4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched Without Consent. Is This Legal?

reply to post by roadgravel

Found this, for what it is worth...

i disagree with that.

there is a difference between being pulled over for speeding, and being stopped illegally. one has the right to travel unmolested on public property. i don't comply unless the officer gives me a valid legal reason, or voices a valid suspicion.

the checkpoint itself is illegal. there is no reasonable suspicion to warrant stopping every single person.

soon it will be door to door searches for our safety.

reply to post by jude11


Recently we had police show up and demand entrance to search our house. I asked if they had a warrant and they said that they didn't need one and that if I refused I would be arrested. I decided discretion was the better part of valor and let them in. My wife and I are in our mid 60's and we were instructed by a uniformed officer to sit down in the living room while he watched us with his hand on his weapon the entire time. His partner went up stairs and searched the house. I was told that my grandson had said that this was his address when he was arrested and had signed a document that gave up the right to require a warrant at his place of residence. I checked this out with a lawyer afterward and was told that this is correct. If I had refused entry and demanded a warrant I would have been arrested. This even though my grandson doesn't live with us. I felt like I had gestapo officers in my house going through my belongings. Who knows what they stole while they were doing it.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I also am not in favor of the idea of check points.

I did find it interesting that in a traffic stop the officer has the right to make you exit the vehicle.

Originally posted by Famouszor
Next time or anytime that a cop pulls you over and asks if they can search your car, ask them for the court ordered Search warrant. Then will threaten you by saying "if you don't allow me to search your car, I will arrest you and put you in jail". Ask them again for the search warrant.

They can not search private property without a warrant. (unless you allow them).

Wrong - they can. Anything they find will more than likely be tossed out or suppressed. You could have a kilo of coke and they'll still suppress the evidence, but you don't get the coke back. You can take legal action after the fact - just don't mention the coke (that would be very dumb).

If you resist their 'demands' then you can be charged and detained for resisting. After your week or so in jail, the judge will more than likely release you with no charges. If you decided to take bail via a bails bondsman, you don't get any of that back. You can take legal action after that too - you can then include loss of work time, the bondsman fee, etc.

It is best to act like the majority people in my area of GA - let the police be police. Let them be the person in the wrong. You don't want to end up on Youtube being tazed. You do want to end up on Youtube being sickly polite and the cop being labeled a big meany.

reply to post by Helious


Incorrect, though they violate the 4th amendment the Supreme Court ruled them legal in 1990.

"...by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement."

Wikipedia - Random Checkpoint - Legality in the United States

Source

Assertion of Rights: Officer, please understand: I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone. I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs. If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer. If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you. If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured. If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business. We advise our clients to hand this card to the officer along with their license when stopped or contacted by police. However, drivers need not even present their license during the initial contact with the officer in a roadblock situation.

The Supreme Court of Oregon observed: "I know of no law that obliges a driver to answer an officer's questions or perform 'field tests' directed at determining whether the driver has committed the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants. Reluctance to inform the detained driver that such cooperation is voluntary can only demonstrate the state's willingness to take advantage of those of its citizens who are ignorant of their rights though it must respect the rights of those who know them."

My opinion is that although I do NOT agree with checkpoints to be safe non belligerently inform the stopping authority that you choose not to play games with them by asserting your rights. I have been in static checkpoints and also been snared up in what the PA state police called a "roving checkpoint" in all cases it was not pleasant I tend to find that their new and super bright lights that you drive into are ultra distracting and when out of the car are also nauseating. Be advised as soon as you assert your rights, you become a person of high interest and they will not hesitate to do what ever they can to find something so prepare for heavy scrutinization. I try and not talk to the cops about anything when under such scrutiny and they will always tell you that you dont have the right to legal counsel, if you are held for a period of time you do rate legal counsel and if it is that bad I suggest you use it. Also remember Public drunkeness can and will be put on your head possibly if not even driving and waiting for a cab as the law says that thats at the polices discretion so they determine with or without testing you are too intoxicated to wait for a cab, I have had this happen to me and also to friends and you cant fight it

reply to post by roadgravel

I did find it interesting that in a traffic stop the officer has the right to make you exit the vehicle.

officers do not have an unlimited ability to order people out of vehicles.

personally i will not leave my vehicle unless a valid legal reason is given, a "lawfully given order". i'm a reasonable, easy going person, and i don't like confrontation very much; though i will not give up my rights simply because an officer wishes it.

If the gov really wanted to minimize alcohol related car accidents, their are certainly more effective methods than this.

With the technology available today, a 99.9% fool-proof breathalizer ignition could be installed in vehicles.

But do they really want to slow the cash flow created by all those drinking and driving related fines being paid?
Probably not.

The cashier at the courthouse is collecting money from open til close every day. My guess is that at least one third of that money is from DUI's and such. And then you have the fines paid by mail.

I also have heard many many people complaining about the costs involved with getting a DUI or DWAI.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter....

A person won't win that one.

Originally posted by jude11
My only question is...Is this legal? I sure as hell hope not.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not it's legal. All that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Laws are meaningless if they aren't enforced. It's just words on paper. The legal system does a half-assed job of policing itself. If it bothers to try at all.

Well fortunately I don't drink and drive....but this should be setting off bells and alarms to every "free" USA citizen.

I mean Christ....they can just set up a road block and deprive you of your Constitutional rights anytime they choose?....this is not good. I thought we had rights that protected us from illegal search....what justification do they have to just stop any and every car?....that is not justifiable....sure, if someone is weaving or driving like a fool....they should be pulled over....but check points?....I didn't realize this was now the USSA.

"Papers please"....is next.

I have problems with this...unless my behavior dictates concern....I should not be examined.

I have problems with random drug testing being legal so an employer can get a workman's comp deduction....not because I smoke weed anymore but because of the precedence it sets. We have allowed them to rob us of rights and freedoms...all in the name of an f'ing dollar.

Get a grip folks...

the more we roll over and take it in the backdoor...the more they will do....just watch.

reply to post by Xtrozero


I lost track of the thread but I wanted to talk about your point specifically.

A lot of people seem to treat acts like the one in the video acceptable. If 'we' confront the officers at these checkpoints, the 'government' will get the point and leave us alone. Or something like that.

It's not the frontline officers who are in charge of this. It's akin to getting angry at a checkout clerk for a store policy. The minimum wage employee doesn't tell the CEO how to run the shop. The LEO's on the street don't tell the captain how to run the station.

The men in the video were deputies, meaning this young man could easily contact his sherrif (whom he votes for) and discuss this. He could contact his county board, his state reps, his city council. Doing this to the officers on the street is ineffective to the overall objective.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter....

A person won't win that one.

read the actual case:

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment

the traffic stop must be lawful (the man was pulled over for an expired license plate), and the pat-down was a check for weapons for which they had suspicion.

In 1977, two police officers pulled over a vehicle driven by a young man by the name of Harry Mimms for an expired license plate. The officers instructed Mimms to exit the vehicle; when Mimms complied, an officer noticed a bulge in his pants under his jacket, conducted a pat-down, and discovered a weapon.

in essence, the man was trying to argue that he was illegally searched (which would have voided all the evidence presented against him in court). he complied and got out of the vehicle on his own power, and at that point the police noticed the bulge and decided to pat him down for illegally concealing a weapon.

if you are stopped without a valid reason, you needn't comply with an order to leave the vehicle. the stop itself is illegal.

I always dreamed with America,as the land of Freedom.Now it's becoming worst than Nazi Germany.
I can't dream anymore

reply to post by Domo1


thank you for the link domo1

glad to see my state does not allow them.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

I also am not in favor of the idea of check points.

I did find it interesting that in a traffic stop the officer has the right to make you exit the vehicle.

Yeah and when you do exit a vehicle and have to face Red and Blue high intensity LED lights and it confuses, blinds and disorients a person they have probable cause because you may appear to be intoxicated shielding yourself, they used to warn those using 3d glasses (red and blue plastic lens ones) about this affect in movies to add insult to injury fight against red and blue high intensity lights trying to walk a white line painted with high vis reflective paint

Blue Lights and ocular health

blog worth checking out


Should probably check on this too


My point here is that one spectrum wants you to be alert and the other wants you to sleep, I bring this up because I am sensitive to these lights and they make me sick literally, everytime i am blinded by police lights I am always suspected of DUI and one time I threw up and I got detained even got charged with a public intoxication even though I never did drugs or drank walking home from work one night

of course its legal...

we live in MURICA damn it! the police are gods, the politicians are our great overseers and the president is king!

reply to post by Brotherman

Yeah and when you do exit a vehicle and have to face Red and Blue high intensity LED lights and it confuses, blinds and disorients a person they have probable cause because you may appear to be intoxicated shielding yourself, they used to warn those using 3d glasses (red and blue plastic lens ones) about this affect in movies to add insult to injury fight against red and blue high intensity lights trying to walk a white line painted with high vis reflective paint

that's a good point. i know there is a flashlight nonlethal weapon that induces vomiting and nausea with rapidly oscillating wavelengths of light. i know the army also has access to this technology. strobe lights can make it hard for people to walk straight.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Yeah I have a xenon strobe for my 5.7 fnh i pointed the light at a my friend and it forced him to turn his head and cover himself they are very effective

(not pointed while on the pistol thats just ignorant and highly stupid)

They are legal for civilian use

reply to post by jude11


Unfortunately if the dog triggered then they are within their rights. Now, did they use a command to trigger the dog? That seems to be the rage these days.