DUI Checkpoint caught on film
- Thread starter Ian
- Start date
- Status
busy_squirrel
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
cassandrasdaddy, there are plenty of reasons not to answer simple questions. For example, since you advocate openness and honesty:
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
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
Member
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.
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.
deaf ears...
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)
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
Member
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
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
Zak:
A page back, I posted
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."
A page back, I posted
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
Member
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.
"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.
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
Member
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
Member
Wanna know a secret?
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Consitituional or case law?
mpmarty
Member
DW you're right;
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".
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
Member
Ooohhhh, they were just following orders. Everything's OK then...
Malum Prohibitum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 572
Oobray - what nonsense you post!
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."
Yeah.
Let us examine what you had to say.
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.
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.
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?
Well, you got this one generally right.
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.
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."
Yeah.
Let us examine what you had to say.
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.
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.
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?
Well, you got this one generally right.
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.
joab
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
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!!!
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
Member
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.
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
Member
!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
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked