legal right to remove the young lad from his vehicle
Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 <--- states that "the fourth ammendment allows LEO's to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification". THat is quoted from the supreme court document.
There has been talk that the officer driving the car was an illegal search and seizure. It was not illegal because the officer did not dislodge anything to look. This falls under the plain view doctrine of Arizona vs Hicks 1978
As far as siezure goes, it would be easy to explain that the officer established reasonable suspiscion to detain the young boy due to the ruling of Illinois vs Wardlow 2000 that states if a LEO has made a lawful stop (in this case that is true) and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior he may detain that person. The young man was not nervous, however he was evasive.
Those of you who are saying that the young man was exercising his 5th ammendment right not to self incriminate. That applies only if you have been formally arrested. In this case, he was not, he was being detained for investigation. Any statement he made could have easily been thrown out in court because he was not read his rights. So you have no argument there. Also, Terry vs Ohio 1968 states that an LEO may make "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed" is definately a "reasonable inquiry".
Now, I do not necessarily agree with some of these case laws, however they are laws. If you feel that these are a violation of the constitution than take that up with the legislators and courts, do NOT blame LEO's who put thier lives on the line everyday.
Now, for all the defense of the officers, I must say that if they truly said anything to the effect of "If you don't stop running your mouth we'll find a reason to arrest you". That is DEFINATELY out of line. However we can't hear that on the video and must take the young man's word for it. Knowing that he intentionaly went looking for a confrontation I would be hard pressed to believe it. There are bad cops out there, but I don't see anything wrong with what these particular cops did as far as legality goes. Sorry but if you are going to stand up for something, at least now you truly know the laws.

McCall911
January 4, 2007, 11:18 AM
oobray

Thanks, oobray.

1911 guy
January 4, 2007, 11:19 AM
I've made this point again and again. Sometimes I think it falls on deaf ears. Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should do something.

We have been given a litany of legal jargon to approve that what happened was legal. I see nothing in there stating that an officer of the state is to use good judgement, polite conversation and common sense in dealing with the public. Just a list of what he/she can get away with. Sometimes legal and right are at opposing ends of the spectrum. Many who cheer for the Great Nanny have trouble comprehending this.

oobray
January 4, 2007, 11:37 AM
You're right, just because you are allowed to, doesn't mean you should. However, these are the tactics that the courts of our country have said the officers should use in order to do thier jobs. They are also trained, and learn to trust no one, just because the kid was cool, calm and collected and knew a little bit about his rights, doesn't mean that he wasn't hiding something. Saying that these LEO's should not follow thier policy as well as the court laws of our country is like saying the Lt. in another post on this forum, who is refusing to go to Iraq is justified. I believe that in both cases, officers are doing a job they signed up for. Or rather the LEO's are doing the job, and the Lt. is refusing to do his job.

1911 guy
January 4, 2007, 11:45 AM
Just becaue he was cool and knew some of his rights didn't mean he wasn't hiding something? Now we're to presume guilt and make observations that support our conclusion?

oobray, I'm not picking on you, it's just that you've been the only one to present a cogent argument for the opposition.

We are in fact dealing with a situation very similar to the Lt. in the other thread. The difference here is that the orders are in fact unlawful, per the constitution, both federal and I imagine all states. Laws are passed by penny ante politicians to get money in their coffers and nobody challenges them, least of all the cops who benefit from the extra cash, not personally, but in department funds. It is exactly the same thing, overlooking the right (challenging wrong laws and doing your duty) for the expedient (we want the cash, I don't want to go to Iraq).

rmurfster
January 4, 2007, 11:47 AM
The question isn't whether the police have the right to perform checks... They already do.

Did the young man here have a right not to answer ... yes.

Was he respectful or wise ... no.

The police are there for our protection. Just as all of us respect the military for protecting our freedom, the police protect our freedom.

No nation can stand without law. Respect the authority.

Both were wrong... The boy for being rude, the officer for responding with an authority play.

Biker
January 4, 2007, 11:55 AM
"Respect the authority"?

"...the police protect our freedom"?

Cue The Twilight Zone music...Orwell was a prophet.

Biker

MacEntyre
January 4, 2007, 11:55 AM
IF YOU DON`T HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE LAW.
I think you mean "respectful of the LEO". The LEO is not the LAW.

The kid was respecting the law by not breaking it. He could have been more respectful of the LEO, but does being respectful mean that he must answer questions about where he has been?

"If you don't have anything to hide" has become the justification de jure for expecting people to waive their rights.

Why not require all LEOs to publish their bank account records so we can be sure they aren't on the take? If you have nothing to hide...

If you don't have probable cause then why not be respectful of the citizens you are sworn to protect?

Sindawe
January 4, 2007, 12:02 PM
Cue The Twilight Zone music...Or perhaps the The Imperial March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imperial_March) would be more fitting. :uhoh:

oobray
January 4, 2007, 12:07 PM
Thank you 1911guy for your respect. I'm hoping to steer this post away from emotional attacks, to intelligent conversation of the laws. The purpose of my post wasn't necessarily to say that the laws truly are constitutional only to state that the LEO's were following what the courts have said is constitutional. I want the blame for these laws to fall on the proper people, the law makers and court officials, NOT the LEO's. We have three branches of government for a reason, and LEO's do not make laws, but ARE required to enforce them in thier entirity, they CANNOT pick and choose which laws to enforce, just as military members CANNOT choose which wars they wish to fight in. So the issues we should be discussing is whether or not the court laws that I presented are constitutional or not, as opposed to whether or not the LEO's conduct was legal, because it undeniably was legal.

Biker
January 4, 2007, 12:08 PM
Indeed, Sindawe.

Butthead, now that tune will be stuck in my head for days. A fitting choice, though.

Biker:)

rmurfster
January 4, 2007, 12:41 PM
"Respect the authority"?

"...the police protect our freedom"?

Cue The Twilight Zone music...Orwell was a prophet.

So, you don't respect authority? You don't believe the police are here to protect our freedoms?

There are bad "eggs" everywhere, including the police, but we must respect their place in our free society, which can only be free by obeying laws for the common good.

High Planes Drifter
January 4, 2007, 12:51 PM
There is a difference between respecting, and fearing. When did we, as a society, begin to fear or government, and LEO ? If it continues, things will only get worse.

oobray
January 4, 2007, 12:56 PM
The Police departments, as well as every other entity deserve public scrutiny. But I fear that there is a lot of scrutiny that is unfounded, or uneducated. Meaning that people blame the entity that represents the government rather than the government itself. I think we have now talked this one to death, hopefully someone got some good from it though. I thought it was a good topic. And my two cents about the police... They should neither be feared, nor unconditionaly trusted. They are human as we are and are subjected to our same desires and faults. Nothing more, or less should be expected of them. Just as I had a professor tell me once, the police are a necessary evil the public must endure in order to combat evil. Like I said though, they are not immune from justifiable scrutiny and punishment if necessary. This case however, does not justify punishment or action of any sort against the police.

ArmedBear
January 4, 2007, 12:56 PM
So, you don't respect authority? You don't believe the police are here to protect our freedoms?

Not in California, no.

Furthermore, what is "authority?" When do you quit "respecting" it?

Do you willingly go to Auschwitz because "authority" decides you must?

If not, then where is the line?

Cops are nothing but citizens with a tax-funded job. What does "authority" even mean?

ArmedBear
January 4, 2007, 12:59 PM
But I fear that there is a lot of scrutiny that is unfounded, or uneducated. Meaning that people blame the entity that represents the government rather than the government itself.

True enough.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear of any scrutiny that is "unfounded." Scrutiny never hurt anyone, anyway.

Hell, a little more police scrutiny before the case would have prevented OJ from getting off after the fact.

jnojr
January 4, 2007, 01:02 PM
The question isn't whether the police have the right to perform checks... They already do.

No, they don't!

"The policec", as agents of the government, have no rights. Individuals have rights.

Yes, checkpoints are technically legal, but the laws that support checkpoints are unConstitutional. Yeah, I know... some court or another has decided no they're not. I don't care. A group of old men and women can't revoke my rights by sitting up on their bench and saying "We think this is OK".

This is where revolutions come from... when the government becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of curtailing liberty and quashing rights. One branch of government passes a law that's wrong. Another branch cheerfully enforces it because "it's the law". And a third branch upholds that law because they all go to the same cocktail parties and have the same campaign donors. And presto! all of our rights can now be removed, because the circle is complete.

Our government still puts on a charade of appearing to care what "the people" think. But with every election, no matter who wins, we get more of the same. Being given a choice of who gets to strip you of your rights this year is not a legitimate form of government.

jnojr
January 4, 2007, 01:05 PM
You don't believe the police are here to protect our freedoms?

Clearly they aren't! They're around to enforce the law. When the law serves to strip us of our liberties, the police enforce it because "that's their job".

This country would be a much better place if the Prime Directive of all civil servants was to protect freedom and rights, and all other activity was subordinate to that directive.

HiroProX
January 4, 2007, 01:09 PM
rmurfster...

If the "authorities" want respect, then they should act... respectable.

And no, I do not respect authority without a prior history of respectable behavior, nor do I suffer from the delusion that police in any way "protect freedom".

joab
January 4, 2007, 01:34 PM
I quit reading at the second page so if more info has come out I don't know

But why are so many giving total credibility to this kid?
Is it simply because of the typical cop bashing that has found favor on these forums?

The audio is barely audible we have only the kid's word stating that things were said as he says they were said.
I missed the search completely and saw no abuse of the kids car.
If there was any it certainly was not of the magnitude that he was complaining to the supervisor about.

I recently moved a 12x20 shed with an old 81 three speed Ford truck there was smoke billowing from the clutch and the truck drove off perfectly.
there was no lurching or over revving shown on the tape so how could there have been any damage at all?

In my opinion the kid is either a verifiable liar that has not earned any credibility

El Tejon
January 4, 2007, 01:53 PM
joab, because everything I have seen, it is the police who are acting illegally and lying, not him.

busy_squirrel
January 4, 2007, 03:08 PM
So let me get this straight: A person having a video camera on in their own vehicle indicates that a crime is being committed?????

Nope! Was simply saying that by his tone of voice when he "noticed" the DUI stop, it was obvious that he went there with the intention of filming a DUI checkpoint.


In this country, do we have to tell the police where we are going when we are stopped at a DUI checkpoint and NO offense has been commited?


Nope, even if an offense HAS been commited.

A person having a video camera on in their own vehicle indicates that a crime is being committed?????

Sure, the kid may have been expecting that there would be trouble at the checkpoint from the police. But why would he have expected such trouble?
It sounds to me like the citizens of that area are policing their own police. So what's wrong with that? And where have laws been broken in doing so?
Sounds like the kid will make a fine libertarian to me!


No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect so much trouble, Nothing wrong with that at all, As far as I know they havn't.

That is the officer's job? To try to trump up some charges against someone that they have stopped at a checkpoint? And you think that this is acceptable?


It would be nice if we lived in a society where "to protect and serve" was an LEOs motto. We don't live in that time anymore. I don't think it should be that way but the reality is that that is reality.

Officers are trained to find evidence to build a case. Yes, the officer's job IS to look for evidence to any crimes. That is not the defendants job. It is also not the judge, jury, or either attorneys job. PDs are the ones who are supposed to look for evidence. That's why I don't take it personal when an officer tries to find evidence I'm guilty of something, even when I'm innocent.

I just utilize my rights, and understand that I'll (unfortunately) be the one paying a lawyer if I hafta defend myself. I hate that the system and its "lawyers" aren't financially responsible for when their prosecutions fall through, but it is reality whether I like it or not.

ArmedBear
January 4, 2007, 03:11 PM
That's why I don't take it personal when an officer tries to find evidence I'm guilty of something.

True. It's not personal.

However, this is also why you should NEVER believe that the cop is "on your side", no matter what the situation. He/she is NOT. That's not a cop's job, even though it probably once was.

busy_squirrel
January 4, 2007, 03:18 PM
A fair cop would never be "on your side". Their job is always to objectively gather as much evidence as possible. If they can get more evidence by appearing to be "on one side" you can bet they will.

ArmedBear
January 4, 2007, 03:35 PM
The thing is, that's true whether or not you think it's you they're after.

Many people don't know this.

Furthermore, since this is true, it is RIDICULOUS when people on this board call it "cop-bashing" to say that it's best to avoid all interactions with the police, since their job includes looking for evidence against you at all times.

DigitalWarrior
January 4, 2007, 03:59 PM
cassandrasdaddy, there are plenty of reasons not to answer simple questions. For example, since you advocate openness and honesty:
as to being tripped up its been my experience that the truth is a sweet thing. since i no longer find it a requirement to lie i am almost impossible to trip up.
When was the last time you masturbated? What were you thinking about or looking at? Why are you being so defensive, was it illegal or immoral?

Mods, I believe that what I said was rated no more than PG, and necessary to my point. If you believe it was inappropriate, please delete it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why am I supposed to believe a police officer is my friend? He MUST arrest me if he finds a cause. There are so many laws, that I cannot be sure if I am inadvertently breaking the law. That is why I need a lawyer before I will talk to a Police Officer. No I will not explain this, or anything, to a cop who stops me.

http://www.attorneymarkstevens.com/police.html

Martha Stewart was convicted of lying about not doing something that was not a crime if she did it. I will not suffer the same fate. Silence is Golden.

DW

Lupinus
January 4, 2007, 04:07 PM
Good for him, innocnet until proven guilty, these things are a blantant violation of civil rights and BS of the highest order.

As to why not just coperate if you have nothing to hide? Thats as much BS as the road block and search is. I am a citizen I don't have to coperate and prove anything, it is the goverments burdon to prove that I am not, and until they have probably cause to suspect otherwise they have zero right detain me search me or anything else. They may have the authority to do it, not the right, there is a difference. He isn't being a punk kid, he is being someone who is miffed over having his rights blatantly violated while submitting just enough to not end up in jail and not any more then is needed for that goal.

So how the hell is he a punk kid? Because he wont bow down to law enforcment when they are violating his civil rights?

And the search? "Oh he over did it on his description of the search!" Who the hell cares? Any search without probable cause and the cops want to go fishing is a violation of your civil rights, so much as sticking their head in the car hoping to catch a wif of something and take a good hard look is an illegal search without probable cause or a warrent to do so.

oobray
January 4, 2007, 04:16 PM
I guess my post fell on deaf ears. There is still talk as to whether or not the search, siezure and detention were legal. Folks, whether you like it or not IT WAS LEGAL!!! If you're upset about our laws, take it up with the law makers, don't take it out on the messenger (LEO's)

Zak Smith
January 4, 2007, 04:23 PM
Two rhetorical questions:

1. In 1830, slavery was legal in much of the United States. To what extent do people "just doing their job" have culpability for their actions?

2. If something is immoral, is it any less immoral to do if you are ordered to do it by your superiors?

-z

ArmedBear
January 4, 2007, 04:27 PM
Zak:

A page back, I posted

Furthermore, what is "authority?" When do you quit "respecting" it?

Do you willingly go to Auschwitz because "authority" decides you must?

If not, then where is the line?

Cops are nothing but citizens with a tax-funded job. What does "authority" even mean?

No one answered. I doubt anyone will answer you, either.

Hence, the GOP and Democrats have both decided that the libertarian-leaning voter is not worth bothering with.

"...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Don Gwinn
January 4, 2007, 04:31 PM
Oh, man.

1. It doesn't matter if he exaggerated about the clutch issue. I think his main point, with which I agree, is that the cops never should have been using the clutch in the first place. They had NO reason to be in his car in the first place. What they did in there doesn't matter.

2. Making the kid get out of the car and submit to a "conversation" just because he politely exercised his rights is a joke. The guy who thought that would be a good idea is a fool. No nicer way to put it.

3. "If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind our intrusions into your private business" is an irritatingly dishonest thing to say.

4. The cop said he wanted to have a "conversation." He was lying about that. Someone here said the cop wanted to make "small talk." I can't say whether that poster was lying, but if not, it was a pretty naive thing to say. When a police officer stops you for whatever reason, I can guarantee it's not to engage in "small talk." Maybe next time you get pulled over you should say "Hey, how about that local professional sporting club, officer?" with a big smile and see how far you get.

DigitalWarrior
January 4, 2007, 04:33 PM
A person is morally responsible for their actions. If a man gets a job as a CEO, and discovers that he can increase profits by 5% by producing a product that causes cancers in rare cases, he is morally responsible for those deaths. Even if it is not illegal. Cops who enforce unjust laws are morally responsible for their actions. No man can sign away his agency.

"I was just doing my job." is not and never has been an acceptable excuse for immorality. Not to me and ,as sure as Hell, not to God.

DW
Former USMC
PS. I could not be a police officer because I would have to enforce drug laws. I can't do it.

ArmedBear
January 4, 2007, 04:44 PM
PS. I could not be a police officer because I would have to enforce drug laws. I can't do it.

But could you pull someone over and issue a citation because they were smoking a cigarette in their car with the windows closed? There was NO OTHER VIOLATION.

Par for the course in the city next to mine. It's gotten truly frightening. I don't smoke any more, but this happened to an acquaintance -- someone who has put his life on the line for his country many, many times.

Here in California, many of us are breaking "the law" on purpose, just for the sake of our own souls. There are so many ways to break the law without hurting anyone, that there's no longer much of a moral connection between the law and what anyone thinks is right or wrong.

Deanimator
January 4, 2007, 04:45 PM
The police are there for our protection.
No they're not.

That's settled caselaw.

If you don't believe me, try to sue the police for NOT protecting you.

I have NEVER been protected by the police, even when they were requested specifically to do just that.

You are more likely to see Helen Brach and Bigfoot making out in the Dan Ryan woods than you are to be protected by a policeman at a time when you actually need it to happen.

mpmarty
January 4, 2007, 04:47 PM
Whenever I'm stopped (traffic stop) I sit in vehicle with hands on top of wheel, when officer appears at my door I slip my license and regs out of the seat pocket and hand them to him/her. I never say a word. If the officer speaks to me at all I learned a few words of hebrew while serving TDY with the IDF and mumble them to him/her. In each and every case in the past, the officer hands back my papers and waves bye bye.

DigitalWarrior
January 4, 2007, 05:13 PM
Whenever I'm stopped (traffic stop) I sit in vehicle with hands on top of wheel, when officer appears at my door I slip my license and regs out of the seat pocket and hand them to him/her. I never say a word. If the officer speaks to me at all I learned a few words of hebrew while serving TDY with the IDF and mumble them to him/her.
You know to most people Hebrew and Arabic sound very similar. This could have negative consequences. Warning: I ANAL but, you may be considered to be intentionally misleading the officer, which is obstruction.

But could you pull someone over and issue a citation because they were smoking a cigarette in their car with the windows closed? There was NO OTHER VIOLATION.HA!

I would ticket someone flicking a lit cigarette out a window in very flammable California in a heartbeat and be proud.

Windows closed, no unreasonable danger to others.

ArmedBear
January 4, 2007, 05:21 PM
Exactly.

Littering or causing a fire hazard, those are legitimate crimes. If I do something concrete to hurt another, that can be against the law, and I have no objections.

Smoking in your own car, with the windows up, though, IS illegal in one particular wealthy little beach town (no fire hazard, BTW), just because they can make it illegal and fine people who are driving through their town, on a public highway.

Again, that's par for the course here in California these days.

Henry the Eighth
January 4, 2007, 05:22 PM
Judging by a lot of the replies here, I am no longer in a quandary as to how Hitler ascended to power.

Roadblocks are not the hallmark of a free society, period, full stop. You can justify just about anything if you pull the right heartstrings. I am amazed though, at finding such rubbish on a supposedly pro freedom, pro gun site.

Lupinus
January 4, 2007, 05:37 PM
I guess my post fell on deaf ears. There is still talk as to whether or not the search, siezure and detention were legal. Folks, whether you like it or not IT WAS LEGAL!!! If you're upset about our laws, take it up with the law makers, don't take it out on the messenger (LEO's)
Consitituional or case law?

mpmarty
January 4, 2007, 05:37 PM
That could be mistaken for arabic and that would be bad news. Guess I'll have to take another look at my act. A friend of mine gets stopped now and then as he drives a corvette and that seems to be ticket bait around here, has another ploy he uses. Stopped for speeding the officer asks if he knows why he was stopped. The friend says his reply is "I've got some remote ideas, but why don't you tell me so I don't waive my right of self-incrimination".

jnojr
January 4, 2007, 06:29 PM
I guess my post fell on deaf ears. There is still talk as to whether or not the search, siezure and detention were legal. Folks, whether you like it or not IT WAS LEGAL!!! If you're upset about our laws, take it up with the law makers, don't take it out on the messenger (LEO's)

Ooohhhh, they were just following orders. Everything's OK then...

:rolleyes:

Malum Prohibitum
January 4, 2007, 07:12 PM
am glad to see all of you with the liberty of yourself and others in mind. But I would like to bring reality of the law in to this discussion.
It seems that the blame is being placed on the LEO's for doing thier job. Yes, maybe the DUI checkpoint is wrong on principal... so blame the politicians who wrote the law, and the judges who approved it. Not the LEO's for doing thier job.
Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990 <-- roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.
As for those of you who believe the LEO's had no legal right to remove the young lad from his vehicle
Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 <--- states that "the fourth ammendment allows LEO's to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification". THat is quoted from the supreme court document.
There has been talk that the officer driving the car was an illegal search and seizure. It was not illegal because the officer did not dislodge anything to look. This falls under the plain view doctrine of Arizona vs Hicks 1978
As far as siezure goes, it would be easy to explain that the officer established reasonable suspiscion to detain the young boy due to the ruling of Illinois vs Wardlow 2000 that states if a LEO has made a lawful stop (in this case that is true) and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior he may detain that person. The young man was not nervous, however he was evasive.
Those of you who are saying that the young man was exercising his 5th ammendment right not to self incriminate. That applies only if you have been formally arrested. In this case, he was not, he was being detained for investigation. Any statement he made could have easily been thrown out in court because he was not read his rights. So you have no argument there. Also, Terry vs Ohio 1968 states that an LEO may make "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed" is definately a "reasonable inquiry".
Now, I do not necessarily agree with some of these case laws, however they are laws. If you feel that these are a violation of the constitution than take that up with the legislators and courts, do NOT blame LEO's who put thier lives on the line everyday.
Now, for all the defense of the officers, I must say that if they truly said anything to the effect of "If you don't stop running your mouth we'll find a reason to arrest you". That is DEFINATELY out of line. However we can't hear that on the video and must take the young man's word for it. Knowing that he intentionaly went looking for a confrontation I would be hard pressed to believe it. There are bad cops out there, but I don't see anything wrong with what these particular cops did as far as legality goes. Sorry but if you are going to stand up for something, at least now you truly know the laws.

Oobray, if you are a lawyer, then you need to turn in your bar card. If you are not a lawyer, then you need to quit pretending.

You claim to have informed everybody so that they "truly know the laws." :rolleyes:

Yeah.

Let us examine what you had to say.

As far as siezure goes, it would be easy to explain that the officer established reasonable suspiscion to detain the young boy due to the ruling of Illinois vs Wardlow 2000 that states if a LEO has made a lawful stop (in this case that is true) and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior he may detain that person. The young man was not nervous, however he was evasive.

Illinois v. Wardlow involved a guy who took off running in a drug area! What the court really said was that "nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion," not that nervous or evasive behavior on its own justifies anything. It is one factor among many, but what you must forget is that it is one factor in determining what? Reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion of what? Reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion means that one is "justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further." Yeah, that's a quote from Wardlow.


Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 <--- states that "the fourth ammendment allows LEO's to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification". THat is quoted from the supreme court document.

This is in the context of a traffic stop, where one is not only suspected of a crime, but the officer witnessed a crime. You are already detained. the court's reasoning was that there is no real difference between detaining you in the seat of your car and detaining you outside the car.

"The police have already decided that the driver shall be breifly detained; the only question is whether he shall spend that period sitting in the driver's seat of his car or standing alongside it." Oh, yeah, that's a quote from Mimms, too.

The Mimms case is not in the context of a DUI checkpoint, which courts uphold only if the level of seizure is de minimus - a check of the license and on your way. At DUI checkpoints, they can only detain you further if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime (DUI) from this very brief and minimal intrusion. And no, refusing to be interrogated or discuss one's personal life with the officer does not create "reasonable suspicion" of DUI.

Also, Terry vs Ohio 1968 states that an LEO may make "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed" is definately a "reasonable inquiry".

As for Terry, it requires more than a "hunch" that there is criminal activity. Without reasonable suspicion - no "reasonable inquiries." At this particular DUI checkpoint, there is no suspicion of any wrongdoing, and therefore reasonable inquiries are not necessary to dispel the officer's suspicions. What suspicions? Suspicions of what? Did you actually read any of these cases?

Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990 <-- roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.

Well, you got this one generally right.:neener:

BUT you left out the context when you went on your wild rampage with the other cases.

"It is important to recognize what our inquiry is about. No allegations are before us of unreasonable treatment of any person after an actual detention at a particular checkpoint. . . . We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard."

That quote is the context. And what level of intrusion did they approve? Ordering people from their cars for being smart mouths or not answering questions about their personal travel plans? Um, no.

Remember, the suspicion has to be reasonable, and it has to be suspicion of a crime, not suspicion that the officer does not like the driver's attitude.
:scrutiny:

joab
January 4, 2007, 07:12 PM
joab, because everything I have seen, it is the police who are acting illegally and lying, not him.But what have you seen in this video

I can't hear any of the conversation that the kid alleges after he refused to engage in civil conversation.
And I'm sorry but it did not seem like a respectful declination to me
While it may not have been outright disrespectful it was , to me, said with enough of an arrogant tone to be considered belligerent or at least belligerent enough for an officer to articulate that he felt it was belligerent.
One of the first signs of being under the influence is belligerence

The declaration about damage to the clutch, which is the only p[art of the conversation that is clearly audible, is so over the top as to cast doubt on the rest of his allegations.

With the camera capturing everything but a driver sitting in the drivers seat there is absolutely no indication that a search of the vehicle took place, another credibility killer.

I do wonder why the police took control of the vehicle and by what authority they did so.
I have never seen an officer even sit in the drivers seat of a suspects car even after they were taken into custody and the car was impounded.
I would think that other than the legal issue of taking possession without due process there would some sort of policy in place to prevent claims such as our jr. activist is making.

Green Lantern
January 4, 2007, 07:35 PM
My $0.02....

I've never had a problem with DUI checkpoints up til now. Of course, I always thought that if I was NOT DRINKING and driving, then everything would go fine for me at one.

I guess this is what they call a "reality check!" ;)

I didn't watch the video, I wasn't there, so I can't argue that the kid was respectful or not.

But when did they make it ILLEGAL to be disrespectful, anyway????

Sobriety checkpoints should be JUST THAT. You don't reek of booze, you don't show any other signs of being under any kind of drug, you GO ON. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not get subjected to questions that the cops have no business asking!!!

Lupinus
January 4, 2007, 08:20 PM
Green-
Even if all it involves is rolling down your window and breathing at the officers nose so he can catch a wif, that is prooving you did nothing wrong when there wasn't even suspision that you were. You are having to prove that you were doing nothing, and that goes agianst the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

joab
January 4, 2007, 08:20 PM
You don't reek of booze, you don't show any other signs of being under any kind of drug, you GO ON. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not get subjected to questions that the cops have no business asking!!!But those stupid questions are the the officers unintrusive way of assessing whether or not you show signs of having been drinking or are under the influence. What other way do you see of checking for these signs other than a field test

brickeyee
January 4, 2007, 08:39 PM
In one of the checkpoint SCOTUS cases Sandy D. opined that a driver could always turn around and not gop through th echeckpoint.
Of course may agencies have a car parked the other way for just this event and will chase down a driver who turns around to avoid the checkpoint.
Some much for her worldly knowledge.

cassandrasdaddy
January 4, 2007, 09:11 PM
good question i think when the supreme court ruled we can say both they ruled on the constitutional issue and so settled the case that brought it there. but then again i'm just a jailhouse lawyer and didn't even stay in a holiday inn express last nite

spartacus2002
January 4, 2007, 09:16 PM
The police are there for our protection. Just as all of us respect the military for protecting our freedom, the police protect our freedom.

No nation can stand without law. Respect the authority.

http://shop1.impact-mailorder.de/catalog/images/759803.gif
http://www.garmentdistrict.com/store/popculture/southpark/collectibles/stickerr.jpg

Zen21Tao
January 4, 2007, 11:23 PM
I have known some real good cops and some really bad ones. Before I comment on the bad ones, let me say that I am far from being a cop basher. One of my best friends was a Sheriffs dept for 10+ years and I worked closely on the political campains for three of our local high ranking police offices (one of which was elected as a State Senator) one of which wrote me a glowing letter of recommendation for graduate school. With that said, his my take on the bad apples that spoil the bunch.

I have found that the bad ones all appear to have one thing in common. They are individuals that have a huge inflated ego. In any other line of work they would have absolutely no authority over anyone. However, being a LEO gives them authority over people they could never themselves hope to be. The worst thing for these people is to find someone that has a better understanding of the law than they do. This challenges their entire world view, not to mention their positive self image. To compensate for this they become that much more aggersive and belittling, in many casing arresting someone just to show them that they can. These cops are a disgrace to the badge they wear and cast a negative shadow on the normal well adjusted officers out there just trying to do the job that treat people fairly and respectfully.

ProguninTN
January 4, 2007, 11:39 PM
I could not hear the contents of the film past 4 min. Therefore, I may not have seen everything that transpired. However, I disagree with one of your statements. A person asserting his or her rights not to incriminate himself under the 5th Amendment is not being evasive under IL v. Wardlow. That case involved a subject who fled at the sight of LEO's.

Green Lantern
January 5, 2007, 06:26 AM
I think read earlier in here that it's more effective for the cops to catch people in the parking lots of bars...

- maybe so, but what about places like my "dry" county that has no bars, but still plenty of drunk driving? I don't think the local depuites have the authority to go to the next county (which happens to be in the next STATE) and patrol the liquor store parking lot...;)

I DO see where the "innocent until proven guilty" bit comes in, but until people develop enough personal responsibility to NOT drink and drive, the cops have to do something to deter and catch drunk drivers. At least until every car comes with a breathalyzer-locked ignition or something...! :what:

Disclosure - I have (and had) some alcoholics in the family, but AFAIK, have not had any bad experiences thanks to an "outside" drunk driver.

When I was about 8, an alcoholic uncle crashed while driving drunk and killed himself. To be brutally honest, I never did like him and even at that young age found "poetic justice" in it...! :evil:

More or less around the same time, my dad managed to total his truck while hitting a moving train while drunk - but barely got a scratch on him. Proving the adage that "only the good die young," just a few years ago he had another crash while driving drunk. Ate some windshield that time, but no "permanent" damage. And again, thankfully, it was just him and a much tougher object (this time a big rock) involved....

The Drew
January 5, 2007, 08:18 AM
DUI is another victimless crime in and of itself. and should not be enforced at all unless it is an added circumstance in an accident.

DUI checkpoints do nothing but hammer home the message that we're really not living in a free society anymore. and don't even get me started on the seatbelt checkpoints...

Hutch
January 5, 2007, 09:57 AM
Sorry to come in late, and on a tangent, but to quote Green Lantern:I DO see where the "innocent until proven guilty" bit comes in, but until people develop enough personal responsibility to NOT drink and drive, the cops have to do something to deter and catch drunk drivers. The "Something" the cops should "Do" is to patrol the roads, observe the driving, and apprehend those who drive erratically. If it is determined that the erratic driving is due to illegal drugs or alcohol, they should throw their asses in jail. Maybe have a half-hour show on a local access channel, showing video of the arrest, publish the names and addresses of the drivers, etc. Punish the wrongdoers, don't hassle the public.At least until every car comes with a breathalyzer-locked ignition or something...!Sorta like the ol' Smart Gun technology? Sheesh. Some people. Don't y'all realize that meekly accepting these sorts of police-state activities in support of the WoDD, WoD, illegal immigration et al will only serve to facilitate other infringements? How about "gun stops"? They okay, too?

rmurfster
January 5, 2007, 10:08 AM
The police are there for our protection.
No they're not.

That's settled caselaw.

If you don't believe me, try to sue the police for NOT protecting you.

I have NEVER been protected by the police, even when they were requested specifically to do just that.


I agree, the Police cannot protect the individual. However, they are here to protect us in a general sense... I would not and I have not left mine or my families personal protection up to the police. I am a gun owner and would use it to protect my family.

rmurfster
January 5, 2007, 10:31 AM
Punish the wrongdoers, don't hassle the public.

+1 -- Amen

rmurfster
January 5, 2007, 10:38 AM
The police are there for our protection. Just as all of us respect the military for protecting our freedom, the police protect our freedom.

No nation can stand without law. Respect the authority.

http://shop1.impact-mailorder.de/catalog/images/759803.gif


I never said you couldn't question authority, but to respect it... There is a difference.

It's blatant rebellion such as this that gives us a bad name. We all must live under law and in the US, we have a right to question it, and even to disobey when we think it is wrong, but we still must respect those in authority; not because of who they are, but what they represent; which is our great country!

For those of you who will respond, "Respect must be earned, not given", I say to you, I respect our President (doesn't matter what party), not because of who he is, but because of the Office he holds and the USA.

Lupinus
January 5, 2007, 10:56 AM
In one of the checkpoint SCOTUS cases Sandy D. opined that a driver could always turn around and not gop through th echeckpoint.
Of course may agencies have a car parked the other way for just this event and will chase down a driver who turns around to avoid the checkpoint.
Some much for her worldly knowledge.
Great thinking. So I can jsut turn around? How about if Ican not do so saftly? How about if its a narrow road of the idiot behind me wont leave a few feet between my bumper and his? How about if its the only way home that is a option (or realistic option) for me? Better yet how about if thats just the way I feel liek going home on a public road way and not be treated like a subject rather then a citizen? As has also been said (and demonstrated by one civily disobediant member here) try turning around and see how far you get before you get a flash of lights behind you.

good question i think when the supreme court ruled we can say both they ruled on the constitutional issue and so settled the case that brought it there. but then again i'm just a jailhouse lawyer and didn't even stay in a holiday inn express last nite
Nope sorry untill congress votes to ammend the consitituion it is not consititional law governing it, it is case law. And if they ammend the consitition to accomodate it is still blatant violation of you natural rights every human being is intitled to. Just because they interpreted the constitution that does not change the constitution.

The police are there for our protection. Just as all of us respect the military for protecting our freedom, the police protect our freedom.

No nation can stand without law. Respect the authority.
Are you freaking kidding me? Try going through some of numerous ruling in court. Time and time agian it has been ruled withotu a doubt that the police have no obligation to help you, they can see yu about to get your head blown off and keep walking waiting untill your grey matter is all over the sidewalk and then arrest the guy. They are obligated to preform law enforcment not protect any single person. And respect is earned, it isn't granted through a badge. An ******* police state agent is an ******* police state agent reguardless of how well spit shined his badge and jack boots are.

I DO see where the "innocent until proven guilty" bit comes in, but until people develop enough personal responsibility to NOT drink and drive, the cops have to do something to deter and catch drunk drivers. At least until every car comes with a breathalyzer-locked ignition or something...!
Bit? Since when is one of your most basic freedoms a BIT??? Oh but god forbid they don't do "something". Yeha in this case this something blatantly violates your rights and the rights of everyone else stopped. How about instead of stantding there harrasing innocent citizens they get their asses in the car, spend some extra money on the gas bill, and patrol the roads looking for all forms of reckless driving. Punish people actually commiting a crime and being a danger to the safty of others on the road, not just of someone who is heading home driving perfectly fine but just happened to get stopped at a check point or random fishing expedition.

DUI is another victimless crime in and of itself. and should not be enforced at all unless it is an added circumstance in an accident.
Amen

DUI checkpoints do nothing but hammer home the message that we're really not living in a free society anymore. and don't even get me started on the seatbelt checkpoints...
Don't get me started on any check points for "random checks"

I agree, the Police cannot protect the individual. However, they are here to protect us in a general sense... I would not and I have not left mine or my families personal protection up to the police. I am a gun owner and would use it to protect my family.

No they don't protect us in the general sense. That was supposed to the individuals job, protecting himself and his own with the help of other willing citizens just like himself. Police officers only legal obligation is to investigate crime and enforce laws.

Malum Prohibitum
January 5, 2007, 11:05 AM
However, I disagree with one of your statements. A person asserting his or her rights not to incriminate himself under the 5th Amendment is not being evasive under IL v. Wardlow. That case involved a subject who fled at the sight of LEO's.

That is not the only one he missed the boat on! :rolleyes:

By the way, even in Wardlow, flight, by itself, was not sufficient to justify the stop. It was only one factor to be used in determining whether the officers actually had reasonable suspicion of a crime that would justify seizing Mr. Wardlow.

oobray pulled out the "evasive" word from its context and claimed it justified detaining this 19 year old guy at the DUI checkpoint for "evading" the officer's questions about where he was going.

Maybe you should have asked oobray this:

oobray, please explain for us how telling the officer you prefer not to answer his personal questions about your travel plans creates an articulable, reasonable suspicion that you are committing the crime of DUI.

:confused:

We're waiting. :rolleyes:

:neener:

rmurfster
January 5, 2007, 11:14 AM
No they don't protect us in the general sense. That was supposed to the individuals job, protecting himself and his own with the help of other willing citizens just like himself. Police officers only legal obligation is to investigate crime and enforce laws.

Look, I already conceded that it's not the LEO's job is to protect us individually; that is up to us. No argument there.

But what do you think enforcing laws does? It protects us. It may not protect us face-to-face, but when a thief, murderer, drunk driver, child molester, rapist,... is put away, it protects us. Can't you at least admit that?

At least give a little respect to the LEO's. They (for the most part) are doing their job to keep us a free and safe society. Not always right, but then, which of us is perfect?

I'm willing to see where I can change my views... are you?

Autolycus
January 5, 2007, 11:20 AM
What if the only way you are able to turn around is by making a U-Turn in front of officers and a U-turn is illegal? Then they stop you on the basis of making a U-turn and avoid the whole checkpoint hassle.

I am sorry but the simple fact is that these DUI / Safety and Compliance checkpoints are very unAmerican. Imagine telling Benjamin Franklin or Tomas Jefferson that officers of the state are going to stop them to make sure they are not breaking the law. And in the name of officer safety they will be searched on the side of the road while another officer secures their vehicle on the side of the road so that other subje...err I mean citizens could be checked for compliance and to make sure noone is committing a crime.

I doubt they would have approved of that.

But if it saves just one childs life, isnt it worth it?

joab
January 5, 2007, 11:45 AM
But what do you think enforcing laws does? It protects us. It may not protect us face-to-face, but when a thief, murderer, drunk driver, child molester, rapist,... is put away, it protects us. Can't you at least admit that?He gets it
LEOs job is to investigate crime and apprehend criminals, criminals that once apprehended are put some place for the protection of the society

police have no obligation to help you, they can see you about to get your head blown off and keep walking waiting until your grey matter is all over the sidewalk and then arrest the guy. They are obligated to preform law enforcment not protect any single person. He doesn't. If the police witness a crime in progress they are obligated to intervene not wait until another greater crime is committed.
If the officer fails to do his duty in intervening in the lesser crime then he is accountable for the commission of the greater crime.

A cop witnessing a person committing the crime of threatening another with a gun is witnessing a crime and has a duty to investigate that crime and apprehend the criminal

EghtySx
January 5, 2007, 12:34 PM
I believe the words a lot of you in favor of checkpoints are looking for are: The end justifies the means.

This is the only way you have been able to argue your point. As usual, you want to get off topic and have your own arguement. Less people dying sounds like a good thing so you go with that. Often the right choice is not the easy choice. Freedom isn't free. Take some personal responsibility and deal with the harsh reality of life. I know it's hard, but it's something us grown ups need to do.

Henry the Eighth
January 5, 2007, 12:48 PM
Sorry Joab, but you obviously haven't been keeping abreast of various court rulings. They are under NO obligation to protect you or stop a crime in progress and the courts have absolved them of any wrong doing when some survivors sued the police department and officer involved. One only need look to Columbine to see that they aren't under any obligation to stop a crime in progress.

As a side note, the job of being a police officer does not even make the top ten of the most dangerous jobs, according to the US Dept. of Labor. So all of you that say they put their lives on the line every day, please give it a rest.

Lupinus
January 5, 2007, 01:47 PM
But what do you think enforcing laws does? It protects us. It may not protect us face-to-face, but when a thief, murderer, drunk driver, child molester, rapist,... is put away, it protects us. Can't you at least admit that?
It does. But if they didn't have as many laws saying I couldn't shoot the same people you mention the end result wouldn't be so far of. And they have no job to protect you specificaly. Thier job is law enforcment, not citizen protection.

At least give a little respect to the LEO's. They (for the most part) are doing their job to keep us a free and safe society. Not always right, but then, which of us is perfect?
When I meet an officer I give them the same respect I give any other citizen on a first encounter. That respect can very quickly and easily be increased or decreased, agian just like any other citizen. And you are joking right? You think illegal wire taps, fishing expeditions, and random check points help to keep this a free society? You sir need to take a step back and look around you at the actions of the state and its law enforcment agents and reconsider. Cause those actions sure and hell dont work to keep us free. And doing their job isn't an excuse, doing something illegal or violating someones rights doesnt change because you do it while wearing a badge. And as to which of us is perfect? No one is. But at the same tiem the state hasn't granted me the power to ruin someones life in the same manner a cop and court can.

He doesn't. If the police witness a crime in progress they are obligated to intervene not wait until another greater crime is committed.
If the officer fails to do his duty in intervening in the lesser crime then he is accountable for the commission of the greater crime.
The hell they are you need to do some research on all the cases that say otherwise. All the cop has to say is he personally felt the risk to his own safty was to great and he can sit there with a bowl of popcorn watching it happen and not be at fault in the slightist. Unless he activly contributes to the crime at hand he is in the clear, there is absoloutly nothing that says he can't watch and wait for back up or for the situation to become less a danger to him before he acts.

A cop witnessing a person committing the crime of threatening another with a gun is witnessing a crime and has a duty to investigate that crime and apprehend the criminal
Yeah but there is nothing governing WHEN or how he does that. That may include waiting to till all of bg's bulelts are in my chest so the risk to the officer is reduced.

You do realize in most training programs the general idea is to get yourself home safe, not the people you are protecting right? The cops safty comes first, the citizens second and he has no legal obligation to stop you from being injured.

Now are they encouraged to let it happen? Not to the greatist extent no. But could they if they decided to? Legally you betcha.

As a side note, the job of being a police officer does not even make the top ten of the most dangerous jobs, according to the US Dept. of Labor
Statistically speaking I (a guy working in a convienence store setting) am more likely, as is a fisherman and a wide range of other professions.

Deanimator
January 5, 2007, 02:01 PM
A cop witnessing a person committing the crime of threatening another with a gun is witnessing a crime and has a duty to investigate that crime and apprehend the criminal

Really? Does he have a LEGAL, ENFORCEABLE duty to do so?

If not, there's no meaningful duty at all. A "duty" which is not enforceable isn't a duty at all, merely a suggestion.

"Moral duties" aren't worth the electrons that went into my typing this.

rmurfster
January 5, 2007, 04:43 PM
And you are joking right? You think illegal wire taps, fishing expeditions, and random check points help to keep this a free society? You sir need to take a step back and look around you at the actions of the state and its law enforcment agents and reconsider. Cause those actions sure and hell dont work to keep us free. And doing their job isn't an excuse, doing something illegal or violating someones rights doesnt change because you do it while wearing a badge. And as to which of us is perfect? No one is. But at the same tiem the state hasn't granted me the power to ruin someones life in the same manner a cop and court can.

I never said that illegal wire taps, etc... help keep us free. I am also disappointed in the deterioration of the Constitution within our country. I just pray there's never a point where I have to make the decision when to join the revolution (although based on the major news stories the last couple of days, I fear that may be sooner than later :( ).

Specialized
January 5, 2007, 04:44 PM
Getting back to the original post, it appears to me that this kid wasn't disrespectful, or "snotty", or anything of the sort. If he was breaking the law, it isn't apparent how. He did, however, cross a line that has brought out many of the contradictions in peoples' attitudes about and perceptions of police officers and their roles, and in my view that makes this a great learning tool.

One contradiction is the notion that "police officers are our friends". Many if not most parents, at some point in a kid's life, will make this statement in the context of a young and innocent child's potential interaction with/need for a cop, because at that particular age they cannot conceive of an instance where that child's freedom or welfare could be jeopardized by such a meeting. However, anyone that's ever had a "contact" meeting with a cop sooner or later realizes instinctively, whether they can articulate it or not, that the cop is actively trying to frame the interaction in a "parent-child" context in which the cop drives the contact as the "parent" role. This is the mindset that allows them to make what was earlier termed "small talk", but in fact is the opening gambit in what is absolutely a line of interrogation. The most gifted cops in this area end up making fine interrogators -- you can watch shows like "The First 48" to get a great tutorial on it. Anyone that has ever fallen into the "child" end of this sort of conversation knows a few things immediately: first, they are being consciously manipulated. Second, they don't like it very much, because it's a stressful feeling, but they don't want to be perceived as rude by resisting it. And third, they almost invariably believe that, due to the cop's position and authority, they are not at liberty to resist being manipulated.

What the kid in this video did was circumvent the cop's application of this ploy by stating, as politely and directly as he could without actually falling into it, that he didn't want to participate in such a conversation. You have to understand, cops don't like surprises. They also come to believe (or follow this twisted logic in order to keep the charade afloat) that for any subject, especially a teenager, to resist this maneuver is to be disrespectful and uncooperative. Quite simply put, the cat zigged, the kid zagged, and the cat got p*ssed off at getting caught flat-footed. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the interaction with the entire LE team was an offshoot of this perception, handed down via the words, tone, and body language of the cop to his colleagues. I thought the kid handled it well, actually. He wasn't disrespectful, and he didn't refuse to cooperate (stopped when commanded, left the vehicle when commanded, etc). He just wasn't willing to "play the game" that would put any additional leverage, whether real or perceived, in the cop's hands to be used against himself.

It's important to note that this has nothing to do with the kid's right to avoid self-incrimination. Unless you can point to some illegal activity on his part, it's nothing more than an attractive canard relative to this particular interaction. So few people understand this distinction and realize that they don't have to let the interaction move to this "parent-child" mindset that the cops assume anyone who knows about it *and* tries to use it must be hiding criminal activity and attempting to thwart their efforts to discover it. This is especially true of less-experienced officers. While not all tactical/patrol officers are inexperienced, that's where you're most likely to find them because that's where police officers start their careers as sworn officers, with few exceptions.

The kid provided us with a valuable lesson, if you ask me. Unfortunately for him, it's too easy for the cops to decide he's a "snotty kid" and then start in on him with the fallacious logical arguments like "if you're not hiding something, why not cooperate?", and the veiled threats of arrest, etc. Were I to do it at my age, I could theoretically probably keep the cop from going there by being deferential but firm, or maybe by applying humor to the situation (which isn't usually a good idea -- I know I wouldn't try it). Having been on both sides of that conversation, I have to marvel at how breathtakingly simple a device it is, and how profound its effect is on people.

Anyway, just my two cents.

cassandrasdaddy
January 5, 2007, 04:56 PM
"More or less around the same time, my dad managed to total his truck while hitting a moving train while drunk - but barely got a scratch on him. "

hit 2 trains 7 years apart at the same crossing playing beat the train, and both times it was on budweiser and bloomer night second time was the charm though he will not try for the hat trick

cropcirclewalker
January 5, 2007, 04:57 PM
Yo, Mr. Specialized, good post.

I have never been in le unless you count a short stint as brig chaser in the USN but I have been sort of immunized by some of my life's prior experiences.

Immunized.

I look forward to steadfastly looking leo in the eye and remaining silent.

Again.

No need to be polite, just silent.

The policeman is not your friend.

joab
January 5, 2007, 06:00 PM
Perhaps one of you can show me a court case that has stated that a cop has no duty to intervene in a crime and can willfully and wantonly disregard a serious threat to someones life

Perhaps one of you could show me where any cop at the scene in Columbine had a clear shot at a perpetrator or even knew where they were

cassandrasdaddy
January 5, 2007, 06:00 PM
i thought the supreme court settled contitutional issues. part of that pesky triumvirate. can anyone point out where i got confused?


"Nope sorry untill congress votes to ammend the consitituion it is not consititional law governing it, it is case law. And if they ammend the consitition to accomodate it is still blatant violation of you natural rights every human being is intitled to. Just because they interpreted the constitution that does not change the constitution."


and if not the supreme court then who?

Henry the Eighth
January 5, 2007, 06:10 PM
Joab, it is not my responsibility to do your research for you. You have a computer and internet access, look it up yourself.

As far as your Columbine comment, the cops refused to even go into the building and look for the perpatrators for over an hour. They stayed outside wondering what to do.

Highland Ranger
January 5, 2007, 08:01 PM
Scary reading this thread.

I agree with the statement above - I can see how the Germans let a Hitler take control of the country.

What I can't understand is how someone can be pro-2a and pro-freedom but buy into the its for the children crap on another topic. It makes no sense.

Someone drives drunk and kills some poor Joe - lock him up and throw away the key. Take every possesion. Period.

Stop with the Nazi checkpoints.

Green Lantern
January 5, 2007, 08:39 PM
Sorta like the ol' Smart Gun technology? Sheesh. Some people. Don't y'all realize that meekly accepting these sorts of police-state activities in support of the WoDD, WoD, illegal immigration et al will only serve to facilitate other infringements? How about "gun stops"? They okay, too?

(in response to my comment about having all cars equipped with breathalyzers)

- I wasn't being serious with that one. ;)

The "Something" the cops should "Do" is to patrol the roads, observe the driving, and apprehend those who drive erratically. If it is determined that the erratic driving is due to illegal drugs or alcohol, they should throw their asses in jail. Maybe have a half-hour show on a local access channel, showing video of the arrest, publish the names and addresses of the drivers, etc. Punish the wrongdoers, don't hassle the public.

That's perfectly fine to me, in place of DUI checkpoints. But it just now hit me what the real problem seems to be around here. The cops do their jobs and catch these scum....

THEN the bleeding-heart judges turn them loose again with barely a slap on the wrist. :fire:

joab
January 5, 2007, 08:56 PM
Joab, it is not my responsibility to do your research for you. You have a computer and Internet access, look it up yourself. You are the one that made the statement of fact. The fact that you cannot or will not back it up does not speak well of you or the statement.
They are under NO obligation to protect you or stop a crime in progress and the courts have absolved them of any wrong doing when some survivors sued the police department and officer involved.
Don't try to twist the responsibility of supporting your own statements onto me.

As to your observations on Columbine
What tactics would you have used and based on what intel at the time?

dave_pro2a
January 5, 2007, 09:04 PM
joab: yes, do your own research. iirc SCOTUS clearly ruled on this, "no duty to protect individual citizens." No liability for failure to act.

In Seattle, during a mardi gras celebration, police watched a man get beaten to death. Literally, almost the entire force sat idle while a young man was bludgened to death. No charges filed, no legal recourse, nada, zip, zero... just a family who was left mourning their son (a son who was trying to stop a woman from being abused).

Some specific jurisdictions have laws with language that talks about a policemans duty to protect citizens, but it is meaningless fluff... precedent has already been set so they can 'say' whatever they want, they still won't be liable or responsible for intentionally not acting to save a person.

cassandrasdaddy
January 5, 2007, 09:20 PM
"In Seattle, during a mardi gras celebration, police watched a man get beaten to death. Literally, almost the entire force sat idle while a young man was bludgened to death. No charges filed, no legal recourse, nada, zip, zero... just a family who was left mourning their son (a son who was trying to stop a woman from being abused)."

could you substantiate this? is this the case?
http://www.kirotv.com/news/7587720/detail.html


if so could you explain why its so hard to reconcile the reports with your allegations?

dave_pro2a
January 5, 2007, 09:27 PM
Yes that's the case. Do some research on it. Cop's sat by as the beating happened. The police chief at that time sat on a nearby roof watching it happen.

You should have seen the footage, there was plenty of it.

Out of fear of creating a larger riot, out of fear of police getting injured, they decided it was best to let the guy get beat. Typical SNAFU, and anybody who expects more from their local police department is miguided imho.

btw, your "report" (NOT plural, as you used it), is essentially a 2 paragraph summary of the conviction... NOT a description of the actual event in any substaintial form.

Deanimator
January 5, 2007, 09:28 PM
Perhaps one of you could show me where any cop at the scene in Columbine had a clear shot at a perpetrator or even knew where they were
They never put themselves in a position to HAVE a "clear shot". They stayed outside, safe and sound, until Klebold and Harris got tired of killing and killed themselves.

medic_guns
January 5, 2007, 09:31 PM
These checkpoints are BS, plain and simple. The next time I run into one and am asked where I'm headed, I'll tell them I'm looking for Jimmy Hoffa. Dang, I need to get a video camera for the car

Glockfan.45
January 5, 2007, 09:33 PM
I have not read all 10 pages of this thing nor will I. I did read the transcript of this altercation and heres how I see it based on that. The kid has some stones but he was a smart ass from the get go and that is what got him special attention. My real problem here is with these "check points" :scrutiny: seems like an unwarranted search to me.

Jeff22
January 5, 2007, 09:33 PM
Speaking as a cop for 25 years, I am very wary of DUI checkpoints or of the tactic of asking citizens for consent to search their vehicle on a traffic stop, absent a physical arrest or some kind of reasonable suspicion. (It is legal for the cop to ask, and it's legal for you to decline. If, however, you are actually arrested (NOT cited, arrested) then we can search the car)

Both techniques have their valid uses under the right circumstances, given a proper degree of supervisory control. But I know and have worked with cops who wouldn't have proper decision making under either circumstance.

There is a proper place for aggressive law enforcement, but when such techniques are mis-applied or abused, it just alienates the public we're supposed to be serving . . . some people are just too dumb to be wearing a badge.

cassandrasdaddy
January 5, 2007, 09:53 PM
are there only 350 cops in seattle?
and wasn't he charged convicted? were'n't 20 some other folks arrested?
didn't the trial convict the guy of killing him with his hands? blind siding him as he attempted to assist another person?


i'm having a hard time reconciling these facts with your post of

"In Seattle, during a mardi gras celebration, police watched a man get beaten to death. Literally, almost the entire force sat idle while a young man was bludgened to death. No charges filed, no legal recourse, nada, zip, zero... just a family who was left mourning their son (a son who was trying to stop a woman from being abused)."

which is the truth? no wonder you support the hero of the revolutions claims about the video your cut from same cloth credibility wise

cassandrasdaddy
January 5, 2007, 10:07 PM
they seem to cover it from an angle more your speed

the police chief needs to go but fluffing the facts doesn't help.

http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs0103c.html
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Seattle-riots.html
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Seattle-riots.html
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003404.htm
"Kris’ friend, Connor O’Neal testified that Kris was “blindsided on the head by two punches” from Thomas."

joab
January 5, 2007, 11:46 PM
joab: yes, do your own research. iirc SCOTUS clearly ruled on this, "no duty to protect individual citizens." No liability for failure to act.Dave, once again
It is not my job to do any research to substantiate the claims of someone else.

Since you have joined into the fray perhaps you will go back and read the comment that I was commenting on
Now then you can show me, as I requested, a ruling by SCOTUS that states that a police officer can show a willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to someones life by witnessing someone about to blow someones head off and doing nothing

You make a statement about something you think you remember but offer no proof of your own so it is no wonder that you see it as my job to seek out proof for something I don't believe..
I can't prove a negative

Casandrasdaddy graciously provided links to sources of the incident you speak of but I see no link to SCOTUS rulings stating that the police officers had a right to just stand around and look at the beating.
I saw no accusations that the police did actually stand around the guy and watch as he was beaten to the death.
I didn't even see any accounts of the victim being beaten to death in a manner that police could just stand around and watch as it happened.

So now do you see why it is not only your job to provide links to these allegations but also to actually read them and be able to speak intelligently about them.

Now show me one of these so called clear rulings that states that police can show willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to a persons life, or admit that you can't

Before you set out to disprove me, ask yourself why I keep using the phrase
"show a willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to another's life"
It might be illuminating

cassandrasdaddy
January 5, 2007, 11:48 PM
now thats a scurrilous accusation

joab
January 5, 2007, 11:54 PM
It's the only big word I could think of

thexrayboy
January 5, 2007, 11:56 PM
THE POLICE TRIED TO MAKE SMALL TALK AND THE KID WAS BEING A SMART A--. IF YOU DON`T HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE LAW.

Last time I checked it wasn't an actual crime for 19 year old young adults to be a smart ass. In fact it should be expected. From what I saw on this video it looked basically like a case of "contempt of cop". I saw nothing to indicate this youngster had done anything wrong and plenty on the part of the officers to indicate a total lack of respect for citizens rights.
But then nothing new really. The populace is being effectively divided into 3 main subsets. Us (LEO), Them ( the bad guys) and the sheeple. If you don't bleat "yes siiirrrrr" you are automatically moved to the "them" category for special treatment. Just another day in the Police state of Amerika.

cassandrasdaddy
January 6, 2007, 12:02 AM
like john wayne when sofia loren said he was safe

dave_pro2a
January 6, 2007, 12:03 AM
LOL, cassandrasdaddy you really need to stop drinking coffee.

Many of those arrests came days and weeks after the event, via the use of photos and film of perps.

The cops did watch a guy get beat to death and did nothing. The Police chief ordered it. The mayor sat on his but (or in his bed). It took off duty paramedics to actually do anything. Nothing much came of it, afaik, after all was said and done.

Fact is, proving something to you is a waste of time. You knee-jerkm discountm and marginalize whatever facts a person brings up -- because you're rabidly pro-leo and pro establishment (at least that's the way you come off).

joab: The fact police have no duty to protect individual citizens is very well documents. If you have trouble finding the cases then log onto lexis-nexus and search there. They can sit and watch a guy die, do nothing, and feel quite confident that they will face no repercusions.

cassandrasdaddy
January 6, 2007, 12:08 AM
preferably on a rail tar and feathered. so that was your attempt at substantiating your accusations?they did arrest and charge folks convicted on of using his hand to hit the dead guy can you back up up any of the hype? beside the part where they didn't move in under orders from the chief.
the truth is ok when you stray from it it makes your total credibilty and that of your cause go down the tubes

dave_pro2a
January 6, 2007, 12:24 AM
yeah cassandrasdaddy, and when you lump Michelle Malkin together with white supremacists YOU lose credibility.

Try reading 'regular' Pac NW sources, i.e. Seattle Times, PI, Everett Herald, etc.

cassandrasdaddy
January 6, 2007, 12:31 AM
you didn't like was the mainstream press
you dodging defending the other way out claims? its cool i understand how that is

dave_pro2a
January 6, 2007, 12:31 AM
Joab Quote: "Before you set out to disprove me, ask yourself why I keep using the phrase "show a willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to another's life" It might be illuminating"

Sure, if you do a search on "no affirmative duty." It might be illuminating :D

ProguninTN
January 6, 2007, 01:17 AM
That is not the only one he missed the boat on!

By the way, even in Wardlow, flight, by itself, was not sufficient to justify the stop. It was only one factor to be used in determining whether the officers actually had reasonable suspicion of a crime that would justify seizing Mr. Wardlow.

oobray pulled out the "evasive" word from its context and claimed it justified detaining this 19 year old guy at the DUI checkpoint for "evading" the officer's questions about where he was going.

Maybe you should have asked oobray this:

oobray, please explain for us how telling the officer you prefer not to answer his personal questions about your travel plans creates an articulable, reasonable suspicion that you are committing the crime of DUI.



We're waiting.

You're absolutely correct, and thank you for the clarification on Wardlow. :)

Lupinus
January 6, 2007, 01:19 AM
I never said that illegal wire taps, etc... help keep us free. I am also disappointed in the deterioration of the Constitution within our country. I just pray there's never a point where I have to make the decision when to join the revolution (although based on the major news stories the last couple of days, I fear that may be sooner than later).
You claimed paid goverment agents keep us a free society. They do nothing of the sort, it is less in their job description then is protecting a citizen if it means they wont come home. Can and do some cops? Yes absoloutly, but they are cops who go above and beyond. Law Enforcment does not have jack to do with keeping us a free society.

Perhaps one of you can show me a court case that has stated that a cop has no duty to intervene in a crime and can willfully and wantonly disregard a serious threat to someones life
As has been said it isn't my job to research for you. The references are actually in several posts on THR already.

Perhaps one of you could show me where any cop at the scene in Columbine had a clear shot at a perpetrator or even knew where they were
Perhaps you could show me where any cop at the scene tried to get a clear shot. No. Actualy hey presto you saved yourself some reaserch siteing a case that shows you exactly what I am talking about.

Kids getting shot in a school, cops show up and heard terrified students outside, cops do nothing for students inside and stand by while said students inside are at the hands of heavily armed gunmen. By your thinking every cop who responded to Columbine is liable for those deaths because of the fact they did nothing. They had no legal obligation to do so, and they didn't because it was deemed to great a risk to the officers.

i thought the supreme court settled contitutional issues. part of that pesky triumvirate. can anyone point out where i got confused?
They settle them with case law. Constitutional law is that laid out in the constition, not that a judge or panel of judges interpreting it. The supreme court are the highest court that can interpret the consitition, and the highest court that can strike down part of it as being unconsititional. However, while it says in the consitition that you are inncoent until proven guilty etc consititional law says you are.

If you enjoyed reading about "DUI Checkpoint caught on film" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!