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

reply to post by NthOther


I don't really care what the rest of the video shows. If he could just roll down his window and be a little more polite and respectful we wouldn't be sitting here debating on 'police state' or not. Then again, his video probably wouldn't have the half-million views it has now.

No one's interested in the dozens of other drivers that evening who left within a minute or two. I'm sure these folks would be all about discussing the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints when the video's title is, "Stopped at checkpoint, drove away a minute later"

reply to post by Domo1


For what I think is the first time I agree with everything you said. 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.

Originally posted by Domo1

Apparently suck it up. As Defcon pointed out when you get your license it's a contract and you have to submit to some things.

I think I got a good reply to asking me questions or wanting identification.

Cop
"Sir, have you been drinking, and step out of your car over here and show me your drivers license."

Me
"I'll tell you what, if you would repeat that in your best Nazi accent and say papers instead of drivers license I'll do it"

The problem is not so much the law but the caliber of persons being hired by police departments.
Too smart? They won't hire you.
Not "aggressive" enough? No job for you.
it is intentional policy in many places to hire only semi-literate authoritarian brutes.
This is the natural end result.
Any threatening gesture by this young man and he would have beaten, tasered and arrested.
Stand up for your rights but always do so politely and in even tones.
That's right, even the tone of your voice can be enough reason for you to be the next victim of police brutality.

Originally posted by links234

I don't really care what the rest of the video shows. If he could just roll down his window and be a little more polite and respectful we wouldn't be sitting here debating on 'police state' or not.

And when they say "jump" you jump, right?

I think you are missing the point, You Do Not Need To Comply With Everything A Person Of Authority Directs You To Do.

We become trained very well to obey all commands like good pets....its disrespect now if you don't, even when it is your constitution right.

It is also called harassment too. "Joe this guy knows his constitutional right, and it is pissing me off, go scratch his car with Fido". The cops even admitted he was innocent and knows his rights as they continued to search his car...

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by NthOther

 

I don't really care what the rest of the video shows. If he could just roll down his window and be a little more polite and respectful we wouldn't be sitting here debating on 'police state' or not. Then again, his video probably wouldn't have the half-million views it has now.

No one's interested in the dozens of other drivers that evening who left within a minute or two. I'm sure these folks would be all about discussing the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints when the video's title is, "Stopped at checkpoint, drove away a minute later"

Being polite and respectful isn't the issue at hand. Nor is the window.

The question remains, Was he in the right to refuse and were the cops in the wrong for searching etc?

If he was right, then this should have the attention it does. In fact if he was wrong he probably wouldn't have as many views.

Next, were the cops acting against his rights? If so, should he still just comply? And if he does is it out of fear?

These ARE issues that need to be addressed.

Your solution to allow the cops to do their thing while he should smile and treat them with respect is absolutely why these discussions arise so often. Because it's wrong.

I asked a very simple question in the OP and you haven't answered it.

Is it Legal?

Peace

I remember a thread recently where in New York it's now illegal to 'annoy' a police officer.
Not winding down that window really seemed to annoy that officer.

Perhaps the sky being the wrong shade of blue would have also done it.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Nephalim

 

Personally (strictly), I'd be OK with being stopped everyday at a check point if it meant that it was another person not getting behind the wheel drunk. At the very least, stopping another person stopped from killing themselves or someone else because they're drunk.

Well, links, thats a fairly patriotic stance and position at first glance right? Look at this guy willing to put himself online for the safety of others. Pretty noble. And to some degree, Id guess thats right. But there is another side of patriotism most people dont think of when they take that position. And thats the point where if YOU do not stand up for what rights YOU have, then everyone else may have those rights trampled over too.

So its important to consider both. If the peoples rights are eroded, cops rights are eroded, the governments rights are eroded ect. You see, individual rights apply to ALL people. And if I may be so bold, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Basically saying we're all screwed if we let this sorta # go down. IMO. But hey you know, its your position to take. and not a bad one, maybe just a little incomplete.

reply to post by Helious

For what I think is the first time I agree with everything you said.

You poor thing!

That is how you limit or reduce it, not by stopping every American citizen driving down the road

I don't mind that I'm expected to blow when there's a good reason to believe I'm drunk, but stopping a ton of folks and delaying them randomly just seems very wrong.

Increase penalties, promote more public awareness, there are many other things that can be done without infringing on individual rights and freedoms.

I have a DUI and I agree with stiffer penalties. I also think there needs to be a lot more emphasis on the risks and consequences of drunk driving when you get your license. Your chances of wrecking really do skyrocket even if you think you're fine. I think often people rationalize and say "Well I'm probably under .08 now" or "I'm only a tiny bit over the limit". At least that seemed to be the consensus from the awful class I had to attend when we shared our stories. The thing that really got to me was thinking about hurting someone else. For others remind them how high those insurance rates will get (I pay $400 a month).

Taking 15 people off the road who drive drunk is a good thing, but not at the expense of certain freedoms.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think you are missing the point, You Do Not Need To Comply With Everything A Person Of Authority Directs You To Do.

No, I get the point. Just remember that if you're not going to comply you're going to be asked, or told, by other means.

Look at the level of hatred that's generated by this video and others like it towards officers. They don't know if he's a nutjob about to pull a gun on them. They don't know if he's trying to hide something, he sure as hell acts like he's trying to hide something.

Too many of these videos devolve into stupid situations which can easily be averted very early on. Did the cops have to go to the lengths they did? Probably not. Could this whole situation be averted in the first 10 seconds of the video? Yes.

reply to post by Domo1


I disagree with harder penalties. I would agree that people need help with alcoholism. We have tried over the course of time harsh penalties, and our result is a bunch of people in jail. You let them out, they just go right back out and drink again. (with the exception of those who actually harm someone) I dont think those guys make it out. But if they dont hurt anyone? treatment. I dont think we need more people in jail. I think we need people out living their lives and being productive. Not self medicating over depression or guilt or whatever and thrown in the slammer.

Some folks are salvageable, others maybe not so much.

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by Domo1

 

I disagree with harder penalties. I would agree that people need help with alcoholism. We have tried over the course of time harsh penalties, and our result is a bunch of people in jail. You let them out, they just go right back out and drink again. (with the exception of those who actually harm someone) I dont think those guys make it out. But if they dont hurt anyone? treatment. I dont think we need more people in jail. I think we need people out living their lives and being productive. Not self medicating over depression or guilt or whatever and thrown in the slammer.

Some folks are salvageable, others maybe not so much.

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

I disagree. Drink all you want. Do not drink and drive. I have 2 DUI's myself, the last of which cost me my license for 3 years. I have children and what I was doing was putting not only myself but other peoples life at risk. It's not exactly a victimless crime as thousands of people across the country are horribly maimed and killed every year from idiots drinking too much and killing families or family members.

Losing my license for 3 years taught me a good lesson and gave me time to reflect on what I was doing wrong and how it affected others, time I needed to figure it out and be responsible enough to make sure I didn't endanger other people needlessly because of my poor judgment.

If you choose to drink and then to drive, you should get what is coming to you and I have no problems with harsher penalties for that crime. What I have a problem with is unwarranted stops, searches and violations of the Constitution on citizens that are suspected of committing no crimes and are just driving down the road.

I have kids and want them to be safe at all costs and as much as I cherish, love and adore my children, my wife and my own life I DO NOT put that above our freedom and liberties as Americans because if I did I would be selling their future, there legacy and their rights for my own selfish wanting for them to be "safer".

Punish the criminal, punish them for reasonable suspicion executed when you have probable cause to do so and find they are in violation. Then and only then is it valid. Then and only then is it warranted by the Constitution of the United States, the law that every American is bound too and the only law that matters.

Further more, if public safety was the first issue then the penalties would be harsher, a first offense would be a felony and carry a minimum mandatory sentence of 1 year in jail. If this was the case, the numbers of drunk driving would drastically decrease but public safety is NOT the primary issue, revenue generation is and its very lucrative to arrest people for DUI, that's why the limit was reduced to .08 to catch people that really were not a threat but just had a couple bears and got pulled over.

Laws are not drafted in our best interest, they are drafted and enforced to collect the most money possible. That is the reality of our justice system in it's current form and reflects how our society works as a whole.

And all this talk of DUI's and how you have to get them off the streets and punish them. Well this one got away. The courts basicly refused to give her a trial.

www.tcpalm.com...

Cioffi, whose blood alcohol level was measured in a breath test at 0.336, could not immediately be reached for comment. The legal driving limit in Florida is 0.08 percent. An auto accident on Martin Downs Boulevard in Palm City shortly after 5:30 p.m. Monday led to Cioffi's arrest about an hour and a half later at her home in the Lighthouse Point subdivision, a deputy's report says. Cioffi was accused of striking another car with her Nissan SUV near Matheson Avenue, driving home, pulling away from a deputy as he tried to handcuff her, and screaming so loud neighbors came out of their homes, a deputy's report says. Cioffi was charged with DUI with property damage, leaving the scene of an accident with property damage, resisting arrest without violence and disorderly intoxication, a deputy's report says. She was released from the Martin County Jail on Tuesday on $2,000 bond. Colton said he asked Gov. Charlie Crist to appoint another state attorney to handle Cioffi's case to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. He makes such requests about three or four times a year, Colton said.

reply to post by Helious


You got 2 counts on you already. What if treatment could have prevented the first? what if treatement could have helped you avoid those situations to begin with? I'll bet youd think differently about penalties if you could say differently. Youre basically saying, hey if I do it a third time penalize the hell out of me. and I tell you, you've been through enough already.

At some point Helig, punishment is nothing more than punishment, it isnt correction. It can also lead to creating more issues than existed previously.

Of course it is. Refer to the link....
www.govtrack.us...

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by Helious

 

You got 2 counts on you already. What if treatment could have prevented the first? what if treatement could have helped you avoid those situations to begin with? I'll bet youd think differently about penalties if you could say differently. Youre basically saying, hey if I do it a third time penalize the hell out of me. and I tell you, you've been through enough already.

At some point Helig, punishment is nothing more than punishment, it isnt correction. It can also lead to creating more issues than existed previously.

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

The first time it happened I was just a kid at 22, I was a .16 and got off with a $1000.00 fine because I had a good lawyer. The second time, I was a .089 and even though I was completely fine to drive in my opinion I lost my privilege to drive for 3 years.

I'm not an alcoholic and no treatment is needed to learn from your mistakes and poor decisions. I will grant that if somebody has a problem with alcohol, not many lessons outside of some kind of treatment would be efficient but that discussion is for another thread.

My point being that if I would have been hit with a harsh penalty the first time instead of learning that I could just pay 5k to a lawyer to make it go away, I wouldn't of got the second one.

reply to post by jude11


When you step out of your vehicle shut your door. I'm not sure but I think that stops them from being able to search without consent. It's sad but either way down here in Mississippi the coppers do what they want. It's getting worse every day.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by Helious

 

You got 2 counts on you already. What if treatment could have prevented the first? what if treatement could have helped you avoid those situations to begin with? I'll bet youd think differently about penalties if you could say differently. Youre basically saying, hey if I do it a third time penalize the hell out of me. and I tell you, you've been through enough already.

At some point Helig, punishment is nothing more than punishment, it isnt correction. It can also lead to creating more issues than existed previously.

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

The first time it happened I was just a kid at 22, I was a .16 and got off with a $1000.00 fine because I had a good lawyer. The second time, I was a .089 and even though I was completely fine to drive in my opinion I lost my privilege to drive for 3 years.

I'm not an alcoholic and no treatment is needed to learn from your mistakes and poor decisions. I will grant that if somebody has a problem with alcohol, not many lessons outside of some kind of treatment would be efficient but that discussion is for another thread.

My point being that if I would have been hit with a harsh penalty the first time instead of learning that I could just pay 5k to a lawyer to make it go away, I wouldn't of got the second one.

2 dwis and you dont have a problem with alcohol? Talk about lovin that river son, damn.
The first time should have taught you and its likely that the judge was a level headed sort who understands kids mess up and deserve a second chance. The second time, thats all you man. We cant blame the courts for our own shortcomings. The only problem I see there is no correction the first time. The first time had no real correction alongside the penalty which seems fair for a 16 year old. The guy probably should have ordered that you get some education about DWI'S or something. Maybe then youd have had enough working in the noodle that you'd have passed the keys the second time.

See? It cant always be checkpoint, jail, checkpoint jail. It cant be, half of that is beyond the law but i assure you, if you leave it to the judges every time you mess up, they'll figure out that you cant be helped and bye bye Helig. Might as well have your family on a visitation list and get used to "Bubba" smiling at his new cute little wife who preferred stiff penalties over an AA meeting.

Too tired to read through whole thread, from what I did read I surmise that you people think you have some sort of right to drive, you don't. So long as that is true, any time you are on the road you are eligible to be pulled over for cause. Any "cause". Once pulled over you are then subject to state law, which varies a lot but then again, not much. Should ANY state LEO have suspicion that you are under the influence, (no bearing on the exact "why" you were pulled over) not the same as driving while intoxicated, you will then be subject to a roadside sobriety field test. Should you refuse, and you should, you will go to jail. Lets revisit what is DUI and DWI. Driving while intoxicated (DWI) is whatever your jurisdiction says most people are inebriated at, almost universally .08 milligrams per. Back in my day it may have been as high as .14. (Those were the days when the cop would let you get back in your car and follow you home.) With all of us having differing tolerances, this is tough to prove in a court of law as the prosecutor must leave the jury without a "reasonable" doubt. Tough to do for us old timers.DUI, paradoxically, means you are "under the influence", what most people are charged with. One drink, combined with some unusual moves (texting, then drifting too much left or right and hitting the center line) on the road, will get you a DUI. For clarity, I have three of them. So I know more than the average attorney. My last one almost got me 5 years. Proud to say I'm 4 years clean. It was time to grow up. Anyway, never give a sobriety test, follow the rules of war, sorta, license, registration and proof of insurance. Say no more to the cop than is needed, and NOTHING else is needed. Do your overnight, get a good lawyer, (I spent $30,0000) and keep your effing mouth shut.

Originally posted by links234

No, I get the point. Just remember that if you're not going to comply you're going to be asked, or told, by other means.

Look at the level of hatred that's generated by this video and others like it towards officers. They don't know if he's a nutjob about to pull a gun on them. They don't know if he's trying to hide something, he sure as hell acts like he's trying to hide something.

Too many of these videos devolve into stupid situations which can easily be averted very early on. Did the cops have to go to the lengths they did? Probably not. Could this whole situation be averted in the first 10 seconds of the video? Yes.

I do understand your point here and I agree with you that the guy could have made it a 10 second event, but I also see this as our obligation to corral our government when they start stepping on our rights.

Go on You-tube and watch a bunch of these and you will see that the cops normally have no clue to what is our rights or not. All they know is when they say jump, you better jump, and when someone doesn't they are totally confused.

I would feel a lot better if in these cases the cops quickly said, no sir you are not being detained, and you are free to go , but they don't. They get mad "how dare someone not jump when I told them to jump" and they pull something like "oh the dog has alerted on your car, after it takes a big dump on your hood" What the hell was the dog doing on the guys hood in the first place?

The bottom line is I do not need to answer a cops questions if I'm not put under the official restraint of detainment, and a cop can't do that unless he has probable cause to do so. This lets me walk down the street free without the need to prove anything to anyone unless I do something wrong.