Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
88
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim

I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to happen in the first place.



I guess you would not mind it if you were just walking down the street and two cops came up to you and told you to put your hands on the wall and searched you for drugs, and then ran all your numbers just to check if you ever did anything wrong, and then kept tabs on you to see if you hang with any undesirables.




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Well, in that case youd need your rep and lawyer and the weight of the people to help ensure that these checkpoints are either cleaned up and being performed properly or not performed at all, if you can show there is no need. Then there will be no checkpoints or dogs or police presence.

Kinda hard to do all that Helig. :/ thats what sucks. Stupid people dont make it easy on everyone else. They make it harder.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I figure they can look through the windows so up or down makes little difference. Reaching into the vehicle and touching stuff should be a no-go. There should be no right to search without probable cause. Don't leave something illegal in view, etc.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
In Florida they decided if they block a road and check every one they did not infringe on any one persons civil liberties. If they do it in mass they have the right but not if they single out a single person.


Lol as long as they infringe on EVERYONE's rights at the same time it is ok.....


edit on 5-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I don't agree with it. That is what Florida has decided. I have been caught in three or four of those stop and searches. I only got in trouble for a cracked windshield at one of them. A tiny chip if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by jude11
 


Yea probably. But the guy is siting the fourth amendment there when the law actually works two ways.
If you're DWI you are a "danger to the public." You may have it in your mind that youre not out to harm someone, but just being drunk on the road creates the potential. By removing a drunk driver from the road the officer ensures the eight of the people to be safe in their person, effects and homes. Thats how that one works ya see. lol odd I know.

as to methods, An officer would have no way of knowing whether or not you were dui unless they "checked." a check begins with a visual observation of the vehicles movements and the condition of the person behind the wheel who is in control of the vehicle. Followed by the stop, questioning, and a search if necessary based on all of that.

The cops will tell you hey, just comply and get your ass down the road. Start some mess and youre going to jail and they use "obstruction" to determine whether or not your preventing them from doing their job which is what, protecting the public. O.o

I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to happen in the first place.

Just my two on it.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


this sounds good, until its done to you...

Sorry but I cannot relate or feel sorry or support the poor cops when they are acting like YAHOO'S, its all about attitude man, why could the cops not answer the citizen's question? He asked if he was being detained? He is just suppose to do as told without thinking ?


No thanks, No excuse for this attitude probable cause? That is being used pretty loosely, and once again, just as others have said, it was a DUI, check point and none of them asked him if he was drinking, they just got an attitude who knows maybe if that camera was not there they would have planted dope...

No one should have to make excuses for the way these cops acted, and we should not have to be telling you it was wrong with what they were doing to be honest..

Sure I get it, but last I checked It was innocent until proven guilty, not just guilty because I pissed you off!!



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim

Originally posted by roadgravel
First, without probable cause there should be no search. At least that is how it is in my state. Refuse if feel you can.

Something I am curious as to is his action of only cracking his window when asked to roll it down. I wonder if that made the officer suspicious. It is not unusual for most people to speak through the fully open _ I would not start off a stop doing that as I imagine that just going to get the officer suspicious and to have more attitude. Pick you battles. It's a game both sides can play.


Probable cause can likely be determined by the number the dwi's in the area, especially during holidays. If a state has this many issues with dwi's, they're probably right to do this.


Not true, much like the "stop and frisk" law in New York, very few of these area wide probable cause arguments hold up under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. DUI checkpoints are only legal once they have been shown to be on a state level when they have been checked against state Constitution and federal Constitution and an interpretation has been made to make them so.

When they are upheld, they are under very shallow practiced law, while ruled Constitutional by nature, absolutely no different rules apply in regard to your rights. They are there to do a specific duty and you are required under law to follow specific protocol and meet the minimum requirements under that law. Those laws vary from state to state.

It's important to understand that being friendly can go along way but you are under no obligation to do so. They are interrupting your travel on a public roadway after all and they have no reason to EXPECT that everyone of the thousands of people they stop are going to be happy or cordial about it. This reason is why police need to be held to a higher standard regarding emotional distress and reigned in when words or non threatening action puts there department in the way of lawsuits needlessly because their fragile ego was damaged in some way.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Nephalim

I hate checkpoints too. I think theyre a danger to police and the public, but I also understand why theyre there. and its because some stupid ahole cant understand that dwi's result in death. So if you want to be upset, thats what the public should be upset about. The very fact that this bs has to happen in the first place.



I guess you would not mind it if you were just walking down the street and two cops came up to you and told you to put your hands on the wall and searched you for drugs, and then ran all your numbers just to check if you ever did anything wrong, and then kept tabs on you to see if you hang with any undesirables.


Thats already happened to me several times. I dont think anyone feels that its ok. The guy who uploaded this video understands that pretty well.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Does it matter if it's legal or not? If it was "legal" would it be ok? No. If it was constitutional would it be ok? No.

The time is rapidly approaching (and many, like myself, consider it to be already here) when we will no longer be able to consider, in any way, the legality of an action in making a judgment regarding the morality of that action. Those of us who frequent ATS have, of course, been aware of this for quite some time; others are starting to catch on at an accelerating rate.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther
Does it matter if it's legal or not? If it was "legal" would it be ok? No. If it was constitutional would it be ok? No.

The time is rapidly approaching (and many, like myself, consider it to be already here) when we will no longer be able to consider, in any way, the legality of an action in making a judgment regarding the morality of that action. Those of us who frequent ATS have, of course, been aware of this for quite some time; others are starting to catch on at an accelerating rate.


You are absolutely correct. What does it matter when the corrupted, rogue establishment says something is legal or not when it is obviously wrong and violates everything we hold dear as an American.

The further the government goes into totalitarianism the more it can interpret the Constitution any way they choose to make anything legal that they wish to do. Excellent post because it hits the nail on the head to the OP's question quite perfectly.

edit on 5-7-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I am not cool with this. From what I saw, this kid did nothing wrong and should have flipped his lid more when they finished searching his car and found NOTHING illegal.

I wouldn't have stopped with an internet video, I would have been down at a lawyers office demanding to sue the city for the damage to my car. The least that would come out is a brand new paint job and the dog being put down as a menacing animal.

The dog detected drugs in the car, no drugs were found. Therefore the dog was wrong.

That could affect many many cases that dog was involved in.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848

I don't agree with it. That is what Florida has decided. I have been caught in three or four of those stop and searches. I only got in trouble for a cracked windshield at one of them. A tiny chip if you ask me.


Also in some states if they post ahead of time on a electronic traffic sign they also get the court's ok. I think still in other states they need post where the stops will be ahead of time too.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
These paid thugs should be confronted by the public en masse........fifty people hanging around observing and filming the unconstitutional activity would shut them down faster than a tossed box of crispy crèmes
edit on 5-7-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok

That could affect many many cases that dog was involved in.


How about every case? I guess there are no numbers on how many "hits" lead to not finding drugs. What if the percentage was less than 10% because they are using the dog as a constitutional go around...how can the drug dog be any different than the cop just saying.. "Boy, I think I smell something funny in your vehicle"

The statement should be...they better be damn right if they do search....
edit on 5-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bicent76
 


Hey I agree, you guys should really look at what ive said. But what do you do about the drunk drivers? Just because you dont like the checkpoints and may collectively have a say in whether theyre done or not, doesnt mean the drunks just magically go away too.


would you have your dwi laws taken out? Thats going to be very tough to do when they start pulling up statistics and gory images and saying, now you see why were doing dwi checkpoints?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by HauntWok

That could affect many many cases that dog was involved in.


How about every case? I guess there are no numbers on how many "hits" lead to not finding drugs. What if the percentage was less than 10% because they are using the dog as a constitutional go around...how can the drug dog be any different than the cop just saying.. "Boy, I think I smell something funny in your vehicle"

The statement should be...they better be damn right if they do search....
edit on 5-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


Never stopped to think about the dog actually.

Very clear that he's been trained to react positively with certain signals by his handler.

hmmmm...

Peace



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by HauntWok

That could affect many many cases that dog was involved in.


How about every case? I guess there are no numbers on how many "hits" lead to not finding drugs. What if the percentage was less than 10% because they are using the dog as a constitutional go around...how can the drug dog be any different than the cop just saying.. "Boy, I think I smell something funny in your vehicle"

The statement should be...they better be damn right if they do search....
edit on 5-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


Excellent post. This is exactly what is needed because as of now, there is no such records that indicate to anyone how many times any specific animal is right or wrong. All that is logged is training that is given and a handlers "score card" that relates to overall performance.

I would say under strict record keeping that should absolutely have to be done, if the dog falls under 95% then he is dismissed from service and even then 5% of Americans having their rights violated because of an animal still quite frankly disgusts me.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by Bicent76
 


Hey I agree, you guys should really look at what ive said. But what do you do about the drunk drivers? Just because you dont like the checkpoints and may collectively have a say in whether theyre done or not, doesnt mean the drunks just magically go away too.


would you have your dwi laws taken out? Thats going to be very tough to do when they start pulling up statistics and gory images and saying, now you see why were doing dwi checkpoints?


I get your point but if the driver is not asked about alcohol nor subjected to testing for alcohol, has his personal property invaded, is it truly a DUI check point?

DUI stops are perhaps a necessary evil but when the cops act outside of the law and SOP for a DUI check, then it is no longer anything but a Gestapo Check Point. IMO

Peace



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I couldn't get farther than:
"Roll your window down for me."
"This is fine."

Immediately disrespecting the officer. Then giving the officer probable cause. Windows not down, can't see the eyes and can't smell any strong scent of alcohol on the breath. Can't easily see any possible weapons in the

The video wouldn't even need to exist if he would have just rolled down his _

As for the bits I've read about ID being asked for: If you're operating a motor vehicle on a public road the officers have every right to check your driver's license. Most people only have a driver's license as a form of photo ID.

His 'rights' were being violated for the security of others. Not because he's special but because their job is the protection of the public, not the individual. Another libertarian mobfest has already ensued.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Well apparently the Supreme Court ruled it legal MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

I'm pretty surprised actually. It doesn't seem appropriate to me. I haven't read through much of it yet, but I'm wondering if it's still OK to actually go rummaging around a car without probable cause, if that's included in the ruling. Also, I'm under the impression that you are only allowed to be detained at a traffic stop for a certain amount of time, and I thought the reasonable limit was around 25 minutes.

I'm really conflicted with things involving DUI because obviously we want to keep people safe, but I take issue with combing over a car and detaining people like this.

While I agree that the best thing to do is just consent and be on your way arguing later, that's a pretty crappy way to deal with your rights being infringed. Reminds me of 'If you have nothing to hide'. I don't have anything hidden in my bottom but I certainly don't want people rooting around in it.





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join