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

I have doubts about this check point situation and whether it should be legal. The gov has conveniently used drivers license to control some travel. Wonder if a person walking would be subject to being stopped. A person on foot would probably be arrested for some law about walking near a highway.

reply to post by jude11


Plain and simple, I would of ended up in jail, or tasered and left by my car until I recovered. I'm going to pass this link on.

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
Oh the poor police who were picked on in high school, these punks need to grow up. They wont think they are that tough when the American people start standing up to them. They will hide or run at the first signs of trouble just like the cops in New Orleans.

Someone's a bit angry against the man? Statements like this also fuels the 'Spread the Wealth' reasoning. Not saying they are equally the same, but using false assumptions to justify a speculative outcome is highly irrational and very illogical.

All the good cops have been bought out and have left the forces so these idiots can abuse the people.

If they were good cops, they wouldn't have been bought out. The good cops probably have confidence in themselves and left on their own accord. One can assume from that rational, that the cops left behind are ones unconfident and probably incompetent and don't give 2 cents about the law.

If I were a cop I would resign after seeing crap like this. The same happens in my area but god forbid a real crime happen, the fat nerds are to chicken to chase anyone who may be able to fight on foot.

So from your previous statements, combined with this one, you must have been the bully. The most effective solution is to put aside your prejudices and become an officer of the law yourself. You need to be that beacon in your community.

If you call them for a burglary they will do a quick drive by and never stop to help. All they do is crap like this and hand out tickets.

This is why you need a firearm of your own. If your state and/or background won't allow it - either move or learn how to fight.

reply to post by Khurzon


it's called The Constitution and I don't think there needs to be any debate over what it implies as far as individual rights and freedoms from over stepping by agents of the government.

their reaction to the camera says it all. they knew they were being excessive and the only reason why they escalated the situation was that they were not going to admit they were wrong.

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.

reply to post by fleabit


We need something like a reverse Miranda rights to read to the officer when stopped. But I suspect that would not go over well.

You wanted a police state , now you got one.
Try voting third party next time, or suck it up.

You wanted a police state , now you got one.
Try voting third party next time, or suck it up.

I don't think you know what a real police state is.

I don't think many people here have a clue what a police state is. Having DUI checkpoints and pushing your power around on drivers is not a police state.

reply to post by jude11


Are they legal?

Sometimes.

1st and foremost, it depends on your state laws.. some states they are illegal regardless of what other states do, and other states use them excessively.

Are they regulated in any way?

Yes.. The Supreme Court has said that any random checkpoint is always legal if you provide the opportunity to opt out of the search. So that means you don't just "accidentally" fall into these traps .. there always HAS to be a sign that says something like "check point ahead" and it ALWAYS has to appear before the diversion of a side street to allow an alternate route. And lastly the checkpoint must always be announced in advance in some way. And technically speaking they are supposed to search everyone to comply with profiling laws, but they don't.

Had to find it the case: en.wikipedia.org...

The only part of the video that was technically "illegal" was removing the person from his vehicle without probable cause (part of the ruling is that only under reasonable suspicion can a driver have a more through search) though most agencies are extremely good at convincing people to surrender their rights voluntarily.

reply to post by jude11


yes, if they have reasonable suspicion. and to be frank... that is a verry broad term. and they usually get away w it... however, people usually dont get these encounters on video. so he may be able to press charges for harasment but it wont go anywhere exept on that cops record as an oficial complaint, at best. but i am not an attorney so...

reply to post by fleabit

two things... one- nazzi checkpoints are not the way to catch drunks. its how they check every driver for driver license and insurance. at least thats all ive been hastled about.. and two- what did you do about said drivers in dusty field (oh yeah, move.... twice) and you neglected to mention wether that was a common thing. mabie most people went in their cars. i would have. because my car has a convenient pair of seats that i would like to take with me... sure beats the hell out of sitting on the grass

reply to post by jude11


That steroid pumped cops actions fit the textbook definition of a terrorist to the letter.
If everyone with a cell phone would use it as a dash cam* all the time the cops would start behaving as peace officers should once again.

Upload to your computer youtube in real time just in case (you can delete it later if it's not worth saving)

I don't think many people here have a clue what a police state is.

reply to post by fleabit

what i cant hear you.... climb down from your high horse and tell us, if you know so well........

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by fleabit

 

We need something like a reverse Miranda rights to read to the officer when stopped. But I suspect that would not go over well.

pure genius. i had a little red card that was for police if they pulled you over.. it stated all of your rights so you could just hand one to him and not say anything. i lost it tho

Just observations from the video:

The first question the LEO asks after being told that the driver could hear him fine with the window where it was: "How old are you?" Said in an intimidating manner - to assert authority.

As noted, there is no mention of drinking audible at any point. If it's a DUI checkpoint, this should have been the first question. Instead, the LEOs feelings were hurt, and he went straight to the intimidation.

"Pull over to the side right there....okay....step out....Either you can pull over to the side or step out."
Not very clear, is he? All the while the OP is asking if he's being detained. The LEOs refusal to answer shows HIS ignorance.

The dog does not, as pointed out, doing any sniffing [I'm sure they have some liability insurance fro scratched up paint..]. The dog responds to the hand signals of the handler. He only jumped up at the window because he was told to.

When the LEO starts searching, the audio sounds like he pulls a cassette/CD (or similar - I'm just going by what I'm hearing) out from somewhere where it's nestled. When he's done looking he just throws it on the floor of the car. Nice touch. Absolutely no respect for the OP's property.

After his little rant about how the OP knows the constitution (which is obviously a problem) @ 5:16 he says, "He's got air fresheners under the seats!" Obviously, Glade and similar companies who sell car air fresheners are catering to criminals. Having air fresheners under your seats is a suspicious move. Careful out there.

Immediately after, his buddy says quite clearly, "It wasn't a very good alert."
Obviously the first LEO was just looking for an excuse to flex his muscles.
It goes really quiet after they discover the running camera. Why's that?

The OP was polite, compliant (to the extent he needed to be), and seemed to know more about the law than the LEO.
If you're a law enforcement officer and you don't know the laws you're enforcing, you are a waste of taxpayers money.

Right on, OP. You simply showed this LEO in action as a bully.
As I mentioned, New York has laws that say you can't 'annoy' LEOs. It seems that they get annoyed really quickly when they don't get their way. The LEOs demeanor was intimidating and surly right off the bat.
If I went to work every day with that attitude, I'd be fired. If he doesn't like the work, he can get another job. It wasn't the OP's fault he was in a bad mood.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by whyamIhere
reply to post by jude11

 

The Constitution can not be suspended for any reason.

I have been through many of these illegal searches.

I commend that young man for standing up for his rights.

If we all did this....These warrant-less searches would go away.

please, tell that to my deceased father-in-law who went to the internment camp for being Japanese during WW2....after he got out, he never voted again, he said the constitution was dead to him. when he needed the protections of it the most, it failed...the constitution can be suspended at any time, don't fool yourself.
by the way, my father-laws father was born here in America, it still didn't matter.

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

I am ashamed of the way people were treated over 70 years ago.

But, you really can't blame the Constitution for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

This is precisely my point. We cannot let our fear allow the suspension of peoples rights.

We are using the fear of Drunk Drivers to allow a warrant-less search.

I am sorry about your Father in law though.

yes, we should tell the cops to stop it with the DUI checkpoints. wat nonsense is that, people NEVER get obliterated drunk and drive home. if some super drunken fool crashed into one of your kids cars you]d be screaming, WHY WAS THERE NO DUI CHECKPOINT IT WAS THE 4TH OF JULY FOR GODS SAKE!

just because one cop went too far doesn't mean they all do. i've gone through checkpoints many times on friday nights and never had a problem! riding with a friend with pot leafs on his tshirt and hippy hair too!

edit: but its more fun to say 'we should be fighting for our rights' online, anonymously, to a buncha anons instead of do it in your local community.

two things... one- nazzi checkpoints are not the way to catch drunks. its how they check every driver for driver license and insurance. at least thats all ive been hastled about..

How effective DUI checkpoints are is a matter of debate. As I said, I was just playing devils advocate. How do you suggest they try to prevent people driving drunk on the 4th or other holidays? Would love to hear your ideas. It's laughable that you refer to it as a nazi checkpoint - exaggerate much? As far as license and insurance goes.. yes, you need both of those. Why is it a hassle? Don't you have them? You act as if it's a crime to ask for two things you are required by law to have. I would prefer someone has a license to drive a vehicle before they do so, and I would also prefer if they rammed me with their car while driving drunk, that they have insurance to pay for the damages.

what i cant hear you.... climb down from your high horse and tell us, if you know so well........

Via wiki.. fairly accurate though:

"A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state."

So.. do you really feel that you have no control over your social life, your own economics or your political views? I have control over all three. By virtue of posting here alone, it proves you have a political voice. You have more freedoms that almost every country on the planet. But you'll claim we are in a police state because someone ELSE got stopped by a DUI checkpoint, on the night where the most drunk driving occurs? Seriously?

In our history, where some of you like to tout how much freedom we had, is when we had legal slavery, and where woman were treated inferior in almost all situations. Yea.. ok, we were a freedom loving country in our past.

Reminds me of the guy who tries to dance in the one location where it is not allowed, just to prove we live in a police state. He gets arrested, and people chime in that we have no freedoms. What a joke - many of you have no real idea what freedom means, because you are entitled - you were born into it, and feel if you can't do anything, say anything, or have anything you want, WHEN you want it, you are living in a totalitarian regime. What a joke.

How is it this is still not a Category on ATS?

I am thinking
Police State Nation
or
Amerika
or
Show us Your Papers.
or
NAZI America
or...

I could go on and on. Time to make this a proper forum!

Another thing...why do videos like this not end up on the evening news or shows promoting the viral video of the day? It has 1 Million+ hits and was posted July 4th THAT IS VIRAL!

Interesting no?

Not sure if this is just a state law, but carrying a driver's license in Virginia gives "implied consent." You can still refuse to take the BAC tests but if you do, you're not holding up your end of implied consent and the cop can take your license from you.

The best thing to do if you don't think the officer has sufficient probable cause is just to keep asking "Am I being detained?"