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

reply to post by raifordko

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.

wrong. the stop itself was completely illegal, as they had no probable cause to stop him. a blanket checkpoint isn't legal for something like a DUI, the ONLY time i would say that a checkpoint like this should occur is if there has been a kidnapping or something along those lines and the police have a real reason to believe the person is traveling along a specific road.

police cannot pull someone over, THEN come up with a reason for pulling them over. "but upon probable cause" says the 4th amendment.

reply to post by baddmove


That is exactly what I said on July 4, when somebody asked me If I was going to celebrate and doing what, I said, "is nothing to celebrate in the US anymore and I find the 4 of July to be disrespectful to my family members that died for the preservations of freedoms because we got none anymore to celebrate about".

I stayed at home and played safe.

Yep, wrong thread...sorry

reply to post by roadgravel


wrong thread maybe?

So, video's like this, stories like the ones shared by other members, got me thinking to what it is we can do to fix this corruption and abuse of power..

Sadly, I came to the conclusion of replacing humans, who lead us who are susceptible with emotions that cloud there judgement, and stumuli from sin, we are best lead by MACHINES, with our constitutional amendments programmed and hard wired into them.. The human condition has decimated our policies that protect us within Our Federal Government...

How to implement this change, not to sure, but I am still thinking... It will make a good book


Here is a video that shows more of this type of behavior within the divisions and departments of our Government all the way up to the federal Government.. To these people we are just in the way..



Its about time for us to wake up folks, share these videos with as many people as you can...

So when the voices of defiance are heard, they are understood....

reply to post by whyamIhere

Some History teacher needs to be hung for treason.

Ah yes, why I keep warning everyone about these constitutional extremists. This is why I associate some people with the Taliban. Quite similar.

Originally posted by fleabit
While I agree citizens must assert their rights, but to play the devils advocate, the 4th of July has the highest death toll per year (surpassing New Years) - around 500 people die on this day due to drunk driving. Over 50% of the fatal accidents on this day are due to drinking. And I know for a fact I see a lot of reckless driving later on the evening on the fourth. So what do you suggest? That they just let Americans express their freedoms and drive drunk, endangering innocents? How would you protect innocent drivers from morons who feel it's ok to drink and drive?

I do think police should be further trained on how to properly deal with citizens who are rightfully asserting their freedom from wrongful searches, detentions, etc. Too many police get in a snit if their "power" is being called into question. But to assert that all police are like this is ridiculous.

As an aside - many Americans are rude "jerks" to put it mildly. They feel entitled to act any way they please - they feel as if their rights supersedes the rights of everyone else. My wife and I went to a fireworks display near Denver - were sitting in a field on a blanket, enjoying the weather. We had to move twice to avoid cars driving across the field. People were driving at incredibly dumb speeds across a field where people were sitting on blankets, and a lot of kids were running around. A ton of dust was raised by people speeding, and people would park directly in front of people sitting waiting for the display to begin. It disgusted me to see so many blatantly rude fellow Americans in one place. Those who had got there early were flabbergasted at the # of incredibly self-centered Americans... you know.. the ones who feel their rights supersedes anything or anybody.

edit on 6-7-2013 by fleabit because: (no reason given)

You're devils advocate argument is absurd. I'm going to take to population of the Capitol of California (Sacramento- pop 472,178 www.google.com...:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a ) as an example. If all 500 people who died from drunk driving were from this city it would be about .001% of Sacramento's population.

reply to post by Domo1


Same here in Minnesota.

But I have nothing to worry about to begin with. Sure I drink, but I don't drive when doing so and I don't use drugs.

-SAP-

It's a little more complicated than a simple yes or no. Short answer, yes his right were violated. The "probably cause" that lets an officer detain someone and search without consent is most definitely unreasonable here. Especially, since they asked to search, and he said no. The officer had no reason to single him out and pull him aside simply because of his window, him being a smart ass, or whatever else it was without probable cause.

However, not considering the preface of the event, since the dog was there on the spot, it is perfectly legal for them to "walk the dog around your car" while they are running your registration and license. Certainly, the dog shouldn't be allowed to crawl all over the car, but that is a different matter all together, I believe. Often times, dogs are trained to "hit" on false commands, such as in this case, which is coming back to hurt cops like this because supreme courts are ruling that dogs now have a "hit or miss" score, which can now result in cases thrown out entirely.

Problem is, police have immunity with nearly everything - all of the time. Give anyone that much power, and you can expect mass abuse.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Because one death is a tragedy but 5 million is just a statistic, right?

Why have gun laws? Only 30,000 people died last year in gun related injuries!
Why have DUI laws? Only 10,000 people diead last year in alcohol related accidents!

I'll tell you why. Because those deaths are needless. You're heartless if you think otherwise.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
Just because there is a DUI checkpoint doesn't just mean for alcohol, which is the reason why a dog is present.

DUI = Driving under the influence, whether it be alcohol or drugs (legal or illegal) you can be considered under the influence.

Indeed Tsurfer, which is precisely why, IMO, the use of a dog to alert for possession is entirely outside the scope of the stated purpose of the "checkpoint" ( read warrant ).

Penny

reply to post by links234

Why have gun laws? Only 30,000 people died last year in gun related injuries! Why have DUI laws? Only 10,000 people diead last year in alcohol related accidents!

why have rights at all when we can throw them away and live in safe padded cells and live long pointless lives? oh that's right, because life would be pointless.

if you wish to discuss gun laws go to one of the many threads on the subject.

we have DUI laws to save lives, and rights to protect the innocent.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

Because one death is a tragedy but 5 million is just a statistic, right?

Why have gun laws? Only 30,000 people died last year in gun related injuries!
Why have DUI laws? Only 10,000 people diead last year in alcohol related accidents!

I'll tell you why. Because those deaths are needless. You're heartless if you think otherwise.

edit on 6-7-2013 by links234 because: coding

The cycle of nature requires us to die. It may be heartless to you, but people die.

Do I like the idea that people I care about will die? Do I like the fact that people I care about have died throughout my life and before "their time?" No.

Do I think that checkpoints, or laws, can fix that for everyone? No.

Do I think that checkpoints, TSA, and gun laws, restrict the many in favor of protecting the few with no show gain to safety?

Yes I do.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

Some History teacher needs to be hung for treason.

Ah yes, why I keep warning everyone about these constitutional extremists. This is why I associate some people with the Taliban. Quite similar.

You'd have to explain that one further. and also remember that the constitution is only one part of a set. Someone who speaks frequently for the bill of rights, is simply supporting our countries most treasured values and principles. Someone die hard in supporting the constitution only speaks to the role of governance. The other part of that is the declaritive, and thats most certainly not only a list of grievances, its an example of what to look for, so that it can be avoided by both parties 1 and 2. Everyone should read all three.

To which types of people are you referring to when you make your comparison, again, so that everyone here understands your reasoning for labeling certain Americans as you do.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
we have DUI laws to save lives, and rights to protect the innocent.

I hate the police, and see traffic cops as some of the worst, but I still support DUI checkpoints. They do save lives, but I think they need to be better advertised, and get all roads going into/out of an area. They should exist as a deterrent so people don't drive drunk in that area in the first place, not something you get unlucky and hit then get caught.

That said, rights exist to protect the guilty, the unpopular, and those who challenge society. Those that are innocent don't need the law to protect them because they're not prosecuted in most cases. The idea of rights is to protect the undesirables of society and prevent the world from devolving simply to the in crowd against everyone else. That's the theory anyways, in practice it's happening regardless.

reply to post by Nephalim


1) The bill of rights, are Constitutional Amendments which means they are part of the US Constitution, and not a separate entity of themselves.

2) The American Taliban that I refer to are people who have turned the US Constitution into some sort of holy scripture worthy of worship, and have formulated a quasi religion around the document and have become fundamentalist in their belief.

And like the Taliban, they bastardize and cherry pick their sacred scripture to rationalize their extremism. Case in point, the poster that wants a history teacher hung for treason for apparently (according to the poster) failing to teach the pupil the correct use and history of the Constitution. All the while the poster blatantly fails to understand the Constitutional definition of the word Treason.

reply to post by marg6043


I stayed home as well and watched/listened to a bunch of Mexicans set off fireworks (southern California). It was funny as hell. They seem to enjoy their freedom more than we do! They haven't been around long enough to understand what's going on.

Originally posted by Helious You want to reduce drinking and driving, increase the penalties 100 fold. That is how you limit or reduce it, not by stopping every American citizen driving down the road and subject them to things that should only be happening in totalitarian regimes.

Increase penalties, promote more public awareness, there are many other things that can be done without infringing on individual rights and freedoms. Believe me, this IS NOT the most constructive way of reducing deaths and injuries from drunk driving, it's just the way the most revenue is generated.

I'd be more accepting of cars that won't start unless you blow a safe level but that wouldn't generate revenue or exempt the chosen now would it.

reply to post by Aazadan

That said, rights exist to protect the guilty, the unpopular, and those who challenge society. Those that are innocent don't need the law to protect them because they're not prosecuted in most cases.

...................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................i have no words for this debauchery of a statement.

but i'll try anyways. rights exist to protect the guilty, eh? the right to live, to be free, and to be secure in your property exist to protect the guilty?

if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind the police showing up, killing your dog for barking, kicking down your door, tasing you because they had to kick the door down, then upon finding nothing you are not allowed to pursue the matter in court because you don't have rights, they're only for the guilty.

Well folks,

I certainly didn't think this thread would go this far with a simple question. And in reflection it doesn't seem to be a simple question with the varying differences of opinions, State and Federal laws etc. Wow!.

No wonder we are in such trouble. This is a common occurrence on the highways of America each and every single moment of every day and yet...so many opinions, theories, preconceived notions etc shows that there is a lot of confusion as to whether it's legal, should or should not be legal, necessary, not necessary, for safety or not....

I'm now very glad to have started this except for one very important issue...I'm even more confused than when I started it!

Thanks all!

Peace